JUDGMENT : 1. This case has a chequered history of litigation and it relates to fixation of inter-se-seniority between direct recruit and rank promotee Deputy Tahsildars. 2. A set of rules regarding recruitment to the post of Deputy Tahsildar was in force in the erstwhile State of Madras which continued to apply to the State of Andhra Pradesh until the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the “ old Rules “), were brought into effect in the year 1961. The cadre under the old Rules consisted of Deputy Tahsildars only. Under the said old Rules, appointment to the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar could be made either by direct recruitment or by transfer from members of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service employed in the Revenue Department including the office of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Revenue Settlement and office of the Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records. According to Rule 3(b) of the said rules, substantive vacancies could be filled or reserved to be filled up by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer in the ratio of 1:1. 3. An amendment was brought into the old Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.4582 dated 9-10-1980 by inserting a proviso in the form of Rule 4(e) according to which the inter-se-seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees should be determined from the date of their confirmation in the substantive vacancy in the proportion of 1:1. The validity of the amended Rule 4(e) was, however, came to be under challenge before the Supreme Court in the case of K.V. SUBBA RAO AND OTHERS v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. ((1) AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 887), wherein the Supreme Court held that the amended Rules can operate prospectively from 9th October 1980 only and shall have no retrospective effect. 4. In super-session of the old Rules, the Government issued Rules called A.P. Revenue Subordinate Service Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.990 Rev. (Ser. III) Department dated 24-9-1992, (hereinafter referred to as ‘new rules’), according to which the quota for direct recruitment in filling up the substantive vacancies was limited to 30% and it was further provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the rule, the seniority of persons appointed as Deputy Tahsildar shall be governed by General Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules. 5. 5. After issuance of the new rules, at that relevant point of time the promotee Deputy Tahsildas have filed O.A.No.7175 of 1995 before the Tribunal seeking direction to the Government to prepare seniority list in accordance with the criteria laid down in the new rules framed in G.O.Ms.NO.990 dated 24-9-1992. The Tribunal by its order dated 31-7-1995 disposed of O.A.No.7175 of 1995 inter alia, upholding the validity of Rule 4(e) for the purpose of drawing up the seniority of direct recruit Deputy Tahsildars appointed between 9-10-1980 and 23-9-1992. 6. Challenging the said orders of the Tribunal the promotee Deputy Tahsildars filed W.P.Nos.20296 to 20298 of 1997 before this Court and this Court by its orders dated 31-12-1997 allowed the writ petitions and directed for fixation of seniority as per rule 33 (a) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules without reference to rule 4(e). Thereafter, the direct recruits filed C.A.No.3056 and 3054 of 1998 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court set aside the orders of this Court, while sustaining the orders of the Tribunal ( P. MOHAN REDDY v E.A.A. CHARLES AND OHTERS ( 2) 2001 (4) Supreme Court Cases 433 ). It is represented that the seniority lists of Direct Recruit Deputy Tahsildars appointed during the period of 1980-92 (up to 23-9-1992) were drawn up as per the pre-amended Rules i.e. Rule 4(e) and the same was published by all the District Collectors in the State. On publication of proceedings of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam dated 20-5-20000, one S. Visheswar Naidu filed O.A.No.1054 of 2001 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order dated 12-2-2002, allowed the O.A. setting aside the orders of the Collector and directed to finalise the panels of Deputy Tahsildars for the period subsequent to 29-2-1992 upto the panel year 2000-01 and effect promotions only to the extent of seniority list finalised. The Tribunal also held that the services of Deputy Tahsildars could not be regularised from the date of their appointment in the temporary posts but should be regularised from the date when a substantive vacancy was available. While matters stood thus, in W.P.Nos.17430, 20977 and 4525 of 2002 filed before this Court and this Court while dismissing the writ petitions by its order dated 28-11-2003 gave the directions to the authorities with regard to preparation of inter-se seniority between the two groups. 7. While matters stood thus, in W.P.Nos.17430, 20977 and 4525 of 2002 filed before this Court and this Court while dismissing the writ petitions by its order dated 28-11-2003 gave the directions to the authorities with regard to preparation of inter-se seniority between the two groups. 7. In pursuance of the above orders of this Court, the Government vide memo dated 11-8-2004 while according permission under rule 24(c) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 requested the CCLA to revise the approved panels of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1992-93 onwards. Subsequently, the Government issued instructions vide memo dated 14-8-2007, and the same was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal by the promotees in O.A.No.6489 of 2008 and O.A.No.7028 of 2008 and the same was disposed of by order dated 10-2-2009 directing the promotees to approach the authorities if they are aggrieved by the final seniority list which is going to be prepared by the Government. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the promotees filed this Writ Petition. 8. Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contended that the Government has no power to issue the impugned memo when once the seniority list has attained finality pursuant to the judgments of the Supreme Court. It is also contended that the petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the action of the Government in preparation of the seniority list with blanks/slots keeping them open for the direct recruits, who were not there at the relevant point of time and the same is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in G.S. LAMBA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( ( 3) 1985 (2) Supreme Court Cases 604). Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in B. S.BAJWA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ( (4) 1998 (2) SCC 523 ), learned Senior Counsel contended that when the memo and the consequential seniority list are drastically affecting the rights of promotees and unsettling the settled position by revising the seniority list from 1980 onwards, the same is contrary to the law of the land. It is further contended that direct recruits cannot claim appointment from date of vacancy in quota before their selection and that preparation of the seniority list at the instance of 1995 batch direct recruits as per the impugned memo is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in MOHAN REDDY’s case. The seniority list became final and acted upon and 80% of the candidates in the said list were promoted or retired, or officiating in the posts, and the same cannot be re-revised after lapse of 8 years from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court and after 14 years of preparation of the said list and in this regard reliance was placed on the decision reported in SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA AND OTHERS v STATE OF ORISSA ((5) 2009 (6) SLR 483 ). Citing judgment of the Supreme court reported in STATE OF J & K V. JAVED IQBAL BALWAN ( (6) 2009 (4) Supreme Court Cases 529), it is the further contended by the learned Senior counsel that when once quota rule fails rota rule also falls and that the seniority has to be counted only from the date of appointment. Learned Senior Counsel relying on the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7171 of 1995 and batch, and the decisions reported in K.V. SUBBA RAO’s case (1 supra ), P. MOHAN REDDY’s case ( 2 supra), PRAN KRISHNA GOSWAMI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF WES BENGAL AND OTHERS ( (7) 1985 (Suppl ) SCC 221), BALESHWAR DASS v. STATE OF U.P. ( 8) 1980(4) SCC 226 ) further contends that seniority list prepared in the year 1996 was approved by the Supreme Court in MOHAN REDDY’s case (2 supra) and that promotees’ claim for reckoning seniority on the basis of length of continuous officiation is proper. Learned senior counsel referring to the material produced before us submitted that the officials have shown the vacancies with regard to direct recruits and that cannot be termed as a seniority in the eye of law and that the Government has no power to alter the seniority which was approved by the Supreme Court in MOHAN REDDY’s case ( 2 supra). He further contended that settled things cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time and that even assuming that they have been permitted in excess of quota they were permitted in accordance with the Revenue Subordinate Service Rules only and therefore sought for allowing of the writ petition. Sri. P .R. Prasad, learned counsel, while adopting the arguments of the learned senior counsel and by further relying on the decisions reported in S.B. PATWARDHAN V. STATE OF MAHARASTRA ( (9) AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 2051), CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS v. V. SUBBA RAO AND OTHERS ( (10) 2003 (1) Supreme Court Cases 265), contended that blank slots cannot be kept reserved for the direct recruits for retrospective appointments and that the impugned memos are contrary to law. 9. Per contra, Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-direct recruits contends that the writ petition is filed on a mere apprehension that in view of the impugned memo the direct recruits who were appointed in 1995 may claim seniority from the date of notification i.e. 1990 and that the writ petitioners are raising a different issue before this Court claiming seniority from the date of officiation. He further contends that the Deputy Tahsildar post is a District cadre post, from 9-10-1980 to 23-9-1992 seniority has to be drawn in the ratio of 1: 1 and after 23-9-1992 since the Special Rules were amended, quota of 30% for direct recruits and 70% for promotees has to be earmarked and that inter se seniority has to be determined on that basis. Learned counsel while referring to the Special Rules, contended that the promotees are not regularly appointed in the substantive vacancies and that promotees have to give objections if any to the final seniority list. Learned counsel while referring to the material produced before us also submitted that if promotees in respect of Ranga Reddy District are taken for consideration, they are in excess of quota and that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. MOHAN REDDY’s case ( 2 supra ) seniority of Deputy Tahsildars appointed between 1980 and 1992 is to be determined in accordance with rule 4(e) which was in force during the said period. Sri J. R. Manohar Rao also brought to our notice that till the judgment of the Supreme Court in MOHAN REDDY’ s case (2 supra ) i.e. February 2001, the authorities were following only General Rule 33 but not rule 4(e) and by taking into account all the circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.17430 of 2002 and batch directed to prepare the seniority list of Deputy Tahsildars appointed prior to 1992 also in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. MOHAN REDDY’s case ( 2 supra ) and therefore no interference is warranted in the present writ petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in MERVY CONTINHO AND OTHERS v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY AND OTHERS ( (11) AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 52), K.V. SUBBARAO’s case ( 1 supra). 10. Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel supplemented that no seniority list was prepared for the persons appointed between 1980 and 1992, in consonance with the directions of this Court and the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court did not approve the seniority list of 1996 and that it is a pre-mature litigation and therefore, no interference is warranted in this writ petition. In support of his contentions, Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, relied on the decisions reported in SURAJ PRAKASH GUPTA v. STATE OF J & K ( ( 12) 2000 ) 7 Supreme Court Cases 561), SARAT CHANDRAMISHRA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS ( ( 13 ) 2006 (1) Supreme Court Cases 638 ). 11. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services. 12. Having regard to the background of the case discussed supra, and having heard the learned counsel at length, the issue that falls for consideration is regarding validity of the impugned memo dated 14-8-2007 issued by the respondent-officials and whether it requires any interference by this Court ? 13. Rule 3(b) of the old Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1279 dated 12-10-1961 reads as follows : “ 3(b) Substantive vacancies in the category of Deputy Tahsildars shall be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer in the proportion of 1:1. 13. Rule 3(b) of the old Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1279 dated 12-10-1961 reads as follows : “ 3(b) Substantive vacancies in the category of Deputy Tahsildars shall be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer in the proportion of 1:1. Provided that other things being equal, preference shall be given to women for appointment by direct recruitment to posts of Deputy Tahsildars to an extent of atleast 30% of the posts in each category of O.C. B.C. S.C. and S.T., quota.” Rule 4(e) of the Rules reads that - “ 4 (e) Direct recruitment of Deputy Tahsildars shall be made from the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Commission for the State as a whole. The Commissioner of Land Revenue shall allot candidates from this list to particular districts in the order specified in Rule 6 as if it applied to the State as a Unit. A candidate so allotted to a district shall be regarded as permanently allotted to the district. 15. An amendment to the said old Rules were brought vide G.O.Ms.No.4582 dated 9-10-1980 by inserting a provision in the form of Rule 4(e), which says that inter-se-seniority between the direct recruits and promotees shall be determined from the date of their confirmation in the substantive vacancy in the proportion of 1:1 as provided in sub-rule (b) of rule 3. The validity of amended Rule was however challenged before the Supreme Court in K.V. SUBBA RAO’s case ( 1 supra), and in the said judgment the Supreme Court directed the authorities to prepare the seniority list in accordance with rule 4(e) as amended on 9-10-1980 and also held that the amended rules can operate prospectively from 9-10-1980 only and shall have no retrospective effect. Later, the Government issued A.P. Revenue Subordinate Service Rules afresh vide G.O.Ms.No.990 dated 24-9-1992 in supersession of the old Rules and that quota for direct recruitment in filling up the substantive vacancies was limited to 30%. A non-obstante clause has also been provided in the new rules stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the rule the seniority of a person appointed as Deputy Tahsildar shall be governed by General Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules. A non-obstante clause has also been provided in the new rules stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the rule the seniority of a person appointed as Deputy Tahsildar shall be governed by General Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules. The promotee Deputy Tahsildars therefore, filed O.A.No.7175 of 1995 and batch before the Tribunal praying for preparation of seniority lists in accordance with the criteria laid down in the new Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.990 dated 24-9-1992. 16. It is seen from the record that in O.A.No.7171 of 1995 and batch which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in P. Mohan Reddy’s case ( 2 supra), the point that arose for consideration before the Tribunal was as to whether the inter se seniority lists between the direct recruit Deputy Tahsildars and the promotee Deputy Tahsildars from 1985 to 1990 have to be prepared in accordance with rule 4(e) or in accordance with the provisions of the new rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.990, dated 24-9-1992 ? 17. On that aspect, the Tribunal while dealing with the above issue has referred to all the judgments of the Apex Court at para 14 of its judgment, including the judgments now cited by the learned Senior Counsel, which reads as under: “Notwithstanding the judgment, rendered by the Supreme Court upholding Rule 4(e), on behalf of the promotee-Deputy Tahsildars, it is argued, citing several decisions of the Supreme Court, that the date of confirmation in a substantive post in the category of Deputy Tahsildars should not be criterion for fixing seniority. In other words, it is submitted that any rule, which mandates seniority to be reckoned based on confirmation, is bad in law ( PATWARDHAN v. STAT OF MAHARASTRA ( AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 2051). It is also contended that one need not be appointed to a permanent post to become a member of service and for counting seniority but it is sufficient if one is appointed in a substantive capacity ( BALESWAR DAS v. STATE OF U.P. AIR 1981 SC 41 ). It is also contended that one need not be appointed to a permanent post to become a member of service and for counting seniority but it is sufficient if one is appointed in a substantive capacity ( BALESWAR DAS v. STATE OF U.P. AIR 1981 SC 41 ). It is also contended that if a quota rota rule is breached or not followed for several years, then it breaks down and therefore the seniority should be reckoned on the basis of continuous service, even if the rule says that the seniority should be reckoned by quota and rota rule ( A. JANARDHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1983 SC 769 ), and G.S. LAMBA V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1985 SC 1019 ). It is argued that the general trend is that direct recruits will not take seniority over promotees, already working in the cadre.” ( emphasis supplied ) Thus, adverting to the above, the Tribunal observed that those arguments were available to the promotee-Deputy Tahsildars when the Full Bench case was heard and in fact all these aspects were considered by the Full Bench of the erstwhile Tribunal, wherein the validity of rule 4(e), introduced in G.O.Ms.No.4582 daed 9-10-1980 was upheld. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it is not necessary to discuss these aspects and it is no longer open to the promotee Dy. Tahsildars to contend that confirmation in a substantive vacancy should not be criterion for the purpose of seniority. If that be so, it follows, what is important and mandatory is that the appointment should be to a substantive post and hence, unless a person is appointed as a full member in a substantive vacancy consideration of his claim for seniority on par with those who are already appointed in substantive posts does not arise. Thus, the Tribunal, as decided by the Supreme Court in K.V. Subba Rao’s case ( 1 supra), held that the seniority list of Dy. Tahsildars should be prepared as provided under Rule 4(e) i.e. on the basis of their confirmation in substantive vacancies. It was also held by the Tribunal that the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.990 shall apply only to those Dy. Tahsildars appointed after these Rules came into force. Tahsildars should be prepared as provided under Rule 4(e) i.e. on the basis of their confirmation in substantive vacancies. It was also held by the Tribunal that the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.990 shall apply only to those Dy. Tahsildars appointed after these Rules came into force. It is also noteworthy that the Tribunal opined that the judgments rendered by the Courts cannot be made ineffective by legislating new laws, and it is impermissible for the Legislature to annul a judicial decision without removing the basis of the judgment by an amendment and therefore directed the Government to prepare the seniority lists of Dy Tahsildars implementing the amended rule 4(e) of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.1279 dated 12-10-1961 with respect to those who are appointed as Dy. Tahsildars from 9-10-1980 i.e. the date on which the Rule 4(e) was introduced by way of amendment till 24-9-1992, the date on which G.O.Ms.No.990 dated 24-9-1992 was issued. It was also clarified that prior to 9-10-1980 and after 24-9-1992, the seniority lists of the Dy. Tahsildars have to be prepared according to General Rule 33 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. Challenging the said judgment the promotee Dy. Tahsidlars approached this Court and this Court directed for fixation of seniority as per rule 33 (a) of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules without reference to Rule 4(e). Thereupon, the direct recruits approached the Supreme Court and he judgment of the Tribunal was ultimately confirmed by the Supreme Court in P. MOHAN REDDY’s case (2 supra); the relevant portion of the same reads as under : “…. We have no doubt in our mind, that in view of the judgment of this court in Subba Rao’s case ( supra) seniority of Deputy Tahsildars appointed between the dates 10-4-1980 till September, 1992 is required to be determined in accordance with pre-amended Rules which came into existence in September, 1992; and even if, factually such seniority has not been drawn up then the same has to be drawn up in accordance with the criteria indicated in the pre-amended rule and not according to the amended Rules, which came into existence in September, 1992 as has been held by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The High Court therefore was clearly in error and the said judgment of the High Court is thus set aside.” Be it noted that in the above referred judgment, all the relevant issues were adjudicated by the Tribunal with relevance to the judgments of the Apex Court, and the same has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in P. MOHAN REDDY’s case and the same holds the field. 18. In G. S. LAMBA’s case, it was held by the Apex Court that where promotees inducted consistently in derogation of mandatory quota rule, rule can be presumed to have been relaxed in exercise of power conferred under relaxation rule. It was also inter alia held by the Supreme Court that - “ …. The impugned seniority lists challenged by the petitioners have been drawn up in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and therefore they must be quashed. In preparing the impugned seniority lists the Union of India has applied the quota and rotated the vacancies but where candidates from a particular source were not available, the vacancies were deemed to be kept open ( some kind of carry forward) to be filled in by later recruitment from the same source years after the vacancy occurred, but in the meantime the vacancy was filled in presumably by excess recruitment from the other source. That is clearly either non-implementation of the quota rule or mal-functioning of the quota rule and yet the rota rule was adhered to which is both impermissible under the Rules as well as unjust, unfair and iniquitous being violative of Articles14 and 16.” 19. In B.S. Bajwa’s case ( 4 supra ), seniority dispute raised after more than a decade after joining service when in the meantime promotions had also taken place. In those circumstances, it was held by the Supreme Court that the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after a lapse of reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. It was also held by the Supreme Court that there was inordinate delay in making such a grievance and this alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition. It was also held by the Supreme Court that there was inordinate delay in making such a grievance and this alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition. In SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA’s case ( 5 supra ), it was inter alia held by the Supreme Court that claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period, and no party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the grounds for refusing relief is that person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and the laches. 20. In JAVED IQBAL BALWAN’s case ( 6 supra), there was long standing dispute relating to inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees as Tahsildars in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The dispute arose because direct recruit Tahsildars had been given notional seniority from 24-9-1984 by virtue of an earlier High Court order even though their actual appointments took place in 1992. The Supreme Court while affirming the High Court order had directed that the appellant State while complying with the High Court directions should hear the parties concerned i.e. promotees. Pursuant to those directions, the State passed an order dated 4-9-2003 granting notional seniority to direct recruits concerned from 24-9-1984 but at the same time declined to disturb promotions already made, including further promotions made to the State Administrative Service during the period 24-9-1984 to 4-9-2003. This was objected to by the direct recruits who got notional seniority from 24-9-1984 and they filed writ petition in the High Court which was held that direct recruits concerned were entitled to substantive seniority from 24-9-1984 with all consequential benefits, including promotion. Implication of the High Court direction was that promotions of many of the promotees were affected. This was objected to by the direct recruits who got notional seniority from 24-9-1984 and they filed writ petition in the High Court which was held that direct recruits concerned were entitled to substantive seniority from 24-9-1984 with all consequential benefits, including promotion. Implication of the High Court direction was that promotions of many of the promotees were affected. Disagreeing with the High Court and allowing the appeal of the State, following the decision reported in SURAJ PRAKASH GUPTA v. STATE OF J &K ( (2000) 7 SCC 561 ), the Supreme Court held as follows : “… it was open to the State Government to take an independent view of the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to those (departmental promotees) who would be affected by re-fixation of seniority in the light of the decision of the Court. It was in this context that the State Government took decision to grant direct recruits notional seniority without disturbing earlier promotions as that would have resulted in unsettling positions that were long settled. There is no infirmity in the decision taken by the State Government. The impugned directions of the High Court are contrary to law laid down in Suraj Prakash Gupta case ( 2000) 7 SCC 561), and therefore unsustainable.”.. 21. In PRAN KRISHNA GOSWAMI’s case ( 7 supra ) it was held by the Supreme Court that, ‘ in the absence of rules to the contrary regulating the question of seniority between direct recruits and the promotees, the general principle to be implied and followed to determine the seniority is to base it on continuous officiating in non-fortuitous vacancies’. 22. In V. SUBBA RAO’s case ( 10 supra ) it was held by the Supreme Court as follows : “ Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court both in Patwardhan case as well as in Direct Recruit case we have no manner of doubt that the Tribunal rightly held the provisos to the aforesaid two paragraphs of the OM to be arbitrary and accordingly struck down the same. In the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Direct recruit case this Court has held that "If the appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules made for regular substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for purpose of seniority. Same will be the position if the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary". (emphasis supplied) The two paragraphs of the OM, namely, para 4 dealing with the direct recruitment and para 5 dealing with the promotion and the proviso thereto, the validity of the same has to be determined in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of this Court. It has been held in Patwardhan case that the principle that seniority should be determined on the basis of confirmation is a wholly unsound principle and therefore it was indicated that the seniority has to be determined on the test of continuous service and not on the basis of confirmation, inasmuch as confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service which does not necessarily depend upon efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of the substantive vacancies. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Income Tax department and Mr Malhotra appearing for the Excise Department wanted to urge before us that the confirmation of these employees being dependent upon their passing of the departmental test, it cannot be said that the said confirmation has no connection with their efficiency and, therefore, the aforesaid ratio would not apply to the case in hand. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the aforesaid submission inasmuch as non-passing of departmental examination will entail not getting of any increment in the service and, in fact, so far as the Income Tax Department is concerned, the earlier practice of terminating the services stood abandoned since 1985. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the aforesaid submission inasmuch as non-passing of departmental examination will entail not getting of any increment in the service and, in fact, so far as the Income Tax Department is concerned, the earlier practice of terminating the services stood abandoned since 1985. That being the position and the appointees having been appointed on the basis of competitive test through a process of selection and having been allowed to continue in service, there would be no rhyme or reason not to take the continuous service into account for the purpose of their seniority by taking recourse to the provisos to the OM as stated earlier and such provisos have rightly been held to be unconstitutional and discriminatory.” 23. In SARAT CHANDRA MISHRA’s case ( supra ) the State Administrative Tribunal took a decision upholding the original gradation list and annulling the subsequent gradation list drawn up in terms of the revised norms and the same became final. The matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum to assail any action of the Government based on any distinct cause of action. In those circumstances, it was held by the Supreme Court as follows : “ This Court moreover, as noticed hereinbefore, granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum only in the event any distinct cause of action arises therefor, presumably meaning thereby, when an error had been committed by the State in implementing the said order in individual cases. This Court by its order, in our considered opinion, had no intention to give liberty to the appellants herein to reopen the question as regard the validity or otherwise of the Gradation List of 1984 which, as noticed hereinbefore, became final and binding. Once the said order attained finality, this Court could not have allowed the parties to approach the Tribunal once again indirectly it could not have done so directly. As the principle of res judicata was applicable, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reopen the issue. This Court could not and did not confer a jurisdiction upon the Tribunal which it did not have.” 24. As the principle of res judicata was applicable, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reopen the issue. This Court could not and did not confer a jurisdiction upon the Tribunal which it did not have.” 24. It is also noteworthy that after judgment of the Supreme Court in P.MOHAN REDDY’s case ( 2 supra ), one S. Visheswar Naidu filed O.A.No.1054 of 2001 approaching the Tribunal pursuant to the publication of proceedings by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam dated 20-5-2000 and the Tribunal considering the circumstances held that services of Deputy Tahsildars could not be regularised from the date of their appointment in the temporary posts but should be regularised from the date when a substantive vacancy was available. Thereafter the matter was carried to this Court in W.P.Nos.17430 of 2002 and batch and this Court considering the above factual situation, and entire case laws, while dismissing the writ petitions by its order dated 28-11-2003 directed that : i) the seniority of the direct recruits will have to be determined from the date of their actual appointment. They cannot claim seniority from an imaginary date prior to their actual appointment on the basis of availability of a post, ii) that the quota would have to be determined on the basis of rules applicable at the time of issuance of the notification for direct recruitment, iii) that inter se seniority of officers appointed before September, 1992 will be determined on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in P.Mohan Reddy V. EAA Charles (2 supra), iv) that the inter se seniority of the promotees shall be determined on the basis of the appointment against a substantive vacancy and not on the basis of the date on which a person had been promoted against a temporary vacancy. v) the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees be determined in accordance with rules applicable and in accordance with above given directions and vi) that the official respondents may accordingly and after preparation of the list of available posts, they may further proceed to fix the seniority of promotees. 25. The Division Bench of this Court in the above writ petition has taken care of all the fact situations including of promotees and direct recruits, and in compliance with the orders of this Court only, the impugned orders came to be passed. 25. The Division Bench of this Court in the above writ petition has taken care of all the fact situations including of promotees and direct recruits, and in compliance with the orders of this Court only, the impugned orders came to be passed. The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings dated 14-8-2007 reads as under : “ …. The Supreme Court in P.Mohan Reddy V.EAA Charles ( AIR 2001 SC 1210 ) held that the right to get seniority will be determined as per the rules in force at the time of his recruitment vests in an emplyee. The Supreme Court in Sanya K. Sinha V. State of Bihar ( 2004(4) SLR 567) held that appointment made contrary to the rules re merely fortuitous and do not confer benefit of seniority on the appointees over and above the regular substantive appointees to the service. The Supreme Court in K. Madalal Muthu V. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 2006 SC 2662 ) held that where persons temporarily appointed promoted without recourse to rules of recruitment such temporary service rendered cannot be counted for reckoning seniority. In view of the above instructions and judgments the seniority of direct recruits shall be reckoned from the date of his joining duty while maintaining the ranking assigned by the recruiting agency. The promotees are entitled to reckon the seniority from the date of appointment in the quota meant for them. Accordingly, the seniority of direct recruits and promotee D.Ts. during the period from 12-10-1961 to 8-10-1980 will be determined from their date of regular appointment to the post. During the period from 9-10-1980 to 23-9-1992, their inter-se seniority will be determined from the date of their confirmation in the substantive vacancy in the proportion of 1:1. From 24-9-1992 till date their inter-se seniority will be determined from the date of their regular appointment to the posts within their quota. The inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees during the period from 9-10-1980 to 23-9-1992 should be determined on the basis of the confirmation in the substantive vacancies in the proportion of 1:1 by redrawing the same if necessary. The inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees during the period from 9-10-1980 to 23-9-1992 should be determined on the basis of the confirmation in the substantive vacancies in the proportion of 1:1 by redrawing the same if necessary. The seniority of direct recruits and promotees from 21-4-1992 to till date shall be finalised earmarking 30% substantive vacancies to the direct recruits and 70% substantive vacancies to the promotees and their seniority will be fixed basing on the appointment within their quota and the seniority of the direct recruits will be reckoned from the date of his joining to duty in the post. Accordingly, the inter seniority of the persons appointed shall be prepared and later on year wise panel shall be prepared . In respect of 1994-95 batch of direct recruits, their seniority will be determined from the date of their confirmation in the substantive vacancies in the ratio of 1:1 which was in force at the time of issuing recruitment notification in the year 1990. ” 26. On perusal of the entire material on record we are of the view that the Government has not responded to the situation promptly and allowed the illegality to perpetuate and acted in gross violation of the rules. The State has to act fairly and adhere to the rules and also dicta of the Courts and in effect rule 4(e) was not followed practically as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. MOHAN REDDY’s case ( 2 supra ). By taking into account all the circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17430 of 2002 and batch dated 28-11-2003 having noticed that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohan Reddy’s case the seniority list has not been drawn, gave the above directions referred supra, which have to be followed by the authorities scrupulously. The Division Bench in the said judgment inter alia also directed that seniority of the direct recruits will have to be determined from the actual date of appointment. In the circumstances, the contentions of the Senior Counsel that it amounts to unsettling the settled things and that the seniority list of 1996 has become final does not merit consideration. The Division Bench in the said judgment inter alia also directed that seniority of the direct recruits will have to be determined from the actual date of appointment. In the circumstances, the contentions of the Senior Counsel that it amounts to unsettling the settled things and that the seniority list of 1996 has become final does not merit consideration. The contention of the petitioners that they have been permitted in excess of their quota and if the department has not undertaken the exercise, because of their lapse, the petitioners cannot be penalised since they have been officiating since long, does not also merit consideration. It is to be remembered that officiation in a post does not give any right, and that the seniority of both the promotees and direct recruits has to be given effect strictly in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. MOHAN REDDY’ s case and the judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.17430 of 2002 and batch dated 28-11-2003. Therefore, the citations relied on by the learned senior counsel are not much helpful to the petitioners’ case. 27. Before summing up the matter, it is further made clear that the authorities have to follow the judgment of this Court dated 28-11-2003 in W.P.Nos.17430 of 2002 and batch and the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Mohan Reddy’s case ( 2 supra) in strict sense. As per the said judgments, the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees between 10-4-1980 and 24-9-1992 has to be drawn up in accordance with Rule 4(e) of the A.P. Revenue Subordinate Service Rules as it stood on 10-4-1980 and not as it stood on 24-9-1992, and after that since the Special Rules were amended, quota of 30% for direct recruits and 70% for promotees has to be earmarked and that inter-se-seniority has to be determined on that basis. It is also made clear that if the promotees occupied in excess of the quota they have to be pushed down below the direct recruits, and that they cannot occupy the vacancies earmarked for the direct recruits. Within the direct recruit quota if any excess promotees are posted, even as per 1996 seniority list, that has to be redrawn and prepared in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. MOHAN REDDY’s case and judgment of this Court in W.P.No.17430 of 2002 and batch dated 28-11-2003. 28. Within the direct recruit quota if any excess promotees are posted, even as per 1996 seniority list, that has to be redrawn and prepared in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. MOHAN REDDY’s case and judgment of this Court in W.P.No.17430 of 2002 and batch dated 28-11-2003. 28. In the circumstances, the impugned memo does not call for any interference by this Court. It is always open for the department to issue final seniority list in accordance with the guidelines and complete the exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 29. With the above directions, the writ petition is ordered. No costs.