JUDGMENT L.N. Reddy, J. 1. The appellant was selected and appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, the 1st respondent herein, on 01-07-1984. He was placed on probation, and the same was declared on 21-05-1985, after it was extended. The seniority list for the posts of Junior Clerk-cum-Cashiers as on 25-06-1990 was published on 24-09-1990. The appellant was shown at Sl. No. 69. Another seniority list was published on 26-08-1995, for the posts of Clerk-cum-Cashiers. The name of the appellant did not find place in it, on the basis that it is in relation to the Clerks, who are appointed earlier, in point of time. 2. The 2nd respondent issued a Circular dated 15-11-2000, enclosing a comprehensive seniority list of the posts of Clerk-cum-Cashiers as on 01-10-2000. The position of the appellant was pushed down substantially, compared to the one, assigned to him in the seniority list dated 24-09-1990. The representations made by him did not yield any result. Therefore, he filed W.P. No. 17735 of 2001 with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents in placing him at Sl. No. 242 in the seniority list dated 15-11-2000 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. According to them, though the appellant was selected on 01-05-1984, through direct recruitment, his place was pushed down, on account of the fact that his probation was confirmed only with effect from 21-05-1985, later than that of many others. Reliance was placed upon Regulation 13 of the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 (for short 'the Regulation'). After hearing both the parties at length, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, through order dated 19-08-2005. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Sri K.G. Krishna Moorthy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment of the appellant as Clerk-cum-Cashier was through direct recruitment, and the seniority in that post is to be fixed on the basis of the rank assigned by the Selection Committee. He contends that the seniority was accordingly fixed in the circular dated 24-09-1990, and it was altered to the detriment of the appellant, in the year 2000. He contends that the seniority was accordingly fixed in the circular dated 24-09-1990, and it was altered to the detriment of the appellant, in the year 2000. He submits that Regulation 13, which was treated as a basis for altering the seniority of the appellant was held to be illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions including the one, in Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank v. Ananda Chandra Das (1994) 6 SCC 301 , and the judgment of this Court in Manjira Grameena Bank, Sangareddy, Medak v. M. Ashok Kumar 2002 Suppl. (1) ALD 344 (DB). 5. Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the services of the appellant is governed by the Regulations, and according to Regulation 13(3), an employee, whose probation is extended, has to take the seniority after the other candidates of the same batch, whose probation was confirmed, without extension. She contends that the appellant did not challenge the Regulation, and the judgments relied upon by him are in relation to the Regulations of other Grameena Banks. She further submits that the very fact that the probation of the appellant was not declared, discloses that he was not found fit at the relevant point of time, and that the learned single Judge has applied the correct principles of law. 6. The appointment of the appellant as Clerk-cum-Cashier was through the process of selection. On being appointed, the appellant was placed under probation. It was not declared on completion of the stipulated period. However, in the extended period of probation, his performance was found to be satisfactory, and the probation was declared. For the first time, after the appointment of the appellant, a seniority list was published on 24-09-1990, wherein the appellant was placed at Sl. No. 69. About one decade thereafter, a revised seniority list was published on 15-11-2000, wherein the appellant was pushed down by many places. The basis for the action of the respondents is, Regulation 13(3). It reads, "In the case of an officer or employee whose probation has been extended, his seniority shall be reckoned just below all the officers or employees, if any, recruited or promoted in the same batch along with him." 7. The Regulation runs contrary to the norms, that govern the fixation of seniority of the employees, appointed on being selected. It reads, "In the case of an officer or employee whose probation has been extended, his seniority shall be reckoned just below all the officers or employees, if any, recruited or promoted in the same batch along with him." 7. The Regulation runs contrary to the norms, that govern the fixation of seniority of the employees, appointed on being selected. It is fairly well settled that the seniority of an employee, appointed through the process of selection, must be determined on the basis of the ranking assigned by the selection committee. The date of declaration of probation does not have any relevance at all. The probation would certainly play an important role, in the context of the confirmation of service. It is only on declaration of probation, that an employee would become a member of the service. If the performance of an employee is found to be not satisfactory during the period of probation, the employer has two options: The first is to remove the employee from the rolls by stating that his performance during the probation is found not satisfactory, and the second is, to extend the probation, to give an opportunity to the employee to improve. If, even after the extension of the probation, the performance of the employee is found to be not satisfactory, his name can be removed from the rolls, by making necessary endorsement. Such a step does not amount to inflicting of punishment. The reason being that, the employee is yet to become a regular member of the service. 