ORDER :

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

Challenging the order in O.A.No.6167 of 2010, dated 05.12.2012 and the order in Review M.A.No.510 of 2013 in O.A.No.6167 of 2013 dated 08.11.2013 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. The facts, which lead to filing of present Writ Petition, are as under:-

(a) The petitioner herein who belongs to Scheduled Caste, was appointed as Junior Assistant on 06.04.1993 on compassionate grounds, with a condition that she should acquire her Intermediate qualification within a period of two years and should also acquire her degree qualification within a period of five years from the date of her appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner is said to have passed her degree examination in the month of December, 1997, but the University issued the Provisional Certificate in the month of May, 1998.

(b) While things stood thus, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.60 G.A.(Ser.A) Department dated 11.02.1997 directing regularization of services from the date of acquiring qualification. A provisional seniority list was drawn in the cadre of Junior Assistants and Typists as on 01.01.2008, wherein, the name of the petitioner herein was shown at Serial No.12, while the name of the respondent no.3 herein was shown as Serial No.10 and the same was confirmed in the Final Seniority list.

I. It is said that another seniority list was also drawn as on 01.01.2010 showing the same position. Pursuant thereto, respondent no.3 made an application seeking revision of final seniority list. Objections were called for and thereafter the seniority list was revised, taking the date of appointment as criteria for fixing seniority instead of date of acquiring qualification mainly on the ground that subsequent Government Order i.e. G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.06.2004 is prospective in nature. The said revision of seniority came to be challenged before the Tribunal in O.A.No.6167 of 2010 and the same was allowed holding that the seniority of the petitioner could not have been fixed from the date of appointment and instead it should have been done from the date she acquired qualification and accordingly the petitioner was reverted. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

3. Smt. K. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that when the petitioner has obtained the required qualification for the post of Junior Assistant (appointed on compassionate grounds) within the time prescribed and when a right is accrued to her in terms of G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 11.02.1997, the Tribunal erred in taking the contents of the subsequent G.O. into consideration. In other words, her argument is that though the Marks Memo and the Graduation Certificate i.e. Bachelor of Arts itself clearly indicate that the petitioner has passed her degree examination in the month of December, 1997, she cannot be found fault with, if the Andhra University issues Provisional Certificate, at a belated stage. Having regard to the above, she would contend that G.O.Ms.No.151 cannot be given a retrospective effect.

4. On the other hand, Dr.Majji Suri Babu, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 opposed the same, contending that initially, the petitioner did not acquire the requisite qualification of Intermediate within three years and she was given further period of two years for acquiring requisite qualification as per G.O.Ms.No.969 dated 27.10.1995. But, she did not acquire her Intermediate or Degree qualification till 02.03.1998.

(a) It is further stated that the petitioner herein filed O.A.No.1788 of 1998 on 02.04.1998, requesting the Court to continue her in the same post till such time she acquires the required educational qualification. While disposing of the said O.A., the Tribunal directed the petitioner to give a detailed representation to the Government for extension of time to acquire requisite qualification. On her representation, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1213 Home (Police-A)