(Prayer: 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 Constabies (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

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 direction granted on 25-03-2025 passed in W.P.No.6839 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass)

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

                  “….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 D.O.No.112/2025/C.No.42/A1/2024 dated 05-3-2025 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 05-3-2025, 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….”

2. Heard Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for official respondents and Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel for unofficial respondents.

3. All petitioners herein are appointed as civil police constables in the year 2009. Pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2009, the post of police constables in Kakinada range, all the petitioners herein have participated for written examination and physical test conducted by State level police recruitment Board of united Andhra Pradesh. They got selected as stipendiary cadre trainee police constables. They are sent to training as stipendiary cadre trainee police constables in District Training Centers at Warangal and Srikakulam. Subsequently, through proceedings of respondent no.4 dated 04.11.2009, the petitioners were appointed as police constables (civil) by allotting individual constable numbers and identity cards. After completion of two years of service in the cadre of police constables (civil), respondent no.4 has issued proceedings declaring the probation of the petitioners in the cadre of police constables (civil) and also prepared a provisional seniority list on 31.10.2012 calling for objections within seven days. In the said seniority list, the petitioners were placed at serial numbers 2,3,4,5 and 7 respectively. While preparing the said seniority list, as all the petitioners and other candidates were appointed on the same day and probation has also been declared on the same day, hence by taking into consideration of the age/date of birth, the inter-se seniority among 2009 batch was prepared by following the Rule 36(iii) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. No objections have been filed and the same has not been challenged or filed any appeal invoking Rule 23 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Again respondent no.4 within the range of East Godavari District has prepared one more seniority list on 31.10.2014 vide proceedings dated 12.11.2014 by calling objections. Even in the said seniority list, the petitioners were placed at seniority numbers 2,3,4,5 and 7 and when no objections were received, respondent no.4 has finalized the said seniority list and the same was published in the year 2014.

4. For the first time in 2021, nearly lapse of a decade, some candidates have made an application/representation requesting to revise the seniority in accordance with marks secured by them after completing the basic induction training in respective training centers. The said representation was considered by respondent no.4 and rejected the claim for revision of the seniority list on the ground of latches and also settled seniority cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time by proceedings dated 26.4.2022. after the above said orders, respondent no.4 has once again issued provisional seniority list on 07.11.2022 by calling objections. Even in the said seniority list, the petitioners were placed at serial numbers 2,3,4,5 and 7 respectively. Even the unsuccessful candidates neither they have challenged the rejection orders issued by respondent no.4 dated 26.4.2022 nor they have filed any objections to the seniority list prepared on 07.11.2022.

5. Surprisingly, without assailing the rejection orders or without filing any objections to the seniority list dated 07.11.2022, some of the candidates made an application once again on 03.12.2023 to revise the seniority list in accordance with marks secured by them. Now respondent no.4 has taken a special interest, addressed a letter to the Principal City Police training center, Warangal to furnish the marks of 2009 batch trainees. The Principal City Police training center, Warangal has issued proceedings on 29.5.2024 stating that as per the request of respondent no.4, they have purportedly searched the records in the office of CPTC, Warangal, only CD is available and no soft copies were available in the office and the same were furnished and basing on the above information, respondent no.4 has addressed a letter to the Director General of Police i.e. respondent no.2 herein vide letter dated 13.6.2024 requesting clarification with regard to preparation of seniority list in the range. Subsequently, he has issued provisional seniority list on 01.7.2024 vide proceedings dated 10.7.2024 by changing the seniority among 2009 candidates after lapse of 12 years from the finalization of the first seniority list. In the said provisional seniority list, the petitioners seniority was changed from 2,3,4,5 and 7 to 285, 190, 91, 317 and 136 respectively. When clarification is sought from respondent no.2, vide proceedings dated 13.6.2024 even pending clarification, with a malafide intention, respondent no.4 has revised the seniority list and issued fresh provisional seniority list vide proceedings dated 10.7.2024. While pending the said seniority list, respondent no.2 has sought clarification from the State Government and accordingly State Government vide proceedings dated 02.12.2024 has directed the respondent no.2 to examine the seniority list of police constables of Kakinada District as per existing rules and take necessary action. Accordingly, respondent no.2, requested respondent no.4 to prepare seniority list as per existing rules. Basing on the above correspondence, respondent no.4 has rejected the objections filed by the petitioners with regard to purview of revised seniority after 12 long years and issued final seniority list confirming the revised seniority list on 05.3.2025. Questioning the said action, the present Writ Petition is filed.