8. Once the probation is declared, either within the original period, or the extended period, it dates back to the stage of commencement. It does not make any difference, whether the employee was on probation for the originally stipulated period, or extended period. 9. Regulation 13(3) is a typical provision, which was adopted by almost all the Grameena Banks throughout the country. The validity thereof was the subject-matter of several judgments, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. In Direct Recruit Class-II Engg. Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1990 SC 1607 , the Supreme Court held as under: "In other words, ranking given at the time of selection process shall determine the seniority of an Officer. The validity thereof was the subject-matter of several judgments, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. In Direct Recruit Class-II Engg. Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1990 SC 1607 , the Supreme Court held as under: "In other words, ranking given at the time of selection process shall determine the seniority of an Officer. However, under Rule 13(3), it is open to the employer to alter the seniority on the ground that an Officer's probation has been extended and place him below the seniority of all those Officers recruited in the same batch. I am of the view that Rule 13(3) confers a power inconsistent with the rule of seniority. The normal principle of seniority is the length of service on the ranking obtained at the time of selection. In other words, the length of service of an employee determines his seniority in a particular grade or scale. The length of service cannot be altered on the ground that the probation of the Officer has been extended. There is no nexus between the length of the service and the extension of probation. If the probation of an Officer is extended, that means he is inefficient in service. The fact that an officer is inefficient does not automatically result in reduction of the length of service. He continues to work from the date of his first appointment though inefficiently. The inefficiency determines his fitness for further promotion, but, does not reduce the length of service. Therefore, in the case of an Officer whose probation is extended, his seniority cannot be reduced by placing him below the Officers who were recruited in the same batch. The same reasoning applies to the determination of seniority on the basis of ranking. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Chairman, Porigramyak Bank's case (supra), if once the merit list on the basis of the ranking secured at the time of the selection is prepared, it cannot be altered on the ground that the probation of an Officer is extended. Extension of probation of an officer has to relevance as the said extension cannot alter the ranking." 10. This was taken note of, in Manjira Grameena Bank's case (2 supra), by a Division Bench of this Court, and it was observed, "Para-16: The above decision, in our view, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Extension of probation of an officer has to relevance as the said extension cannot alter the ranking." 10. This was taken note of, in Manjira Grameena Bank's case (2 supra), by a Division Bench of this Court, and it was observed, "Para-16: The above decision, in our view, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. We may also add that seniority of an employee cannot be reduced unless otherwise by way of punishment as such reduction in the seniority would amount to punishment and as the individual would be deprived of the chances of his future promotion particularly where promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit. Therefore, the extension of the probation of the respondent cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of reduction of his seniority." 11. The learned single Judge, however, tried to distinguish the precedents, referred to above, by citing certain reasons, which according to us, are totally irrelevant. 12. Another contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the effected persons were not made parties. We do not find any basis in that. The reason is that the necessity to implead the effected persons, in the context of a challenge to the seniority list would arise, if only the change is on account of certain facts, which are specific or typical to the employees. Where the relief is claimed on the basis of the interpretation of a provision of law; is not at all necessary. At any rate, the appellant was already assigned proper place in the seniority list in the year 1990, and his ranking was changed thereafter, without notice to him. 13. We, therefore, allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 19-08-2005, passed by the learned single Judge, in W.P. No. 17735 of 2001. The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the seniority list dated 15-11-2000, in so far as it has altered the place of the petitioner in the seniority list, as contained in the Circular dated 24-09-1990. The appellant shall be entitled to be extended all the consequential benefits. 14. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.