ORDER: GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. 1. Heard Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners (appearing through video conference) and Sri Y. Phani Babu, leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed by the 22 Writ Petitioners against the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 29 challenging their promotion from Conductors Grade-II to Conductor Grade-1. Relief sought in the present Writ Petition is as under; “ to issue Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned proceedings No.E1/255(02)/2023-DPTO/AMP, dt.15.05.2023 issued by Respondent No.2 by promoting Respondents Nos.6 to 29 as Grade-I conductors is illegal, arbitrary, void and against to principles of natural justice and contrary to law and consequentially direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to promote the petitioners as Grade-I conductors and pass such other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Vide Order dated 17.11.2023, this Court had issued notice to the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 29 and had also stated that the promotions effected on Respondent Nos.6 to 29 shall be subject to the Final Orders of this Court. Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has filed a Memo on 11.12.2023 as regards the status of service on the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 29. The Memo would indicate that the notice has been served on Respondent Nos.6 to 9, 11, 14 to 19, 22, 23, 25 & 27 to 29. In respect of Respondent No. 10, the Memo would indicate that he has refused to accept the notice, which is treated by this Court as deemed service. In respect of Respondent No. 12, 16, 20, 21, 24 & 26, the notices were returned on account of insufficient address. Despite notice being served on majority of the Unofficial Respondents, none have entered appearance nor have they filed their Counter Affidavits. Hence, they are set exparte. 3.1 Despite service of notice to the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 29, they have not evinced any interest in either entering appearance in-person or through the Counsel. Submissionsof the Writ Petitioners : 4. Despite notice being served on majority of the Unofficial Respondents, none have entered appearance nor have they filed their Counter Affidavits. Hence, they are set exparte. 3.1 Despite service of notice to the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 29, they have not evinced any interest in either entering appearance in-person or through the Counsel. Submissionsof the Writ Petitioners : 4. Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that on 31.12.2019, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued the G.O.M.S.No.52 Transport, R & B (TR-II), Dept; that Act No.36 of 2019 (The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Absorption of Employees into Government Service)) was also promulgated with effect from 01.01.2020 that the Act No.36 of 2019, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has created Public Transport Department and merged the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Department (for short the ‘APSRTC’) with Public Transport Department (PTD); that on 01.04.2022, the Government issued Proceedings addressed to the Managing Director of APSRTC stating that the staff of APSRTC shall be treated as Government Employees and erstwhile staff of APSRTC (who have now become the employees of Government of A.P) shall be governed by the A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short the ‘Rules, 1996’); that, therefore, there is no manner of any doubt that by the  Act No.36 of 2019 (The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Absorption of Employees into Government Service)), they have become the employees under the State Service and that all such employees are governed by the Rules, 1996. 4.1. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would further submit that the Government has not issued any Notification indicating the Zones and Areas for the purpose of Administration, Seniority and for determination of Local Status. He would further submit that, while so, the Respondent No.3 namely the Regional Manager, APSRTC had issued a direction to all Depo Managers calling for personal files of erstwhile East Godavari Region as per the schedule given in the Proceeding for upgradation/promotion of Conductors, Drivers and Mechanics from Grade-ll to Grade-I; that accordingly, the records relating to 96 persons have been forwarded; that these details are sent from Kakinada Division; and that the names of the Writ Petitioners would reflect in the list from SI.No.25 to SI.No.72 (Ex.P.1). 4.2. 4.2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that, vide Proceeding dated 15.05.2023 issued by the District Public Transport Officer, erstwhile East Godavari Region, Rajahmundry, about 18 persons were promoted and the Writ Petitioners have no grievance with regard to the promotion of these 18 persons (Ex.P.3), as the said persons are all Seniors to the Writ Petitioners herein. He would submit that, strangely, the District Public Transport Officer (Respondent No.2) on the same date i.e., on 15.05.2023 had issued another list of 24 candidates, thereby promoting them as Conductors Grade-I from Conductors Grade-ll (Ex.P.2). Both Exs.P.2 and P.3 dated 15.05.2023 are the lists which have been issued basing on the Proceeding of the Selection Committee dated 12.05.2023. 