Point of law : Merely being selected without obtaining letter of appointment would mean that selected candidates were still not born into service and therefore period would not be counted as service for purpose of seniority under Government.

ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

Teachers recruitment notification was issued in the year 1998, popularly called as ‘District Selection Committee (DSC) Recruitment Notification’, notifying 1431 Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT) vacancies in Medak district.

2. The DSC-1998 Teachers recruitment was governed by Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.221 Education Department dated 16.07.1994. The Rules required estimation of vacancies as on 1st April, 1998 and vacancies likely to arise up to the end of September of that year. The candidates who were not included in the select list of DSC-1998 waged long drawn litigation, on wrong computation of actual number of vacancies that ought to have been made available for recruitment. In the O.As., filed in the years 1999 and 2000, first round of litigation, Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal issued directions to compute vacancies that arose up to September, 1998 on account of promotion, retirement, newly sanctioned posts etc. Alleging that the available vacancies were not properly assessed and computed, second round of litigation was mounted in the Tribunal in O.A.No.2155 of 2000 and batch.

3. On analyzing the rules governing DSC-1998 and the earlier directions, the Tribunal opined that the respondents ought to have made necessary exercise to include all the vacancies that were available as on 15.03.1998 and such of those vacancies that would have been available till the end of September, 1998. The Tribunal directed the respondents to prepare the estimation of vacancies relating to DSC-1998 keeping in mind observations made in the order dated 28.09.2000.

4. Even by these directions, grievance of candidates was not properly answered leading to instituting third round of litigation. O.A.No.7119 of 2000 and batch of O.As., were filed in the Tribunal praying to direct the petitioners to fill the vacancies identified as per Orders of Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A.No.2155 of 2000 and batch by the 1998-DSC selected candidates. The Tribunal disposed of the OAs by issuing series of directions.

5. Aggrieved thereby, State preferred W.P.No.334 of 2002 and batch. Batch of writ petitions were disposed of by common order dated 05.02.2002 modifying the directions issued by the Tribunal.

6. In compliance to the directions of the Division Bench, respondents along with similarly situated persons were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers between June and July, 2002 in Medak District.

7. The next round of litigation is on seniority claim of candidates selected in DSC-1998, but appointed in 2002. The Secondary Grade Teachers appointed in the said manner in Medak District set up claim to seniority with effect from the date on which their counter parts were appointed in DSC-1998 and above Secondary Grade Teachers appointed in the subsequent recruitment. They filed O.A.Nos.10338 of 2008 and 5515 of 2009 praying to declare that the applicants are entitled to seniority in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teachers with effect from the date on which their counter parts were appointed in DSC-1998 and above the Secondary Grade Teachers appointed in subsequent DSCs.

8. The applicants urged before the Tribunal that though they were selected and appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers as per their merit in DSC-1998, they were not treated as part of DSC-1998 merit list, treated their selection as separate selection and claimed that they are entitled to reckon their seniority as per the panel prepared for DSC1998. They also placed reliance on General Rule 33(b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (Rules, 1996). They claimed notional date of commencement of probation on par with candidates appointed in DSC-1998 recruitment.

9. Per contra, according to petitioners the applicants were appointed to the additional vacancies added later and, therefore, there cannot be a comparison. They have also raised the plea of delay and latches as the O.As., were instituted in the year 2009. Further, it was also urged that if notional seniority is extende