Order These three writ petitions are disposed of through a common order since an identical issue falls for consideration in all the three cases, involving the same respondents and similarly placed petitioners, who are the employees working in the first respondent entity. The facts in WP No. 25251 of 2010 are taken as the basis for deciding the issue involved in the writ petitions, namely whether the seniority would get affected if an employee (Assistant Engineer) could not pass the Accounts Test within two years from the date of joining the service. Accordingly, the submissions made in the said writ petition by the respective learned Counsel have been taken into consideration to decide the issue, inasmuch as the learned Counsel in the other two writ petitions have adopted the same arguments, apart from making supplementary arguments in support of what has been urged in WP No. 25251 of 2010. WP No. 25251 of 2010 2. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is an employee working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the first respondent Devasthanam, assails the Board Resolution No. 85, dated 23.5.2009 and Circular No. Roc. No. TL 14819/2008, dated 7.6.2009, whereby and whereunder the petitioner's seniority has been determined. Petitioner's Plea: 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is an Engineering Graduate, joined the services of the first respondent on 15.12.1999 as an Assistant Executive Engineer and got her services regularized with effect from 15.12.1999. Having her probation commenced on the said date, the petitioner passed the Departmental Test, namely PWD Account Test, in June 2002 stated to have been within the probation period. As such, her probation was also declared as successfully completed by 27.12.2001, through Memo No.L.Dis. No. TL1/18427, dated 10.12.2008. 4. After a lapse of about eight years, the first respondent authorities published a tentative Seniority List through Proceedings dated 2.1.2009 showing the petitioner at Serial No. 90, just below one Sri M. Sreenivasulu, in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 1060, Revenue (Endowments-1A), dated 24.10.1989 (the "Service Rules" for brevity). In course of time, the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C) held its meeting on 26.2.2009 and selected 13 Assistant Executive Engineers for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, the next higher cadre, keeping the petitioner at Serial No. 12 out of 13 selected candidates. In fact, 11 out of 13 candidates were given promotion in due course. 5. In course of time, the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C) held its meeting on 26.2.2009 and selected 13 Assistant Executive Engineers for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, the next higher cadre, keeping the petitioner at Serial No. 12 out of 13 selected candidates. In fact, 11 out of 13 candidates were given promotion in due course. 5. When the petitioner was hoping for her turn of promotion, through Resolution No. 85, dated 23.5.2009, another provisional Seniority List of Assistant Executive Engineers was prepared and published by the first respondent through proceedings dated 3.6.2009, ostensibly invoking Rule 24(c) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 (as was in force upto 14.10.1996) and Rule 16(h) of A.P.S.S. Rules, 1966 (with effect from 15.10.1996), calling for objections, if any, to be filed on or before 4.6.1999, i.e., one day. In the said list, the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 100, whereas Mr. M. Sreenivasulu, who earlier stood immediately above her, was shown at Serial No. 93. Though sufficient time was not given to file objections, the petitioner filed her objections on 4.6.2009 and urged the authorities to revise the panel restoring her seniority. Disagreeing with the objections of the petitioner, the first respondent published what is termed as the final Seniority List, through circular dated 7.6.2009. Assailing the said Seniority List, the present writ petition has come to be filed. Respondent’s Response : 6. The first respondent has filed its counter-affidavit traversing all the allegations and averments made by the petitioner. Incidentally, though the respondent Nos. 2 to 7, who have been brought on record subsequently, were serviced notice, as has been evident from the record, none has chosen to appear before the Court to contest the claim of the petitioner. It appears that they have been brought on record with a view that the outcome of the writ petition may have an impact on their seniority. 7. It appears that they have been brought on record with a view that the outcome of the writ petition may have an impact on their seniority. 7. The first respondent has pleaded that in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Service Rules, "Every person appointed to a category by direct recruitment shall be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years." It is further pleaded that in terms of Rule 6 sub-rule (2) of the Service Rules, "Wherever department tests or special tests are prescribed by the Government in respect of direct recruits in Government service, the direct recruits of T.T.D working in similar posts shall pass the test within the time limits prescribed by the Government for corresponding posts in the Government Service". Drawing further reference to A.P. Engineering Service Rules and with specific Rule 8(C) therein, the first respondent has averred that an Assistant Executive Engineer appointed by direct recruitment shall within the period of his/her probation, pass the Account Test for PWD Officers and Subordinates. To rectify the deviation in the Seniority List assigned earlier, exercising its power as delegated under Rule 5(i) of Service Rules, the Board of Trustees passed Resolution No.85, dated 23.5.2009. 8. Referring to Rule 6 sub-rule (2) of T.T.D. Service Rules, 1989 read with 8(C) of A.P. Engineering Service Rules, as well as Rule 16(a) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service (APSSS) Rules, 1966, the first respondent has pleaded that the petitioner passed the PWD test on 7.6.2002, which is beyond the period of probation. In terms of Rule 16(h) of A.P.S.S.S Rules, the petitioner's promotion stood extended from an anterior date. Adverting to the issue of providing promotions to 11 out of 13 candidates, who were finally selected to be promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers, it was stated by the first respondent that only due to non-availability of posts, the last two candidates were not considered for promotion. 9. Insofar as the revision of the Seniority List is concerned, it is stated by the first respondent that Sri D. Venugopal, Assistant Executive Engineer, approached this Court by filing WP No. 18818 of 2008, questioning the tentative Seniority List, which was published on 2.1.2009. 9. Insofar as the revision of the Seniority List is concerned, it is stated by the first respondent that Sri D. Venugopal, Assistant Executive Engineer, approached this Court by filing WP No. 18818 of 2008, questioning the tentative Seniority List, which was published on 2.1.2009. In the light of the directions given by this Court through orders dated 29.8.2008, the first respondent once again called for objections within seven days by placing the communication in the Notice Board and on receipt of objections, the Seniority List was finalized. It is specifically contended that the petitioner has not filed any objections and in the light of it, the final list of seniority could not be assailed by the petitioner. It is stated that Sri D. Vellugopal, who is the petitioner in WP No. 18818 of 2008, initiated Contempt Proceedings, questioning the inaction on the part of the first respondent in not revising the seniority list. Under those compelling circumstances, it is pleaded by the first respondent, it was constrained to revise the proceedings through circular dated 3.6.2009. Drawing extensively on the statutory provisions, especially the provisions of A.P. State and Subordinate Rule, 1969 and A.P. Engineering Service Rules, apart from other statutory Service Rules, the first respondent has pleaded that the Seniority List finalised by the respondent Corporation is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. WP No. 5453 of 2007 Petitioner's Plea: 10. Stated briefly, the petitioner joined the service of the first respondent on 27.5.1994 as Assistant Executive Engineer by way of direct recruitment. He is said to have had his probation declared on 18.7.1996. On 25.11.2006, the first respondent published the Revisional Seniority List of the persons working in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (civil) and directed the persons, if aggrieved, to file objections within 15 days. It was meant to finalise the Seniority List so as to effect promotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. The petitioner filed his objections on various grounds and has contended that his name should have been reflected at Serial Number 5 instead of 15. It appears that apart from his earlier objection, dated 11.12.2006, the petitioner also submitted representations on 19.1.2007, 25.1.2007, 16.2.2007 and 13.3.2007. The petitioner filed his objections on various grounds and has contended that his name should have been reflected at Serial Number 5 instead of 15. It appears that apart from his earlier objection, dated 11.12.2006, the petitioner also submitted representations on 19.1.2007, 25.1.2007, 16.2.2007 and 13.3.2007. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without finalising the Seniority List, the respondent authorities have constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and are contemplating promoting certain other persons to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineer. Under those circumstances, the petitioner filed writ petition. Respondent’s Response: 11. The first respondent on its part negated the claim of the petitioner and took a plea to the effect that though the petitioner had joined the service of the first respondent on 27.5.1994, he passed the departmental tests on 17.7.1998, that is after 4 years and 2 months, when he had actually been required to pass the test by 26.5.1996, that is within two years. WP No. 16180 of 2011 Petitioners Plea: 12. The petitioner joined the service of the first respondent as Assistant Executive Engineer on 26.7.1992 by way of direct recruitment. He had his services regularised on 3.8.1992, when his probation commenced. It is further stated that the petitioner passed PWD Account Test on 6.1.1995. Later, on 27.8.1998, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer as per the rank of seniority assigned to him based on the original date of appointment. Questioning the seniority assigned to him subsequently in the tentative Seniority List, the petitioner submitted objections to the first respondent. Later, when a revised Seniority List was published through circular dated 2.6.2009, assailing it, he filed the present writ petition. 