Date of reserved for orders Date of pronouncement Date of uploading APHC010372542022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 28 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 22710/2022 BETWEEN: 1. D.VIJAYA BHARATH REDDY, S/o.NAGESWARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC:SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL EDUCATION) WORKING AT NANDYALA MUNCIPAL H SCHOOL, NOONE PATH MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, (FORMALLY KURNOOL DISTRICT). 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, DISTRICT. (FORMALLY KURNOOL DISTRICT) 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT Date of reserved for orders : 22.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 28.07.2026 : 28.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 22710/2022 D.VIJAYA BHARATH REDDY, S/o.NAGESWARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC:SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL EDUCATION) WORKING AT NANDYALA MUNCIPAL H SCHOOL, NOONE PATH MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, (FORMALLY KURNOOL DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, DISTRICT. (FORMALLY KURNOOL DISTRICT) THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO D.VIJAYA BHARATH REDDY, S/o.NAGESWARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC:SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL EDUCATION) WORKING AT NANDYALA MUNCIPAL HIGH SCHOOL, NOONE PATH MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, MUNICIPAL ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of notional seniority and notional pay fixation to the petitioner based on his merit along with the candidates recruited through DSC-2012 batch as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, against the Article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India and against the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in between BimleshTanwar vs State of Haryana and Ors dt.10.03.2003 and consequently direct the respondents to assign notional seniority and notional pay fixation on par with recruited through DSC-2012 batch of teachers along with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed to issue a writ or direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of notional seniority and notional pay fixation to the petitioner based on his merit along with the candidates recruited through DSC-2012 batch, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust against the Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the judgment rendered by the Honble Apex Court in between Bimlesh Tanwar vs State of Haryana and Ors., dated 10.03.2003 and consequently to direct the respondents to assign notional seniority and notional pay fixation on par with recruited through DSC-2012 batch of teachers along with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders. 2. The grievance of writ petitioner is that he got selected as School Assistant through DSC-2012 but his appointment was rejected vide proceedings in Rc.No.9724/A1/2012 dated 10.03.2015 though he secured 2nd rank with 68 marks. In spite of he stood as meritorious in the DSC-2012, the respondents have not given the post as School Assistant. 3. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has challenged the same before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2017 in O.A. No.5177 of 4 2017, directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the roster point No.9 in O.C.(G) as per merit and the 3rd respondent issued posting orders vide proceeding in Rc.No.7600/A1/DSC/2011 dated 23.01.2018. 4. Now the petitioner is seeking notional seniority and pay fixation on par with batch of candidates recruited though DSC-2012 on the grounds that there is no fault on the petitioner and on account of litigation made by the responders which were beyond the control of the petitioner, he was not been appointed along with other batch mates of the notification. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to grant notional seniority and pay fixation on par with batch of candidates recruited though DSC-2012 and the counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar vs State of Haryana1 the findings and observations of the Apex Court in Bimlesh Tanwar’s case is that “a settled seniority position should not be unsettled” and the petitioners having been found that the writ petitioners had an arguable case on merits, it was dismissed on the ground of laches. 5. And also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh Narwal Vs State of Haryana2, the Apex Court while 1 (2003) 5 SCC 604 2 (2008) 7 SCC 728 5 referring to the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Surendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar3, where in these two cases, it is held that “who were not appointed though who were selected against earlier vacancies but who could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies. 6. The case of the petitioner is that due to the fault of the respondents, he could not be appointed along with other selectees in the DSC-2012, and due to the intervention of the Administrative Tribunal, he got selected that it cannot be attributed to the petitioner that it is due to wrong fixation of roster, the petitioner appointment was delayed, therefore the petitioner before this Court to direct the respondents to give notional seniority and notional pay on par with other selected candidates in DSC-2012. In the above three judgments that relied by the petitioner’s counsel, it can be culled out that the seniority that was fixed cannot be disturbed. Even in the case of Balwant Singh Narwal Vs State of Haryana (referred supra-2), the Apex Court directed to place the candidates who were selected in the earlier list to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies. 3 (1998) 5 SCC 246 6 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and other Vs Tarsem Singh4 summarized the principles with regard to delay & latches in the following manner:- "7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc.., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears 4 (2008) 8 SCC 648 7 normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition." 8. The 3rd respondent District Educational Officer filed counter asserting that the seniority of the petitioner shall be counted from the date of joining in the post as per Rule 33(a) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 and petitioner is eligible from the date of joining only and the petitioner has duly obeyed that he will abide by the conditions that imposes in the appoint order and the petitioner cannot without questioning the conditions in the appointment order cannot seek the relief for notional seniority and notional payment and as per Rule 33(a) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules 1991 the seniority of the petitioner shall be reckoned form the date of joining into duty, therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. The learned Government Pleader Sri G.V.L. Murthy would submit that the petitioner has approached this Court with delay and the laches applies and further it was apprised to this Court, that the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 26.12.2018 to the respondents to seeking permission to pursue Court action for benefits from December 2012. Given that representation on 26.12.2018 that the present writ petition was filed in the year 2018 four (4) years after the representation and the seniority that list was prepared cannot be disturbed after lapse of 4 years, and further stated petitioner had previously provided a written 8 undertaking to abide by the conditions stipulated in his appointment order, in spite of the said undertaken the writ petitioner has approached this Court. The learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa5. The Apex Court after referring the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tarem Singh case referred supra-4) has non-suited the petitioner therein on the ground of delay and latches emphasising that in service matters delay is vital juxtaposed with the sign of acquiescence, however the Apex Court power conferred under Article 142 of Constitution of India has given some directions to the State. 10. The counsel for the petitioner argued in response to the learned government pleader, that would argue that the petitioner could only challenge after attaining permanent employment after declaration of the probation and the probation of the petitioner was declared in the year 2021, therefore, it is contended that there has been no delay or laches on the part of the writ petitioner in seeking the relief. 11. On hearing both the counsel for the petitioner and respondents the Court after giving thoughtful consideration and drawing upon observations from the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, when the issue relates to payment or re fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third 5 (2023) 18 SCC 420 9 parties. But, if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Even, in the case of Balwant Singh Narwal (referred supra-2), the Apex Court observed that when the appointment is delayed for technical difficulties that selected candidate shall be appointed subsequently, will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies. 12. Applying the aforementioned principle, the Court directs the respondents to grant the notional seniority to the petitioner equivalent to the candidates selected under DSC-2012, placing the petitioner’s seniority at the end of the selected list prepared in DSC-2012 and it will not affect the upon the rights of others and as rightly argued by the petitioner’s counsel, petitioner was deprived of his seniority and payment to the incorrect fixation of the roster by the Nandyal Municipality, a situation for which the petitioner bears no fault and especially the petitioner was given appointment pursuant to the direction issued by the Administrative Tribunal. The counsel for the petitioner is advised to maintain decency and decorum and professional conduct while addressing the Court. 13. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant notional seniority and notional pay fixation to the petitioner and it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any 10 payment or arrears, and the said fixation of notional seniority and payment is only for the purpose of pension related benefits. There shall be no order to as costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 28.07.2026 Harin 11 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 22710 OF 2022 Date: 28-07-2026 Harin