ORDER : 1. Common issue arises for consideration in both these Writ Petitions relating to the same parties, and so, they are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 772 of 2020 is one P. Ramu who was directly recruited as Depot Manager in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. At the time of filing W.P. No. 772 of 2020 he was working as Divisional Manager, Sangareddy Depot of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (T.S.R.T.C.) in Telangana State which was carved out of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014 under the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014 (for short, 'the Act'). 3. Sri P. Ramu contends that his son was undergoing treatment at C.M.C., Vellore, Chittoor District and that his father was diagnosed with Breast Cancer in 2017 and was taking treatment in V.R. Multi-Speciality Hospital, Kurnool District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. So he seeks allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh. 4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 3290 of 2020 is Sri B.V. Rao and he was working as Controller of Stores in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) in Vijayawada of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. The wife of Sri B.V. Rao is employed in United Technologies, Hyderabad and his daughter was studying II Year Intermediate at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana. 5. As stated above, the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was divided into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014 pursuant to the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014. 6. The erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation of the composite State along with other Government Companies and Corporations was mentioned at Item No. 26 of the IX Schedule to the above Act. 7. Part VIII of the Act dealt with 'Companies' and 'Corporations' specified in IX Schedule. 8. Section 68 of the Act provided that the Companies and Corporations specified in the IX Schedule constituted for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function in those areas in respect of which they were functioning immediately before that day, subject to the provisions of Section 68. Sub-Section (2) of Section 68 provided for apportionment between the successor States of the assets, rights and liabilities of the Companies and Corporations referred to in IX Schedule. 9. Sub-Section (2) of Section 68 provided for apportionment between the successor States of the assets, rights and liabilities of the Companies and Corporations referred to in IX Schedule. 9. Section 71 of the Act empowered the Central Government to issue directions for each of the companies specified in the IX Schedule (a) regarding the division of interests and shares of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh in the Company between the successor States and (b) requiring the re-constitution of the Board of Directors of the Company so as to give adequate representation to the successor States. 10. Part VIII of the Act dealt with provisions as to services and Section 82 thereof dealt with employees of State Public Sector undertakings, Corporations and other Autonomous Bodies. Sec. 82 directs that 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, Corporations or Autonomous Body 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. 11. Pending finalization of modalities for allocation of employees of undivided Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to the two successor States/their successor Corporations, a decision was taken to demarcate allocable posts and to provisionally allot the State-Cadre employees in order to have functional demarcation and smooth functioning in both States. Such provisional allotment was made on the basis of local status of the employees (educational certificates concerned). 12. P. Ramu was allocated provisionally to serve the Corporation in the State of Telangana as per Office Order EA/255 (11)/2014 - PD, and he and other officers mentioned therein were asked to submit their options for final allocation in the enclosed proforma on or before 25.04.2015. He submitted option on 20.04.2015 for allotment to the Corporation in the Andhra Pradesh State for the reasons mentioned above. 13. B.V. Rao was provisionally allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh. He submitted option on 20.03.2015 for allotting him to the Corporation in the Telangana State. 14. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India issued a direction as per Sections 71(a) and (b) of the Act vide D.O. No. RT-17020/2/2014 dt. 13. B.V. Rao was provisionally allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh. He submitted option on 20.03.2015 for allotting him to the Corporation in the Telangana State. 14. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India issued a direction as per Sections 71(a) and (b) of the Act vide D.O. No. RT-17020/2/2014 dt. 18.06.2015 for re-constitution of the undivided Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation's Board of Directors on the basis of population ratio for appointment of 17 members to the said Board with 5 members from Central Government, 5 members from Telangana State, and 7 members from the Andhra Pradesh State. 