The court ruled that individuals denied appointments due to administrative errors retain entitlement to benefits and seniority on par with their counterparts, affirming parity despite delayed appointments.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Ms. C. Indrani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, for the petitioners and Sri Somagutta Harinath, learned counsel, representing Sri P. Veerabhadra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the Order dated 25.02.2013 passed in O. A. No. 8668 of 2012 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (in short 'the Tribunal') by which the respondents were extended the benefits in terms of G.O.Ms.No.21 Education (PE-SER.I) Department, dated 18.05.2010.

3. Respondents Nos.1 to 11 in the writ petition were the applicants in O.A. No. 8668 of 2012 before the Tribunal, which was filed against the writ petitioners, the State of Andhra Pradesh and its Authorities.

4. The respondents will be referred hereinafter as 'applicants' and the writ petitioners as 'petitioners'.

5. The applicants applied for the post of Special Grade Teachers (SGT) under DSC-1989 and were selected. But, appointment orders were not given to them. On the other hand, in the 18 posts that were allotted to East Godavari District to which the applicants belonged, less meritorious candidates than the applicants were appointed as Special Grade Teachers through proceedings dated 05.08.1996, as per the Orders of the Government. One Sri V. Seshagiri Rao was also appointed at the same time.

6. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed O.A. which was allowed by the Tribunal and the matter was carried to the High Court, but to no avail, finally judgment was delivered in W.P.No.10586 of 1999 and batch, vide judgment dated 28.08.2000. Relevant part of the judgment dated 28.08.2000 in W.P.No.10586 of 1999 reads as under:

"....However, having regard to the fact that there are only 912 vacancies, which left unfilled because of the erroneous interpretation and importing the panel-theory and as there are more number of qualified candidates among the petitioners, the petitioners have to be arranged in terms of their merit among them and in order of that merit, the appointments are to be made. We make it clear that such of 911 petitioners, who stand qualified to be appointed in order of the above merit, shall continue and others have to pave the way for more meritorious candidates basing upon the merit list. We reiterate that merit list shall be drawn for 912 posts only among the writ petitioners herein and shall not percolate beyond them for the reason of their initiation of legal proceedings right on time and pursuing the same before several forums right from A. P. Administrative Tribunal to that of Supreme Court and others even if they were qualified, had not initiated any legal proceedings and remain contended. This exercise shall be made by the appointing authorities within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is pertinent to mention that the above 912 vacancies shall not form part of the selection process for recruitment of Teachers pursuant to DSC-2000.

28. Accordingly, all the five writ petitions are disposed of. No costs."

7. Consequently, the applicants were appointed as Teachers on 11.01.2002. The Government directed the Mandal Educational Officers to allow regular time scale of Rs.3750-7650 to all the Special Teachers continued and appointed as per the judgment of the High Court, including the applicants and to Sri V. Seshagiri Rao, vide proceedi