Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 31772
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J
D. Ushapannagaveni – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 1205/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manoj Kumar Bethapudi
For the Respondents: K Satyanarayana Murthy, GP For Services IV, Murali Lincoln
Seniority in a service, class, category, or grade must be determined by the date of first appointment as per Rule 33(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and cannot be arbitrarily revised based on joining dates.
Headnote:(A) Seniority Determination - Date of First Appointment - Rule 33(a) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 mandates that seniority in a service, class, category, or grade be determined by the date of first appointment, unless reduced as punishment. (Para 4, 14)
(B) Integrated Seniority List - Inter-se Seniority - While Rule 34 allows for integrated lists across units, it cannot override the fundamental principle of reckoning seniority from the date of appointment if the petitioner's appointment was prior to others. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether the revised seniority list dated 06.10.2021, which considered the date of joining/probation instead of the date of first appointment, is valid under Rule 33(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.
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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.9218/NA/2017, Dt.06.10.2021 of the 2nd respondent Director in reviewing the seniority of the petitioner and others and placing the petitioner below the private respondents No.4 to 15 and further declare proceedings in Rc.No.9218/NA/2022, Dt.03.12.2021 in modifying the date of promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer w.e.f., 05.07.2019 instead of 10.01.2019 and transferring the petitioner to Kadapa as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from the same being in violation of the rules governing seniority and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to be placed above the respondents No.4 to 15 i.e., above Smt Uma Sundari in the category of Staff Nurses with consequential benefit of seniority in the cadre of Lecturer w.e.f., 10.01.2019 and the petitioner is entitled to be continued in Kurnool in the place of respondent No.5 and pass …..
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
2. GP FOR SERVICES IV
3. MURALI LINCOLN
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed challenging the revised seniority list dated 06.10.2021 as it is contrary to Rule 33 (a) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short hereafter refer as ‘Service Rules 1996’). The petitioner was initially promoted as Lecturer on 10.01.2019, but this promotion was later cancelled and given promotion with effect from 05.07.2019 and the said action of the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
The relevant facts that germane for consideration of the writ petition in nutshell, there are four feeder categories for the promotion to the Lecturer viz.,
i) Nursing Tutor, Grade-I,
(ii) if the qualified nursing tutor is not available, to be filled by Nursing Tutor, Grade-II.
iii) If Nursing Tutor, Grade-II is not available, then Public Health Nurse can be considered
(iv) even, if the Public Health Nurses are not available, Nursing post can be filled up by the Staff Nurse.
The petitioner herein falls under (iv) category working as staff nurse. Initially, the post of Staff Nurse is zonal post and the petitioner belongs to Zone-I. The 2nd respondent-Director of Medical Education transferred the petitioner to Kadapa vide proceedings dated 03.12.2021 by effecting promotion as Lecturer vide proceedings dated 10.01.2019 and again promoted as lecturer of nursing with effect from 05.07.2019 subsequent to the conducting of DPC dated 29.11.2021. Placing the petitioner’s seniority below the unofficial respondents in the final integrated seniority list dated 06.10.2021 by revising the seniority list 18.07.2018 and cancelling the promotion w.e.f., 05.07.2019, is challenged on the ground that the petitioner who joined on 11.10.1995 and the un- offices respondents have jointed in the service subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner dated 14.08.1995, and incumbent who joined first in the service is to be placed in the seniority. And the said list was prepared basing on the date of appointment of the individual candidates.It is further submitted that the seniority list prepared on 18.07.2018 is an integrated provisional list for all the four zones in the State, because the promotion to the post of Lecturers is State vide post. And the petitioner was rightly placed in the in preliminary seniority list dated 18.07.2018 and cancelling the promotion of lecturer given on 10.01.2019 and promoting the petitioner w.e.f., 05.07.2019 and the procedure adopted by the official respondents is contrary to Rule 33(a) deals with
“The seniority of a person i