13. The first respondent in its counter-affidavit took identical objections as to the reckoning of probation and its completion vis-a-vis passing of the departmental test as has peen taken in the other two writ petitions. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners: 14. Sri S. Sriram, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended as a matter of preliminary submission that the Government Memo No. 57759/Ser-A2004-1, dated 20.5.2004 clearly stated that no request for revision of seniority, which is more than three years, shall be considered. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners: 14. Sri S. Sriram, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended as a matter of preliminary submission that the Government Memo No. 57759/Ser-A2004-1, dated 20.5.2004 clearly stated that no request for revision of seniority, which is more than three years, shall be considered. Though initially the petitioners was shown at Serial No. 90 in the tentative Seniority List issued on 2.1.2009, subsequently, without any notice, much less an opportunity given to the petitioners, it came to be further revised, keeping the petitioners at Serial No. 100, thus bringing her seniority down by 10 numbers. The learned Counsel has contended that when a tentative Seniority List is published, at least 15 days' time shall be given for filing objections. Astonishingly, the first respondent gave only one day to file the objections. It has been specifically contended that there was no occasion for the authorities to have the petitioner's probation extended since she passed her PWD Account Test within a continuous period of three years and as such, Rule 16(h) of the A.P.S.S. Rules, 1996, has no application. The learned Counsel has further contended that as per Rule 6 read with Rule (2) sub-rule (2) of A.P. Engineering Service Rules, the total length of probation is three years and the petitioners has definitely passed the departmental test within those three years. As such, the question of extension of probation does not arise. 15. Laying specific emphasis on the statutory scheme holding field, the learned Counsel has stated that the Board Resolution dated 23.5.2009 and the consequential circular, dated 7.6.2009, are in clear violation of Rule 4(ix) read with 6 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ("the Act"). It is further assailed by the learned Counsel that the Board Proceedings and the Circular, which are said to have been issued relying on Rules 16(h) and 25 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 do not have any application to the employees of the T.T.D. It is also contended that if at all Rule 16(h) of A.P.S.S.S. Rules is to be implemented in T.T.D. the first respondent organization, as a matter of precondition, it is required to have the seniority of the entire cadre settled till then would have to be revised, thus opening a Pandora's box. Having selected the petitioners to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer along with 12 others and having already provided promotion to 11 of them, the first respondent has been, contended the learned Counsel, estopped from unsettling the seniority citing the rules, which do not have any application. The learned Counsel has taken this Court through the Service Rules governing the Assistant Executive Engineers and has stated that the authorities have been under a misconception that there was an extension of probation in view of passing of the test by the petitioners beyond two years. 16. The learned Counsel has also made submissions in the alternative to the effect that taking two years as the initial period of probation, since there is a provision of extension by one year, it should be taken that the petitioners passed the test within that extended period since she has passed the test within 2½ years from the date of her initial joining of the service. 17. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also stated that if the extended period of probation, if any, is taken as one unit, treating the entire period of probation as three years, there ought to have been extension of probation by one year only through express orders. In the alternatively, the learned Counsel has contended that, adopting the logic applied by the respondent authorities, the entire period of probation including extension were to be treated as 4 years, even then the petitioner came to pass the test within 2½ years. Thus, viewed from any angle, the fallacy of extension of probation is exposed. 18. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment reported in S. Bheem Prasad and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2009(4) ALD 80 (DB). 19. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to the material, which was submitted after filing the writ petition, having obtained the same under Right to Information Act (RTI). Referring to the extract of Note File TL-1/7191/2009, obtained under RTI from A.E.O. (Tech)/P.I.O. vide Lr.No.ROC/17351/2010, dated 24.12.2010, the learned Counsel has submitted that even the authorities have been convinced that the petitioner has been at liberty to pass the departmental test within the initial period of probation of three years and such passing does not result in extension of the probation. The authorities have concluded that the seniority the petitioner was initially assigned could not have been changed. Eventually, it is, however, noted by the authorities that since the matter has been sub-judice, it shall be decided only after the disposal of the present writ petition. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents: 20. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent T.T.D has vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner and has contended that Rule 8(c) of A.P. Engineering Service Rules clearly mandates that, "An Assistant Executive Engineer appointed by direct recruitment shall within the period of his probation, pass the Account Test for PWD Officers and Subordinates". It is further contended that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in T.T.D. on 15.12.1999 and her services were regularized as per Rule 6(2) of the T.T.D. Service Rules, 1989, read with 8(c) of A.P. Engineering Service Rules. However, in terms of Rule 16(a) of the A.P.S.S.S. Rules, 1966, since the petitioner passed the departmental test only on 7.6.2002 i.e., beyond the period of probation, which is two years, Rule 16(h) of the A.P.S.S.S. Rules, 1996 springs into action, automatically extending the probation of the petitioners. In the light of the anomaly, which crept into the initial tentative Seniority List, which showed the petitioners at Serial No. 90, the first respondent, especially in view of the directions of this Court through order dated 29.8.2008 in WP No. 18818 of 2008, was constrained to issue circular dated 2.1.2009, thus setting right the said anomaly. The learned Standing Counsel has thus defended the Board Resolution No. 85, dated 23.5.2009 stating that it was occasioned only in the light of the extension of the probation of the petitioner, which had not been noticed initially. 21. The learned Standing Counsel has laid much stress on the aspect that the petitioner did not file any objection within the given period of time and as such, she could not re-agitate the issue. Referring to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel has made an extensive reference to the Service Rules applicable to the petitioner and the other respondents and has contended that the petitioner cannot be heard saying that the period of probation is three years and that, having passed the departmental test within that period, the probation was not extended or could not be extended. Referring to the issue of not promoting the petitioner as Deputy Executive Engineer, despite placing her in the list of 13 successful candidates, 11 of whom have already been promoted, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that based on the panel years 2008 and 2009, provisionally those people have been selected to be promoted. However, the very list became invalid by 31.8.2009, as per Rule 6(c) of A.P.S.S.S. Rules, 1996. As such, the petitioner cannot have any substantial right to stake a claim to the promotional post. 22. In the alternative, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that mere tentative selection of the candidates to be promoted does not confer any substantial right on the petitioners enforceable in a Court of law. It is the specific contention of the learned Standing Counsel that even in the absence of any express order extending the probation, in the light of the fact that the petitioner did not pass the departmental test within the stipulated period of two years i.e., within the initial period of probation, it is deemed that her probation stood extended from 8.6.2000 to 7.6.2002, i.e., anterior to the date of passing the PWD Test in terms of Rule 16(h) of APSS Rules, 1996. Eventually, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that insofar as the seniority of the petitioner is concerned, it was initially shown in the tentative seniority list, later revised, eventually finalised and duly published. As such, the petitioner cannot have any ground, much less a legally sustainable ground, to assail the seniority, as was finally fixed by the first respondent. Thus, the learned Standing Counsel urges this Court to dismiss the writ petition as being without merits. 23. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1, apart from perusing the record. Discussion: 24. The solitary issue that is to be decided is: whether the petitioner has passed the test within the period of probation or in the alternative within the extended period of probation? 25. Consequential aspect that is required to be addressed by this Court is: If the petitioner is treated to have passed the departmental test during the extended period of probation i.e., beyond two years but before three years, does it amount to automatic extension of the probation? 26. 25. Consequential aspect that is required to be addressed by this Court is: If the petitioner is treated to have passed the departmental test during the extended period of probation i.e., beyond two years but before three years, does it amount to automatic extension of the probation? 26. To appreciate the above two issues, the second one being the consequential to first one, it may be appropriate to extract the statutory position that governs the employees of the first respondent. The petitioner and all the unofficial respondent Nos. 2 to 7-for that matter the employees of the first respondent-are governed by T.T.D. Employees Service Rules, 1989 as issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1060, Revenue (Endowments-1A), dated 24.10.1989 ("the Service Rules" for brevity). Rule 4 specifies that the provisions of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules apply to the employees of the first respondent. Insofar as probation is concerned, Rule 6, which is extracted herein below, delineates thus: "Probation.