6. Considering the above averments and also the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court on 25.3.2025 has passed the following interim orders:

                  Petitioners are all appointed as Police Constables (Civil), and after completion of service of two years, their probation was declared in the cadre of Police Constables (Civil). Provisional seniority list of Police Constables (Civil) came to be prepared on 30.10.2012. In the said provisional seniority list, persons who have been appointed in the year 2009 have been considered and placed in seniority based on their age as criteria, since the previous batch Police Constables (Civil) of the years 2006 and 2008 were also considered in similar manner. The said seniority came to be finally published and attained finality. In the year 2014 another provisional seniority list was published on 31.10.2014. which also was finally published considering the seniority of 2009 batch Constables' age as criteria. So is the case with third provisional seniority list, which was published on 01.01.2022. Some of the Police Constables (Civil), who were figuring in seniority list have raised grievance and made representation to 4th respondent to consider revising seniority based on merit rather than the age of candidates, which came to be rejected vide Endorsement in C.No.3301/A1/2021, dated 26.04.2022. 4th respondent while referring to Memo.No.57759/ Ser-A/2004-1, dated 02.05.2004 c/w. CO, Endt.T.Dis. No.463/ Minst. Estt.2/2004, dated 15.06.2004 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab: [(1998) 2 SCC 523] rejected their representation holding that any revision of seniority after more than three years is not feasible and the status of persons cannot be unsettled after such a long delay. The 4th respondent again issued combined provisional seniority list for the erstwhile East Godavari District on 01.01.2024, however, while computing the seniority the Police Constables of 2009 batch have been considered based on merit rather than the seniority in which they have been placed in pursuance to the previous seniority list. Petitioners have objected to the same. The said objections came to be rejected and by impugned order, dated 05.03.2025, final seniority list came to be issued. The objection raised by the petitioners has been summarily rejected stating that in view of the objections raised by some of the 2009 batch Police Constables (Civil), their cases have been considered in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.374, dated 14.12.1999, thereby, the seniority came to be revised.

                  Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once respondents have finalized the seniority, not once but thrice, and no objections were made to it and the same having attained finality, 4th respondent cannot revise the settled seniority at this length of time. The impugned rejection does not consider Cir.Memo.No.57759/Ser.A/2004-1, dated 20.05.2004, and the subsequent endorsement, dated 26.04.2022, issued by the very same respondent rejecting the request made for revision of seniority after so many years. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai: [ (2022) 12 SCC 579], in particular, paras.24 to 26, he would contend that once seniority had been fixed and remains in existence for a reasonable period unchallenged, the same cannot be interdicted with or revised or challenged and in the present case, the initial seniority list since was prepared in the year 2012, at this length of time, nearly after 13 years, the same cannot be tinkered or altered with.

                  Prima facie, this Court finds that by impugned seniority list, the 4th respondent has tinkered with the seniority, which first came to be finalized in the year 2012, followed in the year 2014 and later in 2022, which is impermissible. In view of the same, the respondents shall not proceed with any promotions in pursuance to the impugned proceedings vide DO.No. 112/2025/C.No.42/A1/2024, dated 05.03.2025, issued by the 4th respondent and the consequential final seniority list.

7. Consequent to the said orders, respondent no.4 has filed its counter. According to the counter, as respondent no.2 has issued memo communicating the Government Memo dated 28.02.2025 requesting the S.P., Kakinada to examine the seniority list of 2009 batch civil police constables of erstwhile East Godavari District as per existing rules and take further action in the matter. The unit of erstwhile district, the seniority list of 2009 batch framed basing on the final marks secured from PTCs/DTCs/SLPRB, whereas the seniority list of 2009 batch civil police constables framed in this unit basing on the date of birth instead of marks secured by them, which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.374, Home (Police) Dept., dated 14.12.1999. The said mistake was continued till now and it has been rectified as per provisions of the Rules.

