The court established that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment, and settled seniority cannot be revised after a significant delay.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

".. to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the impugned show- cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.50/G/ 2014 dated 20.01.2017, wherein decided to revise the final seniority list issued in Procgs.Rc.No.3699/G1/2011 dated 08.12.2011 after lapse of more than 6 years contrary to the Circular Memo No. 57759/Ser.A/2004-1, dated 20.05.2004 and also in violation of Rules 23 and 26 of State and Subordinate Service Rules, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same by declaring the final seniority list issued in Procgs.Rc.No.3699/G1/ 2011 dated 08.12.2011 become final with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent from the date of approving his name by the selection committee with all consequential benefits and pass...."

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under:

2.1. Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 09.11.1993 and subsequently, promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 26.08.2003. Accordingly, his services were regularized and probation was declared in the cadre of Senior Assistant. Later, his services were absorbed in Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad and he rendered 24 years of service in the department and eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Superintendent. Respondent no.2 issued provisional seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistants vide Rc.No.1111/ HR.CELL/APVVP/Ministerial/2011, dated 26.03.2011 and called for objections if any. After considering the objections, 2nd respondent issued final seniority list vide proceedings Rc.No.3699/G1/2011, dated 08.12.2011, as per which, his name was placed at Sl.No.9, whereas, the unofficial respondents 3 and 4 were placed at Sl.Nos.10 and 11 respectively.

2.2. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.50/G/ 2014, dated 06.06.2016 calling for his service particulars along with two others for effecting promotion to the post of Superintendent. The selection committee approved the panel for promotion on 31.08.2016 including his name. Accordingly, 2nd respondent effected promotion to the post of Superintendent in Zone-VI, however, though the committee approved his name, he was ignored for promotion. By the said action of the authorities, the petitioner becomes junior in the cadre of Superintendent and he would loose his seniority in multi zone-I to the next higher promotion. Petitioner contended that individuals promoted as Superintendent in Zone-VI are junior to him nearly 10 years. It is submitted that next promotions for the post of Administrative Officer is multi-zone consisting Zone V & VI.

2.3. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent to revise their seniority placing their names over and above the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 issued proceedings vide Rc.No.50/G/2014, dated 01.07.2016 rejecting the claim of respondents 3 and 4 for revision of their seniority. Surprisingly, the 2nd respondent issued show-cause notice vide Rc.No.50/G/2014, dated 20.01.2017 to the petitioner stating that respondents 3 and 4 submitted representation to rectify their seniority as per the parent department and directed him to submit his explanation by placing his name at Sl.No.3 below the respondents 3 and 4.

2.4. Accordingly, petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 01.03.2017 stating that once the final seniority was issued long back i.e., on 08.12.2011 by the 2nd respondent that become final for all purpose. He contended that after lapse of more than six years, 2nd respondent deciding to revise the seniority list once again, which is contrary to the Government instructions issued from time to time and 2nd respondent has no power or authority to review the seniority on his own. Contrary to Rules 23 and 2