15. Vide G.O. Ms. No. 32, Transport Roads and Buildings (TR. II) Department dt. 22.06.2016, the State of Andhra Pradesh then reconstituted the undivided Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Board as per the above directive of the Union of India. 16. Vide Resolution No. 02/2017 dt. 24.08.2017, the Board of Directors approved guidelines for permanent allocation of State - Cadre employees of the undivided Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation between the two successor Corporations of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The allocation was to be made on the basis of seniority list available on 02.06.2015. The guidelines contemplated calling for options before-hand, for consideration of the said options and possible allocation thereafter keeping in mind the options and the guidelines. 17. P. Ramu submitted representation on 01.12.2016 to the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, undivided A.P.S.R.T.C. Vijayawada for allotment to the successor A.P.S.R.T.C., mentioning that his colleague B.V. Rao would like to work in the successor T.S.R.T.C. and there can be a mutual transfer. 18. Likewise, B.V. Rao gave a representation dt. 12.05.2017 and 09.12.2019 to the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vijayawada stating that he is willing to work in T.S.R.T.C. on mutual transfer with P. Ramu who was willing to work in A.P.S.R.T.C. 19. Both P. Ramu and B.V. Rao gave joint representations also on 09.12.2019 and 20.01.2020 to the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. and T.S.R.T.C. for mutual transfer. 20. Since the Management of A.P.S.R.T.C. was taken over by the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2020, both of them also gave a representation on 20.01.2020 to the Principal Secretary, Transport Roads and Buildings, Government of Andhra Pradesh. 21. 20. Since the Management of A.P.S.R.T.C. was taken over by the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2020, both of them also gave a representation on 20.01.2020 to the Principal Secretary, Transport Roads and Buildings, Government of Andhra Pradesh. 21. However, notwithstanding the above efforts, P. Ramu was allotted finally to the T.S.R.T.C. (even though he wanted to be allotted to A.P.S.R.T.C.) and B.V. Rao was finally allotted to A.P.S.R.T.C. (even though he wanted to be allotted to T.S.R.T.C.). 22. On 20.12.2017, the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of A.P.S.R.T.C. passed orders in relation to P. Ramu and others (Sri B.V. Rao is not mentioned in the order) stating that provisional allocation already made would stand good as if it was final and permanent allocation between the two States. No separate order was passed in the case of Sri B.V. Rao. 23. Assailing this action of the respondents, P. Ramu filed W.P. No. 772 of 2020 by impleading the T.S.R.T.C. as 1st respondent, the A.P.S.R.T.C. as 2nd respondent, the State of Andhra Pradesh as 3rd respondent and Sri B.V. Rao as 4th respondent. 24. Likewise, B.V. Rao filed W.P. No. 3290 of 2020 by impleading the T.S.R.T.C. as 1st respondent, the A.P.S.R.T.C. as 2nd respondent, the State of Andhra Pradesh as 3rd respondent and Sri P. Ramu as 4th respondent. 25. Heard Sri R.V. Mallikarjun Rao for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions, Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C., Sri A. Ravi Babu, counsel for T.S.R.T.C. and Sri P. Govind Reddy, Special Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh. CONTENTIONS of COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS 26. The counsel for petitioners contended that since the spouse of Sri B.V. Rao was employed in United Technologies, Hyderabad in the State of Telangana, he should be allotted on spouse grounds to the State of Telangana and could not have been allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh/A.P.S.R.T.C. 27. He also contended that P. Ramu ought to have been allotted to the A.P.S.R.T.C. since his son was undergoing treatment at C.M.C. Vellore, Chittoor District and his father was diagnosed with Breast Cancer and was taking treatment in V.R. Multi-Speciality Hospital, Kurnool in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 28. He pointed out that in proceedings dt. He also contended that P. Ramu ought to have been allotted to the A.P.S.R.T.C. since his son was undergoing treatment at C.M.C. Vellore, Chittoor District and his father was diagnosed with Breast Cancer and was taking treatment in V.R. Multi-Speciality Hospital, Kurnool in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 28. He pointed out that in proceedings dt. 20.12.2019, the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of APSRTC could not have said that whatever provisional allocation orders in respect of the petitioner would stand good and has to be deemed as final and permanent allocation between the two Corporations, and that it is the duty of the APSRTC to take into account the options exercised by the employees as per the provisions of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 and the guidelines framed by the Board of the APSRTC for such allocation in its Board Resolution No. 2 of 2017 dt. 24.08.2017; and the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of APSRTC has violated the same by ignoring the guidelines framed by the Board and also the guidelines framed by the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 80 of the Act for allocation of employees notified vide Notification No. GA(SR)/2014/07/Guidelines dt. 25.07.2014 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. THE STAND of THE SUCCESSOR APSRTC and THE STATE of A.P 29. The successor APSRTC, through its Law Officer, filed a counter-affidavit and an additional counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 772 of 2020 admitting that the petitioner in that Writ Petition, P. Ramu had given option on 20.04.2015 for allocation to the successor APSRTC on the ground that he studied higher education in A.P., that his entire service was in A.P. and that he had settled in Kurnool at the time of provisional allocation of State Cadre employees in April, 2015; that petitioner cannot now refer to application dt. 01.12.2016 wherein he wanted mutual transfer with Sri B.V. Rao; and permanent allocation and transfer are different concepts. 30. According to him, the allotment of State Cadre employees was made on the basis of criteria like (i) nativity, (ii) working spouse and (iii) ill-health of employee or family etc. 01.12.2016 wherein he wanted mutual transfer with Sri B.V. Rao; and permanent allocation and transfer are different concepts. 30. According to him, the allotment of State Cadre employees was made on the basis of criteria like (i) nativity, (ii) working spouse and (iii) ill-health of employee or family etc. Nativity was determined in accordance with the A.P. Public Employment, Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment Order, 1975 (for short 'the Presidential Order, 1975) issued under Art. 371-D of the Constitution of India with strict reference to School records and in particular where an employee studied Classes - IV to X. It is alleged that on that basis, it was determined that Sri P. Ramu belongs to Telangana. 31. It is stated that though options were obtained from employees at the time of bifurcation, provisional allotment based on option on valid and acceptable grounds like working spouse and ill-health was not accepted by the TSRTC and provisional allotments were made purely on the local status (nativity) alone. 32. It is stated that at the time of his provisional allotment on 17.04.2015, P. Ramu did not mention about his father's ill-health and only on 26.08.2017, two days after the guidelines on permanent allotment were finalized by the Board of the APSRTC, petitioner mentioned that his parents require treatment at C.M.C., Vellore; and in the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, he stated for the first time that his father suffered from cancer. 33. It is stated that at the time of provisional allotment on 17.04.2015, the number of Junior Scale Officers (JSOs) (interchangeable i.e., ATMs and AMEs etc.,) belonging to the residuary districts of AP was excess by 34 to the sanctioned strength allotted to residuary APSRTC and there was shortage of 35 Junior Scale Officers (JSOs) to the sanctioned strength who were hailing from the Districts of Telangana and who were to be allotted to TSRTC. Since the petitioner belongs to ATM cadre where there is a dire shortage of 35 in TSRTC at that time, it was logically correct to allot him to TSRTC, he being a native of Telangana. 34. It is stated that it was informed to the Chairperson of the Expert Committee on demerger of IX Schedule Institutions that the distribution of employees between the two successor Corporations was completed and it would not submit any further proposal to the Expert Committee. 35. 34. It is stated that it was informed to the Chairperson of the Expert Committee on demerger of IX Schedule Institutions that the distribution of employees between the two successor Corporations was completed and it would not submit any further proposal to the Expert Committee. 35. It is stated that Sri P. Ramu's request for deputation to APSRTC was considered for 3 years in two spells from 31.05.2016 to 28.06.2017 and from 03.01.2018 to 31.12.2019 so that he can attend to his personal needs. 36. Lastly, it is stated that because of merger of employees of the successor APSRTC into Government of A.P. (Public Transport Department) w.e.f. 01.01.2020, continuing the petitioner on deputation was not possible and so he was repatriated to the State of Telangana on 31.12.2019. 37. The learned Special Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh stated that the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Service Act, 1997 (Act No. 14 of 1997) would also disentitle Sri P. Ramu from coming into the service of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh as a former employee of the APSRTC. 38. As regards Sri B.V. Rao, it is stated that he is a native of A.P., and does not fall under 'working spouse in Government undertakings' category or ill-health of self or family members' category. 39. It is admitted that Sri B.V. Rao submitted option dt. 16.04.2015 (but not 20.03.2015) giving preference to be allotted to the State of Telangana on the ground that his spouse is working as Senior Engineer since 2003 in General Electric MNC, Hitech City, Hyderabad and her office was located at Hyderabad, but he did not mention about his heart surgery or study of daughter. 40. As per guidelines, there is no provision for considering the cases of spouses working in 'private institutions' for allocation on spouse grounds and he did not submit proof of his spouse working in the said Company. 41. It is contended that as per the 'nativity clause' in 1975 Presidential Order referred to above, schooling from Classes IV to X of Sri B.V. Rao was in Andhra Pradesh and so he is a native of Andhra Pradesh; and in his case also, provisional allotments are made purely on the basis of local status (nativity) and he was allotted to APSRTC. THE STAND of THE TSRTC IN W.P. No. 772 of 2020 42. It is contended that while issuing provisional allotment orders, all the State Cadre employees were directed to submit their options based on the draft guidelines issued on 02.01.2015. The petitioner submitted his option on 20.04.2015 seeking allotment to APSRTC. In his option form he requested to allot him to APSRTC as he did his higher education in A.P. and rendered his entire service in A.P. and settled at Kurnool. Although the petitioner submitted his option to APSRTC, as per the guidelines approved by the Corporation Board under Section 82 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, petitioner has been allotted to TSRTC. The petitioner is now seeking allotment to APSRTC on the ground that his father is taking treatment for Cancer in the hospitals in A.P., which is untenable. The guidelines formulated by the Corporation provides that 'an employee or whose spouse or child is known to be facing serious medical hardship, in case of Cancer, Open heart/bye-pass surgery and kidney transplantation/kidney failure and continuing on dialysis shall be considered for allotment on special grounds on priority on the basis of option, subject to strict proof of verification as per the procedure prescribed by the Government in the opted State'. As per the above guidelines, if as on the date of bifurcation, the employee or his/spouse or their child is facing serious medical hardship, their cases are to be considered for preferential allotment on the basis of their option. 43. The case of the petitioner does not fall in the above category and he submitted his option stating that he is settled in A.P. The subsequent developments cannot become a ground for change in allotment. THE STAND OF THE TSRTC IN W.P. No. 3290 of 2020 44. It is stated that petitioner was allotted to APSRTC after bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh and he has been working in APSRTC from 03.06.2015 onwards in the cadre of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer. 45. While issuing provisional allotment orders, all the State Cadre employees were directed to submit their options based on the draft guidelines issued on 02.01.2015. The petitioner submitted his option on 16.04.2015 seeking allotment to TSRTC. 46. In his option form, he requested to allot him to TSRTC stating that his spouse is working as Senior Engineer at General Electric, MNC at Hi-Tech City, Hyderabad. The petitioner submitted his option on 16.04.2015 seeking allotment to TSRTC. 46. In his option form, he requested to allot him to TSRTC stating that his spouse is working as Senior Engineer at General Electric, MNC at Hi-Tech City, Hyderabad. But he did not submit his option on medical grounds as stated by him in the Writ Petition. 47. The Board authorized the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC to allot the State Cadre employees on permanent basis. 48. Accordingly, through Notification No. PD-10/2017 dt. 20.12.2017, the Vice Chairman and Managing Director allotted all the State cadre employees to the successor Corporations, and as per the Notification, the petitioner has been allotted to APSRTC. The name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 59 of Appendix-A, page-1 (Senior Scale Officer). There is no provision for mutual request basis after final allocation is made. 49. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, the learned Special Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh and the learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC reiterated the above submissions. Consideration by the Court 50. Admittedly, P. Ramu, who was then working as Depot Manager gave an option on 20.04.2015 seeking allotment to the successor APSRTC and B.V. Rao, who was working as Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer gave option on 16.04.2015 seeking allotment to the successor TSRTC. But they were provisionally allotted to TSRTC and APSRTC respectively on 17.04.2015 and 03.06.2015. 51. The TSRTC and APSRTC both admit that the provisional allotment was done as per the draft guidelines for such allotment notified on 02.01.2015, but neither of them have filed the said guidelines. No reason is assigned by both of them, why they suppressed the draft guidelines. 52. Coming to the guidelines for final allocation of employees, such final allocation guidelines were approved by the Board of the APSRTC on 24.08.2017. 