SPAPHC010326102022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 22393/2022 Between: 1. VIJAYA KRISHNA VENI YARASANI,, W /O, P. JOSEPH RAJU AGED 53 YEARS, OCC- DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, 0/0 ASST. COMMISSIONER (ST), BENZ CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA II DIVISION, LABBIPETA, VIJAYAWADA, R/O D.NO.48-13-21, FLAT NO.302, KUCHIPUDI ENCLAVE, NEAR AYUSH HOSPITAL, SRI RAMA CHANDRA NAGAR, GUNADALA VIJAYAWADA-520008, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. KONDA VIJAYALAKSHMI,, W/O D. BHASKAR, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC- DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, O/O ASST. COMMISSIONER (ST), ELURU CIRCLE, ELURU DIVISION, R/O FLAT NO.402, PRAGATHI SIVA APARTMENTS, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3. VIJAYA BHARATHI NALLAMOLU,, D/O N. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC- DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER O/O ASST. COMMISSIONER (ST), AKIVIDU CIRCLE, R/O D.NO.10-474, GUMMALURU ROAD, OPP- FIRE STATION, AKIVIDU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. KUMARI MADDALA,, W/O K. SAYANNA, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC- DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, O/O ASST. COMMISSIONER (ST), IBRAHIMPATNAM CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA-1 DIVISION, KRISHNA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, R/O D.NO.48-16-10/8, SRI KESAVA RAM HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, FLAT NO.303, SRI RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, MAHANADU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520008, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. GANGA VENKATA RAMANA KUMARI YANDRA,, W/OY BHASKAR RAMA RAO,AGED 56 YEARS, OCC- DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, O/O ASST. COMMISSIONER (ST), AUTONAGAR CIRCLE, KRISHNA NAGAR, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA-2 DIVISION, R/O SRI LAKSHMI 2 NARASIMHA NILAYAM, PLOT NO.46, J.D. NAGAR-2, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. PETITIONER NO.1 AND PETITIONER NO.4 WITHDRAWN AS PER C.O. DT 06.09.2024 VIDE IA NO. 3 OF 2024 AND IA NO. 2 OF 2024 RESPECTIVELY IN WP NO. 22393 OF 2022 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT (GAD), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAX) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, VIJAYAWADA, NODAL DIVISION, ZONE-II, VIJAYAWADA. 5. ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJ AYAWADA. 6. K S R N SATISH BABU, S/O. AND AGE NOT KNOWN WORKING AS DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, O/O. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), VUYYURU CIRCLE, BESIDE KADURE ROAD, VUYYURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 7. T SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN WORKING AS DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, O/O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), KAKINADA CIRCLE, RAMANAYYAPETA, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. D SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, O/O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), INDRAKEELADRI CIRCLE, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, VIJ AYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 9. B SAKUNTALADUDUMURU, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.D.V.RAMANA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO. 9 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 3 06.09.2024 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN WP NO.22393 OF 2022. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toprayed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Memo No.1112077/ Ser.A/2020 dated 04.08.2021 issued by the 1st respondent/General Administration (Ser.A) Department and the consequential proceedings dated 06.10.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent and proceedings dated 25.01.2022 throUgh which revised seniority list of ACTOs of Zone-I appointed in 2001. and 2005 in pursuance of APPSC Notification No.10/99 issued by 4th respondent and other proceedings issued and to be issued based upon such revised seniority list dated 25.01.2022 as bad, illegal, unfair, contrary to the spirit and object of Rule 33, amounting to misinterpreting/ misunderstanding the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.02.2015 and contrary to the opinion and view of the APPSC and unconstitutional and accordingly set them aside and consequently direct the official respondents not to disturb the earlier seniority positions of the petitioners (2001 appointees) in the cadre of ACTO vis-a-vis the party respondents No.6 to 8 (i.e. 2005 appointees of ACTOs) and also maintain the seniority positions of the DCTOs, maintain hitherto and to make promotions to CTO and effect promotions to the cadre of CTO based on the earlier settled seniority positions of the petitioners in the cadre of ACTO and DCTO with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ of Mandamus or issue any Writ, Order or Direction and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents not to effect promotions basing on the impugned revised seniority list dated 25.01.2022 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2021 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as clause pertaining to seniority is concerned and the consequential proceedings dated 06.10.