ORDER Under Rule 47 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby relaxes General Rule 34 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules and Note 2 under Rule of the Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Engineering Subordinate Service issued in GOMs No. 244, Panchayat Raj, dated 6-3-1963 in favour of the temporary Supervisors mentioned hereunder to enable their services to be regularised with retrospective effect from the dates of their temporary appointments as Supervisors. Sarvasri 1. K. Ganga Raju 2. R. Appala Naidu 3. D. Kanakaiah 4. R. Chakradhara Rao 5. B. Suryanarayana Rao 6. M. Suryanarayana Rao 7. D. Koteswara Reddy 8. B.P. Venkata Raju 9. A. Pedsambayya 10. E. Gani Raju Under Rule 47 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby also relaxes No. 2 under Rule 2 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Engineering Subordinate Service Rules issued in GOMs No. 244, Panchayat Raj, dated 6-3-1963 in favour of Shri M. Krishna Reddy, Supervisor to enable his services being regularised with retrospective effect from the date of his temporary appointment as Supervisor. Government have also decided that all the promotee-Supervisors placed under similar circumstances as those mentioned in para 1 above be also regularised as Supervisors with retrospective effect from the date of their first appointment as Supervisors and that the seniority of all the promotee-Supervisors including those mentioned in para above be fixed in accordance with the rules. The Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj is requested to take immediately necessary action to issue notices to all the Supervisors who would be affected by the orders issued in para 2 above to file their objections if any within 15 days and submit the objection, if any, received to Government along with his remarks on each of them for consideration." 6. From a reading of the above it is clear that operation of Rule 34 has been relaxed and the requirement of five years service to qualify for promotion as supervisor is also relaxed under Rule 47. The effect of it would be as under : "Even though the petitioners/appellants were not approved probationers as overseers which was prescribed under Rule 34, they became such approved probationers." 7. The effect of it would be as under : "Even though the petitioners/appellants were not approved probationers as overseers which was prescribed under Rule 34, they became such approved probationers." 7. Equally, irrespective of the fact that GOMs No. 244 dated 6-3-1963 was retrospective in its operation i.e. 1-11-1960 by reason of this relaxation under GOMs No. 254, the requirement of five years as a precondition for promotion could not be insisted upon. It does not matter as far as the petitioners/appellants are concerned, how GOMs No. 254 came to be passed. They should have the benefit of this Government Order which benefit they are entitled to legitimately. This Court also put its imprimatur on that position. Therefore, in our considered view, the Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioners/appellants were not approved probationers of service as overseers and that deficiency could not be overcome. 8. In the result, the writ petition and the civil appeals will stand allowed. The original seniority accorded to these persons will stand undisturbed. We make it clear that the relief that we have granted would confine only to the writ petitioners and the appellants before us and no one else. Relief granted confines only to the following petitioners/appellants : 1. G. Ramakrishna Rao Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11787 of 1985 2. P. Kotilingeswara Rao 3. K. Raghu 4. P. Narasimham 5. K.V. Ranga Reddy Appellant in CA No. 1353 of 1986 9. It follows that they will be entitled to all consequential benefits, both monetary and promotional chances. We, however, make it clear that we are not expressing any views about the ranking accorded to the direct recruits by the Service Commission. No costs. 10. It is open to the State to so adjust the claims of these five persons without disturbing the promotions already accorded to the respondents concerned. SLPs (C) Nos. 3247 of 1986, 6574 of 1987 and 60 of 1988 11. In view of the above order, these special leave petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. 12. Ordered accordingly.