8. By noticing the above said mistake, respondent no.4 sought information from the District Training Centers, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Warangal, Amberpet and obtained the marks of 2009 batch police constables. Then it was rectified the said mistake by implementing the G.O.Ms.No.374 dated 14.12.1999 and accordingly the seniority list has been finalized vide proceedings dated 05.3.2025. As per Rule 10 of the A.P.Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules mandates that the inter-se seniority of the police constables would be fixed basing on the total marks secured by them at the time of recruitment together with marks secured in the examination conducted at the end of training.

9. In the year 2021, some of the constables of 2009 batch sought revision of the seniority list as per statutory list. Though, the then Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District has called for information about the marks obtained by2009 batch, but the seniority has not been revised.

10. Subsequently, respondent nos.9 to 128 have filed implead application vide I.A.No.04 of 2025 to implead them as party respondents and the same was allowed vide order of this Court dated 23.12.2025 and they were added as respondent nos.9 to 128 and they have filed counter and vacate stay petition. The averments made in the counter filed by the respondent nos.9 to 128 are also more or less in the same lines of the counter filed by respondent no.4

11. Based on the above averments, learned counsel for the petitioners has preliminarily made his submissions that respondent no.4 has considered and prepared provisional seniority list initially after declaring the probation on 31.10.2012. Admittedly, the impleaded respondents have not filed any objections to the said seniority list. The second seniority list was prepared again vide proceedings dated 12.11.2014 by calling objections from any affected persons. When no objections have been received, respondent no.4 has finalized the said seniority list and again while considering the representation made by some of the constables to revise the seniority list which was finalized in the year 2014, the same has been considered by respondent no.4 and rejected on 26.4.2022 with the following observations.

                  In accordance with the instructions issued in Government circular memo No.57759/Ser-A/2004-1, dated: 02.05.2004 c/w CO Endt, Dis No.463/Minst.Estt.2/2004, dated: 15.06.2004, no request for revision of seniority for a period which is more than three years old shall be considered.

                  The seniority of Civil PCs 2009 batch is a settled matter and seniority list were also communicated to them every year, from time to time, from 2009. 2010 and 2012 onwards. If they had any objections on their seniority, they would have contended the same, immediately after communication of seniority list to them during the years 2009, 2010 and 2012 respectively and further within the period of 3 years, from the date of completion of their probations.

                  The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also mentioned in the judgment on seniority in service matters published in the Hindu dated: 11.07.1998 has been reported in (1998) 2 SSC 523 1 extracted below.

                  "During the entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the other aforesaid persons and the rights interest had crystallied which ought not to have been reopened after the lapse of such long period. At every stage others were promoted before B.S.Bajwa and B.D.Guptha right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situation after fure lapse of reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition."

12. The rejection order was passed but no one has questioned the said order and it became final. Admittedly, the rejection orders dated 26.4.2022 have been passed based on the circular memo issued by the Government General Administration Service–A Department dated 20.5.2004 wherein the Government has considered the identical issues and clarified the circumstances with the following instructions:

                  According to Rule 23 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules an Appeal/Revision/Review against the order of appointment to a higher posts shall be filed within a period of three months from the date of such order. The Rule 26 relates to the appeal against seniority and other conditions of seniority. The aggrieved person shall file the appeal petition within a period of 90 days from the date on which the junior was promoted. The appellate Authority shall dispose that appeal petition within a period of 90 days from the date on which the junior was promoted. The Appellate Authority shall dispose the appeal petition within a maximum period of one year. While the rule position is as stated above, in several cases, the appeal petition is filed after completion of several years after the junior was promoted to the next higher category, with a request to revise the seniority. In this context, the judicial pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India ruling on seniority in service matters, published in the Hindu dated 11.07.1998 has been reported in (1996) 2 SSC 523 is extracted below.

                  During the entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the other aforesaid persons and the rights interest had crystalled which ought not to have been reopened after the apse of such long period. I every stage others were promoted before B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta right from the beginning as found by the Division Beach itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situation after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not Justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 228 and to reject the writ petition."

