P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) ONE Koteswara Raju and the present writ petitioner had set the law in motion by filing o. A. No. 3908/98 on the file of A. P. Administrative Tribunal, in short referred to as tribunal" hereinafter, questioning Memo no. 9900/e4/88, dated 26-5-1998 on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and the Special Rules in g. O. Ms. No. 215, dated 13-5-1970, A. P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1962 and 1996 and without jurisdiction. ( 2 ) IT may be appropriate to have a look at the impugned Memo in the O. A. which reads as hereunder: government OF ANDHRA PRADESH department OF MINES AND geology: HYDERABAD memo No. 9900/e4/88 Dated: 26-5-1998 sub: Establishment-Department of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad- Regulation of Service and declaration of probation in the category of Inspectors in the District and Regional Offices - Issue of notices to the affected individuals- reg. The attention of the Royalty inspectors whose names are enlisted in the Annexure enclosed to this informed that the post of Inspector is a district Cadre post and it comes under the purview of Andhra Pradesh Public service Commission. In the year 1986 the Andhra Pradesh Public Service commission has sponsored the candidates as per the instructions of the Director of Mines and Geology, the asst. Directors of Mines and Geology who are appointing authorities have assured appointment orders to the inspectors so sponsored by the Andhra pradesh Public Service Commission has furnished the list of candidates so selected for appointment as per the rank in the combined merit list for both multi Zone I and Multi Zone II put together. The order of merit so given by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service commission will have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority to regularization of services of the Inspectors have to be done by the asst. Director of Mines and Geology into Inspector Cadre. But as seen from the regularization proceedings which received from the respective Assistant directors of Mines and Geology, the assistant Directors of Mines and geology have regularized the services of Inspectors from the date of joining duty by Inspectors in their respective offices. This is not correct. Director of Mines and Geology into Inspector Cadre. But as seen from the regularization proceedings which received from the respective Assistant directors of Mines and Geology, the assistant Directors of Mines and geology have regularized the services of Inspectors from the date of joining duty by Inspectors in their respective offices. This is not correct. The date of regularization of the Inspectors should be strictly in accordance with the merit list communicated by the Andhra pradesh Public Service Commission as mentioned. In the circumstances stated above, the Royalty Inspectors listed in the annexure enclosed to this Memo are hereby directed to file their objections, if any against the seniority given in the cadre of Inspectors with effect from 1986 i. e. , from the date of sponsoring their names by the Andhra Pradesh public Service Commission in the year 1986. They should file their objections if any within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Memo, failing which further necessary action will be taken for regularization of services in the cadre of Inspector as per the list communication by the A. P. P. S. C. in the year 1986. Sd/- director of Mines and Geology ( 21 ) IN the hierarchy merely because in promotional posts certain of the Zonal, Multi zonal and State-wide seniority posts, promotional chances would be affected seniority settled taking the District Unit as criterion cannot be disturbed by similarly placed employees of other Districts or Zones as the case may be, that too. after a long lapse of time. If this is permitted by Courts, they would be contributing to continuous unsettled too many litigations which may not be even in the interest of administration. Both in equity and law, the show cause issued after a long lapse of time virtually reopening the settled seniority cannot be permitted. Suffice to state that they would be opening Pandora s box in the sphere of service jurisprudence. May be, at times, courts may come across some anomalies, but however the Courts are to be slow and refrain from disturbing such settled rights after a long lapse of time. What would be the reasonable time may have to be decided depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. If the seniority fixed at one level is disturbed on the ground that at higher post of promotion ,i. e. , Zonal, Multi-Zonal or state-wide etc. What would be the reasonable time may have to be decided depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. If the seniority fixed at one level is disturbed on the ground that at higher post of promotion ,i. e. , Zonal, Multi-Zonal or state-wide etc. , chances would be affected it would result in chaos and confusion leading to and resulting in unending litigations and they may have to be minimized. Courts had evolved this principle in service jurisprudence well based on judicial experience. It is no doubt true that when illegality on the strength of statutory provisions, rules or violation of Constitutional rights are well pointed out they cannot be totally ignored by Courts, but at the same time the settled rights relating to seniority cannot be disturbed unless Courts are thoroughly satisfied in this regard relating to a clear illegality. Balance may have to be weighed and maintained in deciding such matters. ( 22 ) IN the present case, initially the recruitment being at the District level, District as a Unit, and since the competent authorities had regularized and certain promotions also had been given on the strength of the same and the same had been given in the light of Rule 5 of the Special rules referred to supra, the 3rd respondent making an attempt by making a representation to reopen the same, though belonging to a different District Unit altogether, cannot be justified and this Court is of the opinion that such persons have no locus to question the seniority already fixed and settled in the case of other District Units. Consequent thereupon, the 2nd respondent issuing the impugned memo in the O. A. definitely suffers from jurisdictional flaw and hence on the ground that the promotional chances in the higher level would be affected, such representation could not have been entertained and the impugned memo in the O. A. could not have been issued and this is impermissible apart from being inequitable and evidently in the light of rule 5 of the Special Rules and that too after a long lapse of time. Though certain additional aspects had been touched by the tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal committed an error in declining to interfere and dismissing the o. A. Viewed from any angle, the impugned memo in the O. A. and the impugned order made by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and for the reasons already recorded supra, the writ petitioner is bound to succeed and accordingly the impugned memo in the O. A. and the impugned order made by the tribunal are hereby quashed. ( 23 ) THE Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.