ORDER (Per Goda Raghuram, J.) The writ petitions are directed against the common order of the AP Administrative Tribunal ('The Tribunal') dated 31.01.2011 in two OAs 2439 and 2436 of 2007. In OA No.2436/07 the applicant imp-leaded four respondents; the State of AP. represented by the Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Commissioner of Industries. AP., Mr. B. Suresh Babu and Mr. R. Madhusudhana Rao; and in OA No.2439/2007 filed by the same applicant there were three non-official respondents imp-leaded - Mr. B. Suresh Babu, Mr. Ch. Rama Rao and Mr. K. Prasada Rao, apart from the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissioner of Industries, AP. 2. In OA No. 2436/07 the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 90 dated 24.4.2007 was challenged and a direction sought (to the official respondents) to prepare the seniority list of Joint Directors (of Industries) only after conducting a review DPC by reviewing promotions earlier made. In OA No. 2439/07 a declaration was sought, that the action of the official respondents in not considering the applicant for promotion as Addl. Director of Industries while preferring respondents 3 and 4 there for (who are facing disciplinary chargers), is illegal and discriminatory; and for a direction to the official respondents to promote him as Addl. Director of Industries while excluding the non-official respondents from t!1e zone of consideration for promotion; as per his eligibility, suitability and in accordance with the Rules. 3. The two applications were heard together and a common order passed by the Tribunal wherefrom the writ petitions arise. 4. W.P. No. 2614/11 is filed by R Madhusudhana Rao, the 4th respondent in OA No.2436/07, against the order of the Tribunal therein. W.P. Nos. 15362/11 and 15666/11 are by the State against the order of the Tribunal in OA Nos.2439/07 and 2436/07, respectively. W.P. Nos 31007 and 32227 of 2011 are by Mr. B. Suresh Babu, the 3rd respondent in OA Nos. 2436 and 2439 of 2007 against the common order of the Tribunal, in the respective OAs. The applicant is a respondent in all the writ petitions. 5. Heard Dr. Lakshmi Narasimha for the petitioner (Sri R Madhusudhana Rao) in W.P. No. 2614/11; the learned Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce, for the State; and Mr. M. Surender Rao, the learned counsel for the same petitioner (Sri B. Suresh Babu), in W.P. Nos. The applicant is a respondent in all the writ petitions. 5. Heard Dr. Lakshmi Narasimha for the petitioner (Sri R Madhusudhana Rao) in W.P. No. 2614/11; the learned Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce, for the State; and Mr. M. Surender Rao, the learned counsel for the same petitioner (Sri B. Suresh Babu), in W.P. Nos. 31007 and 32227 of 2011; and Sri P. Bala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the applicant Sri H. Shivaram. 6. The applicant an ST candidate initially entered service as Supervisor in the Industries Department in 1981. He was thereafter promoted as Asst. Director in 1998 (sic. 1988), as Dy. Director w.e.f. 27.9.1994 and Joint Director on 14.8.2003. R. Madhusudhana Rao and B. Suresh Babu are directly recruited Asst. Director of Industries and were promoted to higher categories of Deputy Director, Joint Director and as Addl. Director as well. The post of Assistant Director is a multi-zonal post. There are two multi-zones in the State - I &II. 7. While the non-official respondents in OAs had all been promoted to the higher post of Addl. Director of Industries, the applicant was not so promoted. The interse seniority in the category of Dy. Director and Joint Director and consequently the inter se entitlement to promotion to the next higher category of Addl. Director, is the apparent bone of contention between the applicant and the non-official respondents. The litigation as usual appears to be the product of ad hoc and casual treatment of establishment issues by the State and other official agencies, accentuated by interminable litigation. 8. It is the common refrain by all parties to this lis, including the Government that seniority lists in the category of Asst. Director of Industries (separately for multi zones I and II) were issued in G.O. Ms. No.180, dated 11.6.2003 and the inter se seniority in this category has become final and has not been questioned by anybody, as yet at any rate. 9. In G.O.Ms. No. 180, Mr. R. Madhusudhana Rao figures at S.No. 60 in Multi Zone-II and is assigned 28.10.1987 as the date for seniority. For the same multi zone, the applicant (H.5hivaram) is at S. No. 74 and is assigned 30.8.1988 as the date in the Asst. Director category; and Mr. B. surersh Babu (petitioner in W.P. Nos. 31007 and 32227 of 2011) figures at S. Nos. For the same multi zone, the applicant (H.5hivaram) is at S. No. 74 and is assigned 30.8.1988 as the date in the Asst. Director category; and Mr. B. surersh Babu (petitioner in W.P. Nos. 31007 and 32227 of 2011) figures at S. Nos. 50 in the multi zone-I with the assigned date 14.10.1987. Two other individuals Mr. K. Prasada Rao and Ch. Rama Rao (respondents 5 and 4 in OA No. 2439/07) figure at S. Nos. 61 and 67 in multi zone-II with assigned dates in the Asst. Director category as 28.10.1987 and 3.7.1988, respectively. It is represented that since Mr. K. Prasada Rao and Mr. Ch. Rama Rao retired from service they have not challenged the common order of the Tribunal. Reservations in promotions: Evolution of the Policy : 10. In G.O.Ms. No.5, Social Welfare Department, dated 14-02-2003 [consequent on and subsequent to introduction of Clause 4-A to Article 16, by the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995; further amended by the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001], the state issued administrative orders implementing the rule of reservation in promotions to ensure adequate representation of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe employees, (i,e.) fifteen percent and six percent respectively in all categories of posts in all departments, This order directed: (a) that reservation be implemented in favour of SC and ST in promotion in all categories of posts in all State Government departments with immediate effect; (b) that such reservation is applicable to all categories or categories whose cadre strength is more than five; (c) that the existing 100 point roster already prescribed in Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (the 1996 Rules') shall be followed in cases of promotion in all the categories where reservation in promotion in favour of SC & ST is followed; (d) that such reservation in favour of SC & ST shall be prospective and be applicable to posts to be filled up; that as on the date of issue of these orders, the panel year for 2002-2003 has already commenced from 01-09-2002, therefore panels already prepared and given effect shall not be disturbed but panels not yet prepared shall now be prepared based on the rule of reservation in promotion; and panels prepared and not given effect to, shall be reviewed on the principle of reservation in promotion in favour of SC & ST; (e) ……………. (f) ……………. (f) ……………. (g) that detailed guidelines on filling up the roster points will be separately issued. This order observed that appropriate amendments to Rule 22 of the 1996 rules would be issued separately. 11. In G.O.Ms.No.21, Social Welfare Department, dated 18-03-2003, guidelines for implementing the rule of reservation in promotions to SC & ST employees were issued. To the extent relevant and material, these guidelines enjoined: (a) that the zone of consideration as laid down in Rule - 6 of the 1996 Rules in respect of SC & ST shall not be applicable to fill up the roster points meant for these categories of employees; (b) that while preparing panels of eligible candidates for promotion, names of eligible SC & ST employees from the feeder category should be shown against the roster points earmarked for them irrespective of their seniority position in the feeder category. However if a SC or ST employee gets higher place in the eligible candidates list by virtue of his seniority in the feeder category he need not be adjusted in a lower position earmarked for a SC or ST employee as per the roster system; and such roster point must be filled up by moving a SC or ST employee who is below in the seniority list in the feeder category; (c) that filling up of the roster points shall continue till the required percentage of SC or ST candidates is obtained. Once the required percentage is obtained by taking into account both the SC & ST candidates who are found in the list of candidates fit for promotion on account of their seniority in the feeder category and those who are moving up to fill the required roster- point, further adjustment of SC or ST employees against roster points must be stopped; and unutilized roster points after the required SC or ST percentage is met, shall lapse; (d) that promotion panels already prepared for the panel year 2002-2003 and given effect to/operated/partly operated, i.e., if promotions are effected, the panel shall continue without any change or review and shall not be re-opened; (e) the panels for 2002-2003 which are prepared and are not operated as on 14-02-2003 must be reviewed to provide special representation in promotion for SC & ST employees. 12. 12. Eventually, in G.O.Ms.No.123, General Administration Department, dated 19-04-2003, relevant provisions of the 1996 Rules were amended (in exercise of power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution). These amendments were brought into force with effect from 14-02-2003 (the date of issue of G.O. Ms. No.5). By this amendatory exercise: (a) the first proviso to Rule - 6(b) (of the 1996 Rules) was introduced enjoining that for promotion in respect of SC & ST candidates only, the zone of consideration in the ratio of 1:3 shall not be applicable in respect of posts whose total cadre strength is more than five; (b) Clause (ii) of sub-rule 1 in Rule - 22 was substituted to provide that for appointments other than by direct recruitment the principle of reservation in the matter of promotion and appointment by transfer involving promotion insofar as it relates to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only shall apply to such services, class or category, whose total cadre strength is more than five; (c) Sub-rule 2(a) of Rule - 22 was substituted. As amended Clause 2(a)(i) provides that the unit of appointment for the purpose of reservation, for promotion and appointment by transfer involving promotion shall be 100 vacancies of which 15 shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes and 6 for Schedule Tribe employees as per the roster points in Sub-rule 2(e). The amendments (issued in G.O. Ms. As amended Clause 2(a)(i) provides that the unit of appointment for the purpose of reservation, for promotion and appointment by transfer involving promotion shall be 100 vacancies of which 15 shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes and 6 for Schedule Tribe employees as per the roster points in Sub-rule 2(e). The amendments (issued in G.O. Ms. No.123) further provided: (a) that in case of appointments/ promotions to the posts referred to in Clause 2(a)(i); the panels of eligible candidates for promotion, names of eligible SC & ST employees from the feeder category must be shown against the roster points earmarked for them irrespective of their seniority in the feeder category; (b) that if an SC or ST employee gets a higher place in the eligible candidates list on account of his seniority in the feeder category he need not be adjusted in a lower position which is earmarked for an SC or ST employee as per the roster system; and such roster point must be filled up by moving up an SC and ST employee who is lower in the seniority list in the feeder category; (c) that filling up of roster points shall continue till the required percentage of SC or ST candidate is obtained; and once the required percentage is obtained by taking into account candidates found in the list of candidates fit for promotion on account of their seniority in the feeder .category and those who are moved up to fill the required roster points, further adjustment of SC & ST employees against roster points must be stopped; (d) that un-utilised roster points after the required SC & ST percentages is met shall lapse; and (e) if required number of SC & ST employees are not available in the feeder category to obtain the required representation in promotion, the vacancies earmarked for SC or ST employees according to the roster points will be carried forward. 13. In G.O.Ms.No.2, Social Welfare Department, dated 09-01-2004, by an administrative order "comprehensive" guidelines were issued for implementing the rule of reservation in promotions, consequent on the issue of G.O.Ms.Nos.5, 21 & 123, dated 14-02-2003, 18-03-2003 & 19-04-2003, respectively (adverted to supra). This administrative order also observed that appropriate amendment to Rule - 22 and 22-A of the 1996 Rules would be issued separately. This administrative order also observed that appropriate amendment to Rule - 22 and 22-A of the 1996 Rules would be issued separately. 14 In G.O.Ms.No.26, Social Welfare Department, dated 20-02-2009, by another administrative order amendments were issued to the orders issued in the earlier administrative order in G.O.Ms.No.5, Social Welfare Department, dated 14-02-2003. Accordingly, para-4(a) was substituted to provide: (a) that reservation shall be implemented with consequential seniority in favour of SC and ST in promotion in all category of posts in all State Government departments with immediate effect; and (b) a provision was added after para 4(g) (of G.O.Ms.No.5) to the effect that for achieving adequacy of SC/ST in services, the rule of reservation in making in-charge arrangements in exigencies of administration for holding higher promotion posts shall be followed, whenever such arrangements are made after obtaining relaxation of Rule-l0(h) of the 1996 Rules; and in charge arrangements for higher promotion posts/ad hoc promotions already made by observing the rule of reservation in favour of SC/ ST shall be continued, to achieve the objective of implementing the rule of reservation in favour of these categories. 15. After the executive orders in G.O.Ms.No.5 & 21 and issue of statutory amendments, in G.O.Ms.No.123, dated 19-04-2003, the State in G.O.Ms.No.228, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 25-07-2003 approved the panel for promotion of officers to Category-II posts, Le., Joint Director of Industries. The names of 38 officers serving as Deputy Directors were approved for promotion, for the panel year 2002-03. The estimated vacancies in the category of Joint Director of Industries was stated to be 34. The applicant H. Shivaram was shown at serial No.8, while B. Suresh Babu and R. Madhusudhana Rao, were at serial Nos.24 & 26. This panel was approved apparently in the light of the Government policy, of providing reservations for SC & ST in promotional posts. 16. Consequent on G.O.Ms.No.228, orders were issued on 13-08-03 promoting the applicant H. Shivaram, B. Suresh Babu and R. Madhusudhana Rao, quoting the orders in G.O.Ms.No.228. 17. This panel was approved apparently in the light of the Government policy, of providing reservations for SC & ST in promotional posts. 16. Consequent on G.O.Ms.No.228, orders were issued on 13-08-03 promoting the applicant H. Shivaram, B. Suresh Babu and R. Madhusudhana Rao, quoting the orders in G.O.Ms.No.228. 17. It would appear that in view of the uncontested final seniority list in the category of Assistant Director, issued in G.O.Ms.No.180; and in view of seniority positions in the category of Deputy Director not having been finalized, the Government issued a memo dated 05-03-2004 directing the Commissioner of Industries (the Commissioner) to undertake review of all ad hoc promotions made to the category of Deputy Director/Joint Director of Industries from 01-11-1956 onwards and on the basis of seniority in the Assistant Director category, issued in G.O.Ms.No.180. Accordingly, the Commissioner after integrating the Assistant Directors' inter se seniority positions in the several multi zones, communicated a provisional seniority list of Deputy Directors to all affected employees, in his memo dated 04-02-2005 and called for objections. 18. It would appear that in G.O. Ms. No.230, General Administration Department, dated 22-05-1999, powers were delegated by the Government to the Commissioner to prepare the seniority list. In purported exercise of the conferred power the Commissioner issued proceedings dated 17-03-2006 notifying the seniority list of Deputy Directors for the period 18-10-1975 to 31-12-1998. In this seniority list, B. Suresh Babu and R. Madhusudhana Rao figure at serial nos.120 & 121 with 16-10-1994 & 17-10-1994 as the respective dates with effect from which their seniority in the category of Deputy Director is reckoned; and the applicant H. Shivaram figures at serial No.136 with 20-10-1994 as the relevant date in this category. 19. By O.A.No.1951 of 2006, Shivaram challenged the final seniority list of Deputy Directors issued by the Commissioner on 17-03-2006. The Tribunal by the order dated 18-01-2007 (of a learned single member) set aside the seniority list dated 17-03-2006 on the ground that the Commissioner was not the appointing authority and was thus incompetent toprepare the seniority list for the category of Deputy Director. The Government was directed to finalise the seniority list of Deputy Director within the time stipulated in the order. 20. Against the above order of the Tribunal, the State filed W.P.No.1807 of 2007. On 19-04-2007 this Court directed interim suspension of the order of the Tribunal. The Government was directed to finalise the seniority list of Deputy Director within the time stipulated in the order. 20. Against the above order of the Tribunal, the State filed W.P.No.1807 of 2007. On 19-04-2007 this Court directed interim suspension of the order of the Tribunal. During the currency of this order suspension, G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 24-04-2007 was issued notifying the final seniority list in the category of Joint Director (for the period 01-09-1974 to 31-08-2005). This was pursuant to a provisional seniority list notified and communicated to affected parties, in the Government memo dated 11-10-2006. The annexure to G.O.Ms.No.90 sets out the inter se seniority positions in the category of Joint Director. B. Suresh Babu, R. Madhusudan Rao and the applicant H. Shivaram figure at serial Nos.179, 180 and 191; with the dates in the category of Joint Director set out as 30-09-1998, 31-10-1998 and 01-07-2001, respectively. 21. In G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 30-04-2007, pursuant to recommendations dated 28-04-2007 of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the Government approved a panel of specified names for promotion as Additional Director of Industries for the panel year 2006-2007, from the category of Joint Director. The estimated vacancies being three, the names of three officers including B. Suresh Babu and R. Madhusudhana Rao, were considered for empanelment; the promotion of B. Suresh Babu as Additional Director was however deferred on account of pending departmental inquiries. It is the admitted factual scenario that no reservation for SC & ST is applicable to the Additional Director, as the cadre strength is below five (5). 22. Suresh Babu filed O.A.No.7389 of 2006 apprehending denial of promotion as Additional Director in view of pending departmental inquiry vide charge memos dated 19-07-2004 and 01-03-2005. On 25-01-2007, the Tribunal by an interim order directed consideration of Suresh Babu's case for promotion without taking into account pending departmental proceedings, if otherwise within the zone of consideration and eligible for promotion, subject to the result of this O.A. 23. Meanwhile, pursuant to the approved panel in the category of Additional Director (in G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 30-04-2007) Madhusudhana Rao, was promoted but not B. Suresh Babu, as his case for such promotion was deferred. Aggrieved thereby, Suresh Babu filed O.A.No.2564 of 2007 challenging inter alia the orders in G.O.Ms.No.95. As no interim relief was granted by the Tribunal Suresh Babu filed W.P.No.10315 of 2007. Aggrieved thereby, Suresh Babu filed O.A.No.2564 of 2007 challenging inter alia the orders in G.O.Ms.No.95. As no interim relief was granted by the Tribunal Suresh Babu filed W.P.No.10315 of 2007. This Court on 04-06-2007 suspended operation of G.O.Ms.No.95 insofar as Suresh Babu is concerned and by the final order dated 03-07-2007 disposed of this writ petition directing the Tribunal to dispose of O.A.No.2564 of 2007 within the stipulated timeframe and directed further that till such disposal, the interim suspension of G.O.Ms.No.95 (ordered earlier on 04-06-2007) shall continue; and any promotions made would be subject to the result of the O.A. It would also appear that Suresh Babu aggrieved by not being promoted, filed contempt cases before the Tribunal and before this Court. 24. Eventually, in G.O.Rt.No.259, dated 29-03-2008, pursuant to a review DPC recommendation dated 02-01-2008, Suresh Babu was temporarily promoted, on ad hoc basis as Additional Director of Industries under Rule-10(a) of the 1996 Rules, subject to finalization of disciplinary cases against him. 25. Against the interim order dated 25-01-2007 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.7389 of 2006 (directing consideration of the case of Suresh Babu for promotion as Additional Director, without reference to pending disciplinary proceedings), the applicant Shivaram filed W.P.No.28601 of 2007. This Court on 02-01-2008 suspended the interim order of the Tribunal dated 25-01-2007. Suresh Babu is a respondent in this writ petition. W.P.No.28601 of 2007 was eventually disposed of on 10-03-2008. The Tribunal's interim order dated 25-01-2007 was modified, granting liberty to the DPC to make its recommendations which must be given effect to in accordance with the 1996 Rules and the Tribunal was directed to dispose of O.A.No.7389 of 2006 within the stipulated time. 26. The State Government's W.P. No.1807 of 2007 and W.P.No.7430 of 2007 filed by Madhusudhana Rao, both challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 18-01-2007 in O.A.No.1951 of 2006 (whereby the Commissioner's seniority list dated 17-03-2006 in the category of Deputy Director, was set aside) were dismissed by the judgment dated 11-04-2011, confirming the order of the Tribunal. 27. Meanwhile, orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.98, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 23-09-2010, approving panels in the category of Joint Director on promotion from the category of Deputy Director, for panel years 1974-1975 to 20042005; specifying that the individuals mentioned in the several panels are promoted notionally from the dates indicated against each of them in G.O.Ms. 27. Meanwhile, orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.98, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 23-09-2010, approving panels in the category of Joint Director on promotion from the category of Deputy Director, for panel years 1974-1975 to 20042005; specifying that the individuals mentioned in the several panels are promoted notionally from the dates indicated against each of them in G.O.Ms. No. 90, dated 24-04-2007, relaxing Rule-33(a) of 1996 rules. Para-3 of this order states that the Commissioner had addressed the Government informing that pay fixation/ consequent monetary and pensionary benefits would be available only if officers were granted notional promotion. In G.O.Ms.No.90, dated 24-04-2007 (the final seniority list in the category of Joint Director) there is no mention of notional promotion though several officers• were granted earlier dates in the category of Joint Director than the dates on which they were actually promoted. In the circumstances, Government referred the matter to a steering committee along with records of officers (serving and those who had retired prior to 31-12-1994). On 06-05-2001 the screening committee recommended notional promotions in the Joint Director category for several panel years and these were approved in G.O.Ms.No.98. Apropos these orders Suresh Babu and Madhusudhana Rao figure at serial numbers 1 & 2 for the panel year 1999-2000 (available vacancies being 3) while the applicant Shivaram figures at serial number 7 in the subsequent panel of 2001-2002 (available vacancies being 7). 28. The official respondents including the State appear to have followed an unusual process and procedure; of first finalising the seniority list in the category of Joint Director (in G.O.Ms.No.90, dated 24-04-2007) duly setting out notional dates of appointment in the said category (dates anterior to the dates on which the several officers were appointed as Joint Director); and thereafter constituting a screening committee to verify the records of the officers for fitment into various panel years and approving these panels, in G.O.Ms. No.98; presumably to legitimize the final seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.90. Be that as it may. 29. Against the dismissal of W.P.No.7430 of 2007 Madhusudhana Rao preferred an appeal by Special Leave along with an application to condone the delay in preferring the Special Leave. It is brought to our notice that the Supreme Court by the order dated 28-11-2011 condoned the delay and while directing notice on the respondents, ordered status quo be maintained by the parties as on date. 30. It is brought to our notice that the Supreme Court by the order dated 28-11-2011 condoned the delay and while directing notice on the respondents, ordered status quo be maintained by the parties as on date. 30. The applicant Shivaram filed O.A.No.2439 of 2007 questioning the inter se seniority list in the category of Joint Director, issued in G.O.Ms.No.90. The principal grounds for the challenge (before the Tribunal) may be noticed: (a) In view of the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1951 of 2006 (invalidating the seniority list dated 17-03-2006 prepared by the Commissioner, for the category of Deputy Director); and the failure to conduct review DPC either for revising promotions to the category of Deputy Director or Joint Director, final seniority list in the category of Joint Director cannot be prepared. (b) By an additional affidavit filed on 26-09-2010, Shivaram raised additional grounds for seeking invalidation of G.O.Ms.No.90. Herein it was pleaded that consequent on the introduction of Article 16(4)(A) in the Constitution, SC/ST employees are entitled to reservation in promotions with consequent seniority; (c) That in view of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.5, he is entitled to be appointed to the 8th vacancy in the category of Joint Director from the feeder category of Deputy Director since he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community; (d) That in the approved panel of Joint Directors, vide G.O.Ms.No.228, he was placed at serial No.8 in the panel for the year 2002-03 and promoted as Joint Director, by granting the benefit of reservation in promotion. He is also entitled to consequent seniority; and (e) That since Suresh Babu & Madhusudhana Rao are placed at serial Nos.24 & 26 in G.O.Ms.No.228, they are juniors to him in the Joint Director category and G.O.Ms.No.90 which has altered this inter se seniority position is contrary to the constitutional prescription of Article 16(4)(A) and violative of the State's policy of reservation in promotions, as well. 31. Shivaram filed another O.A.No.2439 of 2007, in substance seeking promotion as Additional Director in preference to Suresh Babu, Ch. Ramesh Rao and K. Prasad Rao (respondent Nos.3 to 5), who were alleged to be facing disciplinary proceedings. He also sought a direction for his promotion as Additional Director after excluding these respondents from consideration. 32. 31. Shivaram filed another O.A.No.2439 of 2007, in substance seeking promotion as Additional Director in preference to Suresh Babu, Ch. Ramesh Rao and K. Prasad Rao (respondent Nos.3 to 5), who were alleged to be facing disciplinary proceedings. He also sought a direction for his promotion as Additional Director after excluding these respondents from consideration. 32. The Tribunal set aside G.O.Ms.No.90; directed the official respondents to review the promotions given to respondent Nos.3 to 5 by taking into consideration the panel of Joint Directors prepared in G.O.Ms.No.228, dated 25-07-2003 and the disciplinary proceedings pending against respondent Nos.3 to 5; to pass appropriate orders regarding promotion of the applicant Shivaram according to rules within the stipulated time; and allowed O.A.Nos.2439 & 2436 of 2007. 33. It requires to be noticed that the Government had contended before the Tribunal that G.O.Ms.No.228 (the approved panel for promotion to the post of Joint Director) is only a formal order indicating the names of candidates to be considered for promotion; is valid only for the panel year 2002-2003; and is not in accordance with seniority. The Tribunal noticed that the seniority in the category of Deputy Director issued by the Commissioner on 17-03-2006 was set aside by it (in O.A.No.1951 of 2006 and batch). The clutch of reasons recorded by the Tribunal for setting aside the Joint Directors' seniority issued in G.O.Ms.No.90, read: 38. On a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries & Commerce (IE) Department, dated 24.4.2007, it indicates that the list was prepared as per the seniority without taking into consideration the Rule of Reservation provided to S. C. and S.T. candidates under G.O.Ms.No.5, Social Welfare Department, dated 14-2-2003. When the S.C. and S. T. candidates are promoted by virtue of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India, they are entitled to have to be consequential seniority. But G.O.Ms.No.90 is silent about the extension of notional seniority and the Rule of Reservation. The learned Counsel for the. unofficial Respondents contended that even if the applicant is promoted by virtue of Rule of Reservation, seniority of the candidates, who are promoted in the ordinary course shall not be disturbed. But as per Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India and the Judgment of the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCJ 457 = [2006] 8 SCC 212, consequential seniority also must be given. But as per Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India and the Judgment of the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCJ 457 = [2006] 8 SCC 212, consequential seniority also must be given. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries & Commerce (IE) Department, dated 24-4-2007 is illegal, arbitrary and is not in accordance with Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution of India and the Judgment of the Apex Court in M.NAGARAJ’s case referred to supra and the same is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal directed: 39. In the result, G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries & Commerce (IE) Department, dated 24-4-2007 is set aside. The official Respondents are directed to review the promotions given to Respondents 3 to 5 by taking into consideration the panel of Joint Directors prepared through G.O.Ms. No.228, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 25.7.2003 and the disciplinary proceedings pending against Respondents 3 to 5 and pass appropriate orders regarding the promotion of the applicant according to Rules within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The O.A. No.2439/2007 and O.A. No.2436/2007 are accordingly allowed. No order to costs. A brief overview of evolution of law and precedents pertaining to reservations in promotions: 34. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1) 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 the Supreme Court majority while declaring reservations impermissible in promotions permitted the same for a further period of five years. During this five year period, Article 16(4-A) was introduced by the Constitution Seventy-seventh Amendment Act, 1995, enabling reservations in promotions as well, to the Scheduled Caste/Tribe employees. 35. In Union of India and others v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and others (2) (1995) 6 SCC 684 (a Division Bench judgment-per B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J) the Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether in promotion to the non-selection category of Railway Guard, employees belonging to the specified reserved categories, would be entitled to consequent seniority on promotion. The Court interpreting the relevant Railway Rule and the circular/letter by the Railway Board held that where a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate is promoted earlier by virtue of the rule of reservation/ roster than his senior general candidate and the senior general candidate is pro-noted later to the said higher grade, the general candidate regains his seniority over such earlier promoted scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidate. The earlier promotion of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe candidate in such a situation does not confer upon him seniority over the general candidate even though the general candidate is promoted later to that category. The Supreme Court analysed the observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Allahabad Bench), in the Original Application from which the appeal came to be preferred before it. While agreeing with the reasons recorded by the Tribunal to support its conclusion that reservations in promotions would not entitle consequent seniority (in the context of the applicable Railway Rule/ Circulars) the Supreme Court disagreed with the view expressed by the Tribunal; (that a harmonious reading of clauses (1) and (4) of Article 16 should mean that a reserved candidate promoted earlier than his senior general category candidate in the feeder category shall necessarily be junior in the promoted category to such general category candidate). The Supreme Court ruled: no such principle may be said to be implicit in the said clauses. 36. In Ajit Singh Januja and others v. State of Punjab and others (3) (1996) 2 SCC 715 (Bench of three learned Judges-Per N.P. Singh, J), the Supreme Court having considered several earlier decisions including R.K. Sabhanval v. State of Punjab (4) (1995) 2 SCC 745 ; lndra Sawhney (1 supra) and Virpal Singh Chauhan (2 supra), held that the rule of reservation in promotions accommodates accelerated promotions but does not enable accelerated consequential seniority; and it will be rational, just and proper to hold that when the general category candidate is promoted later from the lower grade to the higher grade, he will be considered senior to a candidate belonging to a Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate who had been given accelerated promotion against a post reserved for him. The court ruled that whenever a situation arises of filling up a post reserved for a Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate in a still higher grade then such candidate belonging to a Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe shall be promoted first but when the consideration is in respect of promotion against a general category post in a still higher grade then the general category candidate who has been promoted later shall be considered senior and his case must be considered first for promotion applying either the principle of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. 37. 37. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court revisited the thorny issue of reservations in promotions and consequent seniority, in Ajit Singh and others (II) v. State of Punjab and others (5) (1999) 7 SCC 209 . The unanimous opinion of the Constitution Bench was by M. Jagannadha Rao, J. The court held that it is clear that the rule of seniority relating to "continuous officiation" in promotion is part of the general scheme of recruitment-by direct recruitment, promotion, etc., - in each of the services in classes (I), (II) and (III)-and is based upon the principle of equal opportunity for promotion; and it is only to such promotion that the seniority rule of "continuous officiation" is attracted. Balancing the competing rights of equality of opportunity enjoined by Article 16 and the affirmative policy of the State in providing reservations, under Article 16(4) and 16 (4-A) is spelt out in para-52 of the judgment: In the light of the above discussion, the proper balancing of the rights, in our view, will be as follows: The general candidates who are senior at Assistants' level (Level 2) and who have reached Superintendent Glade II (Level 3) before the reserved candidate moved to Level 4 (Superintendent Grade I), will have to be treated as senior at Level 3 also (Superintendent Grade II) and it is on that basis that promotion to the post of Level 4 must be made, upon first considering the cases of the senior general candidates at Level 3. If the cases of the senior general candidates who have reached Level 3 though at a later point of time, are not first considered for promotion to Level 4, and if the roster-point promotee at Level 3 is treated senior and promoted to Level 4, there will be violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Such a promotion and the seniority at level 4 has to be reviewed after the decision of Ajit Singh (3 supra). But if a reserved category candidate is otherwise eligible and posts are available for promotion to Level 4, they cannot be deniE'0 right to be considered for promotion to Level 4, merely because erstwhile seniors at the entry levels have not reached Level 3. What we have stated above accords, in fact, with what was actually stated in Ajit Singh (3 supra). 38. What we have stated above accords, in fact, with what was actually stated in Ajit Singh (3 supra). 38. In Ajil Singh (II) (5 supra) the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Jadish Lal v. State of Haryana (6) (1997) 6 SCC 538 on the ground that the said decision applies the rule of continuous officiation to reserved candidates promoted at roster-points. 39. In M. Ngaraj and others v. Union of India and others (7) 2006 (8) SCJ 457 = (2006) 8 SCC 212 = 2007 (2) ALT 20.1 (DN SC) the validity of the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 (inserting Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution retrospectively from 17-06-1995, for providing reservation in promotion with consequential seniority) was challenged as unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure. Some of the petitioners (Writ Petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution) also challenged the validity of the earlier Constitution (Seventy-seventh) Amendment Act, 1995 whereby Article 16(4-A) was inserted, enabling reservation in promotions. The challenge was on the ground that the amendment was contrary to the law dec1arpd in indra Sawhney (1 supra), which had ruled that under Article 16(4) reservation to Backward Classes are permissible only at initial recruitment and not in promotion. In challenging the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 the petitioner contended that the amendment runs foul of the "catch-up" rule propounded in Virpal Singh Chauhan (2 supra) and reiterated in Ajit Singit I and Ajit Singh II (3 and 5 supra) as integral to the Constitution's guarantee of equality of opportunity, under Article 16. Rejecting the challenge, the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) observed that concepts of "catch-up" rule and "consequential seniority" are judicially evolved concepts to control the extent of reservation; the source of these concepts is in service jurisprudence; cannot be elevated to the status of an axiom like secularism, constitutional sovereignty, etc.; and that by the insertion of the concept of "consequential seniority", the structure of Article 16(1) is neither destroyed nor abrogated. The court ruled that the equality code under Articles 14, 15 and 16 is not violated by deletion of the "catch-up" rule; this concept is based on practices and cannot be elevated to the status of constitutional principle so as to be beyond the amending power of Parliament. The court ruled that the equality code under Articles 14, 15 and 16 is not violated by deletion of the "catch-up" rule; this concept is based on practices and cannot be elevated to the status of constitutional principle so as to be beyond the amending power of Parliament. The court reiterated that neither the "catch-up" rule nor the concept of "consequential seniority" is implicit in clauses (1) and (4) of Article 16. The court applied the well established interpretation and reiterated the provisions of Article 16(4-A) as amended by the Constitution (Seventy-seventh and Eighty-fifth Amendment Acts, 1995 and 2001 - providing for reservation for Schedule Caste/Tribe in promotions and with consequent seniority - respectively) are enabling in nature and merely enable the State to provide such reservation. 40. Another decision brought to our notice is Suraj Bhan Meena and another v. State of Rajasthan and others (8) 2011 (1) SCJ 557 = (2011) 1 SCC 467 = 2011 (2) ALT 29 .2 (DN SC). The Court formulated the primary question for consideration as: whether the amended Article 16(4-A) intended that those belonging to the Schedule Caste/Tribe, who had been promoted against the reserved quota, would also be entitled to consequential seniority on account of such promotion, or would the " catch-up" rule prevail? The court ruled: The position after the decision in M. Nagaraj case (7 surpa) is that reservation of posts in promotion is dependent on the inadequacy of representation of members of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and subject to the condition of ascertaining as to whether such reservation was at all required. 41. The challenge before the Supreme Court was to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court invalidating two notifications dated 28-12-2002 & 25-04-2008 issued by the State; in very brief providing for consequent seniority to schedule caste/tribe candidates alongside reservations in promotions. In Suraj Bhan Meena (8 supra), the Supreme Court upheld the conclusion of the Rajasthan High Court that as no exercise was undertaken in terms of Article 16(4-A) to secure quantifiable data regarding the adequacy of representation of the schedule caste and schedule tribe communities in public services, this notification providing for consequent seniority and promotion to members of SC and ST communities cannot be sustained, for being inconsistent with the M. Nagaraj (7 supra) doctrine. Contentions on behalf of the petitioners: (a) the impugned order is unsustainable inter alia since the Tribunal set aside G.O.Ms.No.90 (the Joint Director final seniority list) on the premise that Article 16(4-A) itself mandates reservation in promotions with consequent seniority; M. Nagaraj (7 supra) interprets the trajectory of Article 16(4-A) to be so; and the seniority determination in G.O. Ms. No.90 was made without considering the rule of reservation with consequent seniority enjoined by G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14-02-2003; (b) Article 16(4-A) per se is only an enabling provision and does not mandate reservations in promotions or consequent seniority. The settled interpretation qua lndra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II) (5 supra) and M. Nagaraj (7 supra) is that provisions of Article 16(4-A) per se do not enjoin either reservation in promotions or consequent seniority and this is only an enabling provision; (c) the executive orders by the State in G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14-02-2003 and guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 18-03-2003, are mere policy statements or guidelines issued in exercise of the executive power and cannot operate since Rule-22 of the 1996 Rules clearly mandates reservations only in direct recruitment; (d) it is only pursuant to the amendments issued in G.O. Ms. No.123, dated 19-04-2003 (brought into force with effect from 14-02-2003), that Rule-22 of the 1996 Rules stood amended mandating reservation for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe employees in appointments other than by direct recruitment and with effect from 14-02-2003; (e) though the G.O.Ms.No.90 seniority list was prepared without a formal review of panels for a block of years, this deficiency was rectified by review of panels and approval of panels, in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 23-09-2010; (f) the order of the Tribunal dated 18-01-2007 in O.A.No.1951 of 2006 setting aside the seniority list dated 17-03-2006 issued by the Commissioner of Industries was suspended by this Court on 19-04-2007, in W.P.No.1807 of 2007 filed by the State. Such suspension continued till the writ petition was dismissed vide the judgment dated 11-04-2011, along with another W.P.No.7430 of 2007 filed by R. Madhusudhana Rao. Such suspension continued till the writ petition was dismissed vide the judgment dated 11-04-2011, along with another W.P.No.7430 of 2007 filed by R. Madhusudhana Rao. During this interregnum (19-04-2007 to 11-04-2011, while the Tribunal's judgment in O.A.No.1951 of 2006 was in plenary eclipse), the Government issued the final seniority list (in the category of Joint Director) in G.O.Ms.No.90, dated 24-04-2007 and approved the panels in the said category in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 23-09-2010 and; (g) in Madhusudhana Rao's appeal (against the dismissal of W.P. No.7430 of 2007), the apex Court ordered status quo on 28-11-2011. 42. In view of the above chronology of events the petitioners urge, promotion of Madhusudhana Rao and Suresh Babu as Additional Directors, based on their seniority in the category of Joint Director issued in G.O.Ms.No.90, and sanctified by the panels approved in G.O.Ms.No.98, cannot be assailed, at least for the nonce. The petitioners further contend that status quo ordered by the Supreme Court on 28-11-2011 must enjoin maintenance of status quo on all aspects and developments flowing from the seniority list in the category of Deputy Director issued by the Commissioner of Industries vide his order dated 17-03-2006. The applicant's defence of the impugned judgment: 43. The petitioners further contend that status quo ordered by the Supreme Court on 28-11-2011 must enjoin maintenance of status quo on all aspects and developments flowing from the seniority list in the category of Deputy Director issued by the Commissioner of Industries vide his order dated 17-03-2006. The applicant's defence of the impugned judgment: 43. Sri P. Bala Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the applicant Shivaram while fairly conceding the legal position that neither Article 16 (4-A) nor the judgment in M. Nagaraj (7 supra) per se enjoin reservation in promotions or consequent seniority, contends: (a) that reservation in promotions enabled by Article 16 (4-A) and enjoined by the executive orders issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14-02-2003, G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 18-03-2003 and the amendments to the 1996 Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.123, dated 19-04-2003 (with effect from 14-02-2003) have the effect of placing the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.228, dated 25-07-2003 (approving the panel for promotion to the category of Joint Director) following the roster beyond the pale of disputation; (b) since in G.O.Ms.No.228 the applicant Shivaram is placed higher in rank than R. Madhusudhana Rao and B. Suresh Babu in the category of Joint Director (by applying reservation in promotions with consequent seniority) Shivaram is entitled to preference over these two officers, for promotion as Additional Director; (c) as G.O.Ms.No.228 was neither superseded nor even referred in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 23-09-2010 (approval of panels of Joint Director), seniority of the applicant Shivaram over R. Madhusudhana Rao and B. Suresh Babu cannot be ignored; and (d) since the basis of the final seniority in the category of Joint Director (G.O.Ms.No.90), is founded on the illegal seniority list in the category of Deputy Director issued by the Commissioner of Industries in proceedings dated 17-03-2006, invalidated by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1951 of 2006, the C.O.Ms.No.90 seniority list cannot legitimately form the basis for promotion to the higher category of Additional Director. 44. 44. Sri P. Bala Krishna Murthy further contends that a panel of approved candidates for promotion (to the category of Deputy Director or Joint Director, as the case may be) must be prepared every year, ordinarily in the month of September with the 1st September of the year reckoned as the qualifying date to determine eligibility of candidates for such appointment; and such panel ceases to be operative on the 31st December of the succeeding year or till the next panel is prepared, whichever is earlier - vide Rule-6 of the 1996 Rules. Sub-rule (d) of Rule-6 enjoins that the panel of candidates prepared either under sub-rules (b) or (c) shall consist of such number of candidates as is equal to the number of existing vaci1ncies, including vacancies which are not filled up in the previous years for any reason; vacancies to arise owing to retirement; and consequential vacancies due to promotion or appointment by transfer. The contention is that since panels for earlier years were not prepared in the category of Joint Director, the panel approved in G.O.Ms.No.228, dated 25-07-2003, is impregnable and cannot be overridden by the contrivance of preparation and approval ex bloc of panels for a number of years as has been done in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 23-09-2010 (for the panel years 1974-75 to 2004-05). Since year-wise panels for promotion as Joint Director were not prepared (every year) as mandated in sub-rules (b) or (c) of Rule 6 of the 1966 Rules, the panel approved in G.O.Ms.No.228 (for the panel year 2002-2003) is a legal and valid panel which considered all existing vacancies including those unfilled in the previous years; is the theme propounded on behalf of the 8ppJicant. Sri P. Bala Krishna Murthy would strenuously urge that the applicant Shivaram is singled out for hostile discrimination by the State, for denial of promotion as Additional Director of Industries, only since he is a scheduled tribe candidate. Analyses : 45. As is apparent from para-38 of the impugned judgment, G.O.Ms.No.90 is set aside on the ground that this order is silent regarding extension of notional seniority and the rule of reservation (to members of SC/ST). Analyses : 45. As is apparent from para-38 of the impugned judgment, G.O.Ms.No.90 is set aside on the ground that this order is silent regarding extension of notional seniority and the rule of reservation (to members of SC/ST). Another ground is transgression of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution and the judgment in M. Nagaraj (7 surpa); and that this seniority list (in the category of Joint Director) was prepared as per the seniority (in the feeder category of Deputy Director) without considering the rule of reservation provided to SC/ST candidates under G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14-02-2003. The Tribunal also holds that when SC and ST candidates are promoted, by virtue of Article 16(4-A) they are entitled to consequent seniority. 46. In the considered view of this Court the above premises on which the invalidation of G.O.Ms.No.90 is predicated is an over-simplification of the issue. Prior to the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 (introducing sub-Article 4-A into Article 16), the law declared by the lndra Sawhney (1supra) majority governed the field and no reservation in promotions was permissible, except that existing orders, statutory or otherwise, providing for such reservation in promotions could be operated for a period of five years from the date of the judgment 47. In Andhra Pradesh reservation in promotions was excluded since Rule-22 of the 1996 Rules limited reservation only to direct recruitment. The Constitution Seventh-seventh Amendment reservation enabled reservation in promotions in favour of SC/ST candidates, who in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the respective services under the State. Article 16 (4-A) per se did not mandate reservation in promotions. It merely enabled the State to make a provision for such reservation, whether by an act of legislature, a statutory instrument or an executive order, depending upon class of instrument which covered the area in question. The facilitative regime ushered in by Article 16(4-A) did not per se authorise or enjoin reservation in promotions in Andhra Pradesh in view of the exclusionary trajectory of Rule-22 of the 1996 Rules. 48. After the Constitution Seventh-seventh Amendment Act, 1995, in view of several judgments leading to Ajit Singh (II) (5 supra) consequent seniority alongside reservation in promotions was available only restrictively - an evolutionary detail not necessary to dilate upon in the present case. 49. Then followed the Constitution [Eighty-fifth Amendment] Act, 2001. 48. After the Constitution Seventh-seventh Amendment Act, 1995, in view of several judgments leading to Ajit Singh (II) (5 supra) consequent seniority alongside reservation in promotions was available only restrictively - an evolutionary detail not necessary to dilate upon in the present case. 49. Then followed the Constitution [Eighty-fifth Amendment] Act, 2001. This amendment with effect from 17-06-1995 (the date of the Constitution Seventy-seventh Amendment Act) ushered in a further enabling provision for consequential seniority along with reservation in matters of promotion, also in Clause (4-A) of Article 16. Even now, the regime of reservation in promotions with consequential seniority, for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes was merely an enabling provision and the Constitution per se enjoined neither reservation in promotions nor consequential seniority. That this is the true position and interpretation of the Constitutional provision is clear from the judgment in M. Nagaraj (7 supra). Kapadia, J (as his Lordship then was) writing the unanimous opinion for the Constitution Bench, observed (para 123) : As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling- provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SC's/ST's in matters of promotions. 50. On a grammatical or a true and fair construction of the provisions of Article 16(4-A) and in the light of the precedential authority of M. Nagaraj (7 supra), the premise of the learned Tribunal that Article 16(4-A) and the decision in M. Nagaraj (7 supra) enjoin reservation in promotions with consequent seniority, is patently fallacious and unfounded. In para 123 itself the Apex Court made it clear that even if the State has compelling reasons it would have to ensure that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50%; obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely; and in para-125 observed that the Constitution Bench - has not examined the validity of individual enactments of appropriate States and that question would be gone into in individual writ petitions by the appropriate Bench in accordance with law laid down in M. Nagaraj (7 supra). 51. Reservation in promotions for SC/ ST candidates was provided for the first time in the State by an executive order issued in G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14-02-2003, but subject to appropriate amendments being issued to Rule-22 of the 1996 Rules, separately. 51. Reservation in promotions for SC/ ST candidates was provided for the first time in the State by an executive order issued in G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14-02-2003, but subject to appropriate amendments being issued to Rule-22 of the 1996 Rules, separately. Since Rule-22 (issued in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Article 309) enjoined reservation only in direct recruitment, the executive order in G.O.Ms.No.5 was per se inoperative. It is only consequent on the issue of G.O.Ms.No.123, dated 19-04-2003 and with retrospective effect from 14-02-2003 (also issued under the proviso to Article 309), that Rule-22 stood amended mandating reservation in matters of promotion and appointment by transfer, for candidates belonging to SC/ST, where the cadre strength of a category of service is more than 5. 52. While paragraph - (d) of G.O.Ms. No. 5 (the executive order) stated that as on the date of issue of this order, the panel year for 2002-2003 had already commenced from 01-09-2002 and therefore panels already prepared and given effect to shall not be disturbed, mandated that panels not yet prepared shall now be prepared based on the rule of reservation in promotion and that panels not given effect to shall be reviewed on the principle of reservation in promotion in favour of SC and ST; no such provision is included in the amendment to Rule-22 of the 1996 Rules, issued in G.O.Ms.No.123. 53. What would be the effect of the absence of a provision like the one in paragraph -(d) of G.O.Ms.No.5 in the statutory amendments issued in G.O.Ms. No.123 requires to be analysed and determined. The impugned judgment does not embark on this exercise, presumably since no arguments were advanced on this aspect of the matter. Whether G.O.Ms.No.5; the administrative guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.21; the statutory amendments issued in G.O.MsNo.123; the "comprehensive orders" (executive) issued in G.O.Ms.No.2; or the interactive analyses of Rules - 5, 6, 22 and 33 of the 1996 Rules enable or mandate consequent seniority, consequent on promotions made by applying the rule of reservation, requires careful and detailed analyses which does not appear to have been undertaken in the impugned judgment nor does there appear any argument advanced at the Bar on these aspects of the matter. The conclusion by the Tribunal that seniority would follow as a consequence of reservation in promotions is a fallacious conclusion predicated on a fundamental misconception of the provisions of Article 16 (4-A) and the judgment in M. Nagaraj (7 supra). 54. Article 16 (4-A) being a mere enabling provision, the Tribunal ought to have analysed whether the architecture of the relevant provisions by the State (whether statutory or administrative) enjoined seniority consequent on reservation in promotions. In the light of this vacuum in the analyses by the Tribunal its conclusion that reservation in promotions integrates consequential seniority, cannot be sustained. 55. Though G.O.Ms.No.90 notified the final seniority list in the category of Joint Director, for the period 01-09-1974 to 31-08-2.005, in purported exercise of powers under general Rule-33 read with Rule-4 of the A.P. Industrial Service Rules, this exercise does not appear to have been preceded by review of panels for the panel years relevant from 01-09-1974 to 31-08-2005. This apparent flaw was sought to be rectified in G.O.Ms.No.98, wherein panels for the years 1974-1975 to 2004-2005 were reviewed and approved. In the review of panels (in the category of Joint Director) the applicant Shivaram and the writ petitioners Madhusudhana Rao and Suresh Babu are accommodated in panel years anterior to 2002-2003; Suresh Babu and Madhusudhana Rao in the panel for the year 1999-2000; and the applicant Shivarani in the panel for the year 2001-2002. 56. Since the executive order in G.O.Ms.No.5 and the statutory amendment of Rule-22 of the 1996 Rules in G.O.Ms. No.123, dated 19 •04-2003 (but with effect from 14-02-2003 - the date of G.O.Ms.No.5) ushered in 'for the first time the regime of reservation in promotions and prospective from 14-02-2003, reservation in promotions for SC/ST candidates became applicable only from the panel year 2002-2003. There was therefore no question of either providing for reservation in promotions or for making arrangements for consequential seniority in respect of panel years earlier to the panel year 2002-2003. Para-29 of G.O.Ms.No.98 sets out the panel for the year 2002-2003 and discloses that it is prepared by applying the roster points, i.e., in accordance with the now applicable scheme of reservation in promotions for SC/ ST candidates. For earlier panel years no such reservation is applied and rightly. 57. Para-29 of G.O.Ms.No.98 sets out the panel for the year 2002-2003 and discloses that it is prepared by applying the roster points, i.e., in accordance with the now applicable scheme of reservation in promotions for SC/ ST candidates. For earlier panel years no such reservation is applied and rightly. 57. Though G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 23-09-2010, was issued earlier to the impugned judgment (dated 31-01-2011), the effect of this order approving the panels was neither canvassed nor considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had also no occasion to consider whether subsequent approval of panels (G.O.Ms.No.98) would legitimize the final seniority list in the category of Joint Director, issued in G.O.Ms.No.90. The question whether in view of the provisions of Rule-6 including sub-rule (d) thereof or the provisions of Rule-24 or 25 of the 1996 Rules, the panel approved in G.O.Ms.No.228 could be reviewed or panels for a block of years (from 1974-75 to 2004-05) could be prepared, are also aspects requiring a detailed and critical analyses of the relevant rules. These aspects had not been canvassed and therefore there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to rule/adjudicate upon them. 58. In the above circumstances, we are left with the singular and fallacious conclusion of the Tribunal that G.O.Ms.No.90 is invalidating since it does not accommodate the principle of reservation in promotions with consequential seniority, mandated by Article 16(4-A) and 2 M, Nagaraj (7 supra). Since that is not the correct position the very decision of the Tribunal invalidating G.O.Ms.No.90 must fail. 59. Though Sri P. Bala Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the applicant Shivaram has strenuously urged that this Court may not set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and remand the matter for de novo consideration; as the hour-glass is running out for the applicant and he would be denied the opportunity of serving in the higher post of Additional Director, we are not inclined to proceed with adjudication of several complex issues of interpretation of the several provisions of the 1996 Rules and analyses of the vitality of the several orders issued by the official respondents, sui generis without the Tribunal considering and synthesizing the relevant factual and legal aspects, in the first instance. 60. 60. In the light of the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (9) (1997) 3 SCC 261 the several relevant factual and legal aspects touching upon or relevant to the challenge to G.O.Ms.No.90 must first be considered by the Tribunal and only the vitality of judgment of the Tribunal, is subject to judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, whether the order of status quo to be maintained by the parties directed by the Supreme Court on 28-11-2011 (in the Appeal by Special Leave preferred by Madhusudhana Rao against the judgment of this Court dated 11-04-2011, dismissing his W.P.No.7430 of 2007) has the effect of safeguarding for the nonce, the appointment and occupancy of Madhusudhana Rao of the post of Additional Director of Industries or prohibits alteration of the position of Shivaram (the applicant and the first respondent in W.P.No.7430 of 2007, who is currently holding the post of a Joint Director) are also matters to be considered. There appears however no warrant to analyse this aspect of the matter since we are inclined to the view that the order of the Tribunal dated 31-01-2011 cannot otherwise be sustained. 61.0n the aforesaid analyses and in the light of the reasons recorded above, the order of the Tribunal dated 31-01-2011 in O.A.Nos.2439 and 2436 of 2007 is set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for hearing and determination de novo, in the light of the observations herein. 62. The writ petitions are allowed as above. There shall however be no order to costs.