JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

1. Heard Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri C.Srinivasa Baba & Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsels for the petitioner in W.P.No.2882 of 2022, Sri N. Bharath Simha Reddy, learned counsel appeared for Sri U. D. Jai Bhima Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1675 of 2022 and Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.2707 of 2022.

2. Heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned standing counsel for the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Sri Yugandhar, learned counsel, representing Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, for the respondent No.9 in W.P.No.1675 of 2022, for respondents Nos.6, 7, 9, 10 & 17 in W.P.No.2707 of 2022 and for respondents Nos.6 & 7 in W.P.No.2882 of 2022.

3. No representation for Government Pleader for General Administration, Government Pleader for Law & Legislative Affairs. The Docket Order dated 25.03.2022 records that the learned Advocate General informed that the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.13 Law (LA&J-SC.F) Department, dated 11.03.2022, notifying the seniority list recommended by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the State Government has no stand either in favour of or against the petitioners.

4. No representation by or on behalf of Sri Nikhil Chowdary Guntupalli, learned counsel on record, appearing for some of the other respondents.

5. Writ Petition No.2707 of 2022 was disposed of as against respondent No.7 by Order dated 19.02.2024, as in view of the subsequent development taking place during the pendency of the writ petition, the said 7^th respondent ceased to be a necessary party to the lis.

I. Facts:

A. Case of the Petitioners:

(i). W.P.No.1675 of 2022:

6. The petitioner of this writ petition, namely, Guduri Rajani, was initially appointed as Junior Civil Judge with effect from 16.05.1998 vide G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 07.04.1998. She was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in the year 2008. She had applied for promotion to the post of the District Judge under Limited Competitive Exam Category, 10% quota, pursuant to the Notification dated 31.03.2015. She was also considered under the category of promotion quota of 65%. The declaration and recommendation for her, by the then common High Court was made on 24.11.2015. Her name was shown in both the lists of selected candidates under both 10% & 65% quotas issued on the same date i.e., 24.11.2015. However, in the revised selection list dated 08.12.2015, her name was deleted from the list of promotees under the promotion categories under 65% while retaining her name under Accelerated Recruitment by Transfer category 10% quota and that was done without asking the petitioner to exercise her option as to in which category she wanted to remain. That was an exercise done suo motu. After the revised selection list dated 08.12.2015 as aforesaid, the State issued G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 20.01.2016 for respondents Nos.3 to 7 and 9, and G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 20.01.2016 for respondent No.8 of this writ petition i.e., under 65% quota. However, the appointments under G.O.Ms.No.10 for 10% quota was issued on 08.02.2016. She assumed Office of the District Judge on 24.02.2016. Her seniority was also fixed in the final seniority list published on 04.02.2017 and as per the roster points, her name reflected at Serial No.392. The said seniority list dated 04.02.2017 was final even if it was not notified by the State after being sent to it by High Court as the same was acted upon by granting promotion basing on that list, and still continues in State of Telangana, except for the deleted names who opted for State of Andhra Pradesh, and that list was also saved by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Meghchandra Singh v. Ningma Siro, (2020) 5 SCC 689. The further case of this petitioner is that there was no occasion to prepare fresh final seniority list, dated 05.01.2022, in which her grievance is that she was illegally placed below the respondents No.3 to 9 of this writ petition, after illegally rejecti