Merit-based seniority must prevail in public service appointments despite procedural delays, ensuring fair treatment and equal opportunities as mandated by service regulations.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri K. Ramalingeswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, for the petitioners and Sri P. Veerabhadra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Respondents No.1 to 5 are the applicants in O.A.No.2069 of 2011 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’). They would be referred to as the ‘applicants’. The petitioners herein were the respondents No.1 to 4 in the O.A. and would be referred to as the ‘petitioners’.

3. The applicants had applied for the posts of School Assistant under DSC-2001. They were initially appointed to the post of School Assistant as per their merit in the selections. Some of the selected candidates were appointed in January, 2002. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.76, Education Department, dated 23.09.2002, directing the District Educational Officers (DEOs) to recast the selection list of DSC-2001 as per the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.562 of 2002 and batch dated 22.07.2002. The DEOs had recasted the selection list, called the applicants for counseling in October, 2002 and issued posting Orders in October, 2002 and they joined as School Assistants in the same month, and since then, they had been working in those posts. The applicants could not be appointed along with those selectees who were appointed and joined in January, 2002 due to mis-interpretation of the provisions of the Presidential Order and finally, pursuant to the Order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.562 of 2002 they were given appointments in October, 2002. The applicants, thus, due to some irregularity in selection, could not be appointed in January, 2002 along with their batch-mates. They made representations to fix up their seniority on par with those who were appointed in January, 2002 as per their merit and ranking in the selection list, but no action was taken and at no point of time, seniority list of Teachers selected in DSC-2001 was communicated to the applicants. Later on, for effecting promotions to the next cadre, the petitioners were taking the date of joining of the applicants in October, 2002 as criteria for fixing up the seniority ignoring their merit and ranking in the selection list of DSC-2001. The applicants filed O.A.No.2069 of 2011. The Tribunal initially passed interim Order, directing the petitioners to dispose of the applicants’ representation and also to prepare seniority list in accordance with Rule 33 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (in short ‘the Rules 1996’). The petitioners rejected the request of the applicants vide proceedings in Rc.No.164-B5/2011, dated 14.03.2012 based on the instructions of the 3^rd petitioner in Rc.No.3741/D1-4/2011, dated 28.12.2011 and by the same proceedings they also communicated the seniority list in Rc.No.164-B5/2011, dated 14.03.2012. The applicants’ seniority was fixed as per the date of their joining in October, 2002. The applicants amended the O.A. and also questioned the said seniority list and the Order of rejection.

4. The petitioners filed counter in O.A. and inter alia raised the plea that pursuant to the Orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.562 of 2002 and batch, as per Government Memo No.42005/Services/D/2002-1, GA (Ser-D) Department, dated 28.08.2002 and 18.09.2002, the posting orders were issued to the candidates including the present applicants as per their merit ranking in the selection list under DSC-2001.

5. The petitioners also raised the plea in their counter in O.A. that the issue relating to unification of the service rules issued in G