Judgment : 1. The petitioners were appointed as Drivers Grade – II on 05-03-1986 and 30-03-1986 respectively, in the Ongole Division of APSRTC. Their services were regularized with effect from 01-11-1987, which was corrected as 01-08-1987. They filed WP No.10346 of 1996 seeking a declaration to the effect that they are entitled for regularization with effect from the date of their initial appointment. The Writ Petition was allowed on 11-07-1996, following the judgment, dated 24-07-1985, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.705 of 1985. Ultimately, the benefit of regularization was extended and based upon the same, the petitioners were promoted as Drivers Grade-I on 01-08-1999. 2. About 10 years thereafter, the Regional Manager, Ongole, the 2nd respondent herein, issued a show cause notice to the petitioners requiring them to explain as to why their seniority be not revised as per Regulation 3 of APSRTC Employees’ Service Regulations 1964. The proposal was to revise their seniority from places 68 and 73 to 267(a) and 260(a) respectively. The petitioners submitted their explanations making reference to the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.10346 of 1996. However, the 2nd respondent issued orders, dated 17-10-2008, revising the seniority of the petitioners on the basis that their regularization took place in the year 1988. 3. The petitioners filed WP No.25426 of 2009 challenging the order, dated 17-10-2008. The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice mentioning all the grounds. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 16-09-2009. The petitioners, however, did not submit explanation on the ground that the documents and information required by them were not furnished. The 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 15-03-2010, revising their seniority as proposed earlier. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The petitioners contend that the direction issued by this Court for regularizing their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment became final and it was also implemented. According to them, the seniority was fixed as per the date of regularization and there was no basis for the 2nd respondent in altering the same. 5. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. According to them, the seniority was fixed as per the date of regularization and there was no basis for the 2nd respondent in altering the same. 5. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that WP No.10346 of 2006 filed by the petitioners was allowed on the basis of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court and that the principle laid down therein, was set aside by the Supreme Court in other similar matters. 6. Heard Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Srininvasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The initial appointment of the petitioners was in March 1986. About one year thereafter, their services were regularized with effect from01-11-1987. A batch of writ petitions filed before this Court as regards the regularization of the services of the employees on contract basis. In some cases, the learned single Judges and in other cases Division Bench, have taken the view that an employee, appointed on contract basis is entitled for regularization as and when he completes 240 days of continuous service. In certain other cases such as WA No.705 of 1995, it was held that irrespective of the date on which the regularization of service was ordered, it must be with effect from the date of initial appointment. The petitioners were extended the same relief and it was implemented. 8. About a decade after, the matter pertaining to the date of regularization and the seniority assumed finality, the 2nd respondent sought to reopen the issue placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC v. P. Lakshmoji Rao 2004 AIR SC 1503. 9. The petitioners submitted explanations stating that the order that was issued in their favour in WP No.10346 of 1996 has become final and that there is no basis for revising their seniority. That did not weigh with the 2nd respondent and ultimately an order was passed on 17-10-2008 revising their seniority. WP No.25426 of 2008 was allowed on technical grounds and the matter was virtually remanded. After remand, the 2nd respondent has taken the same stand. 10. That did not weigh with the 2nd respondent and ultimately an order was passed on 17-10-2008 revising their seniority. WP No.25426 of 2008 was allowed on technical grounds and the matter was virtually remanded. After remand, the 2nd respondent has taken the same stand. 10. It is, no doubt, true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not approve the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court to the effect that an employee of the Corporation is entitled for regularization of the services with effect from the date of initial appointment or on completion of 240 days of service. However, it was not held as a principle that under no circumstances, the services of an employee can be regularized with effect from the date of initial appointment. The emphasis was only on the availability of the vacancies, eligibility of the individual and other similar factors. In the case of the petitioners, the difference between the date of initial appointment on the one hand and date of regularization on the other, was about one year. The direction issued by this Court in their favour for regularization with effect from the date of initial appointment was not challenged in appeal nor any review was sought. Once the direction was implemented, the respondents could not have undone the same except by committing illegality. 11. Secondly, assuming that the respondents were entitled to take necessary steps in the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, they were under obligation to demonstrate that there did not exist clear vacancies of the posts of Driver Grade - II as on the date of initial appointment of the petitioners or that there were seniors to the petitioners in that very category, with dates of regularization subsequent to the date of initial appointment of the petitioners. No such factors are pleaded, much less, established. 12. At any rate, the purpose underlying the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners was only to revise the seniority in the post of Drivers Grade-II. Such a necessity would arise only when any person in the same category felt aggrieved and raised objections. In fact, objection even if raised, could not have been entertained, since the place was assigned to the petitioners as a result of an order passed by this Court. Such a necessity would arise only when any person in the same category felt aggrieved and raised objections. In fact, objection even if raised, could not have been entertained, since the place was assigned to the petitioners as a result of an order passed by this Court. The respondents cannot be said to have suffered any grievance, on account of the place, which the petitioners occupied in the seniority list. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis for the impugned order. 13. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.