53. Clause 2(e) of the said guidelines records that options were already called for and exercised by the State Cadre employees who were holding allocable posts during April, 2015; and that they would be allotted to successor Corporations on permanent basis as per the options already exercised by them. Clause (f) and (k) are relevant and they state as under: "(f) The allocation shall be done in order of seniority as available on June 02, 2015. Clause (f) and (k) are relevant and they state as under: "(f) The allocation shall be done in order of seniority as available on June 02, 2015. Those who have opted, who are 'local candidates' (as per the spirit of A.P. Public Employment, Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of District Recruitment Order, 1975 with strict reference to the school records i.e., based on the place of study of Class IV to X) relatable to the State to which they have opted, shall, in order of their seniority, be considered for allocation first. If the allocable posts in that cadre remain and if the employees become surplus in that cadre after adjusting them against all interchangeable posts and against the vacancies in higher cadre as on 02.06.2015 in the other successor corporation, then such employees found surplus in such corporation who have opted to the state may be allocated in order of seniority. While allocating surplus employees, preference shall be given to the employees who are covered under spouse criteria under item (k) and employees facing severe medical hardship as given in item (l). (k) The cases of the State Cadre employees whose spouse 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 employee 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." 54. Thus the allocation should be done in the order of seniority as available on 02.06.2015 and the local candidates (as per study of Classes IV to X would be allotted to the State to which they have opted if they relatable to the said State, in order of seniority. 55. In the counter-affidavit filed by APSRTC and TSRTC, there is no reference to the respective seniority positions of either of the petitioners. 56. 55. In the counter-affidavit filed by APSRTC and TSRTC, there is no reference to the respective seniority positions of either of the petitioners. 56. What seniority list of Assistant Traffic Managers, to which cadre the petitioner in W.P. No. 772 of 2020 Sri P. Ramu belongs to and what is his position in the said seniority list, is not disclosed by both APSRTC and the TSRTC. 57. In para 8-D of the first counter-affidavit filed by the APSRTC in W.P. No. 772 of 2020 and in para 6-D of the first counter-affidavit filed by APSRTC in W.P. No. 3290 of 2020, it is stated as under: "Though options were obtained from employees at the time of bifurcation, provisional allotment based on option valid and accepted grounds like working spouse and ill-health was not accepted by the TSRTC and provisional allotments were made based purely on the local status (nativity).." 58. The TSRTC along with its counter in W.P. No. 3290 of 2020 as annexure-VIII had filed the proceedings No. E.1/79(3)/2017-PO-II dt. 20.12.2017 of the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of APSRTC which states: 'the allotment given in the provisional allocation orders under references 2nd to 12th cited stand good as final and permanent allocation between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.' 59. So admittedly, the final allocation was also made on the basis of 'nativity' of the petitioners. 60. When the guidelines framed by the Board of APSRTC contemplate (i) taking of options and (ii) consideration of options by the undivided APSRTC while making final allocation of employees between the successor APSRTC and the TSRTC, the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of APSRTC cannot say that provisional allocation stands good as final and permanent allocation. He has thus clearly violated the guidelines framed by the Board of the APSRTC vide resolution No. 02/2017 dt. 24.08.2017. 61. That apart, if the provisional allocation was made on only purely 'nativity' basis, and nothing else, it violates Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India which prohibits discrimination only on the basis of descent, place of birth or residence. 62. This issue has been considered by the Supreme Court in Telangana Judges Association and another Vs. Union of India and others 2019 (1) ALD 7 (SC). The Supreme Court declared: "51. 62. This issue has been considered by the Supreme Court in Telangana Judges Association and another Vs. Union of India and others 2019 (1) ALD 7 (SC). The Supreme Court declared: "51. The nativity for public employment runs counter to the fundamental right guaranteed Under Article 16(2) except when it is provided by a Parliamentary Law as per exception carved out in Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India. No Parliamentary Law is relied by the Petitioner, which provides residence as an eligibility to the employment in Judicial Service. In Act, 2014, there is no provision, which expressly provides for allotment of the State on the basis of place of birth or residence. Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Act do not refer to allotment on the basis of place of birth. When for entering into Judicial Service, no condition can be put regarding residence of particular area for allocation of a State, consequent to Act, 2014, nativity cannot be sole basis, as is contended by the Petitioner. It is true that the State of Telangana stand formed to realise the democratic aspirations of the people of Telangana. We have noticed the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act, 2014, which clearly establish that the creation of a separate State of Telangana is for the betterment of the social, economic, political and other aspirations of the people of that region, which contemplated allocation of separate State of Telangana. The entire Statement of Objects and Reasons does not indicate that with respect to public employment, nativity is to play a dominant role. It is true that Judicial Officers belonging to Telangana territorial area may have desired or expectation to choose or to opt for their cadre in Telangana area, which is a legitimate aspiration, but giving pre-dominance to nativity only is not spelled from any statutory provision or scheme." (emphasis supplied) 63. Thus the allocation of both petitioners, having been admittedly been made by the APSRTC purely and only on the basis of their nativity, it is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. 64. In Telangana Judges Association and another (supra), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance to be given to seniority in service jurisprudence as well in the following words: "54. 64. In Telangana Judges Association and another (supra), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance to be given to seniority in service jurisprudence as well in the following words: "54. When a Judicial Officer has been given a right of option to choose either of the successor State, right of option has to be given same meaning and content. Right of option can be defeated only when there is some impediment in accepting the option. The seniority of a Judicial Officer is a first criteria for accepting the option. The seniority in a service is a valuable right of an employee or officer. In service jurisprudence, several benefits and perquisites are attached to the seniority. The Petitioners are asking that option be accepted not on the basis of seniority but only on the basis of nativity, i.e. those who are senior even if they opt the State option, their option should not be selected and option of those should be first accepted, who are natives of Telangana. The Petitioner's apprehension is that in event option of senior officers are accepted and they are posted in State of Telangana, the future prospects of promotion of the Petitioners shall be marred. Whether the officers, who in the seniority list, which was prevalent on the date of formation of new State, i.e. on 02.06.2014 where senior should loose their seniority or their seniority cannot be said to play any role on account of formation of two successor States is the question to be answered. The aspiration of Petitioners that no senior officer, should come to State of Telangana, which may mar their prospect of promotion is neither in accord with the constitutional scheme nor as per ethos of culture of this country. The modified guidelines submitted by the High Court and accepted by the DoPT itself at second place give preference to nativity." (emphasis supplied) 65. The fact that neither APSRTC nor TSRTC make a reference to the seniority lists of the cadres to which the respective petitioners belong and their position in the said seniority list vis-a-vis the available posts in their respective cadres and the options exercised by them, shows that they gave no importance to the seniority at all and only and exclusively focused on nativity of the petitioners, ignoring their options totally and simply confirming the provisional allocation. 66. 66. That apart, Sri B.V. Rao, the petitioner in W.P. No. 3290 of 2020 had specifically raised a plea even in the option form submitted by him that his wife is working as a Senior Engineer since 2003 at General Electric, MNC in Hyderabad city and so he wanted to opt for permanent allocation to the TSRTC which operates in Telangana where the Hyderabad City is located. 67. Clause (k) of the guidelines for permanent allocation approved by the Board of the APSRTC on 24.08.2017 has been referred to above. It no doubt contemplates consideration of cases of employees for a particular State if their spouses are working in State cadre in the Government, or in State Government Institutions, local bodies, but not in private employment. 68. Similar clause (para 18(1)) contained in the guidelines framed by the State Government on 25.07.2014 was considered by a Division Bench in Dr. S. Shoba Rani Vs. the State Reorganization Department, represented by its Secretary, General Administration (SR) Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad and others 2017 (3) ALD 207 (DB). In that case, the husband of the petitioner was working in a non-transferable post in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking at Visakhapatnam and her children were also studying there. She opted for the State of Andhra Pradesh and the same had been rejected. She questioned it in the High Court at Hyderabad. The Division Bench held: "9. The basic principle underlying these guidelines is therefore to protect and keep together employees spouses who would otherwise be separated owning to the allocation undertaken pursuant to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. Keeping the spirit and intent underlying this principle, the guidelines should be implemented. Merely because clause (l) does not speak of employees working in Central Government Public Sector Undertakings, it does not mean that spouses of such employees, who are working in the State cadre, are not to be accommodated where they are working. Clause (1) states in no uncertain terms that allocation shall, as far as practicable, be made so as to keep the spouses together. The import and intent of bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh is not to break up marriages. The authorities therefore have to conceive, formulate and implement the guidelines keeping in mind. Clause (1) states in no uncertain terms that allocation shall, as far as practicable, be made so as to keep the spouses together. The import and intent of bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh is not to break up marriages. The authorities therefore have to conceive, formulate and implement the guidelines keeping in mind. Any shortfall in the guidelines in this regard cannot be taken literally to mean that spouses, whose cases do not fall within the four corners of the instructions as set out therein, are to be left out in the cold and must suffer marital separation." (emphasis supplied) The Court observed that as per clause (f) of para-18 of the guidelines, if allocable posts in the category remain after local candidates relatable to the State have been considered, then others who opt for that State may be allocated in order of seniority; that this was overlooked by the Authorities; and rejection of her request for posting as Principal in Vishakhapatnam when vacancies exist, was unsustainable. The Writ Petition was allowed and the petitioner therein was directed to be given allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh and posted as Principal at Visakhapatnam. 69. The principle in Dr. S. Shoba Rani (supra) was also followed in M.S.D. Sujatha Vs. Union of India 2019(4) ALD 26 (TS)(DB). Justice Sri V. Ramasubramaniyam (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Division Bench, stated that guidelines should not be framed so as to break families. 70. This principle has been followed in Uzma Nikhath Vs. Government of India, Order dt. 28-01-2019 in W.P.(TR) No. 5680 of 2019 and P. Damodhar Vs. Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited 2020(4) ALD 388 (TS) (DB). 71. It is not the case of the APSRTC that there are no allocable posts in the cadre to which Sri B.V. Rao belonged in the State of Telangana/TSRTC to which he opted. 72. Clause 18(l) of the guidelines framed for allocation of State Government employees communicated vide G.O. Ms. No. 312 dt. 30.10.2014 which was considered in Dr. S. Shoba Rani (supra) stated that 'Spouses in State cadre in Government or in State Government Institutions, local bodies and those who are deemed 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. No. 312 dt. 30.10.2014 which was considered in Dr. S. Shoba Rani (supra) stated that 'Spouses in State cadre in Government or in State Government Institutions, local bodies and those who are deemed 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 allocated to that State and Spouses who belong to different States may be allocated after considering their options.' 73. Clause (k) of the guidelines framed by the Board of the APSRTC is in similar terms. 74. We therefore find that non-consideration of the plea of Sri B.V. Rao for transfer on Spouse grounds to the State of Telangana is contrary to the guidelines framed by the Board of the APSRTC and the principle that Spouses ought not to be separated and marriages ought not to be broken up. The fact that the Spouse of Sri B.V. Rao is employed in a private MNC at Hyderabad makes no difference to the application of the above principle. 75. As regards to the plea of Sri P. Ramu is concerned, it is crystal clear that his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Traffic Manager has not been taken into account at all and only on the basis of nativity, he has been allocated to TSRTC. 76. In para-8 (H) of the counter-affidavit filed by APSRTC, it is stated as under: "(H) At the time of provisional allotment on 17.04.2015, the number of Junior Scale Officers (JSOs) (interchangeable i.e. ATMs and AMEs etc.,) belonging to the residuary districts of AP was excess by 34 to the sanctioned strength allotted to residuary APSRTC and there was shortage of 35 Junior Scale Officers (JSOs) to the sanctioned strength who were hailing from the districts of Telangana and who were to be allotted to TSRTC. Since the petitioner belongs to ATM cadre where there is a dire shortage of 35 in TSRTC at that time, it was logically correct to allot him to TSRTC, he being a native of Telangana." 77. It is important to note that the basis for permanent allocation as per the guidelines is seniority as on 02.06.2015 which is taken in the guidelines. 78. It is important to note that the basis for permanent allocation as per the guidelines is seniority as on 02.06.2015 which is taken in the guidelines. 78. But as per the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, the 'appointed day' is 02.06.2014 since it is the date notified by the Central Government in its Gazette S.O. No. 655(E), Ministry of Home Affairs dt. 04.03.2014. 