HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 25426 of 2008 Date: 10.11.2009 Between: Shaik Mohd. Rafi, Prakasam District. … Petitioner And The A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad and 3 others. … Respondents HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 25426 of 2008 ORDER: The two petitioners herein are working a Drivers-Grade-I in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”). This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 17.10.2008 changing the seniority of the petitioners in the Regional Seniority List published up to 31.12.2007 is arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially appointed as Drivers Grade-II in the year 1986. While so, pursuant to the nationalization of the routes in the Districts of Prakasam and Nellore in the year 1987, the Drivers and Conductors of the private buses, who lost their employment were absorbed into the Corporation and were posted to various depots. Since a dispute arose with regard to seniority between the displaced persons so absorbed into the Corporation and the persons already working, the petitioners and other similarly situated aggrieved persons filed W.P.No.10346 of 1996. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 11.07.1996 with a direction to the Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from their initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits. In pursuance thereof, the services of the petitioners were regularized and their seniority was also placed in the respective places. Subsequently, they were also promoted as Grade-I Drivers basing on the seniority list drawn subsequent to the regularization of services and they were also expecting promotion to the next higher post i.e. Assistant Depot Clerk/Controller. However, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notices dated 04.10.2008 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why their seniority shall not be changed to the original place stating that as per regulation 12 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ Recruitment Regulations, 1966, when once the seniority is determined in accordance with the communal roster, the change of date of regularization at subsequent date shall not result in change of seniority fixed at the time of appointment. The petitioners submitted their explanations dated 10.10.2008 and 12.10.2008 stating that the seniority accorded to them pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.10346 of 1996 cannot be revised as proposed. However, without accepting the said explanation, the impugned orders dated 17.10.2008 came to be passed changing the seniority of the petitioner No.1 from 68 to 267(a). Similarly, the 2nd petitioner’s seniority has been changed from 73 to 260(a). Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned proceedings are arbitrary and illegal apart from being contrary to the order of this Court in W.P.No.10346 of 1996 dated 11.07.1996, which became final. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation stating that the seniority of the employees is determined based on the communal roster prepared as per Regulation 12 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ Recruitment Regulations, 1966 duly following the rule of reservation at the time of initial recruitment and change of date of regular appointment does not result in changing the communal roster or seniority based on the communal roster. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that either Regulation 12 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ Recruitment Regulations, 1966 or Regulation 3 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964 are attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case and at any rate, since the order dated 11.07.1996 in W.P.No.10346 of 1996 has become final and the same has already been implemented, the impugned orders now passed changing the seniority of the petitioners after more than 12 years is unwarranted and unjustified. However, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation sought to justify the impugned orders on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC and others v. P.Lakshmoji Rao[1]. While pointing out that W.P.No.10346 of 1996 filed by the petitioners was allowed following the judgment in W.A.No.705 of 1995, the learned standing counsel submitted that many other writ petitions were disposed of with directions for regularization following the judgment in W.A.No.705 of 1995 and some of the said matters were carried by the Corporation in appeal to the Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel further submitted that the said appeals being Civil Appeal No.2455 of 1999 and etc., were decided by the Supreme Court in P.Lakshmoji Rao’s case cited supra(1) by judgment dated 22.01.2004 holding that the respondent-employees had failed to establish their legal right to get the status of regular employees right from the date of initial appointment on daily wage basis and the respective date of regularization assigned to the respondents cannot be legally faulted. However, having regard to the fact that the Corporation allowed many judgments to become final, in order to avoid the anomalies that might otherwise ensue, the Supreme Court moulded the relief in modifications of the directions given in the judgments under appeal and directed as follows: “If any of the conductors, junior to the respondents in the relevant seniority list of the concerned Division/Region, have got the benefit of seniority and regularization or are entitled to get the same by virtue of the judgments that have become final, then the respondents who are seniors to them, shall be given the same benefit on the same principle.” Basing on the above directions of the Supreme Court in P.Lakshmoji Rao’s case, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation vehemently contended that the respondents have rightly changed the seniority of the petitioners under the impugned orders. At the outset, it is to be noticed that in the show cause notices dated 04.10.2008 issued to the petitioners it was not stated that the seniority of the petitioners was liable to be changed in terms of the modified directions of the Supreme Court in P.Lakshmoji Rao’s case. On the other hand, the show cause notices were issued only on the ground that their seniority is liable to be changed as per Regulation 3 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964. It is the specific case of the writ petitioners that the proposed revision is not permissible since the order of this Court in W.P.No.10346 of 1996 has become final and pursuant thereto, their services have been regularized from initial date of appointment. However, the impugned orders dated 17.10.2008 have been passed merely observing that the explanations offered by the petitioners was not satisfactory. No other reasons were assigned by the respondents while concluding that the seniority fixed by the petitioners in terms of the order of this Court in W.P.No.10346 of 1996 is liable to be changed. The law is well-settled that absence of reasons is a valid ground to exercise the power of judicial review since the failure to assign reasons would result in violation of principles of natural justice. As expressed above, since in the show cause notices it was never proposed to alter to change the seniority of the petitioners in terms of the modified directions of the Supreme Court in P.Lakshmoji Rao’s case, it is not open to them to justify the impugned action now on the basis of the said judgment. As a matter of fact, whether the directions of the Supreme Court in P.Lakshmoji Rao’s case are attracted to the case of the petitioners or not is also an essential question which requires consideration after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to make their representation. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the modified directions in P.Lakshmoji Rao’s case have no general application and on that ground the seniority already fixed cannot be altered. At any rate, since the said ground was never mentioned in the show cause notices issued to the petitioners, I am not inclined to express any opinion on the said issue. As expressed above, since the impugned orders are absolutely vague and are not supported by any reasons, I am of the opinion that the same are liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices specifying all the grounds upon which the change in the seniority of the petitioners is proposed and thereupon to pass appropriate orders afresh following due process of law. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 10.11.2009 KLP [1] (2004) 2 SCC 433