The Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the restoration of seniority based on the rank obtained in the 1996 batch selection and pass appropriate orders after providing a hearing.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents in not taking into account the rank obtained by the petitioner in the selection to the post of junior Assistant in the selection of 1996 Batch of persons and not fixing the seniority based on the ranking i.e., 95 marks and showing the petitioner below S.Bapanamma, who got 88 marks in the category of junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and A.C.T.O., and extending the benefit of seniority based on rank in favour of Ganga Bhavani and not extending the said benefit in favour of the petitioner, in spite of filing objections to the Revised Show Cause Notice in the cadre of Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and A.C.T.O. is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially declare that the petitioner is entitled for seniority based on the rank obtained in 1996 Batch of selection showing his name above one S.Bapanamma,in the cadre of Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and A.C.T.O., with all consequential attendant benefits and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 pleased to issue an interim direction, directing the Respondents forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for granting notional seniority, based on the rank obtained by the petitioner in the selection of 1996 Batch of persons duly considering Rule-33 (b) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules , considering his objections dated 15-12-2025 keeping in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court (1994) 6 SCC 301 ; 1986 4 SCC 268; 1999 1 ALD 627; (2003) 10 SCC 513, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P V RAMANA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents in not taking into account the rank obtained by the petitioner in the selection to the post of typist/junior Assistant etc., in the selection of 1996 Batch of persons and not fixing the seniority, based on the ranking i.e., 95 marks and showing the petitioner below S.Bapanamma, who got 88 marks in the category of junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and A.C.T.O., and extending the benefit of seniority based on rank in favour of Ganga Bhavani and not extending the said benefit in favour of the petitioner, in spite of filing objections to the Revised Show Cause Notice in the cadre of Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and A.C.T.O. is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially declare that the petitioner is entitled for seniority based on the rank obtained in 1996 Batch of selection showing his name above one S.Bapanamma, in the cadre of Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and A.C.T.O., with all consequential attendant benefits and pass such other order.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.12.2025 seeking for restoration of petitioner’s rightful seniority. But, the