ORDER : 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in RP No. 641 of 1988 dated 6-6-1989. The petition before the Tribunal was filed by five petitioners seeking a direction to the respondent to finalise the seniority list pursuant to his proceedings dated 16-9-1987 strictly in accordance with the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Excise Constables only or in the alternative to reckon their seniority with effect from the date on which posts of Head Constables were created on 5-2-1982, irrespective of the date of regularisation in the cadre of Head Constables. The Tribunal dismissed the petition and against the said order this appeal has been preferred. 2. In the State of Andhra Pradesh the post of Excise Constable was the lowest post in the Excise Department and the next higher post was that of Excise Head Constable. Both these posts were district cadre posts. On 7-10-1969 the Government downgraded several posts of Excise Head Constables. Subsequently, on 5-2-1982 the Government issued GOMs No. 158 agreeing sanction for creation of 240 posts of Excise Head Constables by upgrading an equal number of posts of Excise Constables/Tree Markers. It was also decided that the recruitments shall be made by promotion only and not by direct recruitment. 3. Two hundred and forty upgraded posts were created to be distributed by the Commissioner of Excise, Andhra Pradesh amongst different districts in the State. Seventy-six posts came to be allotted to Zone VI consisting of five districts Medak, Nizamabad, Rangareddi, Nalgonda, Mahbubnagar. Medak district got 14 such posts which were upgraded. The appellants before us were Constables belonging to Medak. 4. The orders relating to upgradation of these posts were communicated by the Deputy Commissioner of the Division to Excise Superintendents of each of the six districts who were the competent authorities to carry out the upgradation of posts of Excise Constables as Head Constables. Unfortunately for the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Excise conveyed the upgradation to the Excise Superintendent, Medak in October 1982, while similar orders were communicated to other districts a few months earlier. Unfortunately for the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Excise conveyed the upgradation to the Excise Superintendent, Medak in October 1982, while similar orders were communicated to other districts a few months earlier. In view of this unfortunate event, while Excise Constables in other districts got promotion as Head Constables in upgraded posts on the basis of their seniority, that is the length of service as Excise Constable, so far as the appellants are concerned, their upgradation was held up till 16-10-1982. For example, in the district of Nalgonda the upgradation took place on 18-6-1982. If the Deputy Commissioner?s communication had reached the districts simultaneously, the upgradation and consequent promotion as Head Constables would have been on or about the same date. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Government it was explained before the Tribunal that the office of the Deputy Commissioner was not at fault inasmuch as information was called for from the Superintendent of Excise in Medak district and the same was sent belatedly and that was the reason why the communication with regard to the upgradation was made sometime later in the case of Medak district. 6. The Tribunal did not accept the contentions of the appellant even though the appellants only sought for notional promotion as Head Constables without the benefit of any arrears. 7. It is possible to contend that even if the Deputy Commissioner concerned was not at fault, at the same time the appellants and other Constables of Medak district were also not at fault. If the Superintendent of Medak could not send the relevant information to the Deputy Commissioner in time, it would be possible to contend that these Constables of Medak should also not suffer. 8. Though it is possible to contend that the appellants are not at fault, we find that assigning them any date anterior to the dates assigned to those in other districts is likely to affect the seniority of all the candidates in other districts. Candidates from the other districts have not been made parties before the Tribunal nor in this Court. In the circumstances, as all the necessary parties are not before us, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. 9. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.