79. A Division Bench of this Court in K. Balarama Raju and others Vs. Union of India, Order dt. 27-08-2020 in W.P. No. 16188 of 2019 (DB) has held that there can only one 'appointed day' as per the Act, which is 02.06.2014, and there cannot be any other 'appointed day'. So the very adoption by the Board of the APSRTC of the date 02.06.2015' as the 'appointed day' is illegal. 80. Be that as it may, in our opinion it is the duty of the APSRTC to see how many posts of Assistant Traffic Managers were allocated to the TSRTC and APSRTC (the successor Corporations) and whether by virtue of his seniority in the said cadre, petitioner Sri P. Ramu can be allocated to the APSRTC. 81. Shortage of 35 Junior Scale Officers in Telangana/TSRTC is an irrelevant consideration as per the guidelines framed by the Board of the APSRTC and cannot be the basis at all for his permanent allocation to the TSRTC ignoring his seniority and going only on his nativity. 82. It is thus clear that the APSRTC and the TSRTC have totally misdirected themselves and have taken into account matters which ought not to have been taken into account and had ignored relevant considerations such as seniority, the vacancy position and the spouse factor while dealing with the requests of Sri P. Ramu for allocation to the APSRTC and of Sri B.V. Rao for allocation to the TSRTC. 83. A plea has been raised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the counter affidavit filed by it in W.P. No. 3290 of 2020 and the additional counter filed by it in both writ petitions that the employees of APSRTC had been absorbed into Government Service, i.e., in the Public Transport Department under the control of the Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 01.01.2020 vide G.O. Ms. No. 51 dt. 31.10.2019 and G.O. Ms. No. 52 dt. No. 51 dt. 31.10.2019 and G.O. Ms. No. 52 dt. 31.10.2019, that from 01.01.2020 the APSRTC ceased to be an employer, and since the allotment of State cadre employees of the undivided APSRTC was completed by the Board, the petitioners do not qualify for consideration. It is its case that there is a prohibition contained in Section 2 of the A.P. Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Services Act, 1997 and this Court cannot give any direction for allocation of Sri P. Ramu to the State of A.P. and of Sri B.V. Rao to the TSRTC at this stage. 84. If really such was the law, the State of A.P. has failed to explain how the other employees of the undivided APSRTC who were allocated to the successor APSRTC were absorbed in the Public Transport Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. No such explanation is forthcoming. 85. Moreover, the Government of A.P. cannot raise such a plea in view of Section 107 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 which states "the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law." 86. Thus, the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 which is a law made by Parliament would have overriding effect over the A.P. Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Services Act, 1997; and the prohibition contained in the latter Act has to give way to the allocation process contained in Section 82 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. There is thus no merit in the plea of the State of A.P. in that regard. 87. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold: (a) the undivided APSRTC did not follow the guidelines framed by its Board vide Resolution No. 2/2017 dt. 24.08.2017 which gave primacy to seniority over nativity in making permanent allocation of employees of the undivided APSRTC to the TSRTC and APSRTC (successor Corporations); (b) that it made such allocation of petitioners purely on the basis of "nativity" only and has thus acted contrary to Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India; (c) that it erred in taking the "appointed day" as 02.06.2015 instead of 02.06.2014 which is the date notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette as the "appointed day" vide SO 655(E) of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India dt. 04.03.2014; (d) that it erred in simply confirming the provisional allocation made in 2015 as the permanent allocation ignoring the options taken from the petitioners in both these cases though it had a bounden duty to consider the same and make their permanent allocation as per the above guidelines framed by the Board of the APSRTC; (e) that the provisions of A.P. Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Services Act, 1997 cannot be invoked by the State of A.P. since they are overridden by Section 107 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. 88. Having regard to the above findings, we allow the Writ Petitions and direct that the petitioner in W.P. No. 772 of 2020 Sri P. Ramu be allocated to the APSRTC and thereafter absorbed in the service of State of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioner in W.P. No. 3290 of 2020 Sri B.V. Rao be allocated to the TSRTC. This exercise shall be completed within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 89. Each of the respondents shall also pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to each of the petitioners within four (4) weeks. 90. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.