Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12913

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D Ramesh, J
Gadi Srinivasu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Ap – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 6839/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K Koutilya
For the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I, M SRIKANTH

In service matters, a settled seniority list cannot be reopened or revised after an inordinate delay of over a decade, especially when previous requests for revision were rejected and such revision disturbs long-crystallized rights of employees.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Service Law - Seniority - Revision of seniority - Where seniority lists have been finalized and attained finality over a decade, the same cannot be unsettled to the prejudice of employees, particularly when no objections were raised timely - Delay of over a decade in challenging a settled seniority position is fatal to such claims in the absence of satisfactory explanation. (Paras 6, 27, 28, 30)

(B) Service Law - Seniority - Lapse of time - Rule on revision - No request for revision of seniority which is more than three years old shall be entertained - Where authorities have previously rejected the claim for revision of seniority, they possess no legal competence to review their own orders without authority or satisfactory reason. (Paras 11, 12, 17, 26)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as civil police personnel in 2009. Seniority lists were prepared and finalized in 2012, 2014, and 2022, placing the petitioners in a specific order based on age/date of birth criteria as per applicable service rules. No objections were raised by the respondents during these years. In 2021, a group initiated a request to revise the seniority list based on recruitment marks. This request was initially rejected by the competent authority, citing the inordinate delay and the principle that settled seniority cannot be unsettled. Subsequently, the authority attempted to revise the seniority listing after 12 years, leading to the current challenge.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondents failed to explain the inordinate delay of 12 years in challenging the seniority lists. The rejection order passed in 2022 had become final as it was not challenged. The court held that the authorities actions were an attempt to review their own orders without legal basis and were contrary to settled service law principles regarding the finality of seniority after a reasonable time frame.

Issues: The main issues were whether a long-settled seniority list could be reopened after a decade, whether the authorities were competent to review their own final rejection orders, and whether the revision of seniority lists without explaining the significant delay was legally tenable.

Ratio Decidendi: Seniority in service matters should not be reopened after the lapse of a reasonable period as it disturbs settled positions. Reopening such matters after 12 years, especially when no timely objections were filed and prior revision requests were formally rejected, is arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles and government circular memos.

Result: Writ Petition allowed. Impugned proceedings finalized in 2025 set aside; authorities directed to adhere to the previously settled seniority lists.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the 2009 batch seniority dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. procedural history of multiple seniority lists and judicial intervention. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. limitations on reviewing settled seniority lists after a reasonable period. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. applicability of statutory service rules versus the doctrine of delay and latches. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a decade without sufficient explanation for delay. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings of the 4th Respondent vide DO.No.112/2025 / C.No.42/A1/2024 dated 05-03-2025 rejecting the objections filed by the Petitioners to the provisional revised seniority list of Civil Police Constables of 2009 batch of Erstwhile East Godavari District, by un-settling the Settled Seniority lists of the years 2012, 2014 and 2022 and confirming the same as Final Seniority list and the consequential proceedings issued by the 4th Respondent vide Rc.No.6723/A1/2024 dated 05-03-2025, directing the Police Constables (Civil) of 2009 batch to undergo Pre-promotional Training for Police Constables (Civil) fit to act as Head Constables (Civil) without including the names of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice besides violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend of the impugned proceedings vide DO.No.112/2025/ C.NO.42/A1/2024 dated 05-03-2025 and the consequential proceeding vide Rc.No.6723/A1/2024 dated 05-03-2025 of the 4th Respondent pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioners also for Pre- promotional Training for Police Constables (Civil) fit to act as Head Constables (Civil) without reference to the final seniority list proceedings vide DO.No.112/2025 / C.No.42/A1/2024 dated 05-03-2025 issued by the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to fix the revised seniority, by affect any further promotions to the post of Head Constables (Civil) in-terms of the proceedings vide DO.No.112/2025 / C.NO.42/A1/2024 dated 05-03-2025 Police Constables (Civil) East Godavari Region pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

IA NO: 4 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to implead the implead Petitioners/Proposed respondents as Respondents Nos.9 to 128 in the main Writ Petition and pass

IA NO: 5 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the Interim Orders passed in I.A.No.1 & 2/2025 in W.P.No.6839 of 2025 dated 25.03.2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12913

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHD Ramesh, JGadi Srinivasu – AppellantVersusState Of Ap – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO: 6839/2025

In service matters, a settled seniority list cannot be reopened or revised after an inordinate delay of over a decade, especially when previous requests for revision were rejected and such revision disturbs long-crystallized rights of employees.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D Ramesh, J
Gadi Srinivasu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Ap – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 6839/2025