4.3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would contend that these 24 persons who have been promoted from Conductors Grade-ll to Grade-1, vide Proceeding dated 15.05.2023 (Ex.P.2) are Juniors to the Writ Petitioners except the Respondent Nos.6, 10 and 11. In the light of above facts, Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has raised the following contentions: i) That the names of the Conductors who have been promoted from Grade-ll to Grade-1, vide Proceeding dated 15.05.2023 (Ex.P.2) did not initially figure in the initial list that was communicated by the Regional Manager calling for service records vide proceeding dated 29.04.2023 (Ex.P.1). ii) That these 24 persons (except the Respondent Nos.6, 10 and 11) are Juniors to the Writ Petitioners, inasmuch as the Writ Petitioners were all appointed in the years 1990, 1993 & 1994. iii) The Selection Committee Proceeding did not see the light of the day nor was the information furnished to anyone as regards the constitution of Selection Committee and its dates of sitting. iv) When once the Act No.36 of 2019 had come into effect from 01.01.2020 and the Government issued Proceeding to the Managing Director of APSRTC on 01.04.2022, the staff of the APSRTC are treated as Government Staff, and the Respondent Officials are duty bound to follow the statutory procedure as laid down in the Rules, 1996. iv) When once the Act No.36 of 2019 had come into effect from 01.01.2020 and the Government issued Proceeding to the Managing Director of APSRTC on 01.04.2022, the staff of the APSRTC are treated as Government Staff, and the Respondent Officials are duty bound to follow the statutory procedure as laid down in the Rules, 1996. V) That Rule 24 of the Rules, 1996 has laid down the procedure , constitution of Selection Committee/Promotion Committee,  Publication of Provisional List, calling for Objections as regards the Seniority from the Provisional List, issuance of Final Orders after considering the objections and the final Publication of Seniority List have been given a complete go-by by the Official Respondents with a view to favour certain persons that consequently led them to discriminating the Writ Petitioners. Vi) Rule 26 of the Rules, 1996 has also not been followed in this case. vii) That the Respondents did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Rule 33 (a) of the Rules, 1996 for the purpose of fixing Seniority. viii) That the Respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 34 of the Rules, 1996 for preparation , integrated or common seniority of persons belonging to different units of appointment. 4.4. By pointing out the defects, the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the entire Proceedings get vitiated due to statutory violations which are substantive and are serious in nature. He would submit that the Official Respondents have resorted to such infraction of Statutory Rules with a malicious design to favour certain persons. He would also submit that malafides on the part of the Official Respondents can be assumed straight away due to blatant and deliberate violation of the Statute. He would therefore urge the Court to set aside the entire Proceedings for the reasons indicated above. 5. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for Official Respondent Nos.1 to 5 has filed two Counter Affidavits dated 08.12.2023 & 04.01.2024. Sri Y. Phani Babu, leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that the total sanctioned posts of Conductor Grade-1 is 104 in number. Out of them, 60 posts are earmarked for Rajahmundry Division and 44 posts are earmarked for Kakinada Division. Sri Y. Phani Babu, leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that the total sanctioned posts of Conductor Grade-1 is 104 in number. Out of them, 60 posts are earmarked for Rajahmundry Division and 44 posts are earmarked for Kakinada Division. He would submit that out of 60 posts of Rajahmundry Division for Conductor Grade-1, there are only 36 Conductors of Grade-1 on rolls. Therefore 24 vacancies were sought to be filled by effecting promotions from Conductors Grade-ll in the erstwhile Rajahmundry Division. It is further submitted that out of 44 sanctioned posts for Conductors Grade-1 in Kakinada Division, 25 Conductors Grade-1 were on rolls and 19 vacancies were to be filled in the erstwhile Kakinada Division. 5.1. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioners herein belong to the erstwhile Kakinada Division and are the junior most than the 19 candidates selected in the Kakinada Division, which is the reason why the candidature of the Writ Petitioners was not considered in the present selection of Conductors Grade-1 promotions. It is further submitted that Divisional Seniority in respect of Kakinada and Rajahmundry Divisions has been fixed basing on the options given by the employees appointed in the erstwhile East Godavari Division, which is covered by the Depos of Amalapuram, Gokavaram, Rajahmundry, Ravulapalem, Razole, Eleshwaram, Kakinada, Ramachandrapuram and Tuni. It is further submitted that after 15.11.1994, the candidates who were appointed after the merger of all the Divisions in East Godavari Division, a single Regional Seniority List is maintained in the East Godavari Region. 5.