(Per Goda Raghuram, J.)

The conflict is commonplace, the facts simple and the law clear; and yet a combat. This writ petition is another illustration of a recurring morbidity in our public services, a dispute regarding inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. Despite over abundance of precedential guidance, casual administrative practices engender such Disputes with regularity. Negligent administrative handling of this area festers creative claims to seniority. The dispute in his writ petition is commonplace. Such disputes in several services including Higher Judicial Service are a continuing phenomenon.

We record yet another opinion on an oft visited theme.

2. In substance, the petitioner seeks determination of his seniority status above respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the category of District and Sessions Judges Grade-II (in the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service) governed by Special Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, called the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules (for short the Special Rules). He also assails the administrative order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (the first respondent) dated 17 -08-2001 whereby his representations dated 19-12-1996 and 18-02-1998 were rejected and seeks a direction (to the first respondent) to treat him as senior to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the category of District and Sessions Judges Grade-II. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary to the Government, Law (Legislative Affairs and Justice), Hyderabad, is impleaded as sixth respondent.

The factual background to the lis:

3. The petitioner entered the judicial service of the State as District Munsif (a post borne in Category-II of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service) by direct recruitment in 1979. He was thereafter promoted as a Subordinate Judge (a post borne in Category-I of this service).

4. In 1991, the sixth respondent notified five vacancies of District and Sessions Judges Grade-II (Category-II of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service) for direct recruitment. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 applied. Of these, the second respondent belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, the third respondent to Open Category, the fourth respondent to Scheduled Caste and the fifth respondent to Backward Class-B category.

By orders in G.O.Ms.No. 509, General Administration (SC-F) Department dated 28-09-1993, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were appointed to act as District and Sessions Judges in Category-II under Rule 2 (a)(ii) of the Special Rules. The appointment order specified that the respondents would be on probation for a total period of one year with effect from the date on which they join duty; separate orders of posting to be issued by the first respondent

5. Eleven days earlier, in G.O.Rt.No.4623. General Administration (SC-F) Department dated 17-09-1993, the petitioner and SIX others belonging to the substantive category of Subordinate Judges were appointed as District and Sessions Judge, Grade-II, by transfer; the appointments to take effect from the dates on which the respective officers assume charge; and the orders of posting to be issued by the first respondent. The appointment order in G.O.Rt.No. 4623 specified that it is an initial temporary appointment.

6. In notification No. 362-B.Spl., dated 04-10-1993. the petitioner, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and two other District and Sessions Judges Grade-II (appointed by transfer) were issued orders of posting.

7. In G.O.Ms.No.616, General Administration (SC-F) Department dated 20-11-1993, the fifth respondent was appointed to act as District and Sessions Judge Grade-II: put on probatibn for a period of one year With effect from the date of his Joining duty: and separate orders to be Issued by the first respondent regarding his posting.

In notification No.439-B.Spi., dated 26-11-1993, the first respondent issued orders of posting to the fifth respondent

8. Thus, in the category of District and Sessions Judge Grade-II, t