JUDGMENT L.N. Reddy, J. 1. The writ appeal and the writ petition are inter-connected. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to arrayed in the writ petition. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Trainee Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) in the 1st respondent-organization through the process of direct recruitment on 24.06.2000. She joined the service on 19.07.2000 and was placed on probation with effect from 29.01.2001. Her probation was declared through order, dated 21.01.2004, with effect from 28.01.2003. The 2nd respondent joined as LDC in the 1st respondent=organization and was promoted as UDC on 23.03.1999. Thereafter, she was promoted as JAO on 15.12.2001. 4. The promotion from the post of JAO is to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO). The relevant Regulations stipulate completion of 5 years service in the post of JAO as a prerequisite for promotion to the higher post. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent belong to S.C. category. In the 1st respondent-organization, there is reservation for promotion also. 5. Substantial number of vacancies in the post of AAO arose by September 2003. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 06.09.2003. The vacancy that was earmarked for S.C. candidates was not filled on account of the fact that no eligible candidates were found. The 2nd respondent made a representation for consideration of her case, but the same was rejected on 20.09.2003 stating that she did not have the minimum service of 5 years, as JAO. 6. On 02.02.2007, the petitioner, 2nd respondent and six other candidates were promoted as A.A. Os. The petitioner figured at serial No. 1 and 2nd respondent, at serial No. 2. The 2nd respondent continued her effort to get promoted against the vacancy that arose on 06.09.2003. Through proceedings, dated 14.12.2010, the 1st respondent granted relaxation of the requirement as to 5 years as JAO, in favour of the 2nd respondent and directed that her promotion shall be deemed to be with effect from 11.09.2003 i.e., date of assumption of charge by one Smt. G. Durga Subbayamma. 7. The promotion from the post of AAO is to the post of Accounts Officer (AO) and thereafter to the post of Senior Accounts Officer (SAO). The petitioner was promoted as AO on 03.04.2010, whereas the 2nd respondent was promoted as JAO on 24.12.2010 but with effect from 25.11.2006. 7. The promotion from the post of AAO is to the post of Accounts Officer (AO) and thereafter to the post of Senior Accounts Officer (SAO). The petitioner was promoted as AO on 03.04.2010, whereas the 2nd respondent was promoted as JAO on 24.12.2010 but with effect from 25.11.2006. The said orders are challenged in W.P. No. 6350 of 2011 on several grounds. 8. The 2nd respondent filed W.P. No. 30699 of 2011, challenging the proceedings, dated 31.3.2001, wherein two officers, viz., Sri P. Srinivasa Rao and Sri P.V. Kumara Swamy were promoted as SAOs., and prayed for promotion to the SAO with effect from 15.02.2011. She based her claim on the notional promotion that was given to her, vide proceedings dated 14.12.2010 to the post of AAO. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, through order, dated 16.03.2012. The said order is challenged in W.A. No. 1209 of 2012 filed by the 1st respondent. 9. Heard Sri J.R. Manoher Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent. 10. Though their entry into service was at different levels, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent reached the same level, at the stage of JAO. While the appointment of the petitioner was through direct recruitment, that of the 2nd respondent was by way of promotion. The dates of joining their services as JAOs have already been mentioned viz., 19.07.2000 and 15.12.2001 respectively. 11. If those dates are to be taken into account, the petitioner is senior to the 2nd respondent. However, the necessity has arisen to reckon their eligibility to be promoted to the post of AAO as on 06.09.2003. On that date, neither of them were eligible, since they did not complete 5 years of service as JAOs. The additional factor in the case of the petitioner is said to be that her probation was not declared by that time. 12. The 2nd respondent has been making endeavour to get relaxation of the requirement as to 5 years and to get promoted to the post of AAO against a vacancy that arose on 06.09.2003. Even before that effort fructified, she got promotion in the usual course, on 02.02.2007 along with the petitioner and six others. 12. The 2nd respondent has been making endeavour to get relaxation of the requirement as to 5 years and to get promoted to the post of AAO against a vacancy that arose on 06.09.2003. Even before that effort fructified, she got promotion in the usual course, on 02.02.2007 along with the petitioner and six others. Still, she continued her effort to get the date of her appointment as JAO back to 06.09.2003. It was on 14.12.2010, that the 1st respondent issued orders in T.O.O. Rt. No. 15 not only granting the relaxation of the requirement as to 5 years service in the post of JAO, but also directing that her appointment shall date back to 11.09.2003. 13. Had it been a case, where grant of relaxation or advancing the date of promotion of the 2nd respondent to the post of A.A.O. in isolation, without effecting the seniority of others, things would have been different, altogether. By that time, i.e., as on 14.12.2010, the petitioner was promoted to the post of A.O., whereas the 2nd respondent was continuing as AAO. On the basis of the order passed on 14.12.2010, the 2nd respondent became senior from the inception and obviously on that basis, through proceedings dated 24.12.2010, she was promoted as A.O. with retrospective effect and made senior to the writ petitioner in that category also. Such devastating effect could have been brought into existence, only by putting the petitioner on notice. The impugned order dated 14.12.2010 was passed as though it is not going to have any effect upon anyone at all. It is in clear violation of principles of natural justice vis-a-vis the petitioner. 14. On this short ground, we allow W.P. No. 6350 of 2011 and set aside the orders in T.OO. Rt. No. 597, dated 14.12.2010. We direct the 1st respondent to pass orders afresh duly taking into account, the representation of the 2nd respondent on the one hand and the one that may be made by the petitioner in this behalf on the other hand. He shall issue notice to all the officers in the Accounts department who are likely to be effected on account of the conferment of benefit on the 2nd respondent and pass fresh orders after considering the representations. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months. 15. He shall issue notice to all the officers in the Accounts department who are likely to be effected on account of the conferment of benefit on the 2nd respondent and pass fresh orders after considering the representations. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months. 15. The very basis for the 2nd respondent to file W.P. No. 30699 of 2011 is the order, dated 14.12.2010. Since the said order is set aside by us, in W.P. No. 6350 of 2011, W.A. No. 1209 of 2012 is allowed and the order passed in W.P. No. 30699 of 2011 is set aside. The said writ petition is also disposed of in terms of W.P. No. 6350 of 2011. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent i.e., V. Navaneetha shall be continued as A.O., pending the exercise mentioned above. However, the promotion to the post of SAO against the vacancy earmarked for S.Cs. shall be undertaken, only after the exercise indicated by us is completed. 16. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ appeal as well as the writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.