JUDGMENT : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. Challenging a Sub-clause contained in the Guidelines for allocation of employees between two Transport Corporations of the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, and also challenging the proceedings by which the petitioner is deemed to have been allotted to Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, Mr. P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for APSRTC and Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC). 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Officer on regular basis on 07.01.1997. She was promoted as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer on 18.09.2004. The post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer is a State Cadre Post and hence the Presidential Order, viz. A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadre and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 has no application to the same. 4. The composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated under Andhra Pradesh Re- organization Act, 2014 with effect from 02.06.2014. The State Transport Corporation as it existed by that point of time was included as item No. 26 in the IX Schedule to the Act. 5. Therefore, after the bifurcation of the State and the birth of two independent State Road Transport Corporations, the question of allocation of employees between the Successor Corporations was taken up and draft Guidelines were issued on 13.04.2015. 6. By an Office Order, dated 13.04.2015, the petitioner was provisionally allotted to the APSRTC. When options were invited, the petitioner exercised option to be allocated to the TSRTC, by a letter dated 20.04.2015. Similarly, the 4th respondent was allotted to the TSRTC and he made a representation to be allocated to APSRTC. 7. Based upon the mutual request, a Note was prepared on 20.05.2015 indicating that there were 19 posts of Deputy Chief Accounts Officers and that as per the ratio of 58:42 prescribed under the Re-organization Act, 11 posts were allotted to APSRTC and 8 posts were allotted to TSRTC. The Note for mutual transfer of the petitioner and the 4th respondent was approved by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of APSRTC and the Joint Managing Director of TSRTC. The Note for mutual transfer of the petitioner and the 4th respondent was approved by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of APSRTC and the Joint Managing Director of TSRTC. However, it was made subject to finalization of Guidelines to be approved by the Board. 8. In fact, pursuant to the approval of the Note, the 4th respondent joined as Deputy Chief Accounts Officer in APSRTC in the place of the petitioner and the petitioner submitted joining report on 04.06.2015 in TSRTC. But, she was not issued with posting orders in TSRTC. 9. Since she was left in the lurch without posting orders for more than 20 days, the petitioner requested the APSRTC at least to allow her to work. She was permitted to work in APSRTC. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 8056 of 2016, challenging the refusal of TSRTC to issue posting orders. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.03.2016 directing the petitioner to make an application to the TSRTC and directing them to consider the same. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation. But, the same was rejected by TSRTC. 11. The petitioner also made a representation to APSRTC and APSRTC also took up the matter with TSRTC. In the meantime, the 4th respondent, who was originally allocated to TSRTC and who opted to go in the place of the petitioner to APSRTC, gained promotion to the next higher post of Chief Financial Manager. 12. Ultimately, final orders of allocation were issued on 20.12.2017 wherein both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent were shown as having been allocated to APSRTC. Therefore, challenging the said proceedings, dated 20.12.2107, the petitioner came up with the above writ petition. 13. The TSRTC filed a counter contending that the impugned proceedings, dated 20.12.2017, were based upon the Guidelines finalized by the Board of Directors of the Corporation on 24.08.2017. Therefore, the petitioner sought amendment of the prayer so as to include a challenge to a particular Clause contained in the Guidelines approved by the Board on 24.08.2017. 14. The relevant Clause contained in the Guidelines approved by the Board on 24.08.2017, is Clause 2(k). Therefore, the petitioner sought amendment of the prayer so as to include a challenge to a particular Clause contained in the Guidelines approved by the Board on 24.08.2017. 14. The relevant Clause contained in the Guidelines approved by the Board on 24.08.2017, is Clause 2(k). It reads as follows: “The cases of the State Cadre employees whose spouses are working in State Cadre in the Government or in State Government Institutions, local bodies and whose spouses are deemed to be allocated as per the Act, shall as far as possible, be considered for allocation to the opted state. While considering the cases of such employees, the following criteria shall be adopted. (i) Allocation of the employees to the opted state has to be considered only if the employee or spouse are local to the opted state. (ii) If the employee and his/her spouse are non local to the state to which he/she has opted, such option cannot be considered.” 