-(1) Every person appointed to a category by direct recruitment shall be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years and every person appointed to any category or grade by promotion or conversion shall be on probation for a total period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years. (2) Wherever departmental tests of special tests are prescribed by the Government in respect of direct recruits in Government Service the direct recruits of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams working in similar posts shall pass the tests within the time limits prescribed by the Government for corresponding posts in the Government Service." 27. Especially Rule 6, sub-rule (2) of the Service Rules mandates that wherever departmental tests or special tests are prescribed by the Government in respect of direct recruits in Government Service, the direct recruits of the first respondent working in similar posts shall pass the test within the time limits prescribed by the Government for corresponding posts in the Government Service. Insofar as the petitioner and un-official respondents are concerned, they are working as Assistant Executive Engineers and, as such, the A.P. Engineering Service Rules to the extent of passing departmental test shall have an application. 28. Rule 6 of A.P. Engineering Service Rules contains the norms of probation of the Engineering Staff. Insofar as the petitioner and un-official respondents are concerned, they are working as Assistant Executive Engineers and, as such, the A.P. Engineering Service Rules to the extent of passing departmental test shall have an application. 28. Rule 6 of A.P. Engineering Service Rules contains the norms of probation of the Engineering Staff. Insofar as Assistant Executive Engineers are concerned, they are required to be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. With regard to the departmental tests required to be passed, Rule (8) governs the Engineering Staff and the said rule is as follows: "Tests: (a) Every person appointed as Deputy Executive Engineer by direct recruitment shall, within a period of three years from the date of his appointment, pass the Account Test for Public Works Department Officer. The penalty for failure to pass the test shall be stoppage of increment, but such stoppage shall not operate to postpone further increments after he passes the test. (b) Omitted by G.O. Ms. No. 824, Irr. & Power (Ser.III), dated 12.11.1976. (c) An Assistant Executive Engineer appointed by direct recruitment shall, within the period of his probation, pass the Accounts Test for PWD Officers and Subordinates. Note: Any Such Assistant Executive Engineer Oil probation shall not be discharged for failure to pass the above test within the period of his probation, but his probation shall be extended and his increment stopped till he passes the test." (emphasis added) 29. A plain reading of the above, especially clause (C) of Rule 8, makes it manifestly clear that an Assistant Executive Engineer appointed by direct recruitment shall pass the accounts test within a period of three years from the date of his or her appointment. Further, he or she, while on probation, shall not be discharged for failure to pass the said test within the period of his or her probation, which, however, shall be extended and the increment stopped till he or she passes the test. 30. Thus, we have to appreciate whether under any circumstance the probation of the petitioner stood extended as was contended by the first respondent. For the said purpose, the tests contained in the note attached to Rule 8 of A.P. Engineering Service Rules are required to be applied. In the first place, the probation ought to have been extended by an express order. For the said purpose, the tests contained in the note attached to Rule 8 of A.P. Engineering Service Rules are required to be applied. In the first place, the probation ought to have been extended by an express order. In the face of such an extension by an express order, there ought to have been a stoppage of increments until departmental test is passed. Taking either Rule 6 of the Service Rules, or Rule 6 of A.P. Engineering Service Rules, since they are in para materia, it is to be appreciated that on both counts the initial probation is two years within a continuous working period of three years. For an established reason of not passing the departmental test within that period, the probation is to be extended by one year. Since this extension has the statutory protection, no adverse consequences should be allowed to visit upon the person till the completion of the extended period. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the entire period that is provided for passing departmental test is two years within a continuous period of three years, extendable by a maximum period of one year. Only when an employee fails to pass the test within the said originally stipulated period or extended period, either in terms of Rule 6 of the T.T.D. Service Rules or in terms of Rule 6 of A.P. Engineering Service Rules, does any adverse consequence as specified in the rules visit upon the said employee in the form of stoppage of increment, but nothing beyond. 31. Further appreciating the impact of the A.P.S.S.S. Rules, 1996, which were specifically made applicable to the employees of the first respondent through the process of legislative adoption in terms of Rule 4 of T.T.D. Service Rules, it is apposite to extract some of the relevant rules that may have an impact on the present issue. 32. 31. Further appreciating the impact of the A.P.S.S.S. Rules, 1996, which were specifically made applicable to the employees of the first respondent through the process of legislative adoption in terms of Rule 4 of T.T.D. Service Rules, it is apposite to extract some of the relevant rules that may have an impact on the present issue. 32. Rule 16(a) of A.P.S.S.S. 1996 governs the commencement of probation for direct recruits and the relevant paras as follows: "A person appointed in accordance with the rules, otherwise than under Rule 10, by direct recruitment shall commence his probation from the date of his joining the duty or from such other date as may be specified by the appointing authority: (c) Period of Probation.-Unless otherwise stated in the Special Rules or in these rules, the period of probation shall be as follows: (i) Every person appointed by direct recruitment to any post shall, from the date on which he commences his probation be on probation for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. (ii) Every person appointed to any post either by promotion or by transfer (not by transfer on tenure) shall, from the date on which he commences his probation, be on probation for a period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years. (iii) A probationer in any category, class or service shall be eligible to count for probation his service in a higher category of the same service or class, as the case may be, or in any other service (State or Subordinate Service) towards his probation in the former service, to the extent of the period of duty performed by him in the latter service during which he would have held the post in the former service but for such appointment in the latter service. (e) Tests to be passed during probation.-A person who has commenced his probation in a service, class or category shall, within the period of probation, if so required in the Special Rules or these rules, pass such tests or acquire such qualifications as may be prescribed in these rules or in the Special Rules applicable to such service, class or category. (f)(i) If within the period of probation a candidate fails to pass such test or acquire such qualifications as may be prescribed in these rules or in the Special Rules, the appointing authority shall, by order, discharge him from the service unless the period of probation is extended under the sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 and if within such extended period also, the candidate fails to pass such tests or acquire such special qualifications the appointing authority shall discharge him from service. (ii) If within the period of probation or within the extended period of probation, as the case may be, a probationer has appeared for any such test or any examination in connection with the passing of such prescribed tests or with the acquisition of the prescribed qualifications and the results of such tests or examinations for which he has so appeared are not known before the expiry of the probation period, he shall continue to be on probation until the publication of results of such tests or examinations for which he has appeared, or the first of them in which he fails to pass, as the case may be. (iii) In case the probationer fails to pass any of the tests or examinations for which he has so appeared, the appointing authority shall, by an order, discharge him from service. Any delay in the issue of the order discharging the probationer under clause (i) or clause (iii) of this sub-rule shall not entitle him to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation. Any delay in the issue of the order discharging the probationer under clause (i) or clause (iii) of this sub-rule shall not entitle him to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation. (h) Change of date of commencement of probation.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Special Rules or sub-rules (a) and (b) of Rule 33, a probationer who does not pass the prescribed tests or acquire the prescribed special qualifications within the period of probation or within the extended period of probation under Rule 17 and whose probation is further extended by the Government by an order under Rule 31, till the date of his passing such tests or acquiring such qualifications, shall be deemed to have commenced the probation with effect from the date to be fired by the Government, which would be anterior to a date to his passing such tests or acquiring such special qualifications, so, however, that the interval between the two dates shall be equivalent to the prescribed period of probation, whether on duty or otherwise and seniority of such probationer shall be determined with reference to the date so fixed. Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply in the cases of persons appointed to the class, category or grade in a service prior to the 9th March, 1981 and whose seniority in the said class, category or grade was fixed under sub-rule (b) of Rule 33, prior to the said date. (emphasis added) 33. As a necessary corollary to the above rule, the consequences have been specified in Rule 17(b), which is as follows: "In the case of any probationer failing to pass the tests or acquire the prescribed qualifications, the appointing authority may extend his probation to enable him to pass the prescribed tests or acquire special qualifications, as the case may be. Such extension by the appointing authority shall not exceed one year, whether on duty or otherwise in such service, class or category." (emphasis added) A perusal of the above said Rules would indicate that Rule 16(h) contains a non-obstante clause excluding any application of Rule 33, which speaks of seniority. It is to be observed that Rule 16 introduces a legal fiction. It is to be observed that Rule 16 introduces a legal fiction. A probationer who does not pass the prescribed tests or acquire the prescribed special qualifications within the period of probation or within the extended period of probation, and whose probation is further extended by Government by an order under Rule 31, till the date of passing such tests or acquiring such qualifications, shall be deemed to have commenced the probation with effect from the date to be fixed by the Government. The date to be fixed shall be anterior to a date of his passing such tests or acquiring such special qualification. It is further stipulated that the interval between the two dates shall be equivalent to the prescribed period of probation. Interpreting the present rule, the first respondent authorities have felt that since the petitioners passed the departmental test in 2½ years from the date of her joining the service, the date of commencement of her probation should be fixed just two years anterior to her passing the departmental test. But, what has missed the attention of the authorities is that if the test is to be passed within the extended period of probation, the consequences as have been specified under Rule 17 or for that matter under Rule 31 may not have any impact on the person, who has passed the test within the extended period. 34. If it were to be assumed - unlikely as it is - that the petitioner had not passed the departmental test even within the extended period of probation, there ought to have been an express order under Rule 31 on the part of the authorities to have her probation extended. In the present instance, leaving aside the controversy whether the actual period of probation is two years or three years, for the felicity of discussion if we take two years as the initial period of probation in terms of Rule 16(h), the petitioner is required to pass the departmental test within the next one year, which the petitioner did - to be precise, in the next six months only. On the other hand, it has come on record that at any point of time, there has been no extension of probation in terms of Rule 31. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has passed her departmental test within the period of probation. On the other hand, it has come on record that at any point of time, there has been no extension of probation in terms of Rule 31. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has passed her departmental test within the period of probation. From the following discussion, it is evident that the authorities actually have taken three years as the initial period of probation extendable by one more year. 35. It is appropriate to refer to the departmental correspondence, which were obtained by the petitioner under the Provisions of R.T.I. and placed before the Court. The Note File at Para 84 of the record specifically indicates as follows: "As per the above rule, the employee can pass the tests within the period of probation i.e., 3 years as per Rule 16(e) which was already said in Para No. 79 or within the extended period of probation i.e., as per Rule 17(b) the appointing authority may extend the probation to enable him to pass the tests for one year in additional to initial period of probation of 3 years. Thus, the employee has the facility of passing the tests within the three years initially and one more year subsequently without losing the seniority." Further, at Para 92 it has further been stated as follows: "In this regard, kindly peruse the paras from 60 to 90 wherein the AO (CS) has observed that at Paras 84 and 85 as detailed below: "The employee has the facility of passing the tests within the three years initially and one year subsequently without losing the seniority. In the case of Kum M. Sreelakshmi, Asst. Executive Engineer, the seniority of the individual will not be changed as per the above said rule position". 36. Despite coming to the above conclusion, the authorities have felt that since the matter has been sub-judice qua the present writ petition, it would be desirable to wait for the outcome of the writ petition. It is axiomatic that the interpretation of any particular rule or section of statute does not fall within the dominion of the executive. It is a task constitutionally assigned to the Courts. As such, I am not inclined to attach any importance to the departmental deliberations on the length of probation, if it were to be contrary to what this Court would have decided. It is a task constitutionally assigned to the Courts. As such, I am not inclined to attach any importance to the departmental deliberations on the length of probation, if it were to be contrary to what this Court would have decided. In deed, the interpretation of the authorities concerning the duration or the length of the petitioner's probation, as has been reflected in the Note File, does well accord with the view of the Court. 37. In S. Bheem Prasad and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra), the petitioners, being unsuccessful before the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, have contended that when once they have been assigned ranking based upon the examination conducted by A.P.P.S.C. and in view of Rule 8(c) of A.P. Engineering Service Rules, which mandates that any Assistant Executive Engineer on probation shall not be discharged for failure to pass the test within the period of his probation, the Tribunal ought not to have refused to grant them the relief. They have also contended that at the most, according to Rule 8(c) of A.P. Engineering Service Rules, their probation shall be extended and their increment may be stopped till they pass the departmental test. Eventually the petitioners have contended that according to Rule 17(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, the appointing authority may extend the period of probation only for a period of one year, and that Rule 16(h) has no application to the facts and circumstances of their cases. In fact, as a matter of illustration, one of the petitioners therein passed the departmental test after three years, and another, after six years. The Government accordingly extended their probation and re-fixed their seniority. Under those circumstances, a learned Division Bench of this Court has held: "11. Obviously as rightly contended by learned Government Pleader the petitioners have passed the departmental test beyond the prescribed period of probation, though they are directly recruited through A.P.P.S.C., as Assistant Executive Engineers. The Government accordingly extended their probation and re-fixed their seniority. Under those circumstances, a learned Division Bench of this Court has held: "11. Obviously as rightly contended by learned Government Pleader the petitioners have passed the departmental test beyond the prescribed period of probation, though they are directly recruited through A.P.P.S.C., as Assistant Executive Engineers. Since the petitioners themselves did not qualify or pass the departmental test within the period of probation and the provision in Note to Rule 8(c) only saves them against discharge from service and the Special Rules are silent on the method of extension of probation, in view of Rule 16(h) which operates qua to any other provisions either in General Rules or Special Rules the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that normal principle of determination of seniority based on ranking has no application in cases where the employee does not pass the prescribed test within the probation. In the instant case the Government vide impugned proceedings extended the period of probation of the petitioners in the first instance and thereafter fixed the date of commencement of probation, as mandated by Rule 16(h) of the Rules. Admittedly, the power to extend the period of probation is vested within the Government and therefore the Government issued the impugned proceedings fixing the revised date of commencement of probation in respect of the petitioners having extended their probation vide first part of the impugned order. The Government thereupon invoked Rule 16(h) of the Rules revising the date of commencement of probation. In view of clear and categorical expression of Rule 16(h) that notwithstanding anything contained in Special Rules or sub-rules (a) and (b) of Rule 33 of General Rules, Rule 16(h) will override any provisions under the Special Rules, including the Note under Rule 8 thereof insofar as the date of commencement of periods of probation of the individuals who do not pass the departmental tests within the period of probation or extended period of probation are concerned". 38. Thus, viewed from any angle, the petitioner was required to pass the departmental test within the prescribed period in terms of Rule 8 of the A.P. Engineering Service Rules, read with Rule 16(h) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, not triggering Rule 17(b) of the said Rules. As such, the re-fixation of the petitioner's seniority does not arise. 39. Thus, viewed from any angle, the petitioner was required to pass the departmental test within the prescribed period in terms of Rule 8 of the A.P. Engineering Service Rules, read with Rule 16(h) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, not triggering Rule 17(b) of the said Rules. As such, the re-fixation of the petitioner's seniority does not arise. 39. Since the discussion was based on the facts in WP No. 25251 of 2010, it is needless to observe that the same ratio cination as applied to the facts of the said writ petition should also applied to those in WP No. 5453 of 2007 and WP No. 16180 with full vigour. 40. For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to hold that in case of all the petitioners, there had been no probation extended and as such there was no occasion for the first respondent authorities to have seniority revised. Any revision of seniority, in my considered view, is totally unsustainable. As such, to meet the ends of justice, it is requisite that the seniority of the petitioners be considered as was reflected in the final Seniority List dated 2.1.2009. 41. For the reasons stated above, the T.T.D. Board Resolution No. 85, dated 23.5.2009 and the Circular No. Roc. No.TL14819/2008, dated 7.6.2009 are hereby set aside as being illegal and arbitrary. The first respondent authorities are consequently directed to provide to the petitioners all the consequential benefits in the light of restoration of the seniority to the original position as was reflected in the proceedings dated 2.1.2009. 42. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.