JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. Contending that seniority in the cadre of District Judges has not been fixed in accordance with Rule 13(a) read with Schedule-A of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007, a promotee District Judge has come up with the present writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/High Court. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 01-7-1988. He was promoted as Senior Civil Judge on 06-5-2002. He was later promoted on temporary basis as District Judge with effect from 23-9-2009. Subsequently, by an order in G.O.Ms.No.133, Law Department, dated 05-12-2012, the petitioner was promoted on regular basis under the 65% quota reserved for promotion to the post of District Judges. 4. In All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247 ), the Supreme Court issued various directives, one of which related to the issue of seniority. Paragraph-29 of the said decision reads as follows: “29. Experience has shown that there has been a constant discontentment amongst the members of the Higher Judicial Service in regard to their seniority in service. For over three decades a large number of cases have been instituted in order to decide the relative seniority from the officers recruited from the two different sources, namely, promotes and direct recruits. As a result of the decision today, there will, in a way, be three ways of recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service. The quota for promotion which we have prescribed is 50 per cent by following the principle “merit-cum-seniority”, 25 per cent strictly on merit by limited departmental competitive examination and 25 per cent by direct recruitment. Experience has also shown that the least amount of litigation in the country, where quota system in recruitment exists, insofar as seniority is concerned, is where a roster system is followed. For example, there is, as per the rules of the Central Government, a 40-point roster which has been prescribed which deals with the quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Hardly, if ever, there has been a litigation amongst the members of the service after their recruitment as per the quotas, the seniority is fixed by the roster points and irrespective of the fact as to when a person is recruited. Hardly, if ever, there has been a litigation amongst the members of the service after their recruitment as per the quotas, the seniority is fixed by the roster points and irrespective of the fact as to when a person is recruited. When roster system is followed, there is no question of any dispute arising. The 40-point roster has been considered and approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 . One of the methods of avoiding any litigation and bringing about certainty in this regard is by specifying quotas in relation to posts and not in relation to the vacancies. This is the basic principle on the basis of which the 40-point roster works. We direct the High Courts to suitably amend and promulgate seniority rules on the basis of the roster principle as approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal case as early as possible. We hope that as a result thereof there would be no further dispute in the fixation of seniority. It is obvious that this system can only apply prospectively except where under the relevant rules seniority is to be determined on the basis of quota and rotational system. The existing relative seniority of the members of the Higher Judicial Service has to be protected but the roster has to be evolved for the future. Appropriate rules and methods will be adopted by the High Courts and approved by the States, wherever necessary by 31-3-2003.” 5. Pursuant to the directives issued by the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association case, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued under G.O.Ms.No.119, Law Department, dated 02-8-2008, a new set of Special Rules known as Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. These Rules were deemed to have come into effect from 01-01-2007. 6. Rule 13 of these Rules provides the stipulations relating to fixation of inter se seniority. This Rule 13 reads as follows: “13. These Rules were deemed to have come into effect from 01-01-2007. 6. Rule 13 of these Rules provides the stipulations relating to fixation of inter se seniority. This Rule 13 reads as follows: “13. Seniority: (a) District Judges: Seniority of the persons appointed to the category of District Judges by direct recruitment as well as recruitment by transfer shall be fixed as per the forty point roster prescribed in Schedule-A. (b) Civil Judges: Seniority of the persons appointed to the category of Civil Judges by direct recruitment as well as recruitment by transfer shall be fixed as per the twenty point roster prescribed in Schedule-B. (c) Inter se seniority: Whenever two or more persons are appointed simultaneously to the service, the appointing authority may at the time of passing, an order of appointment fix the inter se seniority as per the order of merit.” 