ORDER : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. 1. Both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by a common order, as both these Writ Petitions are filed on the same grounds and in relation to G.O.Ms. No. 54 School Education (Services. II) Department, dated 12.10.2020. 2. The petitioners in W.P. No. 20043 of 2020 were appointed under various District Selection Committees and were working initially as Physical Education Teachers. 3. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 in W.P. No. 20149 of 2020 were selected and appointed as SGTs and Language Pandits (Hindi) and petitioner Nos. 7 to 12 were appointed as SGTs and Language Pandits (Telugu). 4. The Government under G.O.Ms. No. 144, dated 02.08.2016 had created 1,200 posts of School Assistants (Physical Education) and 1450 posts of School Assistants (Languages). The case of the petitioners is that these posts were created for the purpose of upgrading the posts of Physical Education Teachers and Language Pundits to the posts of School Assistants (Physical Education) and School Assistants (Languages) and to promote Physical Education Teachers and Language Pundits to the posts of School Assistants (Physical Education) and School Assistants (Languages). 5. At the time of creation of these posts, G.O.Ms. No. 12, dated 23.01.2009 was in existence. These Rules would permit the promotion of Language Pandits and Physical Education Teachers to the posts of School Assistants in relation to all the posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 144. However, G.O.Ms. No. 15, dated 05.02.2017 amended the Rules promulgated under G.O.Ms. No. 12. By virtue of this amendment, only 70% of the posts would be available for promotion and 30% of the posts would have to be filled up by direct recruitment. On this basis 840 posts of School Assistants (Physical Education) amounting to 70% of the total vacancies were filled up in the month of April, 2017 and remaining 360 posts amounting to 30% of the vacancies were kept aside. A similar exercise was done in the case of promotion of Language Pandits to the School Assistants (Languages). The teachers, who were promoted, were posted in the places which were noted against their names, as per their willingness and option given during the counselling held for that purpose. One such order of promotion/transfer is the proceedings of the district education officer, Ananthapuram in Rc. No. 4720/C6/2017 dated 15.4.2017 6. The teachers, who were promoted, were posted in the places which were noted against their names, as per their willingness and option given during the counselling held for that purpose. One such order of promotion/transfer is the proceedings of the district education officer, Ananthapuram in Rc. No. 4720/C6/2017 dated 15.4.2017 6. Some of the Language Pandits and Physical Education Teachers, who were not promoted, approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of various Original Applications including O.A. No. 317/2017, O.A. 442/2017, O.A. 443 of 2017, O.A. 3188/2017, O.A. 599/2017. In the said O.A.s the contention raised by the applicants was that, they could not be denied promotion on account of the amendment of rules, as the vacancies against which they were to be considered, had arisen prior to the amendment of rules. They relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Y.V. Rangaiah and others vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others AIR 1983 SC 852 which had held that promotions to vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of rules would be governed by the rules existing prior to the amendment. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, following the said judgment disposed of O.A. No. 317 of 2017, at the admission stage, by order dated 10.2.2017, with the following directions: "In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants for promotion to the posts of School Assistant (Hindi), in the vacancies that arose prior to 5.2.2017, if they are otherwise eligible and qualified, as per pre amended rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 15, Education Department dated 5.2.2017." 7. This decision was challenged before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P. Nos. 22602, 24102 and 27294 of 2017. By an order dated 3.10.2017, the writ petitions were dismissed. Subsequently W.P. Nos. 23283 of 2017 and 73 of 2018 were filed before the erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh to set aside the very same orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, along with certain other orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, on the ground that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC 725 would be applicable and not the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah's (supra) case. The Division Bench after considering both the cases had dismissed the Writ Petitions by a common order dated 29.11.2017 and upheld the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 317 of 2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had confirmed the same by order dated 08.04.2019. Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted to the posts of School Assistants in July, 2019 and posted in the existing vacancies as noted against their names as per their willingness and option given during the counselling held for that purpose. One such order of promotion/transfer is the proceedings of the District Education Officer, Ananthapuram in Rc. No. 3612/C6/2019 dated 5.7.2019. 8. While matters were pending, the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 91 School Education (Services. II) Department, dated 17.12.2018 creating 2,603 posts of School Assistant (Physical Education), 10,224 posts of School Assistant (Languages). These posts were available when the petitioners were promoted and posted. However, the respondents filled up the left over posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 144, dated 02.08.2016 and gave postings accordingly. Thereafter, the respondents promoted the juniors of the petitioners and posted the juniors in various posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 91, which are supposed to be more favourable than the places where the petitioners had been posted. 9. The Government has now issued G.O.Ms. No. 54, dated 12.10.2020 for conducting teacher transfer counselling. As per the schedule given under this G.O. vacancies for conducting transfer counselling would be shown on 27.10.2020 and only the teachers who have completed two years of service by 01.10.2020 would be eligible to participate in the teacher transfer counselling. Consequently, none of the posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 144 and filled up in 2019 and posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 91 and filled up in November, 2019 would be shown as vacancies available for transfer. 10. The grievance of the petitioners is twofold. Firstly:-They should be treated as teachers who have put in more than two years service as they would have served for three years by 01.10.2020 if they had been appointed in 2017 itself and they would have been eligible under Guideline No. 2(iii) of G.O.Ms. No. 54 which stipulates that minimum service of two years by 01.10.2020 is required to participate in the counselling. Secondly:-The petitioners should have been given an option of posting in the posts created under both G.O. Ms. No. 144 dated 2.8.2016 and G.O.Ms. No. 91, dated 17.12.2018. No. 54 which stipulates that minimum service of two years by 01.10.2020 is required to participate in the counselling. Secondly:-The petitioners should have been given an option of posting in the posts created under both G.O. Ms. No. 144 dated 2.8.2016 and G.O.Ms. No. 91, dated 17.12.2018. They were not given that option. Instead, their promotion was carried out in the left over posts in G.O.Ms. No. 144 and their posting in places where these posts were created was arbitrary and affected their rights as persons who were senior in service to the persons who were given postings in the posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 91, dated 17.12.2018. 11. The petitioners had approached this Court on the basis of these two grievances. Initially, this Court by a common order dated 02.11.2020 in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 20043 of 2020 and in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 20149 of 2020, directed the respondents to show all the posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 144 and G.O.Ms. No. 91 in the transfer counselling that was to be conducted under G.O.Ms. No. 54. Some of the persons who were posted in the posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 91 had filed Writ Appeal Nos. 378, 386 and 387 of 2020 against the said order. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 02.12.2020 had held that the affected parties would also be entitled to be heard before any order could have been passed and had set aside the orders of 02.11.2020 and remanded the matter back for hearing all the affected parties who chose to come before the Court. 12. Some of the teachers, who were posted in posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 91, have filed implead petitions and these implead petitions have also been ordered. These implead petitions have been ordered by way of separate orders in those implead petitions. The official respondents have filed counter affidavit and some of the implead respondents have also filed counter affidavit in the matter. 13. Sri L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Srinivas Bobbili, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the fact that, by the time the petitioners were promoted, the posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 91 were also available, the said posts should have also been thrown open to the petitioners to choose their places for posting. No. 91 were also available, the said posts should have also been thrown open to the petitioners to choose their places for posting. He submits that the action of the respondents in restricting the choices, of the petitioners, to the posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 144 and allotting the posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 91 to the juniors of the petitioners who were promoted subsequently is clearly discriminatory and arbitrary. He further submits that the delay in the promotions of the petitioners is solely attributable to the respondents and as such the petitioners should be permitted to participate in the counselling being conducted under G.O. Ms. No. 54 and that it would only be appropriate to throw open, for counselling, all the posts occupied by the petitioners under G.O.Ms. No. 144 and all the posts occupied by various teachers created under G.O.Ms. No. 91. Sri L. Ravichander would also point out that in the earlier rounds of counselling done in the years 2009 and 2017, the Government had issued Rules similar to the guidelines in G.O. Ms. No. 54 to the effect that only teachers serving in a post, for at least two years, would be eligible to ask for transfers. However, in both the cases the Government relaxed this rule to permit teachers, who had been promoted within the two year period, also to participate in the counselling whereas in the present case the Government is not willing to relax the minimum period of two years and this is highly discriminatory. 14. The Learned Government Pleader for services-III and Sri M. Vijay Kumar, Sri K. Raghavendra Venkatesh, Smt. V. Sesha Kumari and Dr. Majji Suri Babu, appearing for the private Respondents would rely upon a Judgment of the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to ask for these posts to be thrown open for counselling in G.O.Ms. No. 54. They raised two objections to this prayer of the petitioners. Firstly, the persons occupying the posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 91 were promoted in November, 2019 and as such they have not completed two years of service and cannot be pushed into the counselling under G.O.Ms. No. 54, which stipulates that only those teachers who have completed two years of service can seek transfer. Firstly, the persons occupying the posts created under G.O.Ms. No. 91 were promoted in November, 2019 and as such they have not completed two years of service and cannot be pushed into the counselling under G.O.Ms. No. 54, which stipulates that only those teachers who have completed two years of service can seek transfer. Secondly, they rely upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. Nos. 31598 of 2011, 1394, 1818 & 5173 of 2012. On the question of relaxation of the two year period in the earlier rounds of counselling, the learned government pleader for services III, would contend that the exercise of discretion by the government in relaxing the rules in the earlier round of counselling does not confer a right on the petitioners for similar relaxation. The Government cannot be called upon to relax the rule in every instance of counselling. 15. In the facts of the judgment cited by the Respondents, certain teachers, who were applicants before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 6565 and 3492 of 2011 and batch, O.A. No. 4356 of 2011 and batch and O.A. No. 459 of 2011 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, had been promoted to panel grade Head-Masters Grade-II and were posted to various places during January-February, 2009. Thereafter, by virtue of Guidelines dated 24.06.2009 they had participated in a general transfer counselling held on 16.07.2009 and were working in the places where they were posted. Thereafter, the Government had issued General Rules dated 19.05.2011 which provided that Head-Masters who completed two years of service as on 01.06.2011 would be entitled to apply for transfer. On representations made in this regard, the Government had again issued G.O.Ms. No. 66, dated 25.05.2011 relaxing the rule of two years minimum service, permitting teachers who have been promoted in January, 2009 and allotted places in the June, 2009 counselling to be considered. However, the applicants still had a grievance against the relaxation granted in the Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 65, dated 19.05.2011 on the ground that Clause-6 of the G.O. stipulated that places filled up by the juniors of the applicants who were promoted in September, 2009 and April, 2011 were not being notified. However, the applicants still had a grievance against the relaxation granted in the Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 65, dated 19.05.2011 on the ground that Clause-6 of the G.O. stipulated that places filled up by the juniors of the applicants who were promoted in September, 2009 and April, 2011 were not being notified. The grievance of the applicants before the Tribunal was that juniors who were promoted as panel grade Head-Masters on 09.10.2009, 14.09.2010, 30.10.2010 and 20.11.2011 were given option in existing vacancies in the city and better locations and posted to better places and all these posts should have been brought into the transfer counselling. The Tribunal holding that the applicants did not get sufficient number of places for giving option due to non inclusion of posts which were subsequently filled by candidates promoted from September, 2009 to April, 2011 held that all the vacancies filled up between September, 2009 to April, 2011 should also be notified and opportunity given to all the candidates to give their options according to their seniority and entitlement. This decision of the Tribunal was challenged before a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 16. The rules which fell for consideration of the Division Bench were the rules issued under G.O.Ms. No. 15, Education (SE. Ser. II) Department dated 26.1.2009 and G.O. Ms. No. 65 Education (SE. Ser. III) Department dated 19.5.2011. Both the G.O.s issued, under section 78 and 99 of the Education Act, 1982, set out the guidelines for general transfer of various grades of teaching staff in Government schools and ZPP and MPP schools in the state. Rule 14 in G.O. Ms. No. 15 and Rule 6 of G.O. Ms. No. 65, which are similar, stipulated the eligibility for transfer in the following manner: "Headmasters Gr. II Gazetted/Teachers who completed more than two years of service in a place/School and above as on (1st June in G.O. Ms. No. 65/1st July in G.O.Ms. No. 15) are only eligible to apply for transfer" 17. The Division Bench considered the ambit of Rule 6 of G.O. Ms. II Gazetted/Teachers who completed more than two years of service in a place/School and above as on (1st June in G.O. Ms. No. 65/1st July in G.O.Ms. No. 15) are only eligible to apply for transfer" 17. The Division Bench considered the ambit of Rule 6 of G.O. Ms. No. 65, and held as follows: "In other words, if option is given to the applicants to choose the places where the juniors are presently working for effecting their transfers, that amounts to not only violation of the rule which provides for the transfer of a candidate after completing two years of tenure at a place on his application, but also infringement of the rights of the juniors ensured under the rule to continue to work at their present places of work subject to limitations provided." 18. Guideline (1) (iii) attached to G.O. Ms. No. 54 also stipulates: "Headmasters Gr. II Gazetted/Teachers who completed a minimum period of two years service in a School as on 1st October of the year in which transfers are to be taken up shall be eligible to apply for request transfer" 19. Though there is a difference in the language of Rule 14 in G.O. Ms. No. 15 and Rule 6 of G.O. Ms. No. 65 on one hand and the language of Guideline (1) (iii) attached to G.O. Ms. No. 54 on the other, the differences are not sufficient to say that the interpretation of the Division Bench on these rules cannot be applied to the present case. 20. I am bound, by virtue of the judgment of the Division Bench, to hold that Guideline (1) (iii) attached to G.O. Ms. No. 54 protects the postings of the juniors of the petitioners herein and the Petitioners cannot claim a right to be given an option to choose those places for their posting. As the case of the petitioners is that they should be permitted to participate in the counselling under G.O. Ms. No. 54 to enable them to opt for places occupied by their juniors and that is not permissible, the further claim that they should be permitted to participate in the counselling also would not arise. As the case of the petitioners is that they should be permitted to participate in the counselling under G.O. Ms. No. 54 to enable them to opt for places occupied by their juniors and that is not permissible, the further claim that they should be permitted to participate in the counselling also would not arise. In any event, the petitioners were promoted on the basis of the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which directed the authorities to consider their cases for promotion to vacancies which occurred prior to the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 15, Education Department dated 5.2.2017. This would also mean that the Petitioners would not have been eligible in the initial counselling held in April 2019 for transfer counselling for the posts created subsequently. For both these reasons, the claim of the Petitioners to participate in the counselling to be held under G.O. Ms. No. 54 cannot be accepted. 21. These circumstances, the writ Petitions are dismissed, without costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.