ORDER:

1. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned Proc.Rc.No.C3/1844/2013, dated 10.12.2013 issued by the respondent No.3 and sought a direction to the respondents to fix up the seniority of the petitioners with their batch mattes i.e. DSC-2002 as per their ranking in DSC-2002 and effect promotions to the next higher posts.

2. Heard Sri R.Rajashekar Rao, learned Counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I and perused the record.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are presently working as Hindi Pandit Grade-II in Mahabubnagar District. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Notification in the year, 2002 for filling up the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs), School Assistants and Language Pandits, including Telugu Pandit Grade-I & II and Hindi Pandit Grade-I & II. However, the petitioners were denied participation in the selection process on the ground that they possessed Hindi Sikshak Certificates obtained from institutions located outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Respondent No.2 issued proceedings in Rc.No.3276/ RC-3/2002, dated 23.05.2003, declaring that candidates possessing Hindi Sikshak Certificates from institutions outside Andhra Pradesh were not eligible for appointment as Hindi Pandits Grade-I & II. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners filed O.A. No.5147/2003 before the then A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for brevity ‘APAT’), which allowed the application and set aside the Memo dated 23.05.2003. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt. No.681, Education (SE-SER.VII) Department, dated 03.11.2005, permitting Respondent No.2 to appoint candidates who had applied under DSC- 2002, were selected and had undergone training during the period from 17.08.1995 to 16.06.2000. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the petitioners were appointed as Hindi Pandit Grade-II, while Petitioner No.1 was appointed as SGT due to non-availability of vacancies in the Hindi Pandit category, based on the ranking in the selection process.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that due to prolonged litigation, the appointments of the petitioners were considerably delayed. The respondent No.3 issued appointment orders to certain selected candidates between the years 2006 and 2010, based on the same DSC-2002 selection process. However, while filling up the posts of Hindi Pandit Grade-I, the respondent No.3 attempted to determine seniority based on the dates of joining as Hindi Pandit Grade-II, instead of preparing a seniority list in accordance with the merit ranking obtained in DSC-2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the then APAT seeking a direction to the respondents to prepare the seniority list of Hindi Pandit Grade-II based on their ranking in DSC-2002, in accordance with Rule 33(b) read with Rule 34 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The Tribunal initially granted interim directions to consider the representations of the petitioners in light of the said rules and subsequently disposed of the O.A. by making the interim orders absolute. In spite of the same, the respondents have not passed any orders on the representations, compelling the petitioners to file Contempt Application No.1268 of 2013. Upon receipt of notices in the contempt proceedings, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioners through an order, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition (TR).

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned order is contrary to settled principles of law, as seniority among direct recruits must be determined based on the merit ranking obtained in the selection process, subject to reservation and roster rules and not on the basis of the dates of joining duty. As per Rule-33 (b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for brevity the ‘Rules, 1996) mandates preparation of seniority lists based on the r