7. Since Rule 13(a) which deals with the issue of seniority of persons appointed to the category of District Judges by 3 different methods, makes a reference to a 40-point roster prescribed in Schedule-A, it is necessary to have a look at Schedule-A. Schedule-A contains a 40-point roster. In the 40-point roster, the roster points 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33 and 37 are intended for direct recruitment. Roster point Nos.2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 38 are the slots intended for accelerated promotion. The remaining roster points are intended for vacancies to be filled up by regular promotion. 8. It must be pointed out at this stage that when the 2007 Rules were issued, the ratio for direct recruitment, accelerated promotion and regular promotion were fixed respectively at 25%, 25% and 50%. However, the Rules were subsequently amended to modify the ratio into 25% for direct recruitment, 10% for accelerated promotion through limited departmental competitive examination and 65% for promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit depending upon suitability. At this stage, we should also point out that under the new Rules, the method of recruitment under the 10% quota as well as 65% quota are wrongly termed as “recruitment by transfer” instead of as “promotion” and hence steps are being taken to rectify the same. Though this issue has no connection to the dispute on hand we are recording the same for the purpose of clarity. 9. Though this issue has no connection to the dispute on hand we are recording the same for the purpose of clarity. 9. On 29-3-2016, the Registry of the High Court issued a provisional seniority list. This provisional seniority list gave separate seniority lists for the years 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. Only those appointed as District Judges pursuant to notifications issued on or after 01-01-2007 alone were included in the said seniority list. 10. The petitioner who was appointed on temporary basis with effect from 23-9-2009 was not included in the seniority list for the year 2010. But his name was included at the first place in the seniority list for the year 2012, in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as a District Judge on regular basis under the 65% quota earmarked for regular promotion, only under G.O.Ms.No.133, dated 05-12-2012. In other words, the services rendered by the petitioner on temporary basis from 23-9-2009 were not counted for the purpose of reckoning his seniority. 11. But the petitioner appears to have reconciled himself to this position, in view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court, one in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2002) 5 SCC 1 ) and another in Debabrata Dash v. Jatindra Prasad Das (2013) 3 SCC 658 ). 12. However, the petitioner filed objections on 11-4-2016 and 13-4-2016 to the provisional seniority list dated 29-3-2016 contending that the seniority list has been prepared in contravention of the principles laid down in para-29 of the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association case. But since there was no response to the objections filed by the petitioner, the petitioner came up with the above writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to fix the seniority of District Judges in accordance with Rule 13(a) read with Schedule-A of the Rules and also to post Principal District and Sessions Judges, strictly in accordance with the said seniority. 13. The contention of Mr. 13. The contention of Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that when Rule 13(a) of the Rules requires seniority to be maintained in accordance with 40-point roster and when such a rule had its origin to a judgment of the Supreme Court, it was not open to the Registry of this Court to tamper with the 40-point roster by introducing the concept of year of recruitment. In the impugned seniority list, the Registry has included the names of all persons appointed in the year 2010, as against the roster points to which they could be fitted. It is seen from the impugned seniority list that in the year 2010, direct recruitment to 21 vacancies of District Judges took place. 17 posts were filled up under the 10% quota for accelerated promotion. Therefore, in the impugned seniority list, the names of 38 persons alone were shown as persons recruited in the year 2010. Their names were shown as against the roster points in 4 different cycles. The last of the persons in the said seniority list was shown as serial No.162, which was virtually roster point No.2 in the 5th cycle. 14. After indicating the seniority of 38 persons recruited in the year 2010 as aforesaid, the Registry went to the next portion of the seniority list where all persons recruited in the ear 2012 were accommodated from serial No.161 onwards up to serial No.225. This is how the petitioner herein who was promoted under the 65% quota in the year 2012 was accommodated at serial No.163, which was virtually roster point No.3 in the 5th cycle. 15. The objections of the petitioner and the stand taken by the Registry can be well understood only if we reproduce the impugned seniority list from serial Nos.1 to 225. Hence, it is reproduced as follows: “PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF DISTRICT JUDGES APPOINTED PURSUANT TO NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE 2007 RULES: For the year 2010 Method of Recruitment Date of Notification Number of Vacancies notified Number of posts filled Direct Recruitment (25% quota) 19.08.2010 18 21 Accelerated recruitment by transfer (10% quota) 10.08.2010 17 17 Recruitment by transfer (65% quota) Notification was not issued134 District Judges were already promoted on Regular basis whereas 50% cadre strength (165) of District Judges arises at 83. From 20.04.2010 asper G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 15.11.2011 the cadre strength of 65% shall be filled by promotion. Roster is also changed Roster Point No. Method of Recruitment Name of the Officer 1. Direct Recruitment Sri Y.Lakshmana Rao 2. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri G.Venkata Krishnaiah 3. Recruitment by transfer 4. Recruitment by transfer 5. Direct Recruitment Sri Moulana Junaid Ahmed 6. Recruitment by transfer 7. Recruitment by transfer 8. Recruitment by transfer 9. Direct Recruitment Smt. G.Sunitha 10. Recruitment by transfer 11. Recruitment by transfer 12. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri P.V. Ramana Rayalu 13. Direct Recruitment Sri G.Srinivas 14. Recruitment by transfer 15. Recruitment by transfer 16. Recruitment by transfer 17. Direct Recruitment Sri S.Sasidhar Reddy 18. Recruitment by transfer 19. Recruitment by transfer 20. Recruitment by transfer 21. Direct Recruitment Smt. K.Sujana 22. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri A.Venkateswara Reddy 23. Recruitment by transfer 24. Recruitment by transfer 25. Direct Recruitment Sri A.Giridhar 26. Recruitment by transfer 27. Recruitment by transfer 28. Recruitment by transfer 29. Direct Recruitment Smt. Y.Renuka 30. Recruitment by transfer 31. Recruitment by transfer 32. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri A.Ravindra Babu 33. Direct Recruitment Smt. Rama Devi Sai 34. Recruitment by transfer 35. Recruitment by transfer 36. Recruitment by transfer 37. Direct Recruitment Sri Ch.Purushothama Kumar 38. Recruitment by transfer 39. Recruitment by transfer 40. Recruitment by transfer 41. Direct Recruitment Sri N.Narasinga Rao 42. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri V.D. Gouda 43. Recruitment by transfer 44. Recruitment by transfer 45. Direct Recruitment Smt. E.Thirumala Devi 46. Recruitment by transfer 47. Recruitment by transfer 48. Recruitment by transfer 49. Direct Recruitment Sri B.R. Madhusudhana Rao 50. Recruitment by transfer 51. Recruitment by transfer 52. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri G.V. Subrahmanyam 53. Direct Recruitment Sri D. Ramulu 54. Recruitment by transfer 55. Recruitment by transfer 56. Recruitment by transfer 57. Direct Recruitment Sri D. Tirumala Rao 58. Recruitment by transfer 59. Recruitment by transfer 60. Recruitment by transfer 61. Direct Recruitment Sri B. Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi 62. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri M.V. Ramesh 63. Recruitment by transfer 64. Recruitment by transfer 65. Direct Recruitment Smt. M.Babitha 66. Recruitment by transfer 67. Recruitment by transfer 68. Recruitment by transfer 69. Direct Recruitment Smt. S.Premavathi 70. Recruitment by transfer 71. Recruitment by transfer 72. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri R.Pundareekakshudu 73. Direct Recruitment Sri B.Papi Reddy 74. Recruitment by transfer 75. Recruitment by transfer 76. Recruitment by transfer 64. Recruitment by transfer 65. Direct Recruitment Smt. M.Babitha 66. Recruitment by transfer 67. Recruitment by transfer 68. Recruitment by transfer 69. Direct Recruitment Smt. S.Premavathi 70. Recruitment by transfer 71. Recruitment by transfer 72. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri R.Pundareekakshudu 73. Direct Recruitment Sri B.Papi Reddy 74. Recruitment by transfer 75. Recruitment by transfer 76. Recruitment by transfer 77. Direct Recruitment Sri G.Gopi 78. Recruitment by transfer 79. Recruitment by transfer 80. Recruitment by transfer 81. Direct Recruitment Smt. Aruna Sarika 82. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri A.Jagadeeshchandra Rao 83. Recruitment by transfer 84. Recruitment by transfer 85. Direct Recruitment 86. Recruitment by transfer 87. Recruitment by transfer 88. Recruitment by transfer 89. Direct Recruitment 90. Recruitment by transfer 91. Recruitment by transfer 92. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri M.Srinivasulu Reddy 93. Direct Recruitment 94. Recruitment by transfer 95. Recruitment by transfer 96. Recruitment by transfer 97. Direct Recruitment 98. Recruitment by transfer 99. Recruitment by transfer 100. Recruitment by transfer 101. Direct Recruitment 102. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri A.V. Pardha Saradhi 103. Recruitment by transfer 104. Recruitment by transfer 105. Direct Recruitment 106. Recruitment by transfer 107. Recruitment by transfer 108. Recruitment by transfer 109. Direct Recruitment 110. Recruitment by transfer 111. Recruitment by transfer 112. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri H.Chandra Sekhar 113. Direct Recruitment 114. Recruitment by transfer 115. Recruitment by transfer 116. Recruitment by transfer 117. Direct Recruitment 118. Recruitment by transfer 119. Recruitment by transfer 120. Recruitment by transfer 121. Direct Recruitment 122. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri G.Rama Krishna 123. Recruitment by transfer 124. Recruitment by transfer 125. Direct Recruitment 126. Recruitment by transfer 127. Recruitment by transfer 128. Recruitment by transfer 129. Direct Recruitment 130. Recruitment by transfer 131. Recruitment by transfer 132. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri Ch.K. Bhupathi 133. Direct Recruitment 134. Recruitment by transfer 135. Recruitment by transfer 136. Recruitment by transfer 137. Direct Recruitment 138. Recruitment by transfer 139. Recruitment by transfer 140. Recruitment by transfer 141. Direct Recruitment 142. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri G.Gopi Chand 143. Recruitment by transfer 144. Recruitment by transfer 145. Direct Recruitment 146. Recruitment by transfer 147. Recruitment by transfer 148. Recruitment by transfer 149. Direct Recruitment 150. Recruitment by transfer 151. Recruitment by transfer 152. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Smt. K.Syamala Devi 153. Direct Recruitment 154. Recruitment by transfer 155. Recruitment by transfer 156. Recruitment by transfer 144. Recruitment by transfer 145. Direct Recruitment 146. Recruitment by transfer 147. Recruitment by transfer 148. Recruitment by transfer 149. Direct Recruitment 150. Recruitment by transfer 151. Recruitment by transfer 152. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Smt. K.Syamala Devi 153. Direct Recruitment 154. Recruitment by transfer 155. Recruitment by transfer 156. Recruitment by transfer 157. Direct Recruitment 158. Recruitment by transfer 159. Recruitment by transfer 160. Recruitment by transfer 161. Direct Recruitment 162. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri V.R.K. Krupa Sagar Method of Recruitment Date of Notification Number of Vacancies notified Number of posts filled Direct Recruitment (25% quota) FTC officers-Advocates 15.04.2012 13.08.2012 05-- 0412 Accelerated recruitment by transfer (10% quota) 13.04.2012 01 01 Recruitment by transfer (65% quota) 03.04.2012 33 29 163. Recruitment by transfer Sri B.S. Jagjeevan Kumar 164. Recruitment by transfer Smt. Y.Vijaya Lakshmi (Rtd) 165. Direct Recruitment Sri Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed 166. Recruitment by transfer Sri G.Pratap Kumar (Rtd) 167. Recruitment by transfer Sri R.Niranjan 168. Recruitment by transfer Sri V.Nageswar Rao 169. Direct Recruitment Smt. Sunitha Kunchala 170. Recruitment by transfer Sri K.V. Ramanaji Rao 171. Recruitment by transfer Sri M.Venkata Rama Rao (Rtd) 172. Accelerated recruitment by transfer Sri M.Gandhi 173. Direct Recruitment Smt. Mantri Rama Krishna Sunitha 174. Recruitment by transfer Sri B.David Raju (Expired) 175. Recruitment by transfer Sri V.Venkateswar Rao 176. Recruitment by transfer Sri K.Sai Mohan (Rtd) 177. Direct Recruitment Sri Erugula Bhima Rao 178. Recruitment by transfer Sri M.Seetharama Raju (Rtd) 179. Recruitment by transfer Sri V.Prabhakar Rao (Rtd) 180. Recruitment by transfer Sri N.Ananda Rao 181. Direct Recruitment Kum. C.Yamini 182. Accelerated recruitment by transfer 183. Recruitment by transfer Shaik Mohd. Ismail 184. Recruitment by transfer Sri Syed Lateef Ur Rahman 185. Direct Recruitment Sri Y.V.S.B.G. Pardha Saradhi 186. Recruitment by transfer Sri D.Vishnu Prasada Reddy 187. Recruitment by transfer Dr. K.B. Narasimhulu 188. Recruitment by transfer Sri K.Nageswar Rao 189. Direct Recruitment Sri N.Solomon Raju 190. Recruitment by transfer Sri I.Krishnaiah (Rtd) 191. Recruitment by transfer Sri R.Sudhakar Naidu (Rtd) 192. Accelerated recruitment by transfer 193. Direct Recruitment Dr. T.Srinivasa Rao 194. Recruitment by transfer Sri P.Lakshmi Narayana (Rtd) 195. Recruitment by transfer Sri M.Rajender (Rtd) 196. Recruitment by transfer Sri N.Rama Linga Reddy (Rtd) 197. Direct Recruitment Sri S.Goverdhan Reddy 198. Recruitment by transfer Sri A.Vara Prasada Rao 199. Recruitment by transfer Sri S.V. Chalapathi (Rtd) 200. Recruitment by transfer Sri K.Ramesh 201. Direct Recruitment Dr. T.Srinivasa Rao 194. Recruitment by transfer Sri P.Lakshmi Narayana (Rtd) 195. Recruitment by transfer Sri M.Rajender (Rtd) 196. Recruitment by transfer Sri N.Rama Linga Reddy (Rtd) 197. Direct Recruitment Sri S.Goverdhan Reddy 198. Recruitment by transfer Sri A.Vara Prasada Rao 199. Recruitment by transfer Sri S.V. Chalapathi (Rtd) 200. Recruitment by transfer Sri K.Ramesh 201. Direct Recruitment Sri G.V.N.R. Bharatha Lakshmi 202. Accelerated recruitment by transfer 203. Recruitment by transfer Sri T.Suryanarayana (Rtd) 204. Recruitment by transfer Sri D.Dharma Rao (Rtd) 205. Direct Recruitment Smt. A.Bharathi 206. Recruitment by transfer Smt. Y.Sujana Kumari (Rtd) 207. Recruitment by transfer Sri D.Sardar Mohan Rao 208. Recruitment by transfer Sri S.Nagarjuna 209. Direct Recruitment Sri Ch.Ramesh Babu 210. Recruitment by transfer 211. Recruitment by transfer 212. Accelerated recruitment by transfer 213. Direct Recruitment 214. Recruitment by transfer 215. Recruitment by transfer 216. Recruitment by transfer 217. Direct Recruitment Dr. S.S.S. Jaya Raj 218. Recruitment by transfer 219. Recruitment by transfer 220. Recruitment by transfer 221. Direct Recruitment Sri B.Srinivas Rao 222. Accelerated recruitment by transfer 223. Recruitment by transfer 224. Recruitment by transfer 225. Direct Recruitment Smt. B.Swapna 16. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that instead of accommodating the petitioner at serial No.163 relating to the year 2012, his name ought to have been included at serial No.3 itself (serial No.3 in the 1st cycle). The contention of the petitioner is that neither the judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association case nor Rule 13(a) contemplated splitting up of the seniority, year-wise. In other words, his contention is that irrespective of the year in which a person is recruited to the post of District Judge, he should be accommodated against a roster point reserved for the method of recruitment through which he got appointed. 17. We have carefully considered the above submissions. 18. At the outset, it should be pointed out that there is a fallacy in the contention of the petitioner. If persons recruited by 3 different methods of recruitment are to be accommodated in the 40-point roster irrespective of the year of recruitment, then a person may gain seniority over and above another person who was appointed 2 years earlier and on which date the former was not even born in the service. If persons recruited by 3 different methods of recruitment are to be accommodated in the 40-point roster irrespective of the year of recruitment, then a person may gain seniority over and above another person who was appointed 2 years earlier and on which date the former was not even born in the service. It is now well settled that no person can claim seniority with effect from a date on which he was not even born in the service. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted and he is placed at serial No.3 against roster point No.3 in the 1st cycle of the roster, then the petitioner will be gaining seniority over persons appointed in the year 2010, despite the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2012. This is not the purport of the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association case. This is not also the purport of Rule 13(a). 