APHC010024362023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 1398/2023 Between: K Jagannatha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. The present writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ or Writs Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the seniority list issued by the 4th Respondent vide Rc.No.455/RFO/SR/2020 dated 5.7.2021 as bad, arbitrary and contrary to Rules under A P State Disaster Response and Fire Services Rules r/w A P State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 and also offends Arts 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith rectify the mistake and fix the seniority of the petitioner at appropriate place basing on the seniority list of 1995 and 2019 in the interest of justice and pass such other orders. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially the respondents have prepared the seniority list of Firemen pertaining to the District of Ananathapur on 25.04.2019. According to the said list, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1. But, surprisingly the respondents have issued another seniority list showing the petitioner’s name at Sl.No.103. Again the respondents have issued another seniority list on 23.09.2021 showing the petitioner at Sl.No.113, far below to his juniors. The same is contrary to Rule 34 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules – Revised Rules 1996 (for short, “the Rules”). Rule 34 of Rules, 1996 is extracted hereunder:- “34. Preparation of Integrated or Common Seniority list of persons belonging to different units of appointment reads as under: Whereas 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.” 3. As per the above said rule, the integrated seniority list has to be prepared without disturbing the seniority list prepared in the unit as per Rule 33(a) of Rules, 1996. In the unit seniority list, the petitioner being at Sl.No.1 but surprisingly while preparing the integrated seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.113 and some of the juniors were brought on the above to the petitioner and the same was brought to the notice of the respondents by way of a representation but the respondents have not considered the representation of the petitioner. Hence, the final seniority list dated 23.09.2021 is contrary to Rule 34 of the Rules, 1996. 4. Though the respondents have filed their counter, they also relied on Rules 34 and 36 of Rules, 1996. But, there is no mention about the deviation of seniority list in the unit. They have stated that the objections of the petitioner have been considered and stated that the respondents have considered 1993 batch of Firemen and prepared the seniority list as per Rules 33, (ii) 34 and (iii) of the Rules, 1996. 5. On perusal of the above averments in the counter, there is no clarity with regard to the consideration of the petitioner’s objection while finalizing the seniority list. In the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter and dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the objections filed by the petitioner more particularly in view of Rule 34 of Rules, 1996 and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________ D. RAMESH,J Date:12.02.2026 Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH 28 WRIT PETITION No.1398 OF 2023 Date:12.02.2026 Gk