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2022 4 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the impugned revised seniority list dated 25.01.2022 issued by the 4th respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased prayed that this Honourable Court may kindly grant to leave in filing of counter affidavit and permit this respondent to file the counter affidavit in captioned writ petition for proper adjudication of the matter in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to implead me as Respondent No.9 in the above Writ Petition No.22393 / 2022 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the 4th petitioner to withdraw in the above said Writ Petition i.e. W.P.No. 22393/2022 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the 1st petitioner to withdraw in the above said Writ Petition i.e. W.P.No. 22393/2022 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Be pleased to suspend the Impugned proceedings Rc.No. 100/2021/A4 dt. 18.12.2024, of the joint commissioner (ST), Guntur-I (Nodal) Division, Guntur and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. C SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 5 2. V.VENKATA NAGA RAJU (SC FOR APPSC) 3. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI 4. T S N SUDHAKAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15402/2022 Between: 1. KALAGOTLA NOORJAHAN, W /O R. CHANDRA MUNI AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER O/O ASST. COMMISSIONER (ST), PRODDATUR-1 CIRCLE, KADAPA DIVISION, PRODDATUR-516360, KADAPA DISTRICT, R/O DOOR NO.C-107, 1ST FLOOR, DHARA APARTMENTS, MYDUKUR ROAD, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT (GAD), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAX) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX STATE TAX, ZONE-IV, KURNOOL DIVISION, KURNOOL. 5. ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. VIJAYAWADA. 6. M VENUGOPAL REDDY, S/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, AN O/O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST)-I, KADAPA CIRCLE, SMITH ROAD, GROUND FLOOR, OPP. YSR GUEST HOUSE, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 7. D SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, 0/0 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), DHARMAVARAM CIRLCE (OLD NAME), PUTTAPARTHY CIRCLE (NEW NAME) NEAR POTHUKUNTA RAILWAY GATE, OPP. RURAL POLICE STATION, DHARMAVARAM, 6 ANANTAPUR, PINCODE - 515671. 8. K MURALI KRISHNA, S/O 86 AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, 0/0 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KURNOOL-III, CT COMPLEX, NH-7, GOOTY ROAD, KURNOOL. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toprayed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Memo No.1112077/ Ser.A/2020 dated 04.08.2021 issued by the 1st respondent/General Administration (Ser.A) Department and the consequential proceedings dated 06.10.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent and proceedings dated 05.01.2022 through which revised seniority list of ACTOs of Zone-IV appointed in 2001 and 2005 in pursuance of APPSC Notification No.10/99 issued by 3rd respondent and other proceedings issued and to be issued based upon such revised seniority list dated 05.01.2022 as bad, illegal, unfair, contrary to the spirit and object of Rule 33, amounting to misinterpreting/ misunderstanding the Judgement of Honourable Supreme Court dated 18.02.2015 and contrary to the opinion and view of the APPSC and unconstitutional and accordingly set them aside and consequently direct the official respondents not to disturb the earlier seniority positions of the petitioners (2001 appointees) in the cadre of ACTO vis-a-vis the party respondents No.6 to 8 (i.e. 2005 appointees of ACTOs) and also maintain the seniority positions of the DCTOs, maintain hitherto and to make promotions to CTO and effect promotions to the cadre of CTO based on the earlier settled seniority positions of the petitioners in the cadre of ACTO and DCTO with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ of Mandamus or issue any Writ, Order or Direction and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents not to effect promotions basing on the impugned revised seniority list dated 05.01.2022 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the impugned revised seniority list dated 05.01.2022 issued by the 4th respondent and pass such IA NO: 3 OF 2022 7 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2021 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as clause pertaining to seniority is concerned and the consequential proceedings dated 05.01.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant the leave and permit this petitioner (Respondent No. 5 in WP No. 15402/2022) to file the counter affidavit in captioned writ petition for proper adjudication of the matter in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. V.VENKATA NAGA RAJU (SC FOR APPSC) 3. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 17925/2022 Between: 1. SUVARNA REDNAM, W/O P. ANANDA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC. DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, 0/0 ASST. COMMISSIONER (ST), M. G. ROAD EAST CIRCLE, VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM R/O FLAT NO.202, SRI NILAYA COMPLEX, 5TH LANE, DWARKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-530016 2. GAJALAKSHMI VELIDI,, W/O P. JAGADEESH BABU, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, O/O ASST. COMMISSIONER (ST), DABAGARDENS CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM, OD AT A.P. VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM R/O FLAT NO.301, SAI DEEP APARTMENTS, DOCTORS COLONY, NEAR VISAKHA EYE HOSPITAL, PEDAWALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. VENUGOPAL RAO PERIYALA,, S/O P. ANANTAYYA, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC. DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, 0/O ASST. COMMISSIONER (ST), WEST CIRCLE, M. G. ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM, R/O FLAT NO.102, AICHEMILLA APARTMENTS, 8 OPP. Z.P. SCHOOL, NEAR RAMALAYAM, YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530045. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT (GAD), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAX) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM NODAL DIVISION, ZONE-I, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. 6. K VENKATA RAMANA, S/O AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), 0/O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NARASANNAPETA CIRCLE, VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, R/O SRI DEVI NAGAR, OPP. BHAGYA LAKSHMI KALYANA MANDAPAM, NARASANNAPETA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. T DHARMA RAO, S/O AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, O/O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), CHINAWALTAIR CIRCLE, KARVI HOUSE, SECTOR-8, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 8. Y MANMADHA RAO, S/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DY. ASST. COMMISSIONER, 0/O JOINT COMMISSIONER, VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, KOPPU GURANNA BUILDINGS, SIDDARDHANAGAR, LOWER TANK BUND ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toFor the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is humbly prayed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Memo No.1112077/ Ser.A/2020 dated 04.08.2021 issued by the 1st respondent/General Administration (Ser.A) Department and the consequential proceedings dated 9 06.10.2021 issued by the 3rci respondent and proceedings dated 16.12.2021 through which revised seniority list of ACTOs of Zone-I appointed in 2001 and 2005 in pursuance of APPSC Notification No.10/99 issued by 4th respondent and other proceedings issued and to be issued based upon such revised seniority list dated 16.12.2021 as bad, illegal, unfair, contrary to the spirit and object of Rule 33, amounting to misinterpreting/ misunderstanding the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.02.2015 and contrary to the opinion and view of the APPSC and unconstitutional and accordingly set them aside and consequently direct the official respondents not to disturb the earlier seniority positions of the petitioners (2001 appointees) in the cadre of ACTO vis-a-vis the party respondents No.6 to 8 (i.e. 2005 appointees of ACTOs) and also maintain the seniority positions of the DCTOs, maintain hitherto and to make promotions to CTO and effect promotions to the cadre of CTO based on the earlier settled seniority positions of the petitioners in the cadre of ACTO and DCTO with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ of Mandamus or issue any Writ, Order or Direction and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents not to effect promotions basing on the impugned revised seniority list dated 16.12.2021 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the impugned revised seniority list dated 16.12.2021 issued by the 4th respondent and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2021 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as clause pertaining to seniority is concerned and the consequential proceedings dated 06.10.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the impugned G.O.MS.No. 51 dated 24.02.2025 and to stay further impugned proceedings effecting promotions and pass 10 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V.VENKATA NAGA RAJU (SC FOR APPSC) 2. 3. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Motupalli Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents. 2. Since the issue raised in all the writ petitions is one and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all these writ petitions by way of a common order, taking W.P.No.15402 of 2022 as lead petition. 3. Vide impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2021, the inter-se seniority between the candidates was determined in terms of the provisions of Rule 33(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1996"). These proceedings were issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 18.02.2015 in Civil Appeal No.5099 of 2006 and Civil Appeal Nos.5100, 5101 of 2006. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that she was appointed pursuant to Recruitment Notification No.10/99, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) on 28.12.1999, seeking to fill up the posts of Group-II, in the cadre of Executive and Non-executive. 11 5. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner had applied and participated in the selection process. The number of vacancies notified under the said notification was specified as “awaited”, except in respect of three categories/cadres including Assistant Commercial Tax Officers (ACTOs), Municipal Commissioners Grade-III, and another category. The petitioner was selected in the said selection process and was appointed in the year 2001 as an ACTO based on her merit. The petitioner's probation was declared vide proceedings dated 08.06.2004. The final Zonal Seniority List of Zone-IV in the cadre of ACTO was finalized in the year 2012. In the said Zonal Seniority List, the petitioner was placed above certain subsequent appointees, who were appointed as ACTOs in the year 2005, in terms of Rule 33(a) of the Rules, 1996. The said seniority list has become final in the year 2005 and was never challenged.Based on her seniority, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (DCTO) on 03.01.2009. The candidates, who were appointed as ACTOs in the year 2005 under the same recruitment notification, were promoted as DCTOs much later than the petitioner. 6. It is contended that the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), while issuing Notification No.10/99, except in respect of three cadres, the vacancies in the rest of the cadres were shown as “awaited”. Consequently, pursuant to the Notification No.10/99, recruitment was conducted in different spells. The procedure adopted for recruitment, under Notification No.10/99 was challenged and the issue had ultimately landed before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Certain issues were raised with regard 12 to application of Presidential Order, 1975, as available on the date of issuance of Notification No.10/99.The Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 18.02.2015, issued final directions, disposing of the appeals directing the respondents to fill up the rest of the posts, as per, the Presidential Order, 1975. 7. In view of the specific directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, appointments to the Posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers (ACTOs), Municipal Commissioners Grade-III, Assistant Labour Officers in executive cadre and Assistant Section Officers in non-executive cadre, which were vacant, as per the Presidential Order, 1975 and the Government Orders prevailing in the year 1999, were made. The inter-se seniority between the persons appointed in the 1st round and the persons appointed afterwards in the same cadre, if any, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the same, shall be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with the Rules, depending on the merit ranking obtained by them. 8. In pursuance thereof, the APPSC issued a letter dated 10.05.2018 stating that the seniority of the appointees'in the first spell shall not be disturbed. However, the General Administration Department (GAD) of the Government issued Memo dated 04.08.2021directed that Rule 33(b) of the Rules,1996, should be followed in preparing the seniority list.Aggrieved by the said Memo dated 04.08.2021 issued by the GAD, the present writ petition is filed. 13 9. Sri J.Sudheer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Hon’ble Apex Court did not hold that inter-se seniority should be determined solely on the basis of merit. He submits that the candidates who were appointed at different points of time cannot be considered as appointed simultaneously in order to apply the provisions of Rule 33(b) of the Rules, 1996. Even if merit is to be considered, it can only be applied among those candidates who were appointed on the same day. The merit of such candidates cannot be equated with those candidates who were appointed later. 10. Learned Senior Counsel further argues that since the petitioner was appointed and her probation was declared on 08.06.2004, those appointed in the second spell were not even in service at that time, should not be equated with the petitioner and they should not be placed above her in the seniority list. He further submits that Rule 33(a) of the Rules, 1996, is applicable to the present case and Rule 33(b) of the Rules, 1996 has no application, inasmuch as the petitioner and the unofficial respondents were never appointed simultaneously. There is a huge gap of four (4) years between their appointments. Therefore, Rule 33(b) of the Rules, 1996 would not apply. 11. Sri Motupalli Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submits that the appointments made in the year 2005 were also pursuant to Notification No.10/99. He contends that in accordance with Rule 33(b) of the Rules, merit alone is the basic criterion for 14 determination of inter-se seniority in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.Surender Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1 . It is further submitted that merit cannot, in any event, be disregarded and that inter-se seniority has to be finalized in terms of Rule 33(b) of the Rules. 12. Learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on Rule 36 of the Rules, 1996 and contends that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed that the seniority list has to be prepared on the basis of merit. Since, both the petitioners and the unofficial respondents were appointed under the same notification, their appointments should be deemed simultaneously as specified under Rule 33(b) of the Rules, 1996. 13. It is contended by the respondents that in compliance with the directions of this Court dated 08.07.2003 in W.P.Nos.2868 and 2904 of 2002, the APPSC initiated steps for making selections for the posts under Notification No.10/99 of APPSC and in that process, it revised the earlier selections made in 2001 and 2002 so as to make the entire selections on the basis of one merit list. The said revision has the effect of disturbing the position of the already appointed candidates in 2001 and 2002 in the posts of Municipal Commissioners Grade-III, Assistant Commercial Tax Officers, Assistant Labor Officers and Assistant Section Officers. Therefore, they filed O.A.No.3246of 2004 and Batch challenging the action of the APPSC. Some of the O.As., were filed questioning the selections on the ground that they should 1 Civil Appeal No.5099 of 2006 dated 18.02.2015 15 not have been selected for the posts for which they have not given the options. Issue went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court for consideration and the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held to determine the inter se seniority between persons appointed in the 1st round and the persons appointed afterwards in the same cadre, if any, decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with the rules, depending on the merit ranking obtained by them. Impugned Revision of Seniority was made in terms of Rule 33(b) of the Rules, 1996, and the same is in accordance with the direction of the Honble Apex Court. 14. It is further contended that though there are Judgments to the extent that, the seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbents are yet to be borne in the cadre, the instant case is a special case in which several anomalies in selection and appointments led to litigation before various fora, culminated with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. If there are no anomalies in selection and appointments which were resolved by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the candidates selected and appointed in 2005 would have been appointed in 2001 itself. 15. It is further stated that admittedly, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice proposing revision of seniority in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and instructions of the Government and the petitioner filed her objections to the proposed revision of seniority. The objections raised by the petitioner inter-alia with other objections raised by other candidates were examined and rejected as they were found untenable 16 vide the impugned orders, dated 05.01.2022 passed by the 4th respondent herein. 16. Sri J.Sudheer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar Vs. State of Haryana2. The relevant portion is held as under: “47. It is also well settled that in the absence of rules governing seniority an executive order may be issued to fill up the gap. Only in the absence of a rule or executive instructions, the court may have to evolve a fair and just principle which could be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. xxxxxxx 49. Seniority is not a fundamental right. It is merely a civil right. Inter se seniority of the candidates who are appointed on the same day would be dependent on the rules governing the same. Only in absence of any statutory rules, the general principles may be held to be applicable.” 17. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 18. To adjudicate the issue at hand, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 18.02.2015 in Civil Appeal No.5099 of 2006 and Civil Appeal Nos.5100, 5101 of 2006in the case of M.Surender Reddy & Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, which reads as follows: “22. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the impugned common 2 (2003) 5 SCC 604 17 judgment dated 27thDecember, 2004 and the impugned common order dated 28thDecember, 2004, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos.20106 of 2004, 21558 of 2004, etc. In view of the foregoing discussions, we direct the respondents to fill up the rest of the posts including the posts of Municipal Commissioners Grade-III, Asstt. Commercial Tax Officers, Asstt. Labour Officers in executive cadre and Asstt. Section Officers in non executive cadre, which are vacant, as per President Order, 1975 and the Government orders in consonance with the Presidential Order which were prevailing in the year 1999 when the Advertisement was issued. The inter se seniority between the persons appointed in the 1st round and the persons appointed afterwards in the same cadre, if any, shall be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with the rules, depending on the merit ranking obtained by them.” 19. In the light of the above, the relevant rule governing the case of Seniority is Rule 33 of the Rules, 1996, which reads as follows: “33. SENIORITY:- (a) 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 bythe 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 1stNovember, 1956 or prior tothat date, shall be determined in the statewide gazetted posts and non-gazetted posts in the Departments of theSecretariat and the offices of the Heads of Departments with reference to the notionaldate of continuous officiation with or without breaks in that service, class or categoryprior to the 1stNovember, 1956 to the date of re- appointment made thereafter, but itshall not disturb inter-seniority which obtained in the Andhra State. (This proviso shall be in force till 31st October, 1996). 20. Having regard to the above definition, the seniority of a person 18 would reckon from the date of his first “appointment to the service”. “Appointment to service” has been defined under the Rules. Rule 2 of the Rules defines the word “appointed to a service”. “2. DEFINITIONS: In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. (1) ----- (2) Appointed to a Service:- A person is said to be “appointed to a service” when, in accordance with these rules, except under Rule 10 and in accordance with the Special Rules of adhoc rules applicable to such service he discharges for the first time, the duties of a post borne on thecadre of such service or commences the probation, instruction or trainingprescribed for members thereof.” 21. In the light of the above, on conjoint reading of the provisions of Rule 33 (a) and the definition of “appointed to a service” as defined under Rule 2(2) of the Rules would indicate that the actual date of appointment and date of discharge of duty for the first time in the post in the cadre of such service is the relevant date for reckoning the seniority. This Court further is of the considered view that the applicable Rule would be Rule 33 (a) of the Rules. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are set aside insofar as they relate to the petitioners herein. The respondents are directed not to disturb the earlier seniority of the writ petitioners in the cadre of ACTO. 22. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 19 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:27.01.2026 ANI 20 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION Nos.22393, 15402 and 17925 of 2022 Date:27.01.2026 ANI