15. Thus, what are now challenged in the above writ petition are: (i) Clause 2(k) of the Guidelines approved by the Board of the State Transport Corporation dated 24.08.2017; and (ii) the allocation of the petitioner to APSRTC by the proceedings, dated 20.12.2017. Challenge to Clause 2(k) of the guidelines: 16. The challenge to Clause 2(k) of the guidelines is on the ground that the pre-condition for considering the request for allocation to one State on spouse grounds, is violative of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India. Under Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India, no citizen shall be discriminated against, on grounds of place of birth/ residence, in respect of any employment under the State. 17. Though Article 371D of the Constitution of India enables the President, by order, to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for people belonging to different parts of the State in the matter of public employment and education and though Clause (10) of Article 371D makes the provisions of the Article and of any order made by the President under the Article to have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of the Constitution including Article 16, the same protection is not available to a guideline framed by the Corporation, for considering the request for transfer on spouse grounds. 18. 18. As we have already point out earlier, the challenge to the guidelines was made after the filing of the writ petition, by way of an application for amendment. Therefore, after the prayer was amended to include a challenge to Clause 2(k) of the guidelines, the Corporations came up with additional counter affidavits, supporting the guidelines. 19. It is contended in the additional counter affidavits filed by the State Road Transport Corporations that at the time of bifurcation of the State, the Board of Directors of APSRTC was reconstituted with the approval of the Central Government on 18.06.2015 in terms of Section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, on the basis of the population ratio as per 2011 census, viz. 58:42 for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, respectively. As a consequence, there were five Directors nominated by the Central Government, five Directors representing the State of Telangana and seven Directors representing the State of Andhra Pradesh. This Board was directed by the Central Government to prepare guidelines for the final allocation. The Board of Directors approved the guidelines on 24.08.2017, taking into account the guidelines approved by the Government of India for the allocation of State Government employees under G.O.Ms. No. 312 dated 30.10.2014. 20. According to the Transport Corporations, the impugned Clause 2(k) of the guidelines for allocation of Transport Corporation employees, is on par with Clause 18(1) of the guidelines approved for the State Government employees under G.O.Ms. No. 312 dated 30.10.2014. This Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for the State Government employees reads as follows: “18(1): Spouses in state cadre in Government or any State Government Institutions, local bodies and those who are deemed to be allocated as per the Act, shall as far as practicable, be allotted to the same State, after considering options made by them and their local candidature. Spouses who are local candidates of a State shall be allotted to that State. Spouses who belong to different States may be allocated after considering the options.” 21. According to the Transport Corporations, the impugned Clause 2(k) of the guidelines for Transport corporation employees was inspired by Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees and that the impugned guidelines were framed by the Corporation in exercise of the power conferred by Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. 22. According to the Transport Corporations, the impugned Clause 2(k) of the guidelines for Transport corporation employees was inspired by Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees and that the impugned guidelines were framed by the Corporation in exercise of the power conferred by Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. 22. Interestingly, the only ground on which Clause 2(k) of the guidelines for Transport Corporation employees is challenged is that it violates Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India. The Transport Corporations do not pitch (and rightly so in our opinion) their defence to Clause 2(k) on the basis of Article 371D of the Constitution of India or the Presidential Order issued there under. This is for the reason that the Presidential Order issued in 1975 in exercise of the power conferred by Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371D of the Constitution of India does not cover state cadre posts. The post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer that the petitioner was holding from 18.09.2004 up to the date of bifurcation of the State on 02.06.2014 is admittedly a state cadre post. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned guidelines on the basis of the Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India cannot be negated on the strength of the Presidential Order issued under Article 371D of the Constitution of India. 