19. After the issue of a water-tight schedule for appointments by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (2008) 17 SCC 703 ), there is rarely any chance for the quota-rota to fail. Therefore, the long line of decisions starting from Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1990 SC 1607 ), need not influence our thinking in determining the issue on hand. 20. Today, the recruitment to the category of District Judges by all the 3 methods of recruitment, take place in accordance with the schedule fixed in Malik Mazhar Sultan. But if in a particular year, there are no vacancies available for a particular stream (either direct recruitment or accelerated promotion or regular promotion), no recruitment under that stream can take place in that year. But in the next year vacancies may arise in that particular stream and if those officers appointed in the next calendar year under the said stream are packed in the 40-point roster, as prayed for by the petitioner, people appointed later will score a march over people appointed earlier. This is not the purport of ratio laid down in para-29 of the decision in All India Judges’ Association case. 21. This is not the purport of ratio laid down in para-29 of the decision in All India Judges’ Association case. 21. Accommodating the petitioner against the first available roster point in the first cycle, irrespective of the year of his appointment, would result in two absurd consequences, namely, (a) giving seniority with effect from a date before the date on which he was born in the service and (b) giving seniority to a person even before the vacancy under that particular stream arose. 22. The only manner in which the ratio laid down in para-29 of All India Judges’ Association case and Rule 13(a) of the Special Rules is to be understood is this. As and when a recruitment takes place, persons selected under a particular stream in that selection will be accommodated against the roster points earmarked for that particular stream in the 40-point roster. If all the 3 methods of recruitment take place almost simultaneously and if there are just 40 vacancies, all roster points from point No.1 to 40 will get filled up. If the total number of persons appointed at a particular point of time from all the 3 different streams, is greater than 40, then the Registry will have to fill up the first 40 roster points and complete the 1st cycle. Thereafter, the 2nd cycle of the 40-point roster has to be commenced and the person at roster point No.1 in the 2nd cycle will be at serial No.41 insofar as seniority is concerned. 23. As a matter of fact, one must read paragraph-29 of the decision in All India Judges’ Association case and Rule 13(a), in tune with the principles laid down by a 3-member bench of the Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana ( AIR 2003 SC 2000 ). Before the advent of the decision in Bimlesh Tanwar, the decision of a 2-member bench in P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana (1995) 5 SCC 625 ), was holding the field. It was decided in P.S. Ghalaut that roster points would also determine seniority. But the 3-member bench of the Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar overruled the decision in P.S. Ghalaut. While doing so, the 3-member bench of the Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar also took note of the directions issued in All India Judges’ Association case. It was decided in P.S. Ghalaut that roster points would also determine seniority. But the 3-member bench of the Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar overruled the decision in P.S. Ghalaut. While doing so, the 3-member bench of the Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar also took note of the directions issued in All India Judges’ Association case. The relevant portion of the decision of the 3-member bench of the Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar, which explained the ratio in All India Judges’ Association case, is as follows: “In All India Judges' Association's case [ 2002 (4) SCC 247 ], this Court was considering the matter relating to implementation of recommendations of Shetty's Commission as regard the fixation of pay scales of the Judicial officers. This Court noticed that sometimes merit suffers because of seniority. It was directed: "We direct that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, i.e., the cadre of District Judges will be : (1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test: (b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years' qualifying service; and (c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written and viva voce test conducted by respective High Courts. (2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by the High Court as early as possible." Only in relation to such promotion, the Court noticed that there exists a quota system in two different sources of recruitment in service in so far as seniority is concerned, and whence roster system is followed, the litigation in