(L. Narasimha Reddy, J.)

In this batch of writ petitions, the common order dated 17-03-2010 in O.A.Nos.11590 of 2009 and batch, and similar orders passed in other OAs, by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) are challenged. The petitioners figured as respondents in all or some of the original applications. The subject-matter of the OAs was the fixation of seniority of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors (for short the ‘Inspectors’) in the Department of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

The Andhra Pradesh Excise Subordinate Service Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) was issued through G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 16-02-1961. The post of Inspector figured in category 1 therein. The method of appointment to the post used to be through direct recruitment, to the extent of 40%, and the remaining, through promotions. However, from the year 1997 onwards, appointment to all the posts is only through promotion.

In the year 1993, steps were initiated to fill up the posts of Inspectors through direct recruitment in various zones of the State. The task of selection of the candidates was entrusted to the A.P. Public Service Commission (for short ‘the A.P.P.S.C.’). Notification was issued, examinations were conducted and selection process was undertaken. The APPSC submitted a list of selected candidates to the appointing authority, i.e. the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (for short ‘the Commissioner’). Individual orders of appointment were issued to the selected candidates.

The issue pertaining to fixation of seniority of the candidates selected and appointed as Inspectors in the year 1993 was the subjectmatter of several proceedings and orders passed therein. In the meanwhile, promotions to the posts of Assistant Excise Superintendents were also made. Ultimately, the Commissioner took the view that the seniority of the candidates shall be decided as per the roster, referable to Rule 22-A of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’). The Appellate Authority confirmed the same. Hence, the aggrieved persons, most of the respondents herein, have approached the Tribunal with a prayer to declare the action of the Commissioner in fixing the seniority in the post of Inspector, on the basis of roster as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rules and to direct him to fix the seniority as per the ranks assigned by the APPSC.

The OAs were opposed by the petitioners herein as well as the Government. Through orders, which are challenged in these writ petitions, the Tribunal held that the seniority of Inspectors appointed through direct recruitment must be determined as per the ranking assigned by the APPSC.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners are advanced by Sri M. Pandu Ranga Rao, Sri P.V. Krishnaiah and Sri P.V.S.S.S. Rama Rao. They submit that the roster under Rule 22 of the Rules is nothing but a concrete step for the implementation of reservations provided for under the Rules, in exercise of power under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. They contend that the appointments are made strictly in accordance with the roster, and the fitment of an individual against a roster point is not only for the purpose of appointment but also for the seniority. According to the learned counsel, the exercise so undertaken fits into Rule 33(a) of the Rules and that the seniority lists have been published accordingly. It is also submitted that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and others (2003) 5 SCC 604),extensively relied upon by the Tribunal, would be applicable only when the service rules are silent on the aspect, but not where the Rules specifically provide for it. Learned counsel submit that the orders passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law, and that they are liable to be set aside.

Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel, and Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other ha