23. Virtually, the Corporations have taken only two points in defence to the attack to Clause 2(k) of the guidelines. These two points are (1) that it is on par with Clause 18(1) of the guidelines issued for the State Government employees and (2) that they were done in exercise of the power conferred by Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. 24. But, both the above points raised by the Transport Corporations in defence, are completely shallow. There is a world of difference between impugned Clause 2(k) and Clause 18(1) of the guidelines issued for State Government employees. What is found in Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees, is an enabling provision. Under Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees, if a spouse is allotted to a State on the basis that he/she is a local candidate of that State, then the other spouse should also be allocated after considering his/her option irrespective of whether he/she belongs to different States. Under Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees, if a spouse is allotted to a State on the basis that he/she is a local candidate of that State, then the other spouse should also be allocated after considering his/her option irrespective of whether he/she belongs to different States. Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees does not contain a prohibition for the allotment of a candidate to a particular State on spouse grounds unless that spouse is a local candidate of that State. But, Clause 2(k) of the guidelines for Transport Corporation employees contains such a prohibition. Though we have extracted Clause 2(k) of the guidelines for Transport Corporation employees and we have also extracted Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees in a previous portion of this order, we deem it fit to present them in a Tabular Column for easy comparison, at the cost of repetition. Hence, they are reproduced in a Table as follows:- Clause - 18(1) of the Guidelines for State Government Employees. Clause - 2(k) of the Guidelines for Transport Corporation Employees. 18(1) Spouses in state cadre in Government or any State Government Institutions, local bodies and those who are deemed to be allocated as per the Act, shall as far as practicable, be allotted to the same State, after considering options made by them and their local candidature. Spouses who are local candidates of a State shall be allotted to that State. Spouses who belong to different States may be allocated after considering the options. The cases of the State Cadre employees whose spouses are working in State Cadre in the Government or in State Government Institutions, local bodies and whose spouses are deemed to be allocated as per the Act, shall as far as possible, be considered for allocation to the opted state. While considering the cases of such employees, the following criteria shall be adopted. (i) Allocation of the employees to the opted state has to be considered only if the employee or spouse are local to the opted state. (ii) If the employee and his/her spouse are non local to the state to which he/she has opted, such option cannot be considered. 25. (i) Allocation of the employees to the opted state has to be considered only if the employee or spouse are local to the opted state. (ii) If the employee and his/her spouse are non local to the state to which he/she has opted, such option cannot be considered. 25. From sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 2(k) of the guidelines for Transport Corporation employees, it is clear that the options of the employees are pushed to the background and the primary consideration is accorded only to the local status of the employee concerned. But, clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees, does not speak so. The words “only if the employee or spouse is local” found in sub-clause (i) or the words “such option cannot be considered” appearing in sub-clause (ii) of Clause 2(k) of the impugned guidelines, are not found in Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees. 26. Therefore, it is clear that the State Transport Corporations have travelled far beyond even the guidelines framed for the Kamalanathan Committee under G.O.Ms. No. 312 for the State Government employees. Hence, the first defence taken by the Transport Corporations that the impugned Clause 2(k) of the guidelines for the Transport Corporation employees was inspired by Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees, is a farce. In any case, one wrong cannot be justified on the basis that the inspiration for the same was another wrong. 27. The second defence taken by the Transport Corporation is on the basis of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. Section 82 of the Act reads as follows: “82. Provision for employees of Public Sector Undertakings, etc. On and from the appointed day, the employees of State Public Sector Undertakings, corporations and other autonomous bodies shall continue to function in such undertaking, corporation or autonomous bodies for a period of one year and during this period the corporate body concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor States.” 28. All that Section 82 says is that within one year from the appointed day, the Corporate bodies of State Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations and other autonomous bodies should determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between two successor States. Section 82 is merely the source of power to frame guidelines. Section 82 is not a licence to violate Constitutional guarantees. 