( 1 ) THE writ petitioners, unsuccessful applicants in the O. As. thought of the present legal battle aggrieved of the reckoning of the seniority with retrospectivity by virtue of which it is said that the writ petitioners are seriously prejudiced or affected. The unsuccessful applicants 2 to 4 in O. A. No. 1264/2003 on the file of A. P. Administrative Tribunal, in short referred to as Tribunal hereinafter, filed W. P. No. 20706/2004 praying for a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Tribunal dated 29-10-2004 in O. A. No. 1264/2003 and Batch and quash the same by holding it as illegal, bad, arbitrary and further declare G. O. Ms. No. 73, dated 14-10-2003 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Judgment of the Tribunal dated 9-2-2001 in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch with a further direction to the respondents to prepare the seniority list by taking into account the Judgment of the Tribunal dated 9-2-2001 in O. A. No. 325/1999 and Batch and to effect the promotions to the post of Principal basing on the said Judgment and to pass such other suitable orders. ( 2 ) LIKEWISE, the unsuccessful applicants in O. A. No. 6785/2003 on the file of Tribunal filed W. P. No. 20900/2004 praying for a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of certiorari: (a) call for the records relating to and connected with the Judgment rendered on 29-10-2004 in O. A. No. 6785/2003 and Batch of cases and quash or set aside the same holding it as unsustainable; (b) also call for the records relating to and connected with G. O. Ms. No. 73, Education, dated 14-10-2003 issued by the 1st respondent publishing final seniority list of Lecturers who had been so promoted with effect form 1-4-1976 and quash or set aside the same holding it is illegal, and (c) declare G. O. Ms. No. 73, Education, dated 14-10-2003 issued by the 1st respondent publishing final seniority list of Lecturers who had been so promoted with effect form 1-4-1976 and quash or set aside the same holding it is illegal, and (c) declare G. O. Ms. No. 73, dated 14-10-2003 of the 1st respondent publishing final seniority list of Lecturers giving effect to the notional promotions to seniority also with effect from 1-4-1976 to the Junior Lecturers who were appointed as Lecturers after successful screening and selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee much later to the Lecturers already having much more service as Lecturers as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unconstitutional and against the spirit of the Judgment rendered by the Tribunal on 9-2-2001 in O. A. No. 1507/1999, O. A. No. 1449/1994, O. A. No. 325/1999 etc. , and Batch which became final, and to pass such other suitable orders. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal made the Common Order dated 29-10-2004 in O. A. No. 6785, 6996, 1264, 8578 of 2003. Since the factual matrix is common and the questions involved for adjudication also being common, the matters are being disposed of by this Common Order. ( 4 ) SRI. J. R. Manohar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners in W. P. No. 20706/2004 had traced the historical background of this litigation and also had pointed out to the contents of G. O. Ms. No. 1072, G. O. Ms. No. 423, G. O. Ms. No. 37, G. O. Ms. No. 28 and also the other relevant G. Os. and the correspondence and the Government Memos in relation thereto and had pointed out that even taking into consideration the prior scales of Assistant Lecturers and the Junior Lecturers as can be reflected from G. O. Ms. No. 1072, it is totally unjust in reckoning the seniority of the Junior Lecturers with retrospective day by issuing G. O. Ms. No. 73, dated 14-10-2003 which cannot be sustained. The Counsel also pointed out that there was no provision in the service rules for promotion of Junior Lectures as Lecturers in Government Degree Colleges and for the first time by virtue of the amendment which had been brought in to A. P. Educational Service Rules in G. O. Ms. No. 259, dated 9-2-1962 by G. O. Ms. The Counsel also pointed out that there was no provision in the service rules for promotion of Junior Lectures as Lecturers in Government Degree Colleges and for the first time by virtue of the amendment which had been brought in to A. P. Educational Service Rules in G. O. Ms. No. 259, dated 9-2-1962 by G. O. Ms. No. 423 dated 14-9-1979, a channel had been provided for making such appointments by transfer as Lecturers from the cadre of Junior Lecturers. The Counsel also pointed out that on the strength of seniority, the Departmental Promotion Committee, in short referred to as D. P. C. , recommended candidates for promotion to the category of Lecturers in January 1989. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to R. P. No. 1705/87 wherein U. G. C. scales had been claimed on the ground that they had worked as Junior Lecturers in degree Colleges for more than three years and the said claim was rejected by the Judgment dated 2-7-1993. The learned Counsel also pointed out to G. O. Ms. No. 28 dated 22-1-1999 granting retrospective promotion to 228 Junior Lecturers as Lecturers which was challenged in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch by Assistant Lecturers who were redesignated as Lectures prior to 1980. The Counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal pointed out that the benefits extended to the category of Junior Lecturers by the Government by G. O. Ms. No. 37, Education dated 5-2-1994 and G. O. Ms. No. 28 dated 22-1-1999 will not in any way adversely affect the rights of the present writ petitioners and the other similarly placed persons. The Counsel also pointed out that G. O. Ms. No. 73, dated 14-10-2003 impugned in the O. As. is definitely contrary to the Judgment of the Tribunal made in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch dated 9-2-2001 since the Junior Lecturers who were promoted after 1981 had been given retrospective seniority from 1-4-1976 and Rule 33 of the A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 which came into force on 15-10-1996 cannot be made applicable to such a case and the said Rule has no retrospective effect. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to certain other proceedings and the correspondence and would contend that such fixing of the seniority with retrospective effect which would seriously affect the writ petitioners and such other similarly placed persons definitely cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel meticulously pointed out several other factual details to substantiate his submission. The learned Counsel also in elaboration had explained the reasons why the prior order was not challenged in the light of the clear findings recorded therein. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on S. K. Saha Vs. prem Prakash Agarwal (1994 (1) SLR 37 (SC), State of Bihar Vs. Sri Akhouri Sachindra Nath (1992 (3) SLR 94 (SC), Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1994 (5) SLR 608 (SC) and Vinodanand Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (1995 (7) SLR 713 (SC ). ( 5 ) SRI Nuty Ram Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners in W. P. No. 20900/2004 substantially proceeded adopting the same grounds which had been urged by Sri J. R. Manohar Rao referred to supra. The learned Counsel while further elaborating his submissions had pointed out that the Tribunal had ignored to give effect to the Judgment rendered on prior occasions made in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch. The Counsel also pointed out that the State Government brought a change in structure of cadres among various teaching staff at Degree College level by introducing a Scheme in G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education Department, dated 26-11-1976 and by this rationalization method a host of categories of posts such as Readers, Heads of Departments, Senior Lecturers, Lecturers (Senior Scale), Lecturers (Junior Scales), Assistant Lecturers were merged into a common category called Lecturer and hence a single cadre of Lecturers had been brought into effect from 1-4-1976 and such of those Assistant Lecturers, Tutors and demonstrators working in the Degree Colleges were also brought in to the cadre of Lecturers upon their accomplishing certain other requirements, both academic and length of service. The Counsel also pointed out that those Junior Lecturers working in Junior Colleges do not get merged into common cadre of Lecturers in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 1072 and the State Government had created a channel for promotion to the Junior Lecturers to the post of Lecturer through G. O. Ms. No. 423, Education dated 19-4-1979. The Counsel also pointed out that those Junior Lecturers working in Junior Colleges do not get merged into common cadre of Lecturers in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 1072 and the State Government had created a channel for promotion to the Junior Lecturers to the post of Lecturer through G. O. Ms. No. 423, Education dated 19-4-1979. It is pointed out that till such time an avenue is created, the Junior Lecturers working in Junior Colleges cannot be upgraded as Lecturers with effect from 1-4-1976. The Counsel also further pointed out that the Government passed orders in G. O. Ms. No. 1174, dated 5-10-1981 and 228 posts of Junior Lecturers existing in Degree Colleges were not upgraded as Lecturers and when once the posts of Junior Lecturers were upgraded, the existing incumbent Junior Lecturers can seek consideration for promotion against such posts which can happen only on or after 5-10-1981, but definitely not earlier thereto. The Counsel would explain that is the reason why the claims and cases of Junior Lecturers had been placed before a properly constituted committee which had assessed their suitability for promotion as lecturers and based on the recommendations made by such properly constituted Committee they were promoted during the year 1981-82. The learned Counsel also pointed out that a Junior Lecturer is required to put in 5 years of service to earn promotion as a Lecturer and when the D. P. C. met in the year 1981, it considered the eligible Junior Lecturers and thereafter there was never any assessment made by anybody much less by the D. P. C. or the State Government as to the Junior Lecturers otherwise eligible and qualified to be promoted as Lecturers from 1-4-1976. The Counsel further pointed out that G. O. Ms. No. 423, Education dated 19-4-1979 had been further amended through G. O. Ms. No. 37, Education, dated 5-2-1994, but however the legal position in this regard stands unaltered. The learned Counsel also pointed out that granting notional date of promotion for conferring certain benefits such as career advancement scheme benefits, pay fixation etc. , cannot result in conferring the right to claim seniority. Certain submissions were made relating to R. P. No. 1705/87 and Batch and the learned Counsel also had pointed out to certain relevant portions of the order made by the Tribunal in the said Batch. , cannot result in conferring the right to claim seniority. Certain submissions were made relating to R. P. No. 1705/87 and Batch and the learned Counsel also had pointed out to certain relevant portions of the order made by the Tribunal in the said Batch. The Counsel while concluding had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the order made in O. A. No. 325/95 and Batch and ultimately would conclude that the order which had been impugned in the OAs. definitely cannot be sustained and the Tribunal gravely erred in negativing the relief prayed for by the applicants in the said O. As. ( 6 ) SRI M. Surender Rao, the learned Counsel representing certain of the unofficial respondents, successful Junior Lecturers, made the following submissions. The learned Counsel initially attacked the very legal right of these Assistant Lecturers to question the aspect of seniority on the ground that at no pint of time they were validly appointed to the said posts and there are no proper pleadings and no particulars in this regard had been furnished. The Counsel also had referred to the pleading of the parties in the prior proceedings, stand taken by the Government in this regard and also the directions issued in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch and had pointed out that the said order had attained finality and the same was left unquestioned by the writ petitioners. The learned Counsel while making elaborate submissions had traced the historical background of the Junior Lecturers and the Assistant Lecturers from the commencement and had pointed out that by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 423 dated 19-4-1979 A. P. Educational Service Rules issued under G. O. Ms. No. 259 dated 9-2-1962 were amended providing for appointment to the post of Lecturer by appointment by transfer of a Junior Lecturer and the said amendment was given retrospective effect by G. O. Ms. No. 37 dated 5-2-1994. The Counsel pointed out relating to the giving of benefit of D. A. merged scales by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 1376 dated 1-12-1975. It was further contended that on the strength of the report of the 3 Man Committee, G. O. Ms. No. 1072 dated 26-11-1996 was issued whereunder different categories of Tutors existing in Degree Colleges were merged into i. e. , the category of Lecturer. No. 1376 dated 1-12-1975. It was further contended that on the strength of the report of the 3 Man Committee, G. O. Ms. No. 1072 dated 26-11-1996 was issued whereunder different categories of Tutors existing in Degree Colleges were merged into i. e. , the category of Lecturer. The Counsel also pointed out to the letter dated 10-11-1978 whereunder the Director of Higher Education sought some clarification. The Counsel with all vehemence pointed out to Memorandum No. 838/w2/79-1, dated 24-4-1979 whereunder the Government authorized and directed to redesignate the Assistant Lecturers at Item (5) of the said Memorandum subject to ratification by the Government. At no point of time there was redesignation of these Assistant Lecturers as Lecturers and much less there was any ratification on the part of the Government and there are no pleadings relating to the so called valid appointments and hence the learned Counsel would contend that in the absence of the same, such parties who are unable to establish that they had been validly appointed cannot claim any right to seniority. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on G. Dharma Veera Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2002 Supp. (2) ALD 699 (DB ). The learned Counsel meticulously had taken this Court through all the relevant G. Os. and the correspondence and also the findings recorded in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch and also had pointed out that written arguments in detail had been filed even before the Tribunal and certain of the aspects which had been highlighted were left untouched by the Tribunal. The Counsel also would point out that the principle which had been laid down in the prior order in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch may have to be taken into consideration. The learned Counsel had pointed out to the A. P. Educational Subordinate Service Rules and A. P. Education Service Rules and also adhoc rules for Junior Lecturers and had pointed out to G. O. Ms. No. 423 and G. O. Ms. No. 37 and would contend that the legal fiction would be operative. The redesignation is only an executive fiat. The learned Counsel mainly concentrated on the weakness of the enforceability of any legal right on the part of the writ petitioners by pointing out to several G. Os. and also the correspondence and the Government Memos in this regard. No. 37 and would contend that the legal fiction would be operative. The redesignation is only an executive fiat. The learned Counsel mainly concentrated on the weakness of the enforceability of any legal right on the part of the writ petitioners by pointing out to several G. Os. and also the correspondence and the Government Memos in this regard. The learned Counsel would submit that ultimately the point would boil down to mere fixation or reckoning the seniority of the Junior Lecturers, Assistant Lecturers etc. , who became Lecturers. In the light of the merger, the difference of scale if any in between Junior Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers would fall into insignificance. Hence the Counsel would submit that in the facts and circumstances the Tribunal is well justified in negativing the relief to the writ petitioners/applicants. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on Prafulla Kumar Das Vs. State of Orissa (AIR 2003 S. C. 4506) to substantiate his stand in this regard. ( 7 ) SRI. M. Panduranga Rao and Sri Srikanth, Counsel representing certain unofficial respondents who were successful before the Tribunal, in substance adopted the submissions made by Sri Surender Rao and further would maintain that all the persons who would be affected by any adverse order being passed had not been impleaded either in the O. As. or in the present Writ Petitions and on this ground alone, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also further pointed out that the first writ petitioner in W. P. No. 20706/2004 is not qualified to hold the post of Principal since he does not possess Ph. D. qualification and hence the first writ petitioner has no locus-standi to question the impugned action. The learned Counsel also had traced the historical background of the litigation and had pointed out to the directions issued in the prior Writ Petitions and also in the O. As. and had pointed out to the G. Os. which had been already referred to supra and would comment that when once a person is entitled to career advancement scheme it would be ridiculous to contend that this will not enure to his benefit to claim seniority. and had pointed out to the G. Os. which had been already referred to supra and would comment that when once a person is entitled to career advancement scheme it would be ridiculous to contend that this will not enure to his benefit to claim seniority. The Counsel also would point out that the Government is the Competent Authority to correct the mistake if any committed, and after taking into consideration the relevant aspects and also the various representations made, referring to the prior G. Os. or Rules and also the orders and directions, final seniority list had been issued which is in accordance with law and the same need not be disturbed. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and would contend that this Court exercising powers of judicial review need not disturb such well considered findings recorded by the Tribunal and hence the Writ Petitions deserve a summary dismissal at the hands of this Court. ( 8 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Services-I had taken this Court through the counter affidavit wherein several details had been narrated tracing the historical background of the litigation and would contend that the seniority list prepared by the Government is in accordance with law and is in conformity with the prior orders made and the directions issued by the Courts and the Tribunals. The learned Government Pleader also had pointed out to G. O. Ms. No. 28 and made certain submissions relating to the awarding of benefit of career advancement scheme and the impact thereof on the present reckoning of the seniority too. The learned Counsel also further pointed out that though this is a general question, it may be noted that all such persons who may be ultimately affected are not brought before the Court and on this ground also the Writ Petitions are bound to fail. ( 9 ) IN both the Writ Petitions, the common order made in O. A. No. 1264/2003 and Batch dated 29-10-2004 wherein G. O. Ms. No. 73 dated 14-10-2003 had been questioned being contrary to the Judgment made by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch and on certain other grounds, had been questioned. ( 9 ) IN both the Writ Petitions, the common order made in O. A. No. 1264/2003 and Batch dated 29-10-2004 wherein G. O. Ms. No. 73 dated 14-10-2003 had been questioned being contrary to the Judgment made by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch and on certain other grounds, had been questioned. ( 10 ) THE writ petitioners in W. P. No. 20706/2004 were initially appointed as on 1-3-1971, 5-5-1972, 10-3-1972 and 14-4-1971 as Junior Lecturers and Demonstrators and petitioners 1 to 3 were appointed as Assistant Lecturers on 11-5-1975, 30-1-1974 and 2-4-1975 and these were designated as Lectures with effect from 11-5-1978, 30-1-1977, 2-4-1978 and 14-4-1976 respectively in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 1072, dated 26-11-1976. It was further stated that as per A. P. Educational Service Rules the post of a Lecturer is to be filled by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer from among the Assistant Lecturers in the A. P. Education Subordinate Service. The post of Junior Lecturer was governed by separate service rules and they were in the lower scales and they were not eligible for promotion to the post of Lectures. It was further averred that accepting the recommendations of the 3 Man Committee, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 10782 dated 26-11-1976 merging all the categories of Teachers into one viz. , Lecturers in the revised pay scales of Rs. 700-1600. The pay scales are applicable subject to certain conditions laid in the G. O. and the post of Junior Lecturers existing in Degree Colleges will be converted into Lecturers in the revised pay scales 1976. However the Junior Lecturers are not applicable for redesignation as Lecturers automatically. According to the said G. O. basing upon over all inter-se seniority of Junior Lecturers in a particular subject, the senior most Junior Lectures will be promoted as Lecturers and after being approved by the D. P. C. the Assistant Lecturers will be converted as Lecturers if they complete three years of service. Likewise, the Demonstrators/tutors will be converted as Lecturers on completion of five years of service. Likewise, the Demonstrators/tutors will be converted as Lecturers on completion of five years of service. It was further averred that some of the Junior Lecturers filed R. P. No. 1705/87 and Batch claiming U. G. C. pay scales on the ground that they had worked as Junior Lecturers in degree colleges for more than three years and the Tribunal by the Judgment dated 2-7-1993 rejected their claim by holding that the Junior Lecturers are not entitled to be converted as Lecturers automatically. ( 11 ) IT was further averred in para-4 of the affidavit that the A. P. Education Service Rules were amended by G. O. Ms. No. 423 dated 18-4-1979 and according to the said amendment appointment to the posts of Lecturers will be by recruitment by transfer from among the Junior Lecturers. Thus, for the first time, Junior Lecturers became eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturers and consequent thereupon by G. O. Ms. No. 37, dated 3-2-1994 the said amendment was given retrospective effect from 1-4-1976 and in view of the aforesaid amendment of the rules, the D. P. C. was constituted for promotion of Junior Lecturers as Lecturers during December 1980 and basing upon the recommendations of the D. P. C. the Junior Lecturers were promoted as Lecturers from January 1981 onwards. It was further stated that in view of the latest amendment to the rules in G. O. Ms. No. 37, dated 3-2-1994 it appears some of the Junior Lecturers were promoted with effect from 1-4-1976. However the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A. P. , Hyderabad issued proceedings Rc. No. 12/d. II/97 dated 27-1-1997 clarifying that those Lecturers on their retrospective promotion notionally with effect from 1-4-1976 are not entitled to claim seniority over the then Assistant Lecturers/tutors/demonstrators who were working in Degree Colleges as on 31-3-1976 and later redesignated as Lecturers. In view of the said clarification the Junior Lecturers who were promoted with retrospective effect are not entitled to claim seniority over the writ petitioners. Even in the proceedings in which the Junior Lecturers were promoted retrospectively it was made clear that the said promotion will be subject the further orders in O. A. No. 1449/94. It was averred in para-5 of the affidavit that by G. O. Ms. Even in the proceedings in which the Junior Lecturers were promoted retrospectively it was made clear that the said promotion will be subject the further orders in O. A. No. 1449/94. It was averred in para-5 of the affidavit that by G. O. Ms. No. 1432 dated 25-9-1997 three persons were given benefit of notional promotion for the purpose of computing service for Career Advancement Scheme and basing on that the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 28 dated 22-1-1999 promoting 228 Junior Lecturers as Lecturers with retrospective effect from 1-4-1976. Thereafter, 362 Junior Lecturers were given retrospective promotion as Lecturers from 1-4-1977 and 112 were promoted as Lecturers with retrospective from 1-4-1978. According to the said G. O. the retrospective promotion was ordered for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme. However the said G. O. Ms. No. 28 dated 22-1-1999 was challenged before the Tribunal in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch by the Assistant Lecturers who were redesignated as Lecturers before 1981. In the said O. A. it was alleged that by giving retrospective promotion to the Lecturers the seniority of the applicants therein will be adversely affected. Initially the Tribunal granted stay, but however on an application filed to vacate the interim orders the Tribunal made it clear that the benefit conferred under G. O. Ms. No. 28 dated 22-1-1999 does not in any manner alter the seniority of the beneficiaries vis--vis others. The Batch of O. As. came up for hearing in the month of December 2000 and the Tribunal by the Judgment dated 9-2-2001 held that G. O. Ms. No. 28 dated 22-1-1999 does not adversely affect the rights of any of the individuals. The Tribunal held that G. O. Rt. No. 1432 was issued only for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme and it does not in any way confer any right of seniority in the cadre of Lecturers. Even with regard to G. O. Ms. No. 28, dated 22-1-1999 the Tribunal held that the said G. O. will not affect the rights of the writ petitioners in any manner. It was also stated that the Tribunal also referred to the memo of the Commissioner in Rc. No. 12/d. II/97 dated 27-1-1997. According to the Tribunal the said proceeding makes it abundantly clear that the benefits extended to the category of Junior Lecturers by the Government by way of issuance of G. O. Ms. It was also stated that the Tribunal also referred to the memo of the Commissioner in Rc. No. 12/d. II/97 dated 27-1-1997. According to the Tribunal the said proceeding makes it abundantly clear that the benefits extended to the category of Junior Lecturers by the Government by way of issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 37 dated 5-2-1994 and G. O. Ms. No. 28 dated 22-1-1999 do not adversely affect the rights of any of the individuals. It is submitted that the amendment to rules made by G. O. Ms. No. 37 dated 5-2-1994 was challenged in O. A. No. 1449 of 1994 and O. A. No. 7824 of 1997 and the said O. As. were also heard along with O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch. It was averred in para-6 of the affidavit that as per the Judgment of the Tribunal the notional promotion conferred either under G. O. Ms. No. 37 dated 5-2-1994, G. O. Rt. No. 1432 dated 25-9-1997 or G. O. Ms. No. 28 dated 22-1-1999 will not be counted for the purpose of seniority and it is not going to affect the rights of the Assistant Lecturers, Demonstrators/tutors who are redesignated as Lecturers. The respondents therein did not challenge the Judgment of the Tribunal before the Honble High Court. The respondents i. e. , the Junior Lecturers who were notionally promoted as Lecturers, have not filed any Writ Petition challenging the Judgment of the Tribunal dated 9-2-2001 and the same had attained finality. It was further averred that the Government issued Memo No. 32670/eh/98-12 dated 21-6-2001 making it clear that the Lecturers who are designated as Lecturers by way of merger of various categories of the then existing different categories of posts in Government Degree Colleges consequent to the orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education Department, dated 26-11-1976 shall be treated as seniors to the persons who are appointed as Lectures by way of promotion from the category of Junior Lectures in the Government Junior Colleges subsequently given promotion retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1976 which is notional in nature by G. O. Ms. No. 28, Education Department, dated 22-1-1999 by virtue of amendments issued in G. O. Ms. No. 423, dated 19-4-1979 and G. O. Ms. No. 37 dated 5-2-1995 to the special rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 259 dated 9-2-1962. No. 28, Education Department, dated 22-1-1999 by virtue of amendments issued in G. O. Ms. No. 423, dated 19-4-1979 and G. O. Ms. No. 37 dated 5-2-1995 to the special rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 259 dated 9-2-1962. It was further averred that to the knowledge of the petitioners the said Government memo was not challenged regarding fixation of seniority and ignoring the memo of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, dated 27-1-1997 the Judgment of the Tribunal dated 9-2-2001 in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch and the Government Memo No. 32670/ee. 1/98-12 dated 21-6-2001, the Director of Collegiate Education issued proceedings dated 20-2-2003 communicating the integrated provisional seniority list of Lecturers working in Government Degree Colleges with the common date of notional promotion/redesignation with effect from 1-4-1976. In the said seniority list several Junior Lecturers who were promoted notionally with effect 1-4-1976 were included even though they were actually promoted in the year 1981 and thereafter. Aggrieved thereby O. A. No. 1264/2003 was filed challenging the said provisional seniority list and also for a direction to the respondents to prepare the seniority list by taking into account the Judgment of the Tribunal and circular memo dated 27-1-1997. The Tribunal while admitting the O. A. on 7-3-2003 directed the applicants therein to file a representation to the 1st respondent within one week from the date of receipt of the order and the 1st respondent was directed to consider the said representation with reference to their objections in respect of proceedings dated 16-9-2002 of the Government and proceedings dated 20-2-2003 of the Director of Collegiate Education within four weeks thereafter. The Tribunal further held that the pendency of the O. A. does not preclude the Government to proceed with finalization of the seniority list. However, aggrieved with the direction regarding finalization of the seniority list, the applicants therein filed W. P. No. 5172/2003 challenging the orders of the Tribunal dated 7-3-2003 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of the by this Court on 7-4-2003 with the following direction: we do not refer to the detailed facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition. With the agreement of the learned Counsel for the parties, we direct that the representations of the applicants before the Honble Tribunal, which have already been made, shall be considered by the official respondents and an order shall be passed on those representations. With the agreement of the learned Counsel for the parties, we direct that the representations of the applicants before the Honble Tribunal, which have already been made, shall be considered by the official respondents and an order shall be passed on those representations. Before passing an order on those representations, the official respondents shall not finalize the seniority list. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly modified. This order shall remain operative till the disposal of the O. A. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. It was further averred that the Government issued Memo No. SP/1924/ce. 1. 1/2003-5, dated 13-6-2003 directing the Director of Collegiate Education to take necessary action to dispose of the objections filed by the writ petitioners as ordered by the Tribunal and this Court and to communicate the final seniority list. The said Memo dated 13-6-2003 was challenged in O. A. No. 3820 of 2003. In the Memo dated 13-6-2003 the Government directed the Director of Collegiate Education to finalize the seniority list in partial modification of the orders issued in Government Memo dated 21-6-2001. The Tribunal while admitting the O. A. on 25-6-2003 suspended the memo dated 13-6-2003 but however made it clear that the same shall not preclude the Government from following the interim directions of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 1264/2003 as modified by this Court in W. P. No. 5172/2003 dated 7-4-2003. ( 12 ) IT was further averred in para-9 of the affidavit that the Government issued final seniority list in G. O. Ms. No. 73 dated 14-10-2003 and no reasons were assigned in the final seniority list with regard to the several objections raised by the individuals. It was stated that the final seniority list is nothing but a provisional seniority list. The impugned seniority list is illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the Judgment of the tribunal in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch. It was also further averred that the Judgment is binding on the respondent as they were parties to the earlier proceedings in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch. The action of the respondents is nothing but contempt of the Tribunal. Basing on the Judgment of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch dated 9-2-2001 and basing on the Government memo dated 21-6-2001, the respondents promoted 150 Lecturers/readers were promoted as Principals in the month of October/november 2001. The action of the respondents is nothing but contempt of the Tribunal. Basing on the Judgment of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch dated 9-2-2001 and basing on the Government memo dated 21-6-2001, the respondents promoted 150 Lecturers/readers were promoted as Principals in the month of October/november 2001. The respondents had not stated anything in the final seniority list as to the reasons for changing the procedure between June 2001 and October 2003. It was further averred that in fact while promotions were effected in the year 2001 there was no seniority list and basing on the Judgment of the Tribunal dated 9-2-2001 in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch and the Memo of the Commissioner dated 27-1-1997, the Government Memo dated 21-6-2001, promotions were made in the year 2001. Aggrieved by the provisional seniority list dated 20-1-2003 the petitioners filed O. A. No. 1264/2004 and during the pendency of the O. A. the Government issued final seniority list in G. O. Ms. No. 73, dated 14-10-2003 communicating the final seniority list. Accordingly, an application was filed to amend the prayer challenging the final seniority list and the Tribunal allowed the said application amending the prayer. ( 13 ) IN para-10 of the affidavit it was averred that the Tribunal heard the O. As. on 22-9-2004 and it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the issue regarding the seniority list of the Junior Lecturers was already decided by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch. The relevant portions in the Judgment were also brought to the notice of the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its Judgment dated 29-1-2004 dismissed the O. As. on the ground that the Tribunal in its earlier Judgment did not give any specific finding that the Junior Lectures appointed by transfer as Lecturers are not eligible for seniority from 1-4-1976 even though the Tribunal made observations. It was also further averred that any observations of the Tribunal in those O. As. cannot be construed to affect the Junior Lectures not being eligible for seniority from 1-4-1976 and the Tribunal held: the view taken by the Honble Tribunal in the earlier O. As. is that as two impugned G. Os. do not confer any benefit relating to seniority on the Junior Lecturers who were appointed by transfer as Lecturers, the Assistant Lecturers can have no grievance. is that as two impugned G. Os. do not confer any benefit relating to seniority on the Junior Lecturers who were appointed by transfer as Lecturers, the Assistant Lecturers can have no grievance. Though the Honble Tribunal took the note of the Memo issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education in Rc. No. 12/d. 11-5/97, dated 27-1-1997 wherein it was clarified that the Junior Lecturers promoted and posted by transfer as Lecturers with retrospective effect from 1-4-1976 notionally pursuant to the Judgment of this Honble Tribunal rendered in R. P. No. 1705/87 and Batch dated 2-7-1993 will not have any right to claim seniority over the then Assistant Lecturers/tutors/demonstrators who were working in Government Degree College as on 31-3-1976 and later redesignated as Lecturers in the time scale of Rs. 700-1600, the Honble Tribunal did not record any finding that the Junior Lecturers appointed by transfer as Lecturers are not eligible for seniority from 1. 4. 76. It was further averred that the Tribunal gravely erred in coming to such a conclusion. In the earlier Batch of O. As. the amendment of Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 37 dated 5-2-1994 were challenged and basing on the said amendment only the Junior Lecturers were promoted notionally with retrospective effect. The Tribunal held that in view of the clarification of the Commissioner dated 27-1-1997 the Junior Lecturers are not entitled for seniority. The Tribunal also noted that in G. O. Ms. No. 28 dated 22-1-1999 the Junior Lecturers were promoted as Lecturers only for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme and the tribunal in its earlier Judgment made it clear that had the intention of the Government was to confer any other benefit other than the Career Advancement Scheme the Government ought to have made it explicit. When the Tribunal made it clear that the orders of the Government will not affect the rights of the Assistant Lecturers designated as Lecturers, the tribunal in the impugned Judgment gravely erred in holding that it did not give any specific finding regarding seniority. ( 14 ) W. P. NO. 20900/2004 also was filed by the writ petitioners impugning the Common Order aforesaid raising more or less same grounds. ( 14 ) W. P. NO. 20900/2004 also was filed by the writ petitioners impugning the Common Order aforesaid raising more or less same grounds. It is stated that the 1st and the 2nd writ petitioners are working as Lecturers in Government Degree College, Kunrool and the 3rd petitioner is the General Secretary of the of the Association wherein hundred of Lecturers working in Government Degree Colleges including the writ petitioners 1 and 2 are the members. Writ Petitioners 1 and 2 were designated as Lectures by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 1072, dated 26-11-1976. It is stated that the 1st respondent issued a provisional seniority list by proceedings dated 20-2-2003 fixing the seniority of Lecturers giving notional promotion with effect from 1-4-1976 to Junior Lecturers who were promoted as Lecturers much later in point of time contrary to the Judgment of the tribunal dated 9-2-2001 made in O. A. No. 1449/94 and O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch which had been delivered after hearing all the concerned and thoroughly considered all the relevant G. Os. It is also stated that the writ petitioners 1 and 2 filed objections relating to the provisional seniority list dated 20-2-2003. The entire dispute is regarding giving notional promotions to some of the Junior Lecturers who were promoted even after 1980s and 1990s with effect from 1-4-1976. For this they take shelter under G. O. Ms. No. 37 dated 5-2-1994 and G. O. Ms. No. 423 dated 19-4-1979. It was further stated that by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 423 dated 19-4-1979 a channel for promotion of Junior Lecturers for the post of lecturers had been opened satisfying certain qualifications and by virtue of the said channel for Junior Lecturers for promotion as Lecturers, certain Junior Lecturers were promoted as Lecturers by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 423 dated 19-4-1979 and they contend that they could have been promoted as Lecturers much earlier i. e. , in the year 1976 itself and some of them contended that they sustained monetary loss too because of this situation. It is also stated that the Government in order to satisfy the promotees, monetary benefits like Career Advancement Scheme etc. , had been extended to them terming the same as notional promotions with effect from 1-4-1976. The Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 37 and G. O. Ms. It is also stated that the Government in order to satisfy the promotees, monetary benefits like Career Advancement Scheme etc. , had been extended to them terming the same as notional promotions with effect from 1-4-1976. The Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 37 and G. O. Ms. No. 28 in the years 1994 and 1999 respectively and these were challenged by Lecturers who were already serving as Lecturers and had put up more service as Lecturers than the Junior Lecturers who were promoted much later in point of time and became Lecturers contending that the Lecturer promotees who are having much less service as Lecturers may claim seniority also over and above the Lecturers who had already put up much more service as Lecturers if these G. Os. provide monetary benefits to the promotees/junior Lecturers. Consequent upon issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 37 dated 5-2-1994 and G. O. Ms. No. 28 dated 22-1-1999, O. A. No. 1449/94, O. A. No. 1057/99 and O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch were filed before the Tribunal attacking the said G. Os. and also Memo Rc. No. 12/gc dated 27-1-1997 issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. The Division Bench of the Tribunal while making an elaborate order dated 9-2-2001 observed categorically that the rights of the Lecturers i. e. , their seniority, already working as Lecturers who are having much more service as Lecturers, be protected and their seniority over the Junior Lecturers who are promoted as Lecturers after successful screening by the D. P. C. and appointed as Lecturers much later in point of time i. e. , after 1980, 1985 and 1990, will be juniors in service. It was further averred that subsequent to the order referred to supra declaring that the benefits such as Career Advancement Scheme, monetary benefits, were extended to Junior Lecturers/promotes also who were promoted after successful screening by D. P. C. selection and appointed as Lecturers will not affect the affect the seniority of Lecturers who had already put in more service as Lecturers and the seniority over the Junior Lecturers/promotees should be protected and since the same became final no party preferred any appeal in view of the fact that the seniority had been well protected and the same is binding on all the parties. It is also further stated that the Government had issued clarification also in filling up the posts of Principals in Government Degree Colleges in Memo No. 32620/hf/98-1 dated 21-6-2001 wherein it is categorically specified and clarified as hereunder: it is clarified that the lecturers who are designated as Lecturers by way of merger of various categories of the then existing different categories of posts in Government Degree Colleges, consequent to the order issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education Department, dated 26-11-1976 shall be treated as senior to the persons who are appointed as Lecturers by way of promotion from the category of Junior Lecturers in Government Junior Colleges, subsequently given promotion retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1976 which is notional in nature vide G. O. Ms. No. 28, Education (U. E. II) Department dated 22-1-1999. The above clarification of the Government and the proceedings of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education in Memo No. 12/g. II/97 dated 27-1-1997 which was upheld by the tribunal by the Judgment dated 9-2-2001 abundantly clarifies that the notional promotion given to the Junior Lecturer promotees for the purpose of monetary benefits like Career Advancement Scheme etc. , should not affect the rights of the Lecturers who were designated as Lectures by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 1072 dated 26-11-1976 and having much more service as Lecturers and their seniority should be protected over the Junior Lecturer promotees who are screened and selected by D. P. C. and appointed as Lecturers much later (after 1980, 1985 and 1990 and so on ). It was further stated that the official respondents had taken a U turn completely against the spirit of the Judgment of the Batch aforesaid and issued a provisional seniority list dated 20-2-2003 giving notional promotion benefits to the seniority also and further the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to fill up all the vacancies of Principles by way of adhoc promotions giving effect to the notional promotions to seniority also in Memo No. SP/1924/e. E. I. 1/2003-5, dated 13-6-2003. Aggrieved by the same, some of the Lecturers had filed O. A. No. 3892/2003 and the tribunal was also pleased to suspend the same. Aggrieved by the same, some of the Lecturers had filed O. A. No. 3892/2003 and the tribunal was also pleased to suspend the same. It was further stated that the 3rd petitioner representing Government College Teachers Association had given number of representations including the representations dated 31-10-2002, 12-3-2003, 12-6-2003 and 9-10-2003 at various levels including the 1st respondent and the Honble Minister for Higher Education, Government of A. P. , but in vain. Surprisingly the Minister of Higher Education held a meeting with the 3rd petitioner herein on 14-7-2003 and assured regarding inter-se seniority of Lecturers and to examine the representations and to obtain the views of General Administration and Law Departments thereon but to the shock and dismay of the petitioners it is learnt that neither the views of the general Administration Department nor the Law Department were obtained prior to the issuance of impugned G. O. It is also stated that a contempt case was also filed and the same was numbered as C. A. S. R. No. 13160/2003 for floating the Judgment of the tribunal dated 9-2-2001 in O. A. No. 1507/99, O. A. No. 1449/94, O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch. It is further averred to the surprise of the writ petitioners, the 1st respondent had finalized the seniority list in G. O. Ms. No. 73, dated 14-10-2003 giving notional promotion to seniority also to the Junior Lecturers/promotees with effect from 1-4-1976 and the same had been questioned as being arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unconstitutional and contrary to the very spirit of the Judgment made in O. A. No. 1449-94 and O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch. Several other details which had been narrated also are substantially the same which had been referred to supra and the said details need not be repeated again. ( 15 ) A common counter affidavit was filed by the respondents 1 and 2. Specific stand was taken justifying G. O. Ms. No. 73 and the finalization of the seniority list. It is stated that the petitioners in W. P. No. 20900/2004 were all redesignated as Lecturers with effect from 9-10-1977, 18-9-1977 and 1-10-1978 respectively in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976. The integrated seniority list of Lecturers published by Government through G. O. Ms. No. 73, Education, dated 14-10-2003 was prepared with reference to 1-4-1976. It is stated that the petitioners in W. P. No. 20900/2004 were all redesignated as Lecturers with effect from 9-10-1977, 18-9-1977 and 1-10-1978 respectively in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976. The integrated seniority list of Lecturers published by Government through G. O. Ms. No. 73, Education, dated 14-10-2003 was prepared with reference to 1-4-1976. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions having been redesignated as Lecturers on a date subsequent to 1-4-1976 cannot say that the Junior Lecturers figured in the seniority list of 1-4-1976 are not seniors to them. It is stated that the grievance of the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions is that the Junior Lecturers who were actually promoted as Lecturers in the year 1981 were given 1-4-1976 as the date of notional promotion and were given seniority from 1-4-1976 which adversely affected the seniority claims of the petitioners. It was further averred that the Government introduced two year Intermediate Course from the academic year 1969-70 duly replacing the pre-university course in degree colleges and 11th and 12th classes in higher secondary and multi-purpose schools. The Junior Lecturers were to teach Intermediate Classes and the posts of Junior Lecturers were covered by the adhoc rules issued by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 939, Education, dated 19-9-1972. The Junior Lecturers were posted to composite Degree Colleges in order to teach Intermediate classes. Similarly the vacant posts of Lecturers, Assistant Lecturers and Tutors/demonstrators in Degree colleges were also filled in by posting Junior Lecturers in their own scale of pay to avoid dislocation in academic instructions. It was further averred that the Government of Andhra Pradesh by its order in G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976 revised the pay scales of all the teachers working in Universities and degree Colleges in the State during the year 1976 with effect from 1-4-1976. By G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976 the Government ordered merger of different categories like Readers, Heads of Departments, Senior Lecturers, Lecturers (senior Scale), Lecturers (Junior Scale), Assistant Lecturers and Junior Lecturers existing among the teachers working in Degree and P. G. Colleges into one category of Lecturer in the revised pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from 1-4-1976. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976 the Government ordered merger of different categories like Readers, Heads of Departments, Senior Lecturers, Lecturers (senior Scale), Lecturers (Junior Scale), Assistant Lecturers and Junior Lecturers existing among the teachers working in Degree and P. G. Colleges into one category of Lecturer in the revised pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from 1-4-1976. The applicability of the said revised scale to various categories of teachers including that of Assistant Lecturers, Tutors/demonstrators and Junior Lecturers shall be subject to the conditions specified in Column No. 6 of Annexure-I to G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976. According to the conditions specified in column No. 6 of Annexure-I, the Assistant Lecturers and Tutors and Demonstrators will come to the scale of Rs. 700-1600 after completion of 3 years and 5 years of service respectively. But, according to para 4 (d) of Column No. 6 of Annexure-I, the posts of Junior Lecturer in Government Degree Colleges with Intermediate courses will be converted into that of Lecturers in the revised pay scale of 1976 and taking into consideration the subject and the over all inter-se seniority of Junior Lecturer in that subject, the senior most Junior Lecturer will be promoted in conformity with the Presidential Order to these posts of Lecturers under revised pay scale of 1976 after their work and performance are assessed by the D. P. C. and if they are found fit and suitable. In this context, it was averred that the post of Lecturer in Government Degree Colleges is governed by A. P. Education Service Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 259, GAD, dated 9-2-1962. The post comes under category 2 of Class IV in the A. P. Educational Service Rules. The post of Assistant Lecturer in A. P. Educational Subordinate Service Rules (Category 1 of Class I) was the feeder category to the post of lecturer in Degree colleges. The post of Assistant Lecturers was filed in by direct recruitment or by promoting Tutors and Demonstrators. Therefore the post of Junior Lecturer not being a feeder category, the Junior Lecturer did not have promotional avenues by the time G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976 was issued. Thus it had become necessary to provide avenues to the Junior Lecturers for promotion as lecturers keeping in view the orders of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976 was issued. Thus it had become necessary to provide avenues to the Junior Lecturers for promotion as lecturers keeping in view the orders of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976. As such the Government through G. O. Ms. No. 423, Education, dated 19-4-1979 brought an amendment to A. P. Educational Service Rules issued under G. O. Ms. No. 259, GA Rules dated 9-2-1962 making a provision for recruitment by transfer as Lecturers from among the Junior Lecturers in A. P. Educational Subordinate Service Rules. As per these orders each subject in a zone is constituted as one unit and out of every four vacancies arising in such unit in the subject, the second vacancy is filled in by Direct Recruitment and first, third and fourth vacancies are filled in by recruitment by transfer among the Junior Lecturers working in Government Junior Colleges. In pursuance of these orders, promotions were ordered to the Junior Lecturers for the first time in the year 1981 and from 1981 onwards the Junior Lecturers are being recruited by transfer as Lecturers. ( 16 ) IT was further stated that certain Junior Lecturers working in Government Degree Colleges filed R. P. No. 1705/87 with a request to direct the respondents to treat their services as Junior Lecturers in Degree Colleges as continuous and declare them entitled to the scale of Rs. 700-1600 from the dates on which they completed 3 years of service as Junior Lecturers in Degree Colleges. The Tribunal in its Judgment dated 2-7-1993 in the above R. P. made the following order: we conclude that the petitioners, as Junior Lecturers in Degree Colleges are not entitled for declaration or direction to grant them the UGC pay scale (revised pay scale, 1976) as a matter of right, simply because they happen to work in Degree Colleges, without complying with the requirement laid down in law and the instructions issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1072 or irrespective of the seniority in the category of Junior Lecturers and without being processed by the D. P. C. The respondents are directed to conduct the exercise contemplated in G. O. Ms. No. 1072 and the subsequent instructions on the subject as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. No. 1072 and the subsequent instructions on the subject as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. It is stated that in order to comply with the directions of the Court, the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 37, Education, dated 3-2-1994 issued amendment to A. P. Educational Service Rules by giving retrospective effect to the provisions of G. O. Ms. No. 423, Education, dated 19-4-1979 from 1-4-1976. The Government had further explained that by G. O. Ms. No. 28, Education, dated 22-1-1999 orders were issued upgrading a total of 228 posts of Junior Lecturers as Lecturers in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976 and further ordered that the Junior Lecturers promoted as Lecturers in the year 1981 be given 1-4-1976 as the date of their promotion. Similarly, another 362 Junior Lecturers promoted as Lecturers in the year 1981 be given 1-4-1976 as the date of their promotion. Similarly, another 362 Junior Lecturers promoted during the year 1981 and 112 Junior Lecturers promoted during the year 1982 be given 1-4-1977 and 1-4-1978 as the dates of their promotion. All these retrospective dates of promotion shall be notional in nature and the notional promotion period shall be counted for Career Advancement Scheme only. Against this order of the Government, O. A. No. 1449/94 and O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch were filed before the Tribunal challenging G. O. Ms. No. 37, Education, dated 3-2-1994, G. O. Ms. No. 28, Education, dated 22-1-1999 and proceedings Rc. No. 12/gc. II-5/97, dated 27-1-1997 of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education wherein it was clarified that the retrospective promotion on notional basis with effect from 1-4-1976 will not confer any right on them to claim seniority over the Assistant Lecturers. Tutors/demonstrators working on 31-3-1976 and redesignated as Lecturers with effect from 1. 4. 1976. The Tribunal on 9. 2. 2001 disposed of the O. As. sustaining the orders of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 28, Education, dated 22-1-19999 and G. O. Ms. No. 37, Education, dated 3-2-1994 as said orders of the Government do not adversely affect the rights of any of the individuals. In the Judgment dated 29-10-2004 against which the present Writ Petitions are filed, the Tribunal while sustaining G. O. Ms. No. 37, Education, dated 3-2-1994 and G. O. Ms. No. 28, Education, dated 22-1-19999 and G. O. Ms. No. 37, Education, dated 3-2-1994 as said orders of the Government do not adversely affect the rights of any of the individuals. In the Judgment dated 29-10-2004 against which the present Writ Petitions are filed, the Tribunal while sustaining G. O. Ms. No. 37, Education, dated 3-2-1994 and G. O. Ms. No. 28, dated 19-4-1979 observed: as regards the contention on behalf of the applicants that giving seniority to the Junior Lecturers appointed by transfer as Lecturers with effect from 1-4-1976 is contrary to the Judgment of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch, it is to be noted that in the above O. As. the Tribunal had considered the validity of G. O. Ms. No. 37, Education, dated 5-2-1994 wherein a provision was made under the rules for appointment by transfer to Junior Lecturers as Lecturers with effect from 1-4-1976 and G. O. Ms. No. 28, Education, dated 26-11-1976 and all the 228 Junior Lecturers who were promoted as Lecturers in the year 1981 be given 1-4-1976 as the date of their promotion. The Tribunal as far as the above two G. Os. are concerned held that when the Government provided promotion channel from APESS to APES by recruitment by transfer, there is nothing wrong in issuing G. O. Ms. No. 28, Education, dated 22-1-1999 and by virtue of the Judgment of the Tribunal in R. P. No. 1705/87 dated 2-7-1993, the Government have no option except to provide the promotional channel. The Tribunal also observed that when other categories of teachers were merged into one category of Lecturers by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976, they have to necessarily give effect to such orders from 1-4-1976. As G. O. Ms. No. 28, dated 22-1-1999 deals with subject relating to CAS and not seniority, the Tribunal held that Assistant Lecturers can have no grievance in regard to the above G. O. The view taken by the Tribunal in the earlier O. As. is that as two impugned G. Os. do not confer any benefit relating to seniority on he Junior Lecturers who were appointed by transfer as Lecturers, the Assistant Lecturers can have no grievance. Though the Tribunal took note of the Memo issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education Rc. is that as two impugned G. Os. do not confer any benefit relating to seniority on he Junior Lecturers who were appointed by transfer as Lecturers, the Assistant Lecturers can have no grievance. Though the Tribunal took note of the Memo issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education Rc. No. 12/gc-II-5/97, dated 22-1-1997 wherein it was clarified that Junior Lecturers promoted and posted by transfer as Lecturers with retrospective effect from 1-4-1976 notionally pursuant to the Judgment of this Tribunal rendered in R. P. No. 1705/87 and Batch dated 2-7-1993 will not have any right to claim seniority over the then Assistant Lecturers/tutors/demonstrators who were working in Government College as on 31-3-1976 and later redesignated as Lecturers in the time of scale of Rs. 700-1600, the Tribunal did not record any finding that Junior Lecturers appointed by transfer as Lecturers are not eligible for seniority from 1-4-76. In view of the above observation of the Tribunal the contention of the petitioners that the Judgment dated 9-2-2001 in O. A. No. 1449/99 and O. A. No. 325/99 and 7824/97 and Batch had become final as the said Judgment declared that the benefits such as Career Advancement Scheme etc. , monetary benefits were extended to Junior Lecturer promotees also who were promoted after successful screening by the D. P. C. selection and appointed as Lecturers will not affect the seniority of the Lecturers who are already having much more service as Lecturers and the seniority over the Junior Lecturer promotees should be protected and that the same became final and no party preferred any appeal as the Lecturer seniority is protected and binding on all the parties is not correct as the Tribunal did not record any finding that the Junior Lecturers appointed in the year 1981 and given retrospective effect to such promotion from 1-4-1976 notionally are eligible for seniority from 1-4-1976. ( 17 ) IT was also further averred that the Government by Memo No. 32620/he/98-12, dated 21-6-2001 clarified that the Lecturers who are designated as Lecturers by way of merger of various categories of the then existing different categories of posts in Government Degree Colleges consequent to the order issued in G. O. Ms. ( 17 ) IT was also further averred that the Government by Memo No. 32620/he/98-12, dated 21-6-2001 clarified that the Lecturers who are designated as Lecturers by way of merger of various categories of the then existing different categories of posts in Government Degree Colleges consequent to the order issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976 shall be treated as senior to the persons who are appointed as Lecturers by way of promotion from the category of Junior Lecturers in Government Junior Colleges, subsequently given promotion retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1976 which is notional in nature through G. O. Ms. No. 28, Education, dated 22-1-1999. However the Government subsequently through Memo No. 3557/ce. 1/12001/1, dated 16-9-2002 ordered to prepare a temporary seniority list of Lecturers with reference to Rules 33 and 36 of A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. With this decision of the Government, the earlier clarification given by the Government in Memo No. 32620/he/98-12, dated 21-6-2001 gets superceded. In this regard it is explained that according to Rule 33 (c) of A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, the notional date of promotion shall be taken into consideration for computing the qualifying length of service in the feeder category for promotion to the higher category and that the notional service shall be counted for the purpose of declaration of probation also in the feeder category. According to Rule 36 of A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, if the date of probation is the same the elder persons shall be regarded as senior. Accordingly an integrated provisional seniority list of the erstwhile Assistant Lecturers, redesignated as Lecturers from 1-4-1976, Tutors and Demonstrator absorbed as Lecturers from 1-4-1976 and the Junior Lecturers promoted as Lecturers retrospectively from 1-4-1976 and were in service as on 1-2-2003 was prepared and communicated to all the Lecturers concerned through proceedings Rc. No. 1655/ser. II-3/2003, dated 20-2-2003 with a direction to submit their objections if any. Hence the contention of the petitioners that the provisional seniority list was prepared contrary to the Judgment dated 9-2-2001 is not correct as the Tribunal did not record any finding that the Junior Lecturers promoted as Lecturers in the year 1981 and given effect to the said promotions notionally from 1-4-1976 by G. O. Ms. No. 28, Education, dated 22-1-1999 are not eligible for seniority from 1-4-1976. No. 28, Education, dated 22-1-1999 are not eligible for seniority from 1-4-1976. ( 18 ) IT was further also further stated at para-8 of the common counter affidavit that aggrieved by the said seniority list dated 20-2-2003, Sri P. Beeraiah, Lecturer in Commerce, IP, GDC (W), Nampally Hyderabad and four others filed O. A. No. 1264/2003 in the Tribunal with a prayer to quash the impugned proceedings Rc. No. 1655/ser. II-3/2000, dated 20-2-2003 of the 2nd respondent and the Tribunal on 7-3-2003 granted the following interim relief: pending further orders in the O. A. the applicants are directed to file a representation to the 1st respondent within one week from the date of receipt of the order and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation of the applicants with reference to their objections in respect to Proceedings Memo No. 3557/ce. I-1/2001-1, dated 16-9-2002 of the Government and Proceedings Rc. No. 1655/ser. II-3/2000 dated 2-2-2003 of the Director of Collegiate Education within four weeks thereafter. However, the pendency of this O. A. does not preclude the Government to proceed with finalization of the seniority list. Aggrieved by the said interim relief granted by the Tribunal, the applicants viz. , Sri P. Beeraiah, Lecturer in Commerce and four others in O. A. No. 1264/2003 filed W. P. No. 5172/2003 in Andhra Pradesh High Court duly praying (a) to quash or set aside the orders dated 7-3-2003 of the tribunal and extended subsequently in O. A. No. 1264/2003 (b) to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from preparing or publishing any seniority list in terms of Memo No. 3557/ce. I-1/2001-1, dated 16-9-2002 of the State Government (c) to direct respondents 1 and 2 not to act contrary to the decision rendered by the Tribunal in its Judgment dated 9-2-2001 in O. A. No. 6342/97 and Batch of cases by conferring right of seniority over them to the notionally promoted Junior Lecturers over and above the Assistant Lecturers/tutors/demonstrators who were holding such posts as on 31-3-1976 and claim to be redesignated as Lecturers subsequently and pass such order or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. This Court on 7-4-2003 disposed of the said W. P. No. 5172/2003 with the following order: wpmp Nos. 7576 and 7395 of 2003 are allowed. This Court on 7-4-2003 disposed of the said W. P. No. 5172/2003 with the following order: wpmp Nos. 7576 and 7395 of 2003 are allowed. Heard the learned Counsel for parties and newly added parties also, who have agreed to passing of an order modifying the order of the Tribunal. We do not refer to the detailed facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition. With the agreement of the Learned Counsel for the parties, we direct that the representation of the applicants before the Tribunal which have already been made shall be considered by the official respondents and an order shall be passed on those representation. Before passing an order on those representations, the official respondent shall not finalize the seniority list. The order of the tribunal is accordingly modified. This order shall remain operative till the disposal of the O. A. The WP is accordingly disposed of. ( 19 ) IT was further averred at para-9 of the counter affidavit that Sri J. Sambaiah had filed O. A. No. 3820/2003 with a prayer to quash Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I-1/2003-5, dated 13-6-2003 and the tribunal on 25-6-2003 though suspended the memo ordered that it does not preclude the Government from following the interim directions of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 1264/2003 as modified by the this Court in W. P. No. 5172/2003 dated 7-4-2003. In O. A. No. 3892/2003 filed by Smt. K. Mythili, Lecturer in Zoology of Government Degree College (M) Srikakulam, the tribunal on 26-6-2003 ordered the above interim orders in the said O. A. also. Keeping in view the above court orders, the Government in Memo No. SP. 1924/ce. I-1/03- (10 to 14) dated 25-8-2003 disposed of the representations of the applicants who ever represented duly rejecting their claims as there is provision in Rule 33 (c) of A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules for counting the notional period of promotion for the purpose of seniority. Subsequently the Government by its order in C. O. Ms. No. 73/he, dated 14-10-2003 published the final integrated seniority list of Lecturers with reference to 1-4-1976. The petitioners in W. P. No. 20900/2004 filed O. A. No. 6785/2003 before the Tribunal against the orders in G. O. Ms. No. 73, HE, dated 14-10-2003 and some other Lecturers also filed O. A. Nos. No. 73/he, dated 14-10-2003 published the final integrated seniority list of Lecturers with reference to 1-4-1976. The petitioners in W. P. No. 20900/2004 filed O. A. No. 6785/2003 before the Tribunal against the orders in G. O. Ms. No. 73, HE, dated 14-10-2003 and some other Lecturers also filed O. A. Nos. 6996/2003 and 8578/2003 with similar prayer and he Tribunal on 5-11-2003 made an interim order in O. A. Nos. 6785/2003 and 6996/2003 as follows: pending finalization of the O. As. , it is ordered that the promotions of the posts of Principals shall not be made even on adhoc basis based on the seniority list of Lecturers published through G. O. Ms. No. 73, Education, dated 14-10-2003. However, this does not preclude the Government from filling up of the posts of Principals by posting Lecturers in the cadre of Lecturers on their own pay, against the posts of Principals. Aggrieved by the said interim order, Smt. P. B. Nalini Sukumari and some other Lecturers filed Batch of Writ Petitions in W. P. Nos. 24617, 24618, 24905, 25093 and 26059 before this Court and this Court on 3-12-2003 set aside the interim order of the Tribunal and passed the following interim order: pending finalization of the O. As. , it is open for the Government to promote the eligible Lecturers on adhoc basis to the vacant posts of Principals. However, the same shall be subject to the result in Batch of O. As. pending before the tribunal. The Tribunal shall dispose of the O. As. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is further made clear that the adhoc promotions shall not count for any purpose nor the adhoc promotees shall claim any equities after the matters are disposed of by the Tribunal. Keeping in view the above orders of this Court, 87 Lecturers had been promoted as Principals with reference to G. O. Ms. No. 73, Education, dated 14-10-2003. The Tribunal on 29-10-2004 disposed of O. A. Nos. 6785/2003, 6996/2003, 8578/2003 and also 1264/2003 filed by the petitioners in W. P. No. 20706/2004 duly upholding the final seniority list published by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 73, HE, dated 14-10-2003 and the observations made by the tribunal also had been pointed out. No. 73, Education, dated 14-10-2003. The Tribunal on 29-10-2004 disposed of O. A. Nos. 6785/2003, 6996/2003, 8578/2003 and also 1264/2003 filed by the petitioners in W. P. No. 20706/2004 duly upholding the final seniority list published by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 73, HE, dated 14-10-2003 and the observations made by the tribunal also had been pointed out. Specific stand was taken that the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions were redesignated as Lecturers with effect from 9-10-1977, 18-9-1977, 1-1-1978, 11-5-1978, 30-1-1977, 2-4-1978 and 14-4-1976 respectively with reference to G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976 and whereas the final seniority list published in G. O. Ms. No. 73, HE, dated 14-10-2003 was prepared with reference to 1-4-1976 duly counting the notional period of promotion for seniority and hence the petitioners having been redesignated on a date subsequent to 1-4-1976 cannot question the said seniority and the orders passed by the Government which was confirmed by the tribunal as legal, valid and there are o valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 20 ) IN W. P. No. 20706/2004, respondents 8 to 10 filed a counter affidavit taking a specific stand that the affected parties were not impleaded as parties and the 1st petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Principal since he does not possess Ph. D. It was also pleaded that the post of Junior Lecturer was governed by separate rules, but the allegation that Junior Lecturers were not in lower scale is misleading. Some of the Junior Lecturers filed R. P. No. 1705/87 and Batch claiming that they are entitled to U. G. C. pay scales of Lecturers on the ground that they had completed more than three years of service but the Tribunal by its Judgment dated 2-7-1993 while holding that the Junior Lecturers are not entitled to seniority automatically issued directions that a D. P. C. should be convened and after regular selection they should be converted as Lecturers from the date of their eligibility. As at the relevant point of time, the A. P. Collegiate Service Commission was the Recruiting Agency for the post of Lecturers as per the Rules, basing on the above said Judgment, the A. P. Collegiate Service Commission after calling for the confidential reports and after duly considering the eligibility and seniority of the Junior Lecturers, they were considered and they were given retrospective promotion from the date of their eligibility in the years 1994 and 1995. These order giving retrospective promotions had never been challenged either in the tribunal or before this Court. It was also stated that G. O. Ms. No. 37, dated 3-2-1994 had been given respective effect from 1-4-1976. G. O. Ms. No. 37 and thereafter the amendment giving it retrospective effect had been challenged before the Tribunal but the said O. As. were dismissed and G. O. Ms. No. 37 was upheld and the said Judgment had become final. Basing on the same, the College Service Commission which is the competent authority had effected promotions with retrospective effect from 1-4-1976. In fact, the clarification of the Commissioner of Education, dated 27-1-1997 does not have any binding effect and it is contrary to the statutory rules. However the said clarification was kept in abeyance by the same Commissioner himself. Further a specific stand was taken that placing reliance on the Judgment in O. A. No. 325/99 and Batch is misplaced. It was explained that in fact what was challenged in the O. A. was G. O. Ms. No. 28, dated 22-1-1999 and also G. O. Rt. No. 1432 dated 25-9-1997. G. O. Ms. No. 28, dated 22-1-1999 dealt with counting of notional service for Career Advancement Scheme. It neither dealt with seniority vis--vis Assistant Lecturer promotee Lecturers nor did it fix any seniority between various persons. G. O. Ms. No. 1432 specifically dealt with counting of notional service for the purpose of seniority of three people viz. , Sri S. D. Subba Reddy, Sri Abdul Quadri Hussain and Sri V. Ramakrishna Sastry. The issue in the said G. Os. was whether the notional service should be reckoned for the purpose of career advancement scheme and the inter-se seniority was never in issue. When the said G. Os. were questioned in the Batch of O. As. , the Tribunal held that as the said G. Os. The issue in the said G. Os. was whether the notional service should be reckoned for the purpose of career advancement scheme and the inter-se seniority was never in issue. When the said G. Os. were questioned in the Batch of O. As. , the Tribunal held that as the said G. Os. dealt with Career Advancement Scheme only and not with respect to any seniority, the applicants therein could not have been affected by the said G. Os. and dismissed the O. As. However the petitioners tried to rely on the said Judgment as if orders had been issued in their favour. Specific stand was taken that placing reliance on memo No. 32670/eh/98-12, dated 21-6-2001 is absolutely misleading. Further in the counter affidavit specific stand was taken that the post of Junior Lecturer is also one of the feeder categories for promotion to the post of Lecturers. As per G. O. Ms. No. 1072, dated 20-11-1976, dated 20-11-1976, all categories of teachers viz. , Junior Lecturers, Assistant Lecturers, Tutors and Demonstrators were merged into one category of Lecturer and consequently all the above categories of posts ere abolished. In fact, the Assistant Lecturers were redesignated as Lecturers contrary to the statutory rules. As far as Junior Lecturers are concerned, some of the Junior Lecturers had approached the Tribunal by filing R. P. No. 1705/87 as already submitted wherein the tribunal by its Judgment dated 2-7-1993 directed the Government to consider the cases of Junior Lecturers for promotion as Lecturers after constituting a D. P. C. and the names of respondents 8 to 10 were put up before the A. P. College Service Commission which considered their cases and they were promoted with retrospective effect from 1-4-1976 in the year 1995 itself and these promotions had been challenged and they had become final. It was further stated that in all cases where promotions had been denied on account of administrative lapse, the authority can reconsider and give notional benefits including seniority and promotion with retrospective effect. It was further stated that once a person is entitled to Career Advancement Scheme it is ridiculous to say that he will not be entitled to seniority. It is always open to the Government to correct its mistake at any time. It was further stated that once a person is entitled to Career Advancement Scheme it is ridiculous to say that he will not be entitled to seniority. It is always open to the Government to correct its mistake at any time. The Government considered Rule 33 of A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and appears to have come to the conclusion that the notional service has to be reckoned for the purpose of seniority and accordingly a provisional seniority list was given which was questioned before the Tribunal and the Tribunal refused to grant any stay. When a Writ Petition was filed this Court also refused granting of stay but directed that till representations were disposed of, the provisional seniority list should not be acted upon. Now, the final seniority list had been issued after hearing and considering various representations and it had been held that the Junior Lecturers appointed by transfer as Lecturers should be given notional services rendered by them for the purpose of seniority. Accordingly the respondents 8 to 10 were given seniority. It was further stated that the Government issued the final seniority list after considering various representations made and also with reference to the rules and the Assistant Lecturers promoted as Lecturers cannot and should not have any grievance in respect of seniority. Further specific stand was taken that the Tribunal doubted the very appointment of Assistant Lecturers as Lecturers but however did not interfere with the same because of long lapse of time and hence such parties have no competency to question the seniority settled by G. O. Ms. No. 73 aforesaid. ( 21 ) THE question involved in the Writ Petitions ultimately boils down to whether the final seniority list settled in pursuance of G. O. Ms. No. 73 conferring seniority on unofficial respondents and certain other similarly placed persons with retrospectivity from 1-4-1976 by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 73 to be confirmed or to be disturbed. Since the said G. O. is under serious attack, it may be appropriate to have a look at the said G. O. which had been impugned in the O. As. which reads as hereunder:government OF ANDHRA PRADESH abstract a. P. E. S. Integrated seniority list of Lecturers working in Government Degree Colleges with the common date of notional promotion/redesignation with effect from 1-4-1976 Finalization of seniority list Orders Issued. G. O. Ms. which reads as hereunder:government OF ANDHRA PRADESH abstract a. P. E. S. Integrated seniority list of Lecturers working in Government Degree Colleges with the common date of notional promotion/redesignation with effect from 1-4-1976 Finalization of seniority list Orders Issued. G. O. Ms. No. 73 Dated: 14th October, 2003 read the following: 1) Govt. Memo No. 3357/ce. I. 1/2000-1, Higher Education Department, dated 16-9-2002. 2) Proceedings Rc. No. 1655/ser. II. 3/2000 dated 20-2-2003 of the Director of Collegiate Education, A. P. , Hyderabad. 3) Interim orders dated 7-3-2003 and 21-3-2003 of the A. P. A. T. in O. A. No. 1264/2003 filed by Sri. P. Beeraiah and others. 4) Order of the A. P. High Court dated 7-4-2003 in W. P. No. 5172/2003 filed by Sri P. Beeraiah and others. 5) Interim orders dt. 8-4-2003, 22-4-2003 and 30-4-2003 of the A. P. A. T. in O. A. No. 2106/2003 filed by Sri Malleswara Rao and another. 6) Interim orders dt. 23-4-2003 of A. P. A. T. in O. A. No. 2154/2003 filed by Sri. N. Krishna Reddy and 7 others. 7) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-5, Higher Education, Department, dated 13-6-2003. 8) Interim order dt. 25-6-2003 in O. A. No. 3820/2003 filed by Sri J. Sambaiah, Lecturer in Commerce and 2 others. 9) From the Director of Collegiate Education, A. P. , Hyderabad, Lr. Rc. No. 1655/ser. II. 3/2000, dated 9-7-2003. 10) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-10, Dt. 25-8-2003 11) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-11, Dt. 25-8-2003 12) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-12, Dt. 25-8-2003 13) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-13, Dt. 25-8-2003 14) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-14, Dt. 25-8-2003 15) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-15, Dt. 25-8-2003 16) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-16, Dt. 25-8-2003 17) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-17, Dt. 25-8-2003 18) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-18, Dt. 25-8-2003 19) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-19, Dt. 25-8-2003 20) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-20, Dt. 25-8-2003 21) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-21, Dt. 25-8-2003 22) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-22, Dt. 25-8-2003 23) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-23, Dt. 25-8-2003 24) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-24, Dt. 25-8-2003 25) From the D. C. E. Lr. Rc. No. 686/ser. II. 3/2003, dt. 1-10-2003. ORDER: the Government have issued instructions in the Govt. Memo No. 3557/ce. I. 1/2001-1, dt. I. 1/2003-21, Dt. 25-8-2003 22) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-22, Dt. 25-8-2003 23) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-23, Dt. 25-8-2003 24) Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-24, Dt. 25-8-2003 25) From the D. C. E. Lr. Rc. No. 686/ser. II. 3/2003, dt. 1-10-2003. ORDER: the Government have issued instructions in the Govt. Memo No. 3557/ce. I. 1/2001-1, dt. 16-9-2002 to the Director of Collegiate Education, A. P. , Hyderabad to prepare a temporary seniority list of various categories of College Teachers as per the Rules 33 and 36 of the A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. Accordingly, the Director of Collegiate Education, A. P. , Hyderabad in his proceedings No. 1655/ser. II. 3. 2000 dt. 20-2-2003 has issued the provisional seniority list of the Lectures of the Government Degree Colleges. 2. Challenging the provisional seniority list some of the Lecturers have approached the A. P. A. T. The A. P. A. T. in its order dt. 17-3-2003 in O. A. No. 1264/2003 filed by P. Beeraiah and 4 other Lecturers has ordered as follows: pending further orders in the O. A. the applicants are directed to file a representation to the 1st respondent within one week from the date of receipt of the order and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation of the applicants with reference to their objections in respect to Proceedings Memo No. 3557/ce. I-1/2001-1, dated 16-9-2002 of the Government and Proceedings Rc. No. 1655/ser. II-3/2000 dated 2-2-2003 of the Director of Collegiate Education within four weeks thereafter. However, the pendency of this O. A. does not preclude the Government to proceed with finalization of the seniority list. 3. The Tribunal in its order dt. 21-3-2003 in O. A. No. 1264/2003 filed by Sri P. Beeraiah and others extended the said relief until further orders. Aggrieved by the above orders, the applicants have approached the A. P. High Court with a prayer to quash the interim orders dt. 7-3-2002 and 21-3-2003 of the A. P. A. T. The A. P. High Court in its orders dt. 7-4-2003 in W. P. No. 5172/2003 has directed as follows:- wpmp No. 7576 of 2003 are allowed. Learned Counsel for parties and newly added parties also, who have agreed to passing of an order modifying the order of the Tribunal, we do not refer to the detailed facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition. 7-4-2003 in W. P. No. 5172/2003 has directed as follows:- wpmp No. 7576 of 2003 are allowed. Learned Counsel for parties and newly added parties also, who have agreed to passing of an order modifying the order of the Tribunal, we do not refer to the detailed facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition. With the agreement of the learned Counsel for the parties, to direct that the representations of the applicants before the Tribunal, which have already been made shall be considered by the official respondents and an order shall be passed on those representations. Before passing an order on these representations, the official respondents shall not finalize the seniority list. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly modified. This order shall remain operative till the disposal of the O. A. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. 4. Further, the Tribunal in its interim orders dt. 23-4-2003 in O. A. No. 2154/2003 filed by Sri. N. Krishna Reddy and 7 others has ordered as follows:- pending further orders, the Respondents are directed to finalize the seniority list after considering the objections of the applicants. 5. The A. P. A. T. in orders dt. 30-4-2003 in O. A. No. 2106/2003 filed by Sri. P. Malleswara Rao, Lecturer and another has ordered as follows: pending further orders, the Official Respondents are directed to pass orders on the representations and thereafter finalize the seniority list. 6. In Govt. Memo No. SP/1924/ce. I. 1/2003-5, Higher Education Deptt. , dt. 13-6-2003, orders have been issued authorizing the Director of Collegiate Education, A. P. Hyderabad to dispose of the objections filed by the appellants as ordered by the A. P. A. T. and A. P. High Court and to communicate the final seniority list. 7. The said Government orders have been challenged by Sri J. Sambaiah and 2 other Lecturers in the A. P. A. T. by filing O. A. No. 3820/2003. The A. P. A. T. in its order dt. 25-6-2003 suspended the above Govt. Memo dt. 13-6-2003. However, the Tribunal observed that the above orders do not preclude the Government from implementing the interim orders of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 1264/2003 as modified by the A. P. High Court in W. P. No. 5172/2003 dt. 7-4-2003. 8. The A. P. A. T. in its order dt. 25-6-2003 suspended the above Govt. Memo dt. 13-6-2003. However, the Tribunal observed that the above orders do not preclude the Government from implementing the interim orders of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 1264/2003 as modified by the A. P. High Court in W. P. No. 5172/2003 dt. 7-4-2003. 8. The matter has been examined in the light of various orders of A. P. A. T. /a. P. High Court referred to above and the representations/objections filed by the applicants/petitioners and the same have been disposed of by rejecting their claims duly indicating the reasons therefore and communicated to the concerned though the Govt. Memo from 10th to 24th read above. Similarly, the other representations received from several other Lecturers have been examined and it is considered to include the names of certain Lecturers who are found eligible for such inclusion in the integrated seniority list as on 1-4-1976. 9. Accordingly, in pursuance of the orders of the A. P. A. T/a. P. High Court referred to above, and after taking into consideration the objections filed by all the affected parties, the Government hereby approve the Integrated Seniority list of Lecturers working in Government Degree Colleges with the common date of notional promotion/redesignation with effect from 1-4-1976 as shown in the Annexure to this Order subject to final outcome of the O. As. /w. Ps. pending in the A. P. A. T. and A. P. High Court. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) g. SUDHIRPRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT it may also be appropriate to have a look at the relevant portion of Annexure-I to G. O. Ms. No. 1072, dated 26-11-1976 whereunder the Government accepted the 3 Man Committee recommendation and issued A. P. Received Pay Scales 1976 orders, as hereunder: