( 1 ) THE above writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as they involve, a question of law which is common to all the writ petitions. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are all employees of the 1st respondent - Karnataka state Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). They are aggrieved by the resolution passed by the Corporation bearing No 3114 in subject No. 35 at the meeting of its Board on 21-5-1975. The grievance against the resolution is traceable from the consequential orders passed pursuant to the resolution reverting the petitioners from the cadre of Junior Assistants to, the cadre of Second Division Clerks in which capacity they entered the service of the Corporation, either by the option exercised to serve the corporation on its formation in the year 1961 or having joined the corporation after the Corporation was formed. The consequential order of review of promotion is to be found at Annexure 'g' in W. P. No. 3322 of 1980 and connected matters. The said order of reversion dated 7-2-1980 en masse reverts 96 officials working in different divisions of the Corporation in the State from the post of Junior Assistants to that of clerks. Part-II to that order contains promotions effected purporting to be promotions made pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in several writ petitions ordered earlier. It is necessary here to state that the petitioners have not challenged the promotions given to the persons to be found in part-II of the General establishment order No. 4360, dated 7-2-1980. Their grievance is only against their reversion. ( 3 ) THE petitioners have, inter alia, contended that though their promotions were temporary, admittedly, the reversion order pursuant to the resolution of the Corporation, which in turn purports to give effect to the directions of this court in other writ petitions, is illegal in asmuch as it is contrary to Regulation 9 of the cadre and Recruitment Regulations of the Corporation promulgated on 1-2-1968. Sri S. G. Bhat, amongst others learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has elaborated this contention to mean that by virtue of the reversions now made, the categorisation made of the posts held by them under Regulation 9 as division wide cadre has been set at nought by the impugned order of reversion and the resolution of the corporation to which reference is made earlier. ( 4 ) THOUGH several grounds have been urged in the petition, the counsel for the petitioners have not pressed the same at the time of hearing of the petitions. ( 5 ) THE respondent corporation, has filed a detailed statement of objections in more than one batch of petitions. Sri B. Thilak Hegde, appearing for respondent-corporation, relied upon the statement of objections filed in wp No. 2304 of 1980 and connected matters. In the statement of objections, the respondent corporation has briefly reviewed the history of the service conditions that govern the employees of the Corporation and summarised they are as follows: The corporation came into existence on 1-8-1961. By virtue of this incorporation under S. 3 of the Road Transport corporation Act (Central Act) all the employees of the Karnataka State road Transport Department v/ere required to be absorbed by the Corporation and in that behalf, the said employees were served with option notices either to serve the corporation under the terms and conditions of service not less advantageous than obtaining in the Government or face consequences of the posts in the government being abolished Even before the corporation came into existence the Road Transport Department of the Government itself had serious problems in regard to interstate and interse seniority of the officials working in the Department on account of; (1) merger of Bangalore transport Company in the Road transport Department of the erstwhile state of Mysore on 1-10-1956, (2) on account of the integration of services of the Road Transport Departments of the erstwhile Hyderabad State and erstwhile State of Mvsore as on 1-11-56 on the States re-organisation, (3) the inter seniority of the above two groups worked out with reference to the merger of the former employees of the bombay Road Transport Corporation who were absorbed as servants of the new State of Karnataka as on 1-1-1957 and (4) the seniority list to be maintained in respect of three categories above as on the date of absorption of all of them into services of the corporation in relation to the employees recruited after the formation of the corporation. ( 6 ) THE several inter-state seniority lists required to be prepared in terms of S. 115 of the States Re-organisation act came to be struck down by this court time and again with directions to maintain a seniority or gradation list of all the officials having regard to the stages which have been enumerated earlier It was under these circumstances that the corporation was forced to make only in-charge or temporary promotions or ad hoc promotions for the purpose of carrying on the administration. However, the cadre and Recruitment Regulations 1968, which came into force on 1-2-1968 in the Corporation provided for creating posts in the Corporation as statewide and Divisionwide posts. This was accomplished under regulation 9 of the said Regulations which is as follows:"9. Statewide and Divisionwide posts: departments posts mechanical depot Manager 'c''|chargeman and above. Traffic | Planning Security Administration traffic Inspectors and above. Security Inspectors and above. Senior Assistant |senior Stenographer and above. Statistical Accounts Stores and Purchase Civil Engineering senior Assistant and above. Accountant and above. Store Keeper and above. Overseer | Draughtsman and above. 9 (a) All posts other than those specified in sub-clause (9) above shall be divisionwide posts. 9 (b) Employees holding division-wide posts will be considered for promotion, if otherwise qualified in respect of promotional vacancies in the divisionwide posts in their respective divisions only. "division" means the Administrative units of the Corporation functioning as such on all matters concerning establishment, viz. , operating units (including the Depots functioning under them), the Regional Workshops divisional Engineering and Security department Establishment. "even before this Regulation came into force certain posts were declared as divisionwide posts and some of the employees were given the option to opt for such divisionwise posts. However, this act of the Corporation was not approved by this Court in WP no. 1687 of 1966 which was decided on 3-3-1971 Similarly this court, following the decision in WP No. 1687 of 1966 and other cases, in WP No. 173 of 1972, decided on 1-9-1972, held that even the ad hoc or temporary promotions made by the Corporation from time to time without considering the seniority of all the officials could not be sustained having regard to the normal rule of seniority-cum-merit, in the absence of specific Regulations regarding seniority. It is on account of the said decisions and the plea taken by the corporation that it had power to make divisionwise cadres of posts and account for the seniority within the division, that the Corporation was compelled to pass the resolution no. 3114 dated 21-5-1975 in order to give effect to the decisions of this court. In para 32 of the statement of objections the Corporation has specifically met the only ground urged by the petitioner in the following terms:"in so far as the