HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 16667 OF 2019

O R D E R:

With a wrongly drafted prayer the petitioner filed this writ petition on 20.07.2019 seeking a direction to the respondents to modify her date of appointment as School Assistant (Maths) from 21.11.2013 to 28.12.2018 (it will be

28.12.2012) with all consequential benefits.

2. The contention of petitioner is that she applied to the post of School Assistant (Maths) vide DSC-2012 Notification issued by the Commissioner and Director of School Education and got selection. Appointment order dated 21.11.2013 was given to her and she joined duty on 22.11.2013. Petitioner's core contention is that some of the candidates who were selected along with her were given appointment orders in November, 2012 itself and they joined duty on 28.11.2012, hence, her date of joining be treated as 28.11.2012. She further contends that similarly-situated candidates i.e. who were given appointment orders, approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos. 4817 of 2015 and 4800 of 2015, wherein the Tribunal directed to give them notional date of joining/seniority. She further contends that since her date of joining is not treated as 28.11.2012, she was deprived of the benefits of PRC 2015.

3. Respondents filed counter contending that having accepted the appointment order dated 21.11.2013 and joining duty on 22.11.2013 without any objection, it is not trite on the part of petitioner now to seek notional seniority on par with the persons appointed in DSC-2012 with effect from 28.11.2012, after lapse of about six years. It is further contended that as per Rue-33 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, seniority counts from the date of joining the duty, hence petitioner cannot be given seniority effective from 28.11.2012, though notionally, when she joined duty on 22.11.2013.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri M. Rama Gopal Rao and Smt. B. Annapurna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I.

5. Reiterating the averments of writ affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (composite) in Writ Petition No. 21193 of 2017 dated 29.06.2017 and the judgment of this Court in Writ Petitions No. 4918 of 2017 and batch dated 25.11.2022, rendered following the judgment of Division Bench referred to above.

6. The judgment in Writ Petition No. 21193 of 2017 is distinguishable on facts. In that case, except the candidates who were selected in Nizamabad District, the candidates selected in other Districts of the State were given appointment orders basing on the pass certificates in crash course for six months conducted in Government Institutions. Therefore, candidates of Nizamabad District filed OA No. 8113 of 2010 which was disposed of on 19.11.2010 directing respondents therein to issue appointment orders. Accordingly, petitioners were given appointment orders dated 06.08.2014 with a condition that they are not eligible for notional fixation of seniority on par with other DSC-2018 selected candidates. Challenging the same, they filed OA No. 34 of 2015. This OA was allowed by order dated 21.04.2016. Government, aggrieved thereby, filed Writ Petition No. 21193 of 2017. A learned Division Bench by order dated 29.06.2017 dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 34 of

2015 dated 21.04.2016.

7. In the other judgment relied on by petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4918 of 2017 and batch, though petitioners therein were selected in DSC 2002, no provisional seniority list was drawn and circulated till 2012 and it is only in 2012, it was drawn and circulated. Petitioners raised objections to the provisional seniority list, but they were not replied. Further, no counter affidavit was filed in that Writ Petition. In those circumstances, relying on the Division Bench's judgment, this Court allowed the Writ Petitions.

8. The facts of the two judgments