ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions were filed assailing the correctness of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad (for short the tribunal ) in O. A. No. 3047 of 1996, dated 6-7-1999 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents not to alter the seniority list in the cadre of Junior Assistants and Senior assistants. As the issue involved in these two writ petitions is one and the same, they can be disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) THE Writ Petition No. 17749 of 1999 was filed by Sri R. Venkata Ratnam after obtaining permission from this Court as the petitioner was not made a party respondent in the above said O. A. , by the third respondent herein, though he was an affected party. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in W. P. No. 17749 of 1999 was appointed as Record Assistant in the year 1985 in the Office of the Deputy commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Abids, hyderabad and subsequently he was attached to the Deputy Commissioner, commercial Taxes, Charminar, Hyderabad and in the year 1986 he made a request to the second respondent herein for his mutual transfer to the office of the Second respondent in place of Sri Lokanadham, record Assistant who was working in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, commercial Taxes. The second respondent conceded to the mutual transfer and by his proceedings dated 16-8-1986 transferred him to the second respondent office and he took last rank among the approved probationers working in the second respondent office at that time. Subsequently, he was promoted to the cadre of Junior Assistant in the same office and his probation was declared with effect from 20-12-1990 and after placing him in the list of approved probationers, he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 11-7-1994. Subsequently, he was promoted to the cadre of Junior Assistant in the same office and his probation was declared with effect from 20-12-1990 and after placing him in the list of approved probationers, he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 11-7-1994. ( 4 ) THE petitioner further submitted that the third respondent was initially appointed as Roneo Operator in the second respondent office in the year 1981 and subsequently transferred at his own request to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, commercial Taxes, Charminar Division, hyderabad, and thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 1984 and on 18-5-1991 he made a representation to the second respondent requesting him to take him on transfer to his office, giving an undertaking that he would take last rank among the probationers and approved probationers in the category of Junior Assistants in the second respondent office, and the second respondent vide orders in CCT s reference no. C1/1332/90-2, dated 10-12-1992 transferred him to the second respondent s office, specifically stating that his seniority in the category of Junior Assistant in the second respondent s office will be fixed from the date on which he joined in that office in category 10 under Rule 33 (a) and (b) of the State and Subordinate Service rules as envisaged in G. O. Ms. No. 607, general Administration (Services-A) department, dated 6-11-1992. Therefore, the third respondent has no claim to fix up his seniority above the approved probationers in the cadre and there were also no vacancies till 1992. ( 5 ) IN Writ Petition No. 17595 of 1999, filed by S. V. P. Sarvani and V. Krishna Rao, who are recruited directly through the A. P. P. S. Commission for the post of Junior Assistant in the Head of the Department and at the time of filing of the writ petition the petitioners were working as Senior assistants under the control of the Second respondent. It is their further case that they were originally selected by the A. P. P. S. Commission in the year 1988 under group-II-B Services and appointed as junior Assistants on 20-7-1988 and 8-8-88 respectively. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were regularized from the date of their appointment after declaration of their probation in the category of Junior assistants and on 11-7-1994, they were promoted as Senior Assistants and they are continuing as such. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were regularized from the date of their appointment after declaration of their probation in the category of Junior assistants and on 11-7-1994, they were promoted as Senior Assistants and they are continuing as such. ( 6 ) THE petitioners further submit that the second respondent issued a provisional seniority list of Junior Assistants/typists/ lower Divisional Stenos working in the office of the second respondent in CCT s reference No. Cl/2110/94, dated 21-4-1995 and was communicated to all the concerned calling for objections, within fifteen days, duly placing on the notice board of the second respondent office on 4-5-1995, and if no objections were received, the seniority list would be finalized. Thereafter, the second respondent finalized the seniority list through their proceedings CCT s Reference No. Cl/2110/94, dated 7-9-1995 and the same was communicated to all the individuals concerned. As per the said seniority list, the petitioner in W. P. No. 17749 of 1999 stands at serial No. 84, while the petitioners in W. P. No. 17595 of 1999 stand at 78 and 76 respectively and the third respondent stands at 89. The third respondent did not choose to question the said seniority list at any point of time and, therefore, the relief sought for by him in the said O. A. , order of which is impugned in this writ petition to count his seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistants from the date of his initial appointment in the Subordinate Office cannot be granted. It is further stated by the petitioner in W. P. No. 17749 of 1999 that when his request for re-fixation of the seniority in the cadre of junior Assistants was not considered by the respondent No. 2 herein, he filed O. A. No. 458 of 1996 and as per the directions of the Tribunal, the request of the third respondent was rejected by the second respondent and therefore, he filed O. A. No. 3047 of 1996 against the proceedings in cct s reference No. Cl/1420/95-1, dated 8-4-1996. The grounds raised by the third respondent in the said O. A. are that the appointment of the third respondent was made in accordance with the Rules it cannot be treated as a transfer at his request and g. O. MS. No. 607, GAD, dated 6-11-1992 will not take away his right to fixation of seniority according to Rules. The grounds raised by the third respondent in the said O. A. are that the appointment of the third respondent was made in accordance with the Rules it cannot be treated as a transfer at his request and g. O. MS. No. 607, GAD, dated 6-11-1992 will not take away his right to fixation of seniority according to Rules. He further contended therein that the appointment made under Rule 3 (8-A) is a. regular appointment and as such the seniority in the category of Junior Assistant would be counted from the date of his original appointment in Subordinate Office and he being an approved probationer, will be entitled for seniority in Junior Assistant category with effect from the date of his initial promotion in Subordinate Office. The third respondent relied on judgment of the tribunal in O. A. Nos. 23254 to 23257 of 1991 and Batch, which interpreted Rule 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service rules and holding that the Senior Assistants working in Subordinate Offices were appointed by transfer under Rule 3 (2) of the said Rules and as such the said appointments cannot be treated as a request transfer and their seniority shall be fixed with reference to the date of first appointment in the Senior Assistant category in Subordinate Offices. It is further submitted that the Special Leave petition filed by the Government against the said order of the Tribunal was also dismissed on 19-2-1996 and therefore, he sought for considering his seniority in terms of the said judgment in Batch of O. As. referred to above. The Tribunal, after following the above said judgment, allowed o. A. No. 3047 of 1996 on 19-3-1996 setting aside the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 8-4-1996 directing him to re-fix the seniority of the third respondent herein in accordance with rule 3 (8-A) of the A. P. Ministerial Service rules, since the third respondent came at his own request to the office of the second respondent. The second respondent pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, through his proceedings C1/847/96, dated 11-7-1997 mooted a proposal to the government for implementation of orders of the Tribunal in favour of the third respondent herein and other Junior assistants under Rule 3 (8-A) of the A. P. Ministerial Service Rules. The second respondent pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, through his proceedings C1/847/96, dated 11-7-1997 mooted a proposal to the government for implementation of orders of the Tribunal in favour of the third respondent herein and other Junior assistants under Rule 3 (8-A) of the A. P. Ministerial Service Rules. ( 7 ) IN consideration of the above proposal of the second respondent, the Government in Memo No. l5/4648/ct. III (2)/97-3, dated 9-12-1997 provisionally decided to assign seniority to the third respondent and three others in the category of Junior Assistant/ junior Steno from the date indicated against their names and requested the second respondent to issue notices to the affected persons. In pursuance of the said orders of the Government dated 9-12-1997, the second respondent issued consequential proceedings in C1/847/96, dated 6-4-1998 calling for objections within fifteen days from the affected parties. Against the above said proceedings, the petitioners have filed their objections stating that the third respondent came at his own request and he should take the last rank among the approved probationers and probationers, as the case may be and the second respondent has not decided so far and it is still pending. The petitioner in W. P. No. 17749/99 has given reasons for filing the writ petition that when the third respondent filed O. A. No. 3047 of 1996 before the Tribunal, he was not made a party respondent and if the judgment of the Tribunal is implemented, their seniority will be affected. They further stated that the third respondent joined in the office of the second respondent on 11-12-1992, at his own request, and therefore, he has to take last rank among the probationers and approved probationers and he has also given an undertaking to that effect in his representation dated 18-5-1991. By the above said date, the petitioners were approved probationers in the category of Junior Assistant and the third respondent has to take rank below them and he is entitled to seniority only from 21-12-1992 under Rule 33 (a) of the A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, which specify that the seniority shall be reckoned from the date of appointment by transfer to the said category of post in the office of the second respondent, inasmuch as the deputy Commissioner s Office, Charminar, division and the Commissioner s Office, hyderabad are two different units under the Presidential Order, 1975. ( 8 ) O. A. No. 3047 of 1996 was disposed of by the Tribunal on 6-7-1999 and Sri v. Krishna Rao and two others have filed writ Petition No. 13367 of 1998 questioning the proceedings dated 6-4-1998 of the second respondent. Similarly, Smt. Venkata meenakshi and two others filed Writ petition No. 19761 of 1998 against the orders of the first respondent dated 9-12-1997 against the proceedings of the second respondent dated 6-4-1998 and this Court by order dated 6-4-1999 set aside the order dated 26-3-1997 passed by the Tribunal and remanded O. A. No. 3047 of 1996 with directions to hear the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the Government Pleader and to take decision in the matter by 7-5-1999. Thereafter, the Tribunal has disposed of the O. A. which is impugned in this writ petition, directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicant with reference to his deemed date of promotion as Junior Assistant on 24-4-1986 in subordinate Office and give all the consequential monetary benefits. ( 9 ) IT is contended by the petitioners that the Tribunal should have seen that the third respondent was transferred from subordinate Office i. e. , Deputy commissioner s Office, Charminar Division to the office of the Second respondent, at his request and that the third respondent has given an undertaking that he would take last rank among the probationers and approved probationers in the Category of junior Assistants in the office of the second respondent. There are three methods of recruitment to the cadre of Junior Assistants viz. , by direct recruitment by promotion and appointment by way of transfer of junior Assistants working in the subordinate Offices, under its administrative control. The method of recruitment for the posts meant for direct recruitment is through A. P. P. S. C. in the heads of Departments under Group-II B services for which the qualification is graduation while the recruitment of Junior assistants in Subordinate Offices is through group IV Services conducted by the District service Commission authorities for which the qualification is Intermediate. The third respondent was appointed in the subordinate Office as Junior Assistant by way of promotion and the Junior Assistant in Head of the Departments is in category 10 while in the Subordinate Offices, it is in category 11 as per Rule 1 of the A. P. State subordinate Service Rules. The third respondent was appointed in the subordinate Office as Junior Assistant by way of promotion and the Junior Assistant in Head of the Departments is in category 10 while in the Subordinate Offices, it is in category 11 as per Rule 1 of the A. P. State subordinate Service Rules. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the third respondent from the date of his initial appointment is contrary to the said Rules and therefore, liable to be set aside. . ( 10 ) THE petitioners further submitted that a transfer from one unit to another unit is different from recruitment by transfer from Subordinate Office to the Head of the departments and, therefore, the contention of the third respondent that he was appointed by transfer in the same post is not correct inasmuch as the third respondent was Junior Assistant in subordinate Office, which falls under category 11 whereas the post of Junior assistant in the Head of the Department falls under category 10. That apart, as per rule 25 (1) of the A. P. Ministerial Service rules, every person appointed by transfer to a category i. e. , transferee, shall be on probation for a period of one year on duty with a continuous period of two years. Further according to Rule 33 (a), the seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless has been reduced to a lower rank, as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. Rule 33 (A) clearly specifies that the seniority of a person appointed from one category to another shall be determined with the date of such appointment. Therefore, fixation of his seniority in the office of the second respondent with effect from his date of joining i. e. , 11-12-1992 is in accordance with Rules and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is not correct and liable to be set aside. Therefore, fixation of his seniority in the office of the second respondent with effect from his date of joining i. e. , 11-12-1992 is in accordance with Rules and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is not correct and liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) IT is further submitted by the petitioners that there are no vacancies in the head Office upto the year 1992 in the category of Junior Assistants and the third respondent was appointed by transfer only in 1992 when a vacancy arose and he joined on 11-12-1992 therefore, the question of counting his seniority from the date of his initial appointment does not arise, when there was no vacancy prior to 1992. It is evident from the proceedings of the first respondent while ratifying the action of the second respondent through G. O. Ms. No. 671, Revenue (SS) Department dated 1-7-1985, since quota under Rule 3 (8-A) exceeded no further transfers shall be effected either from Secretariat Department or from the Subordinate Offices until the quota comes within the norms prescribed under the Rules and directed the second respondent to take an action accordingly and the excess quota taken by the second respondent was adjusted upto 1992 and the third respondent was appointed at his request in the year 1992. Therefore, his seniority cannot be fixed from the date of his initial appointment as Junior Assistant. ( 12 ) IT is further submitted by the petitioners that when the second respondent has called for objections for finalizing the seniority list in the category of junior Assistants, the third respondent has neither chosen to file any objection nor preferred any appeal against the final seniority list. He did not even question the seniority list prepared by the second respondent even after effecting promotions to the post of Senior Assistants. He also did not raise any objection while he faced reversions twice. Therefore, the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the above said aspects. As such the seniority list prepared by the second respondent has attained finality and it is not open for the third respondent to question the same at any subsequent stage. The O. A. was filed suppressing the above said facts and therefore, the Tribunal should have dismissed the same. They further submitted that the quota rule was not in operation as per G. O. Ms. The O. A. was filed suppressing the above said facts and therefore, the Tribunal should have dismissed the same. They further submitted that the quota rule was not in operation as per G. O. Ms. No. 761, Revenue (SS) department, dated 1-7-1985 and the subsequent Government Memo No. 3355/ ssi/86-1 Revenue (SS) Department, dated 22-10-1986 from 1982 to 1992. Therefore, they prayed the Court to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 6-7-1999 in o. A. No. 3047 of 1996. ( 13 ) MR. J. R. Manohar, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent while reiterating his contentions raised before the Tribunal, submitted that the transfer was made under Rule 3 (8-A) of the a. P. Ministerial Service Rules. Admittedly, out of 12 vacancies. 1st, 6th and tenth vacancy shall be filled by way of appointment by transfer of Junior Assistant working in the Subordinate Offices under its administrative control. Though the request was made by the third respondent, the appointment was made as per rule 3 (8-A) of the A. P. Ministerial Service rules and therefore, he is entitled for seniority at appropriate place. Arguing so, he tried to support the judgment of the tribunal. ( 14 ) SRI N. Rama Mohan Rao, appearing for some of the unofficial respondents contended that as per the Presidential order, 1975, Andhra Pradesh State is divided into seven zones and the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad form one zone. Therefore, the transfer of third respondent from Subordinate Office to the head of Department tantamounts to transfer from one zone to another zone and therefore, the power of transfer has to be exercised by the Government and not by the Head of the Department. Whereas in the instant case, the order was passed by the second respondent making the appointment of the third respondent by transfer from Subordinate Office to the head Office, therefore the appointment of third respondent by transfer is illegal. ( 15 ) BUT it is submitted across the Bar that the Department of Commercial Taxes is exempted from application of the presidential Order, 1975. Therefore, the above contention does not merit consideration and accordingly rejected. The tribunal also rejected the said contention. ( 16 ) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be seen that the petitioner in W. P. No. 17749 of 1999 was transferred from Subordinate Office, viz. Therefore, the above contention does not merit consideration and accordingly rejected. The tribunal also rejected the said contention. ( 16 ) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be seen that the petitioner in W. P. No. 17749 of 1999 was transferred from Subordinate Office, viz. , office of the Deputy Commissioner, commercial Taxes, Charminar, to the Head office at his own request and he was placed below the probationers and approved probationers. Whereas, at the request of the third respondent, he was transferred from subordinate Office to the office of the second respondent and it was made clear in his appointment order that the third respondent s seniority in the cadre of Junior assistant in the office of the second respondent will be fixed from the date of his joining in the Unit of the Second respondent in the category 10, under rule 33 (a) and (b) of the General Rules as envisaged in G. O. Ms. No. 507 General administration (Ser. A) Department, dated 6-11-1992. The third respondent accepted the same and joined duty on 11-12-1992. Moreover, when the provisional seniority list was prepared by the second respondent, it was communicated to all the concerned and also objections were called for within fifteen days, if any; the third respondent has not chosen to file any objection and thus he has accepted his seniority and allowed the seniority list to attain finality in the year 1995. Thereafter, he woke up and made representation to the second respondent on 4-11-1995 requesting to consider the issue of re-fixation of seniority in the cadre of Junior assistants, which was correctly rejected by the second respondent. Against that order, the O. A. No. 3407 of 1996 was filed. ( 17 ) IT is pertinent to mention here that the post of Junior Assistant in the office of head of the Department is included in category 10 and the minimum qualifications prescribed for the said post is graduation, while the same post is in category 11 in subordinate Offices and the minimum qualification is Intermediate standard. ( 17 ) IT is pertinent to mention here that the post of Junior Assistant in the office of head of the Department is included in category 10 and the minimum qualifications prescribed for the said post is graduation, while the same post is in category 11 in subordinate Offices and the minimum qualification is Intermediate standard. The appointment by transfer of the third respondent is not made in usual course, but was considered by the respondent No. 2 at his own request and he has accepted the appointment with a condition that his seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistants in the office of the Head of the Department, will be below the probationers and approved probationers. Once the third respondent has accepted the appointment with such a stipulation and waived his right of fixation of seniority from the date of his initial appointment with his knowledge and consent and gave an undertaking to that effect, he cannot now turn round and contend that he is entitled to seniority from the date of his initial appointment and claim that his seniority has to be fixed taking into consideration the date of first appointment in the Subordinate Service as junior Assistant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appointment though made under Rule 3 (8-A), at the request of the individual, clearly falls within the ambit of transfer from one zone to another zone as stated supra. In normal course, the consideration of the case of third respondent for appointment by transfer from Subordinate Office to the Head of department in the first vacancy under rule 3 (8-A) does not arise, but the case of the third respondent was considered and he was appointed by transfer from subordinate Office to the Head Office, solely at his request and after he gave an undertaking to abide by the conditions of such appointment by transfer. Therefore, his case squarely falls within the ambit of rule 27 (l) (iii) of the A. P. Ministerial Service rules, which is hereunder extracted for convenience. ". . . The seniority of a member of the service who is transferred at his own request from one Department or office to another shall be fixed in the latter department or office with reference to the date of his first appointment in the latter department or office. . . ". . . The seniority of a member of the service who is transferred at his own request from one Department or office to another shall be fixed in the latter department or office with reference to the date of his first appointment in the latter department or office. . . "it is also pertinent to add here that for making an appointment by transfer, the head of the Department has to ascertain the candidates who are interested to go over to the Head Office from Subordinate Office. But in this case on hand, the appointment by transfer was made by the second respondent at the request of the third respondent. The same was in the case of petitioner in W. P. No. 17749/99 also. ( 18 ) THE writ petitioner in W. P. No. 17749 of 1999 was appointed by transfer from subordinate Service to the Head Office and he has also gone the same process and treatment and he was placed below the probationers and approved probationers. Therefore, on the principles of equity also, a different treatment cannot be given to the third respondent, more particularly when he has not questioned the seniority list prepared by the second respondent at an appropriate time. ( 19 ) THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons we are of the considered view that the tribunal was in error in allowing the O. A. No. 3047 of 1996 and directing the official respondents to fix the seniority of the applicant therein - the third respondent herein with reference to his deemed date of promotion as Junior Assistant on 24-4-1986 in Moffusil Office and give all consequential monetary benefits. Therefore, the writ setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal, impugned in this writ petitions. But in the circumstances of the case, without costs.