ORDER The question of re-determination of inter se seniority of the Deputy Tahsildars in Andhra Pradesh pursuant to the amended rules of 1992 is the subject-matter of challenge in these appeals. This Court upheld the validity of Rule 4-E of the earlier Rules of 1961 and only struck down the retrospective operation of the provision and directed that the Rules should be given prospective effect as reported in KY. Subba Rao v. Govt. of A.P.2 By the subsequent rule of 1992 which is also amended rule under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the entire principle appears to have been changed and the question for determination is whether the seniority of officers in the cadre already determined pursuant to the 1961 Rules is required to be redetermined in accordance with the Rules of 1992. On the face of it, the Rule does not purport to have been given any retrospective a effect. Mr Mishra appearing for the promotees, however, brought to our notice a three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Wing Commander J. Kumar v. Union of India in which certain observations have been made in para 17 which stipulate that if there has not been any promotion from the cadre then the seniority of the officers concerned in the cadre could be determined in accordance with the amended rules which had already been b determined in accordance with previous orders/rules. Be it stated that in that case there were no rules under proviso to Article 309 for determination of seniority prior to the impugned rule under consideration but the seniority was being determined under certain administrative orders and the same principle has been incorporated in the Rule. In view of the aforesaid judgment of a three-Judge Bench, we think it appropriate that this case also should be listed before a three-Judge Bench as early as possible. Court Masters