29. Section 82 is merely the source of power to frame guidelines. Section 82 is not a licence to violate Constitutional guarantees. 29. The fact that the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer is a State cadre post, the fact that this post is not organized into a local cadre in terms of the Presidential Order 1975 and that as a consequence, the protection against discrimination under Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India is not excluded in terms of Article 371D (10) of the Constitution of India, are all not disputed by the respondents. This is exactly the reason why the respondents are not defending Clause 2(k) of the guidelines on the basis of Article 371D (10) of the Constitution of India. 30. Once it is clear that sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 2(k) of the impugned guidelines is violative of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India and that it is also not protected in terms of the Presidential Order and Article 371D of the Constitution, then it should follow as a corollary that the case of the petitioner should not have been rejected on that ground. The impugned guidelines is not even in pari-materia with Clause 18(1) of the guidelines for State Government employees. Therefore, the challenge to sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 2(k) of the impugned guidelines has to be upheld. 31. Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation vehemently contended that if Clause 2(k) of the guidelines is upset, it will open the flood gates. But, flood gate theory cannot be invoked against the wall of Constitutional protection. In any case, if there are other people who are also aggrieved by Clause 2(k) of the guidelines, they should have come to Court. They have not. 32. The reliance placed by Mr. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the decision of this Court in Dr. S. Shobha Rani vs. State Reorganization Department, 2017 (2) ALT 564 and the decision rendered in Writ Petition Nos.14006 and 14062 of 2018, dated 12.10.2018, is appropriate in this regard. As observed by the Division Bench in both the above cases, the guidelines should not be so framed as to break families. S. Shobha Rani vs. State Reorganization Department, 2017 (2) ALT 564 and the decision rendered in Writ Petition Nos.14006 and 14062 of 2018, dated 12.10.2018, is appropriate in this regard. As observed by the Division Bench in both the above cases, the guidelines should not be so framed as to break families. In fact, in the later decision dated 12.10.2018, the Division Bench found fault with Clause 6 (g) of the Circular Memo dated 07.08.2017 relating to inter-state transfer of State Government employees. 33. Therefore, the challenge to sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 2(k) of the guidelines is liable to be sustained. Challenge to the order of allocation dated 20.12.2017: 34. According to the respondents, the petitioner’s husband who was working as Assistant Commandant in the Special Police Battalion, was allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh after the bifurcation of the State and that he was finally allocated to the State of Telangana. It is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the TSRTC that the petitioner’s husband was relieved on 01.06.2017 so as to join duty in the State of Telangana. But, after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.01.2019. Therefore, a strange plea is taken by TSRTC that in view of the retirement of the petitioner’s husband, the spouse ground is not available. But, if such arguments are accepted, every request for transfer on spouse ground can be rejected, by holding on to the case and prolonging the proceedings until one of them retires. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner’s husband retired on 31.01.2019 (after allocation to Telangana) is no justification to sustain the rejection of the petitioner’s request in December, 2017. 35. The sequence of events that happened immediately after the bifurcation shows that Telangana Transport Corporation has treated the petitioner very unfairly. By an Office Order dated 13.04.2015, the petitioner was provisionally allocated to AP State Road Transport Corporation. She exercised option to go to Telangana State Road Transport Corporation on 20.04.2015. But, by the proceedings dated 03.06.2015 the petitioner was allocated to Andhra Pradesh and the 4th respondent was allocated to Telangana. 36. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent independently made requests for swapping. 37. In a note file put up before the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of AP State Road Transport Corporation on 20.05.2015, the requests made by the petitioner and the 4th respondent were taken up. 36. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent independently made requests for swapping. 37. In a note file put up before the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of AP State Road Transport Corporation on 20.05.2015, the requests made by the petitioner and the 4th respondent were taken up. 38. In the said note, the following endorsement was made: “Pending finalization of guidelines to be approved by Board, we may permit swapping of above two Officers as at Para-12 if agreed.” 