The determination of inter-se seniority under Rule 33(a) is based on the date of first appointment, not merit rankings.

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Motupalli Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents.

2. Since the issue raised in all the writ petitions is one and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all these writ petitions by way of a common order, taking W.P.No.15402 of 2022 as lead petition.

3. Vide impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2021, the inter-se seniority between the candidates was determined in terms of the provisions of Rule 33(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1996"). These proceedings were issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 18.02.2015 in Civil Appeal No.5099 of 2006 and Civil Appeal Nos.5100, 5101 of 2006.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that she was appointed pursuant to Recruitment Notification No.10/99, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) on 28.12.1999, seeking to fill up the posts of Group-II, in the cadre of Executive and Non-executive.

5. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner had applied and participated in the selection process. The number of vacancies notified under the said notification was specified as “awaited”, except in respect of three categories/cadres including Assistant Commercial Tax Officers (ACTOs), Municipal Commissioners Grade-III, and another category. The petitioner was selected in the said selection process and was appointed in the year 2001 as an ACTO based on her merit. The petitioner's probation was declared vide proceedings dated 08.06.2004. The final Zonal Seniority List of Zone-IV in the cadre of ACTO was finalized in the year 2012. In the said Zonal Seniority List, the petitioner was placed above certain subsequent appointees, who were appointed as ACTOs in the year 2005, in terms of Rule 33(a) of the Rules, 1996. The said seniority list has become final in the year 2005 and was never challenged.Based on her seniority, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (DCTO) on 03.01.2009. The candidates, who were appointed as ACTOs in the year 2005 under the same recruitment notification, were promoted as DCTOs much later than the petitioner.

6. It is contended that the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), while issuing Notification No.10/99, except in respect of three cadres, the vacancies in the rest of the cadres were shown as “awaited”. Consequently, pursuant to the Notification No.10/99, recruitment was conducted in different spells. The procedure adopted for recruitment, under Notification No.10/99 was challenged and the issue had ultimately landed before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Certain issues were raised with regard to application of Presidential Order, 1975, as available on the date of issuance of Notification No.10/99.The Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 18.02.2015, issued final directions, disposing of the appeals directing the respondents to fill up the rest of the posts, as per, the Presidential Order, 1975.

7. In view of the specific directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, appointments to the Posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers (ACTOs), Municipal Commissioners Grade-III, Assistant Labour Officers in executive cadre and Assistant Section Officers in non-executive cadre, which were vacant, as per the Presidential Order, 1975 and the Government Orders prevailing in the year 1999, were made. The inter-se seniority between the persons appointed in the 1^st round and the persons appointed afterwar