                  Government direct that in dealing with the cases for fixing the seniority the procedure and the rules prescribed in Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules or in Special Rules governing the post shall be followed. No request for revision of seniority for a period which is more than 3 years old shall be considered. The seniority list in each category shall be communicated, as and when the employee completes the prescribed period of probation in the respective category

13. As per the said Government Memo, the Government has considered the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1998) 2 SCC 523 and categorically directed the unit officers stating that the seniority list in each category shall be communicated as and when the employee completes the prescribed period of probation in the respective category. In the instant case, immediately after the completion of probation, the unit officer i.e. respondent no.4 herein has prepared provisional seniority list on 31.10.2012 based on the age/date of birth. It is also not in dispute that at the time of preparation no marks have been received from the concerned District Training Centers. Accordingly, by following Rule 36(iii) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996, they have prepared the seniority list and objections were called. No objections were received and accordingly, they have finalized.

14. Further, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the seniority list which was prepared in the year 2012 even at that point of time, respondent no.4 has prepared the seniority list and objections were called and admittedly no objections have been received by respondent no.4 has finalized the said seniority list.

15. Some of the candidates when they have filed a representation for revising the seniority list, the same has been considered and rejected by the respondents vide proceedings dated 26.4.2022. Even they have not chosen to challenge said proceedings. Hence in the said circumstances, the respondents are stopped to revise the settled seniority list after a period of more than a decade.

16. In fact for the reasons best known, once the authority has rejected to revise the seniority list, he has no power to review his own orders. But surprisingly, entertaining the representation made by some persons and sought clarification from respondent no.2. While pending clarification, he has proceed to revise the seniority list which is again illegal and arbitrary action.

17. Learned counsel further relied on the Government Memo clarifying the issue vide orders dated 02.12.2024 wherein the Government has considered the request made by respondent no.4 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Kakinada and has clarified the same with the following instructions.

                  He is further Informed that the Government vide Cir. Memo No.57759/Ser-A/2004-1, General Administration (Ser-A) Department, dated 20-05-2004, has directed "in dealing with the cases for fixing the seniority the procedure and the rules prescribed in Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules or in Special Rules governing the post shall be followed. No request for revision of seniority for a period which is more than three (3) years old shall be considered. The seniority list in each category shall be communicated, as and when the employee completes the prescribed period of probation in the respective category.

                  The Departments of Secretariat, the Heads of Departments and other Appointing Authorities are directed to follow the instructions scrupulously".

                  In the circumstances stated aforesaid paras, the Director General of Police, A.P., Mangalagiri is requested to examine the seniority list of PCs of Kakinada District as per existing rules and take necessary action in the matter being a competent authority.

18. On perusal of the above instructions, the Government has mainly relied on the Government Memo dated 20.5.2004 stating that no request for revision of seniority for a period of which is more than three years old shall be considered and further giving liberty to the Director General of Police, A.P., Mangalagiri to examine PC of Kakinada District as per the existing Rules and take necessary action. In the said circumstances, respondent no.4 has to consider the instructions of the Government strictly in accordance with the circular memo dated 20.5.2004 but not as per the G.O.Ms.No.374 Home Department dated 14.12.1999. When the Government has clarified that no seniority is supposed to be revised after a period of three years. Respondent no.4 mis-interrupting the same and revised the seniority after lapse of 12 years based on G.O.Ms.No.374 dated 14.12.1999.

19. Further he has made submissions that admittedly, no marks were communicated by the DTC, Warangal and Srikakulam at the time of appointments after completing the training and based on the request made by respondent no.4 the Principal of CTC, Warangal categorically stated that no records of final examination/hard copy was not available and only CD is available in the said institution. Accordingly, he has forwarded the CD. On verification of the marks sheet sent by the Principal, CTC, Warangal, no attestation is available. As far as final result sheet sent by DTC, Srikakulam, there is an attestation of all the officers. Hence the counsel for the petitioner has also raised a dispute with regard to the authenticity of said marks list. Accordingly, the counsel has submitted that when no records are available, the question of preparation of seniority list based on the over all marks obtained after completion of training would not arise in the instant case and however not only in this District there are several districts of 2009 batch they have prepared the seniority only based on age/date of birth and the same has been confirmed and promotions were also affected in those districts. Here peculiarly, respondent no.4 has taken a stand that so far no promotions were effected from 2009 candidates. Hence he wants to revise the seniority list as per G.O.Ms.No.374 dated 14.12.1999 is quite contrary and illegal. To support his contention he has placed reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in between Ajay Kumar Shukla and others vs. Arvind Rai and others((2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 579) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the previous judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and held as follows:

                  In Dayaram A. Gursahani, there was a delay of 9 years. In B.S. Bajwa, there was a delay of more than a decade. In Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza, the delay was of 15 years and in R.S. Makashi there was a delay of 8 years. In all these cases, this Court has recorded that the delay has not been explained. Shiba Shankar Mohapatra is a judgment of 2010, which has laid down that three to four years would be a reasonable period to challenge a seniority list and also that any challenge beyond the aforesaid period would require satisfactory explanation.

20. As per the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is very clear that no seniority/seniority list which is settled cannot be revised after long lapse of time and the Court held that reasonable period would be 3 to 4 years to challenge the said seniority list. That too, the said period would be required satisfactory explanation. But in the instant case, initially after declaration of probation of all the 2009 recruitees, respondent no.4 has prepared provisional seniority on 31.10.2012 calling for objections and the same has been finalized. Once, the said action is confirmed, the respondents are estopped to revise the revise the seniority list after long lapse of 12 years which is not only contrary to the Government memo dated 20.5.2004 but the same is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, he requested to set aside the impugned orders by confirming the seniority list which was finalized on 31.10.2012 and also on 15.11.2014.

21. Reply to the said contentions, both learned Government Pleader as well as learned counsel for unofficial respondents have mainly relied on Special Rules for A.P.Police (civil) Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.374 dated 14.12.1999. Rule 10(vi) of the said rules deals with seniority which says as follows:

                  Seniority:-

                  i. The inter-se-seniority of Police Constables of Class-A and Class-B recruited direct in a particular batch of a particular district/Hyderabad City Police shall be fixed based on the total marks secured by them at the time of recruitment together with the marks secured by them at the time of recruitment together with the marks secured in the examination conducted at the end of the training.

22. As per the above said rule, it mandates the seniority of the police constables shall be fixed based on the total marks secured by them at the time of recruitment together with the marks secured by them in the examination conducted at the end of the training. When the respondents have committed a mistake while preparing the seniority list in 2012-2014 that cannot be a ground to continue the said mistake. Once the authorities have realized the mistake that can be rectified at any point of time. As respondent no.4 has noticed the said mistake based on the request made by unofficial respondents and he sought clarification from the concerned respondents and respondent no.1 as per the clarification issued by the Government, respondent no.4 has prepared and finalized the seniority list in terms of the statutory rules. Hence the impugned action of the respondent no.4 is in accordance with the rules. Though they have prepared the seniority list in 2012 and 2014, but admittedly the said list was not acted upon. Hence there is no question of unsettling the settled issue. As of now, no 2009 candidates were considered for promotion. They have effected promotions only up to 2008 candidates. Hence there is no illegality in revising the seniority based on the statutory rules. When the statutory rules mandates to prepare a seniority list in a particular manner if any seniority is contrary to the said statutory rule is bad in law. Accordingly, respondent no.4 has rightly considered the request made by the unofficial respondents and as per the clarification given by the Government, the respondents have revised the seniority list and the same has to be confirmed by dismissing the petition.

23. To support his contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents has also relied on the very same judgment i.e. Ajay Kumar Shukla and others vs. Arvind Rai and others which reads as follows:

                  Once it is established that the seniority list was prepared in contravention of the statutory provisions laid down in the 1991 Rules, the seniority list could be interfered with. The appointing authority would be bound by the statutory rules and any violation or disregard to the statutory rules would vitiate the seniority list. The same would be arbitrary, dehors the rules and in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The only exception to the above would be where there is unreasonable delay which is unexplained

24. As per the above referred paragraph, it is clear that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that once the seniority list was prepared in contravention of statutory provisions that seniority list could be interfered with and the appointing authority would be bound by statutory rules and any violation or disregard to the statutory rules and would vitiate the seniority list. Even in the instant case, earlier the respondents have prepared the seniority list dehors to the statutory period and when it was noticed and the same was brought to the authorities, they have rectified the said mistake and prepared seniority list based on rules as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment.

25. Having considered the rival submissions, no doubt the respondents have prepared the seniority list while declaring the probation of 2009 candidates on 31.10.2012 without following Rule 10 of the Special Rules for A.P. Police (civil) Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.374. As contended by the petitioner, no candidate has filed any objection to the said seniority list and also the seniority list which was confirmed on 12.11.2014 and subsequent rejection on 26.4.2022. In all these years, the unofficial respondents have not chosen to either question the same or to file any appeal under Rule 23 of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules which reads as follows:

23. APPEAL, REVISION AND REVIEW OF ORDERS OF APPOINTMENT (INCLUDING PROMOTION) TO HIGHER POSTS:-

                  An order appointing a member of a service or class service or category to a higher post by transfer or by promotion may, within a period of six months from the date of such order, be revised by an authority to which an appeal would lie against the order of dismissal passed against a member of a service, class or category, such revision may be made by the appellate authority aforesaid, either on its own motion or on an appeal filed by the aggrieved member of the service, class or category. Provided that the Government may, irrespective or whether they are the appellate authority or not, revise such order of appointment after the expiry of the period of six months aforesaid, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. Provided further that no order or revision under this rule shall be passed unless the person likely to be affected by such revision is given an opportunity of making his representation against the proposed revision.

26. As per the above said rule, the effected persons has to file an appeal within a particular period. But in the instant case, no objections/ appeal has been filed by the effected persons. In fact, the identical circumstances have been considered by the Government and issued a circular memo on 20.5.2004 based on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court that no request for revision of seniority should be considered after three years. It is undoubtedly, said memo has been considered while giving clarification on 02.12.2024 also, but surprisingly respondent no.4 has not taken the said observations into consideration.

27. Further this Court has also noticed that the authorities have not chosen to get the marks list at the time of making appointments and the appointments made without getting any marks list. Once the appointments were made and probation has been declared and seniority has been prepared in 2012, the same cannot be re-visited after a period of 12 years that to just before maturing for promotions. Even according to respondent no.4, no promotions have been made from the candidates of 2009 selections but undoubtedly for all these years, the petitioners were placed above the unofficial respondents in the earlier seniority list. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (1998) 2 SCC 523 that the entire period i.e. more than a decade they were all along treated as juniors to the petitioners and rights and interests have crystallized and after long lapse of a decade the respondents cannot entitle to unsettle the settled seniority list. Undoubtedly, the same principle has been reiterated in the Ajay Kumar Shukla and others (referred to supra) case wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically taken into consideration with various Apex Court’s judgments that there is delay of 9 years, 8 years, and 15 years and held that the reasonable period would be 3 to 4 years to challenge the seniority list and if it is beyond the said period, the delay has to be explained satisfactorily.

28. Further on a perusal of the paragraph no.13 of the said judgment, Court observed that the seniority list prepared in contravention of statutory provisions that seniority list could be interfered with but exemption is granted and that the unreasonable delay is to be explained. By taking the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the clarification given by the Government in its memo dated 02.12.2024, it is clear that there is an extraordinary delay in re-visiting the seniority list prepared and finalized in 2012.

29. On perusal of the counters filed by the respondents both official as well as unofficial, no satisfactory delay is explained. In fact for the 2012 and 2014 lists, no objections have been filed by the unofficial respondents and even 26.4.2022, respondent no.4 has considered and rejected the case of the unofficial respondents by following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court only on the ground that settled position cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time. Even the proceedings have not been challenged by the effected persons.

30. In the said circumstances, without assailing the rejection order dated 26.4.2022, undoubtedly, the unofficial respondents are estopped to re-visit the issue once again and respondent no.4 is also not entitled to review his own orders. By taking the above said facts into consideration and also considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have not explained the latches for reviewing its earlier seniority list. Though the seniority list which was prepared in the years 2012 and 2014 are contrary to rules, but after lapse of 12 years, the same cannot be permitted to unsettle that to just before consideration for promotions.

31. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings of respondent no.4 vide C.No.42/A1/2024 dated 05.3.2025 and the consequential proceedings of respondent no.4 vide Rc.No.6723/A1/2024 dated 05.3.2025 are set aside directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the seniority list which was finalized in 2012 and 2014.

32. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.