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC has also drawn the attention of this Court to the documents which are annexed to the Counter Affidavit dated 04.01.2024. He would refer to two Circulars dated 22.04.1997 & 22.09.1997 and would submit that the said Circulars would contemplate maintaining of erstwhile Division Seniority in the posts of Drivers/Conductors/Cleaners/Mechanics and Artisans for the purpose of promotions till all those employees who were working in the above posts as on 14.11.1994 i.e., the date of issue of Circular abolishing Divisional set-up are promoted or ceased to be in service. The said Circular would also indicate that the Seniority of those employees who are recruited after 14.11.1994 in the categories specified above in the seven Regions shall be maintained as integrated Regional Seniority in terms of Circular No.PD0147-94, dated 23.12.1994. 5.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC has referred to Circular dated 22.09.1997 bearing Circular No.PD-65/1997 and would submit that insofar as the transfer of employees are concerned including Drivers/Conductors/Cleaners/Mechanics and Artisans, seven Regions shall be treated as seven Units since they have become Regional Seniority posts. However, the said Circular would indicate that insofar as the promotions are concerned, the Official Respondents shall follow the Divisional Seniority. Having made the said submissions, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would justify the impugned action of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in promoting the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 29 as Conductors Grade-1 from Grade-ll. Rejoinder of the Writ Petitioners: 6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, in his Rejoinder, has submitted Synopsis and list of dates to address the history of the APSRTC, which eventually got merged into Public Transport Department under Act No.36 of 2019. He would submit that prior to 15.11.1994, the APSRTC was divided into various Divisions for administrative purpose, for transfers and for promotions: that each Division was given a particular sanctioned strength of employees under various services; that the Kakinada Division and Rajahmundry Division which were in existence prior to 15.11.1994 came to be merged into what is called the East Godavari Region. Prior to the merger, Kakinada Division had the following Depos: 1) Kakinada, Tuni, Ramachandrapuram and Eleshwaram Depos; that the Rajahmundry Division had Rajahmundry, Amalapuram, Ravulapalem, Razole and Gokavaram Depos; that as stated earlier, vide Proceeding dated 14.11.1994, from 15.11.1994 onwards. East Godavari Region came into existence along with six other Regions in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide Act 36 of 2019 had brought into existence the enactment called the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Absorption of Employees into Government Service) Act, 2019 (Act No. 36 of 2019). Act No.36 of 2019 was published in the Official Gazette of the Andhra Pradesh on 27.12.2019. Relevant provisions of the Act 36 of 2019 are extracted hereunder: “3. Act No.36 of 2019 was published in the Official Gazette of the Andhra Pradesh on 27.12.2019. Relevant provisions of the Act 36 of 2019 are extracted hereunder: “3. Absorption of APSRTC Employees - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in "The Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings Into Public Service Act, 1997" (Act.No.14 of 1997), on and from the date of commencement of this Act, all the employees of the APSRTC shall stand absorbed into Government service into such department, as may be notified by the Government. 4. Application of Rules - Save as otherwise provided for by the government, by notification specifically applicable to the absorbed employees of APSRTC, all the rules made by or under any law for the time being in force applicable to the State Government employees shall be applicable to the employees of the APSRTC absorbed into government service by virtue of this Act. 5. Regulation of Service Conditions - It shall be competent for the Government to frame such rules to regulate the service conditions of the absorbed employees of APSRTC, and the same shall bind on the absorbed employees.” 8. He would submit that Section 3 of the Act No.36 of 2019 would clearly stipulate that all the employees of the APSRTC shall stand absorbed into Government service into such Department, as may be notified by the Government. Section 4 of the Act No.36 of 2019 would contemplate that the absorbed employees of APSRTC are governed by the same set of Rules and Regulations as are applicable to the State Government employees. 9. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that after bringing into force of Act No.36 of 2019, erstwhile East Godavari Region and Divisions of various districts was restricted to include Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District along with Kakinada District and East Godavari District. Analysis: 10. Facts which are not in dispute are that under the APSRTC, prior to 15.11.1994, there exists various Divisions on or about 15.11.1994, due to administrative exigencies, the then Government had done away the divisional system and had introduced various Regions. The whole erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was divided into seven Regions. Analysis: 10. Facts which are not in dispute are that under the APSRTC, prior to 15.11.1994, there exists various Divisions on or about 15.11.1994, due to administrative exigencies, the then Government had done away the divisional system and had introduced various Regions. The whole erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was divided into seven Regions. One of the seven Regions, East Godavari Region was formed in the year 1995, which included the erstwhile Kakinada Division and Rajahmundry Division; that insofar as administering of promotions are concerned, the Government had issued Circulars dated 22.04.1997 and 22.09.1997. The said Circulars would contemplate that insofar as the promotions are concerned, the Division shall be treated as Unit. The other admitted facts are to the effect that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has enacted Act No.36 of 2019, there by absorbing the employees of the APSRTC into Government Service. The provisions of the said Act would indicate that the law governing the service conditions of the Government employees of the State of Andhra Pradesh shall be made applicable even for the merged employees from APSRTC. 11. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that since the Act No.36 of 2019 had clearly contemplated that the Rules governing the State Government employees shall govern the merged employees of the APSRTC for effecting promotions also the same rules ought to have been followed or applied. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that since the State Government employees are governed by the Rules, 1996, the same Rules shall be made applicable for effecting promotions to the employees of the APSRTC as well. 12. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the procedure contemplated under Rules 24, 26, 33 & 34 of the Rules, 1996, which are usefully extracted hereunder: “24. 12. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the procedure contemplated under Rules 24, 26, 33 & 34 of the Rules, 1996, which are usefully extracted hereunder: “24. REVISION OF LISTS OF APPROVED CANDIDATES (PANELS) OR LIST OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION OR BY TRANSFER:- (a) The State Government shall have the power to revise in any manner they consider suitable, any panel of approved candidates for appointment by transfer or by promotion to any category class or service, prepared by a Head of the department or any other authority subordinate to the Head of the Department, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by the special rules or these rules: Provided that before revision of the panel is undertaken the cases for review should be placed before the D.P.C / Review D.P.C/Screening Committee and their recommendations obtained: Provided that where the panel is prepared by an authority subordinate to a Head of the Department, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the special rules, the aforesaid power of revision may be exercised by the Head of the Department. This will not preclude the State Government from exercising the powers of the revision aforesaid, against the orders either of the Head of the Department or of any other subordinate authority aforesaid. (b) The State Government and the Head of the Department shall have power to revise in any manner they consider suitable, any list of eligible candidates for promotion to any category, class or service in respect of the subordinate service, prepared in accordance with Rule-5. The aforesaid power of revision by the State Government could be exercised by them in respect of an order passed by the Head of the Department or by any other subordinate authority. (c) The aforesaid power or revision mentioned in sub-rule (a) and sub-rule (b), may be exercised by the State Government or by the Head of the Department on their own motion, at any time, or on an application made by the aggrieved person, within a period of six months from the date of the order of appointment or promotion of a person junior to the aggrieved person: Provided that the time limit of six months aforesaid may, for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, be waived by the State Government. Provided further where the panel referred to in sub-rule (a) has been partially utilised, any order of revision likely to affect a person who has already been appointed from such panel, shall be given an opportunity of making his representation against the proposed revision, before any order of revision is passed; Provided also that if any revision of list of eligible candidates mentioned in subrule (b) is likely to affect a person already promoted from the aforesaid list of eligible candidates, he shall be given an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed revision before any order of revision is passed: Provided also that where a panel has been prepared on the basis of the recommendations made by a DPC / Screening Committee any revision of such panel shall be made only after consultation with such D.P.C / Screening Committee. 26. APPEAL AGAINST SENIORITY OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF SERVICE:- (a) Except where other-wise provided in these or the special rules, an appeal shall lie against an order fixing the seniority of a person or affecting any conditions of service, passed by the appointing authority, to the authority to whom an appeal would lie against an order of dismissal passed against the member of the service, class or category., (b) The powers in sub-rule (a) shall be exercised by the Head of the Department, if he is not the appellate authority, or by the State Government on its own motion, or on an appeal received by the Head of the Department or the State Government, as the case may be. (c) The appellate authority, if it is not the Head of the Department or the Government shall dispose of such appeal within a maximum period of one year. If the appeal has not been disposed of within the aforesaid period, the Head of Department or the State Government may intervene in the matter, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing and take such action as may be considered necessary by them in the matter. (d) No appeal for restoration of seniority or assignment of notional seniority on par with his Junior shall be entertained by the appellate authority after a period of 90 days from the date on which junior was promoted. (d) No appeal for restoration of seniority or assignment of notional seniority on par with his Junior shall be entertained by the appellate authority after a period of 90 days from the date on which junior was promoted. (e) A Member of service may submit a revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, within three months of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, to the Government.]