@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Writ Petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has assailed the validity of the show-cause notice dated 15-12-1997 in which it is stated that the petitioner is a native of West
Godavari district whereas he obtained job in Nalgonda region and therefore it breaches the domicile requirement. Regulation 8 (1) of the APSRTC
Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 makes it very clear that any citizen of India could apply to the post in the establishment of the
APSRTC. However sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 8 provides that other things being equal, preference shall be given to a candidate who is
domiciled in the State of Andhra Pradesh and who is conversant with atleast one of the regional languages. There is no dispute that the petitioner is
an Andhrite and hails from West Godavari district. Therefore the petitioner was quite competent to apply and seek appointment to the post of
Conductor. The impugned steps now taken to terminate his services only on the ground that he is a native of West Godavari district and not a
native of Nalgonda region cannot be sustained only on the basis of certain circulars administrative instructions issued by the Management of the
APSRTC completely violating the entitlement conferred upon the petitioner under Regulation 8 (1) of the APSRTC. Employees Recruitment
Regulations, 1966. No useful purpose will be served by permitting the respondent-management to pursue further in pursuance of the impugned
show-cause notice. Hence the writ petition is allowed and the impugned show cause notice is quashed. No costs.