39. But, after the approval of the note at the highest level, viz. the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, on 03.06.2015, the Chief Personnel Manager of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation made a ‘U’ turn on 04.06.2015 claiming that while the services of the 4th respondent are required in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, the services of the petitioner are not required in Telangana. It was claimed by the Chief Personnel Manager that there are already ‘9’ Deputy Chief Accounts Officers in Telangana against the sanctioned strength of ‘7’ including officiating HODs. 40. Thus as a result of the resistance at the lower level, the petitioner got struck. 41. In fact, the note put up on 20.05.2015 for swapping of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, which was approved on 03.06.2015 through an endorsement at the bottom, was carried into effect by an office order bearing No. Ea./255(4)/2015-PD dated 03.06.2015. This Office Order reads as follows: “In partial modification of the Office Order cited at reference above, Sri M. Venkateswara Rao, Deputy CAO (CE) has now allotted to RTC in A.P. State and transferred and posted as Deputy CAO (SPA & CE)/HO. Smt. D. Sujatha, Deputy CAO (T&S) is now allotted to RTC in Telangana State and she shall report to JMD for further posting in Telangana.” 42. It was only after the issue of the Office Order dated 03.06.2015 which was signed by the Chairman and Managing Director of APSRTC, that the Chief Personnel Manager of TSRTC put up a note on 04.06.2015 resisting the attempt. Therefore, it is clear that the decision taken at the highest level, though pending finalization of guidelines, was thwarted at the middle/lower level. The reasons are too obvious to be found out. The petitioner is young in age. Therefore, it is clear that the decision taken at the highest level, though pending finalization of guidelines, was thwarted at the middle/lower level. The reasons are too obvious to be found out. The petitioner is young in age. Therefore, one or the other of the Deputy CAOs working in the Telangana RTC may feel threatened by the loss of promotional opportunities if the petitioner is allocated to TSRTC. Therefore, what was agreed in principle at the highest level, on 03.06.2015 appears to have been sabotaged on 04.06.2015 even before finalization of guidelines on 24.08.2017. Today the respondents seek refuge under the guidelines dated 24.08.2017, to justify their ‘U’ turn on 04.06.2015. 43. In cases of this nature, the Courts cannot shut their eyes to the realities of life. Any guidelines framed for allocation and transfer should conform to certain fundamental norms. The families of employees cannot come to inhuman treatment. While transfer is an incidence of service and no government employee can oppose the same, a final allocation as between two States upon the bifurcation of the States cannot be put on the same pedestal as an order of transfer could be. Today the Telangana State Transport Corporation claims that there were ‘19’ sanctioned posts of Deputy CAOs and that out of them ‘11’ were allocated to Andhra Pradesh and ‘7’ allocated to Telangana. According to Telangana State Transport Corporation, there are already ‘9’ employees as against the sanctioned strength of ‘7’ posts. Therefore, the Telangana State Transport Corporation claims that the petitioner cannot be accommodated. 44. But, the above argument is an argument of convenience. When the 4th respondent was allocated to Telangana, the Road Transport Corporation of Telangana did not raise such an objection. If swapping had not been agreed, the 4th respondent would have been in Telangana. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation has no objection to this on the ground of sanctioned strength. 45. The Rules are meant for uniform application and are not intended to be applied at convenience. In fact, there are ‘2’ Head Office posts in Telangana as HODs. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner cannot be accommodated, has to be rejected both on facts and in law. 46. 45. The Rules are meant for uniform application and are not intended to be applied at convenience. In fact, there are ‘2’ Head Office posts in Telangana as HODs. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner cannot be accommodated, has to be rejected both on facts and in law. 46. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, holding that sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 2(k) of the guidelines dated 24.08.2017 should not be held against the petitioner as they are unconstitutional and setting aside the proceedings dated 20.12.2017 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation to issue posting orders to the petitioner in the post of Deputy CAO within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner is so far working in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, no monetary burden in the form of back wages has fallen upon the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and hence they should accommodate the petitioner in their Corporation. 47. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 48. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.