the country had been lesser. In a case where there are different sources of recruitment to a service and quota of appointment for each source of recruitment is fixed under the rules, the seniority vis-a-vis of different sources of recruits could be legally fixed on the basis of roster points. It was in that situation a desire was expressed that quotas be specified in relation to posts as contradistinguished from quota in relation to vacancies. This Court, therefore, directed the High Courts to amend and promulgate seniority rules in the light of the decisions in R.K. Sabharwal (supra). It was in that situation a desire was expressed that quotas be specified in relation to posts as contradistinguished from quota in relation to vacancies. This Court, therefore, directed the High Courts to amend and promulgate seniority rules in the light of the decisions in R.K. Sabharwal (supra). It was clearly laid down: "It is obvious that this system can only apply prospectively except where under the relevant rules seniority is to be determined on the basis of quota and rotational system. The existing relative seniority of the members of the Higher Judicial Service has to be protected but the roster has to be evolved for the future. Appropriate rules and methods will be adopted by the High Courts and approved by the States, wherever necessary by 31-3-2003." The said decision cannot be said to have any application whatsoever in determining inter se seniority as regards vacancies required to be filled up in the years 1989-1991. 24. It will be of interest to note that the directions contained in All India Judges’ Association case to amend the Rules relating to seniority was in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 ). But the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal with respect to roster points vis-à-vis seniority, came to be explained by a subsequent bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar (1999) 2 SCC 330 ). In R.N. Bhatnagar, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between the roster relatable to the policy of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and a roster created for accommodating quota-rota between different sources of recruitment. After drawing such a distinction, it was held in R.N. Bhatnagar as follows: “So far as the first point is concerned, the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has heavily relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. (supra). After drawing such a distinction, it was held in R.N. Bhatnagar as follows: “So far as the first point is concerned, the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has heavily relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. (supra). Now it has to be kept in view that the Constitution Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision Was concerned with entirely a different question, namely, as to how the roster indicating reserved points in connection with reservation of posts in a cadre to be filled in by Scheduled Caste (for short 'SC'), Scheduled Tribe (for short 'ST) and Backward Class (for short 'BC) candidates could be operated. Paragraph 4 of the Report lays down that "when a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts." In this connection, reliance was placed by the Constitution Bench on Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India which permits the State Govt. to make any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, was not adequately represented in the services under the State, In the light of the aforesaid scheme of the Constitution, the Bench had to consider whether reservation of posts for SCs, STs and BCs when sought to be secured by way of operation of roster could permit the operation of the roster qua the posts or vacancies in the cadre. It was noted in this connection that if the roster operated on vacancies then it may happen that at a given point of time the percentage of reservation of posts for SCs, Sts and BCs may exceed the permissible percentage of reservation. In paragraph 5 of the Report it was observed that reservations provided under the impugned Government instructions permitted 16% of the posts to be reserved for members of SCs and BCs and it could be achieved by the roster to be maintained in each department. The roster had to be implemented in the form of running account from year to year. The roster had to be implemented in the form of running account from year to year. In connection with "16% of the posts,.." to be reserved for members of SCs and BCs in promotional posts, it was held as under - ".......when recruitment to a cadre starts then 14 posts earmarked in the 100 points roster are to be filled from amongst the members of Scheduled Castes...........When the total number of posts in a cadre are filled by the operation of the roster then the result envisaged by the impugned instructions is achieved. In other words, in a cadre of 100 posts when me posts earmarked in the roster for Scheduled Castes and the Backward Classes are filled the percentage of reservation provided for the reserved categories is achieved. We see no justification to operate the roster. The "running account" is to operate only till the quota provided under the impugned instructions is reached and not thereafter. Once the prescribed percentage of posts is filled the numerical test of adequacy is satisfied and thereafter the roster does not survive." The aforesaid observations, which were heavily relied on by the High Court, and are also relied upon by the respondent's (writ petitioner's) counsel before us, cannot be of any assistance to the appellant-State on the facts of the present case. The result is obvious. As per Article 16(4) which carves out a separate field for itself from the general sweep of Article 16(1) which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of appointments in Govt services to all citizens of India, the reservation for these categories in employment has to be achieved by earmarking requisite percentage of posts for the reserved category of candidates and by pitchforking these posts on roster points on requisite points roster and when such a roster takes a full cycle, posts earmarked on reserved points will enable the requisite reserved category of candidates to fill up these posts. After that is done, the roster would be treated to have achieved its purpose. Whenever a reserved candidate vacated a reserved post, the said post was liable to be filled only by a candidate belonging to the reserved category If after the roster is first operated and thereafter it is again operated on future vacancies also, a situation may arise wherein a cadre may get reserved category exceeding permitted quota of reservation. Whenever a reserved candidate vacated a reserved post, the said post was liable to be filled only by a candidate belonging to the reserved category If after the roster is first operated and thereafter it is again operated on future vacancies also, a situation may arise wherein a cadre may get reserved category exceeding permitted quota of reservation. It is to avoid this contingency that the Constitution Bench laid down in the aforesaid decision as indicated therein. So far as Rule 9 of the Rules in the present case is concerned, it has nothing to do with reservation of posts in the cadre of Professors. It is not a rule of reservation envisaged for a specified category of persons as permitted by Article 16(4) of the Constitution. On the contrary, it is a rule of recruitment from two different Sources, namely, in case of Professor's cadre 75% of posts had to be filled in by promotion while 25'% by direct recruitment. These two sources of recruitment permit departmental promotees and direct recruits from the open market to get absorbed in the cadre. They merely serve as two entry points for the cadre. Rule 9 deals with reservation of appointment to the posts of Professor and does not deal with reservation of posts of Professor for any special class or category of candidates. It is well settled that once recruitment is made from two sources i.e. departmental promotees and direct recruitment from open market and once the concerned candidates enter into any cadre through entry point reserved for them, they get fused and blended into one single cadre and their birth marks get obliterated. 25. Therefore, the 40-point roster created under Schedule-A to the Special Rules for A.P. State Judicial Service, 2007 and referred to in Rule 13(a) cannot be seen, explained or understood in isolation. The roster has to be understood and applied, in a manner that would not go contrary to the most fundamental principles governing seniority. The most fundamental rule relating to seniority is that a person cannot get seniority from a date anterior to the date of his appointment to the service and he cannot gain seniority over a person appointed 2 years earlier to him, merely on the basis of the roster point. 26. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not legally tenable. The most fundamental rule relating to seniority is that a person cannot get seniority from a date anterior to the date of his appointment to the service and he cannot gain seniority over a person appointed 2 years earlier to him, merely on the basis of the roster point. 26. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not legally tenable. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.