. (G.O.Ms.No.76, GA (Ser.D), Dept., Dt. 11.03.2003) 33. SENIORITY:- (a) The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. Provided that the seniority of a probationer or approved probationer in a service, class or category from which he stood reverted on the 1st November, 1956 or prior to that date, shall be determined in the statewide gazetted posts and non-gazetted posts in the Departments of the Secretariat and the offices of the Heads of Departments with reference to the notional date of continuous officiation with or without breaks in that service, class or category prior to the 1st November, 1956 to the date of re-appointment made thereafter, but it shall not disturb inter-seniority which obtained in the Andhra State. (This proviso shall be in force till October, 1996). (b) The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason the order of preference among them; and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it; Provided further that the order of merit or order of preference indicated in a list of selected candidates prepared by the Public Service Commission or other selecting authority, shall not be disturbed inter-se with reference to the candidates position in such list or panel while determining the seniority in accordance with this rule and notional dates of commencement of probation to the extent necessary, shall be assigned to the persons concerned, with reference to the order of merit or order of preference assigned to them in the said list. (c) Whenever notional date of promotion is assigned, such date of notional promotion shall be taken into consideration for computing the qualifying length of service in the feeder category for promotion to the next higher category and that the notional service shall be counted for the purpose of declaration of probation also in the feeder category. (d) The transfer of a person from one class or category of a service to another class or category of the same service, carrying the same pay of scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter class or category for purpose of seniority and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the date of his regular appointment in the class or category from which he was transferred. Where any difficulty arises in applying this sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the Government, if they are the appointing authority and in other cases, the authority next higher to the appointing authority shall determine the seniority. (e) Where a member of a service, class or category is reduced for a specific period, to a lower service, class or category or grade:- (i) in cases where the reduction does not operate to postpone future increment, the seniority of such member on re-promotion shall, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise, be fixed in the higher service, class or category at which it would have been fixed but for his reduction. (ii) in cases where the reduction operates to postpone future increment, the seniority of such member on re-promotion shall, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise, be fixed by giving credit for the period of service earlier rendered by him in the higher service, class or category. (f) Seniority of a retrenched and reappointed person: The seniority of a member of a service who is re-appointed after having been retrenched, owing to reduction of staff as a measure of economy, shall be determined in accordance with the date of such reappointment. (f) Seniority of a retrenched and reappointed person: The seniority of a member of a service who is re-appointed after having been retrenched, owing to reduction of staff as a measure of economy, shall be determined in accordance with the date of such reappointment. Provided that the inter-se seniority of such members absorbed in the same service, class or category shall be determined - (i) In any case in which re-appointment of such members was mad in consultation with Public Service Commission or the other selecting authority, in accordance with the order of merit or the order of preference indicated by the said Public Service Commission or other selecting authority; and (ii) in any other case, in accordance with the total length of service, in the same, equivalent or higher service, class or category put in by such member prior to retrenchment, (g) The seniority of an approved candidate, who takes up military service before joining his appointment to any service, class or category shall, on his appointment to such service, class or category, on his return from the said military service, be determined in accordance with the order of preference shown in the authoritative list of candidates approved for appointment to the service, class or category. 34. PREPARATION OF INTEGRATED OR COMMON SENIORITY LIST OF PERSONS BELONGING TO DIFFERENT UNITS OF APPOINTMENT: Where as integrated or common seniority list of a particular class, or category or grade in any service belonging to different units of appointment has to be prepared for the purpose of promotion or appointment by transfer, to a class or category having different units of appointment or for any other purpose, such an integrated or common seniority list shall be prepared with reference to the provision of sub-rule (a) of rule 33, provided that the seniority list of the persons inter-se belonging to the same units shall not be disturbed. Explanation: The principle specified in this rule shall be applicable even where a common integrated list is required to be prepared for categories in different services classes or categories.” 13. Explanation: The principle specified in this rule shall be applicable even where a common integrated list is required to be prepared for categories in different services classes or categories.” 13. It is submitted that the procedure contemplated for effecting promotions commences with the constitution of Selection Committee and consideration of the personal files of each of the employees who come within the Zone of consideration, grant of sufficient time for aggrieved employees in respect of the provisional seniority to raise objections, consideration of objections and the then final publication of the Seniority List. 14. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Official Respondents have not followed all these procedures. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Government is obligated to prepare integrated Seniority List belonging to the different units apart from preparing Seniority List for each unit. Learned Counsel would submit that the Government has not undertaken this exercise so far. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents filed along with the Writ Petition to indicate that in the initial list sent by the office of the Regional Manager, Rajahmundry, dated 29.04.2023 (Ex.P.1), the names of the Writ Petitioners have figured from SI.No.25 to 72, whereas in the impugned Proceedings dated 15.05.2023 (Exs.P.2 & P.3), the names of the Writ Petitioners are missing and also the names of the candidates who are not found in the Proceeding dated 29.04.2023, have been included, thereby promoting them. 15. It is the submission of the Writ Petitioners that except Respondent No.6, 10 & 11, the other Unofficial Respondents are Juniors to the Writ Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would also submit that for the purpose of reckoning seniority, the Respondents ought to have considered the dates of appointment. The law contemplates that the Seniority shall be reckoned only based on the date of appointment. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would also submit that for the purpose of reckoning seniority, the Respondents ought to have considered the dates of appointment. The law contemplates that the Seniority shall be reckoned only based on the date of appointment. He would also draw the attention of this Court to the Rule 33 of the Rules, 1996 (extracted supra), which clearly indicate that the seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade, shall, unless he had been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade, He would submit that when once the employees of APSRTC have become the employees of the Government as per the Act No.36 of 2019, the Rules, 1996 shall apply to the employees of the APSRTC as per the Act No.36 of 2019; that reference to old Circulars and the old arrangement by the Government is contrary to law, illegal and irrational. He would submit that in the name of Circulars, fixing the seniority based on Divisions after the Act No.36 of 2019 had come into force is completely unacceptable. 16. This Court has perused the contents of the Act No.36 of 2019. This Court has also noted the fact that vide Proceeding dated 01.04.2022, the Government had given Orders to the Managing Director of APSRTC stating that all the employees of the Public Transport Department are recognised as employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and are governed by the Rules, 1996, and there cannot be any division in this regard. The exercise which is undertaken by the Official Respondents commencing from 29.04.2023 (Ex.P.1) and the subsequent Proceedings dated 15.05.2023 do not indicate anywhere that the Selection Committee has issued Proceedings after taking into consideration the personal files of all the Conductors Grade-ll for the purpose of promotion to Conductors Grade-1. It does not indicate anywhere that the procedure laid down under the Rules, 1996 have been followed by preparing and publishing the Provisional Seniority List etc.,. 17. The Proceeding of the Government does not indicate that the Official Respondents have invited objections from the aggrieved persons from out of the Provisional Seniority List and the publication of the Final Seniority List. The impugned Proceeding would indicate that the mandatory statutory procedures have been given a complete go-by by the Official Respondents. 