contention of the petitioner 1hat determination of the seniority on the basis of statewise is violative of Regulation 9 (9a) and 9 (9b) is concerned, it is respectfully submitted that the regulations came into force only with effect from 1-2-1968 and prior to that there was no valid or legal basis for classification of the post of clerk as a divisionwise post and for granting promotions only on the basis of divisionwise posts in respective divisions only. "therefore, it is contended by the corporation that promotions made prior to the coming into force of regulations on 1-2-1968, on ad hoc basis, could not confer any right on the petitioners under the Regulations. The corporation further contended that in view cf the fact that the promotions were ail temporary, as is apparent from the order pertaining to each of the petitioners, the petitioners could not make grievance of t if they were now reverted to their anginal posts notwithstanding the fact that the leversions made were pursuant to the corporation's impugned resolution, in order to give effect to the Directions given by this court in other writ petitions. ( 7 ) FROM the above, what emerges for consideration is: (1) Whether the respondent corporation's Resoultion now impugned in some of these petitions would have the effect of amending Regulation-9 of the Cadre and Recruitment rules and regulations. (2) Whether the directions issued by this court in the earlier writ potitions should be construed as directions issued in spite of Regulation and, therefore, the Corporation is free to act ignoring Regulation-9? (2) Whether the directions issued by this court in the earlier writ potitions should be construed as directions issued in spite of Regulation and, therefore, the Corporation is free to act ignoring Regulation-9? in so far as the first question is concerned, it is not disputed on either side that the Regulations made under s. 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act with the prior approval of the government stands on a higher pedestal than the resolution of the Board which it is empowered to pass in terms of of S. 19 of the Act. It is also not disputed that even when the corporation found that the Government servants of the erstwhile Road Transport Department were absorbed in the services of the corporation, one of the conditions of absorption was that their conditions of service would be regulated by the Regulations made in that behalf by the Corporation. Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that as on and with effect from 1-2-1968, the conditions of service under the corporation ought to be governed entirely by the Regulations made by the Corporation under s. 45 of the Act and the) power to alter them by Board resolutions would not be available to the corporation thereafter. If it is admitted by the, respondent Corporation (which it cannot but avoid on the face of it) that the resolution was passed in order to give effect TO the decision of this court, then that step could not be held to be in accordance with law unless that resolution had the prior approval of the State Government as the power to regulate the service conditions or alter it had ceased to vest in the board and therefore the resolution has to fail. Therefore, Resolution No. 3114 cannot be said to be a valid resolution which can be operated upon by the respondent corporation. ( 8 ) SO far as the second question is concerned, it should not detain me very long. Therefore, Resolution No. 3114 cannot be said to be a valid resolution which can be operated upon by the respondent corporation. ( 8 ) SO far as the second question is concerned, it should not detain me very long. It is no doubl true that in a number of writ petitions filed by some of the employees who complained of their seniority being overlooked while their juniors were being promoted this Court did give directions holding that promotions involved in those cases were not in accordance with law and that the petitioners therein should be considered for promotion and a review be made in accordance with the directions given from time to time by the court in respect of preparing the gradation lists in the corporation pertaining to its various servants. Those directions could not be held to mean that the corporation can take steps contrary to law in order to implement the decisions of this court. On the other hand, it is to be noticed that in some of the said decisions, which were argued by the corporation, even after the Regulations came into force, the coming into force of the regulations was never brought to the notice of the court and in none of the decisions cited above, this court had occasion to consider the impact of regulation 9 on the questions raised before it. In this behalf, it is necessary to notice the contention of Sri Thilak, hegde, learned counsel for respondent corporation, that Jagannatha Shitty, j. , in WP No. 3119 of 1974 had held that there was no bar for exercise of the power by the Corporation to effect a transfer of an official belonging to divisionwise cadre to a post in another division. But in that case the petitioner therein did not bring to the notice o| the court the provisions contained in regulation 9 (b) of the Regulations which provided for promotions for the holders of divisionwise posts within the division only. Had it been pointed out and had it been argued that interdivision transfers might result in loss of seniority, then the learned Judge would not have sustained the transfer. Therefore, that decision is not of much assistance to the corporation to sustain the present reversions made solely on the ground that the Corporation had to implement the decisions of this court in other writ petitions. Therefore, that decision is not of much assistance to the corporation to sustain the present reversions made solely on the ground that the Corporation had to implement the decisions of this court in other writ petitions. ( 9 ) ONE another contention which requires to be noticed is that the original promotion itself being temporary, the petitioners could not derive any right to the post in the higher cadre and that the corporation was at all times vested with power to revert them. It would be so if the reversion order was reversion simpliciter, but part II of the order of reversion which is in fact promotion of some of the officials as a consequence of the review undertaken by the corporation, disturbs the position held by some of the petitioners. In that view, it will not be open to the corporation to contend that it is a reversion simpliciter and, therefore, that argument is liable to be rejected. ( 10 ) WHILE it is correct for the respondent corporation to give effect 'to the decisions of this court and the directions issued thereunder, they should do so in accordance with law. As pointed out by me, it is open to the corporation to suitably amend regulation 9 in accordance with law and thereafter make necessary review of promotions by abolishing the divisionwise cadres in the corporation, if so advised. ( 11 ) IN the result, the petitioners succeed and the impugned order No. 4360 bearing No. KST COLEST: 130/79-80 dated 7-2-1980 passed by the respondent corporation is hereby quashed in so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is also hereby declared that the Resolution No. 3114 dated 21-5-1975 cannot be said to be valid and operative as long as Regulation 9 remains as one of the statutory regulations of the corporation. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .