V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. All the writ petitions on hand arise out of various proceedings culminating in the issue of revision of the seniority of Deputy Collectors and the approval of the regular Panels of Deputy Collectors for the period from 1994-95 to 2013-14.

2. We have heard Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel, Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned senior counsel, Mr. J. Sudheer, Mr. P.V. Krishnaiah, Mr. K.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, Mr. D. Linga Rao, Mr. G. Purushotham Reddy and Mr. M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the individuals, who are either of the petitioners in the writ petitions or the contesting respondents or newly impleaded respondents in the writ petitions and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the State of Andhra Pradesh for the official respondents.

3. Since the batch of cases on hand has a long history, it would be useful to record the same as follows:

(a) Under G.O.Ms. No.1279, General Administration (Rules) Department, dated 12-10-1961, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued the Special Rules for Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service. The service comprised of only one post namely the post of Deputy Tahsildars. Three different methods were prescribed for appointment to the said post. They were (1) direct recruitment (2) transfer from among the Assistant Section Officers of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Service; and (3) transfer from among the Senior Assistants of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service employed in the Revenue Department. There was also a ratio of 1:1 prescribed for appointment by the methods of direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer.

(b) During the year 1962 and 1963, a group of direct recruit Deputy Tahsildars approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the assignment of seniority to the promotees over and above them. The challenge was rejected first by a single Judge and then by a Division Bench on the basis of Rule 33 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1964. As against the decision of the Division Bench, a Special Leave Petition was filed on the file of the Supreme Court.

(c) It must be pointed out that the Rules as they were issued in 1961 did contain a stipulation as to the method of fixation of seniority of persons appointed to the post of Deputy Tahsildars, despite the fact that the appointment was to be from two different streams.

(d) However, by G.O.Ms.No.4582, Revenue (Z) Department, dated 09-10-1980, a provision was inserted under Rule 4 to the following effect:

"the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits to the category of Deputy Tahsildars and promotees to the category of Deputy Tahsildars shall be determined from the date of their confirmation in the substantive vacancy in that category in the proportion of 1:1 as provided in sub-rule (b) of Rule 3."

(e) Challenging the validity of the amendment, a group of promotees filed applications before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal held that General Rule 33 (a) was incapable of determining the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees and that therefore, the amendment was a necessity of time. Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the amendment.

(f) Challenging the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court. While they were pending, two groups of Deputy Tahsildars recruited by the method of transfer also approached the Supreme Court by way of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition as well as the writ petitions were taken up together and by a judgment rendered on 24-02-1988 and reported in K.V. Subba Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1988 (2) SCC 201), the Supreme Court upheld the amendment, but made it clear that the amendment will only have prospective effect and retrospective effect. The Supreme Court also issued direction in K.V. Subba Rao to the State Government