17. The Proceeding of the Government does not indicate that the Official Respondents have invited objections from the aggrieved persons from out of the Provisional Seniority List and the publication of the Final Seniority List. The impugned Proceeding would indicate that the mandatory statutory procedures have been given a complete go-by by the Official Respondents. Although it is the contention of the Writ Petitioners that except the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6, 10 & 11 all the other Unofficial Respondents are Juniors to the Writ Petitioners herein, neither the Writ Petitioners nor the Official Respondents have placed on record the comparative list of the Writ Petitioners and Unofficial Respondents to indicate the initial dates of joining into service as Conductors Grade-II. 18. At this stage, Sri Y. Phani Babu, leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC has placed on record the Official Gazette published on 27.10.2023 indicating that by virtue of Act No.41 of 2023, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has amended the Act No.36 of 2019. Two provisos were added to Section 5 of the Act No.36 of 2019, which are usefully extracted hereunder: ACT No. 41 of 2023. AN ACT FURTHER TO AMEND THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (ABSORPTION OF EMPLOYEES INTO GOVERNMENT SERVICE) ACT, 2019. Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Seventy fourth Year of Republic of India as follows,- 1. (1) This Act may be called the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Absorption of Employees into Government Service) (Amendment) Act, 2023. (Short title and commencement) (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force with effect on and from the 27th December, 2019. 2. In the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Absorption of Employees into Government Service) Act, 2019, the following provisos shall be added to section 5. (Amendment of Section 5. Act No.36 of 2019) "Provided that the APSRTC Employees' (Service) Regulations, 1964, APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and APSRTC Employees' (CC&A) Regulations, 1967 shall continue to govern the Service conditions of the employees of Andhra Pradesh Public Transport Department (APPTD) until further rules consequent to the absorption are framed by the Government under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act 36 of 2019. Provided further that no disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be invalidated solely on the grounds of the initiation of the said proceedings by the respective appointing authorities/disciplinary authorities as notified under the APSRTC Regulations previously applicable to the said employees absorbed into Government service, Public Transport Department.". 3. (I)xxxxxx. (2) xxxxxx. 19. In this regard, it must be held that the amended Act No.41 of 2023 was issued on 27.10.2023 with effect from 27.12.2019, whereas the impugned Orders, admittedly, were passed on 15.05.2023, for which the provisos which are introduced in the amending Act No.41 of 2023 may also be made applicable, in which event, the Official Respondents are required to give effect to the APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964. 20. After merger has taken place, it is impermissible on the part of the Official Respondents to contend and justify that they have effected the promotions basing on the understanding or arrangement between the Corporation and the Unions. When once the merger takes place and the Government has issued Proceedings making the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules, 1996 applicable to the facts of the case, the Official Respondents are not permitted to revert back to any such understandings or arrangements with the Unions, as the said arrangements have become obsolete and redundant after bringing in into force the Act.36 of 2019. 21. It is once again reiterated that the promotions shall be based on seniority in that particular class of cadre or post. Therefore, what becomes relevant is the date on which an employee has taken birth on the cadre of Conductor Grade-11 notwithstanding Divisional Seniority or Regional Seniority. It is noticed by this Court that the impugned Proceedings are blissfully silent about the date of appointment in the last post or cadre. 22. In the above premise, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Proceeding dated 15.05.2023 (Ex.P.2) is unsustainable in law, and therefore, accordingly quashed. In the light of the above findings, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions: i) It is mandatory on the part of the Official Respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules, 1996 or the APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964. In the light of the above findings, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions: i) It is mandatory on the part of the Official Respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules, 1996 or the APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964. ii) That each Region shall be treated as a Unit for the purpose of fixation of cadre strength, appointments and promotions etc., iii) The Official respondents are directed to follow the settled law inasmuch as the date of appointment/date of joining in the service/cadre/post shall be the date to be considered for fixation of seniority as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para Nos.80 & 81 in Suraj Parkash Gupta and others Vs. State of J&K and Others : (2000) 7 SCO 561. iv) The Respondents shall also prepare integrated Seniority List for the cadre of Conductors for entire State in accordance with the Rules, 1996 or the APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964. 23. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No Order as to Costs. 24. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.