ORDER : 1. The State has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Application Nos.3109-3128/2011 connected with Application Nos.570-571/2013. 2. Succinctly stated the facts are that respondents herein were working in the cadre of Group – C Excise Guards in Tumkur District from 2008-09 and some of them were also working in the same cadre in Bellary District from 2007-08. It is not in dispute that the applicants/respondents herein were initially working as employees on daily wages and subsequently they were regularized in the scale of Group – C during the year 1991-1994 and continued in the supernumerary posts in their respective parent departments. 3. It is the contention of the applicants/respondents that they were put in 10 years of uninterrupted service before their regularization. The Deputy Commissioner of Tumkur and the Deputy Commissioner of Bellary, redeployed the regularized employees working under their control in supernumerary posts, including the applicants/respondents to the Excise Department as Excise Guards. The Excise Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Tumkur and Bellary after considering the objections of the applicants/respondents published the seniority list of Excise Guards taking into consideration the eligibility date as the date of applicants joining in the Excise Department. Further, a final consolidated seniority list as on 31.12.2008 was published by the Excise Commissioner on 11.02.2011. 4. Being aggrieved with the said seniority list, the applicants/respondents herein filed applications before the Tribunal challenging the seniority list inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 therein to take action and take appropriate orders granting of consequential benefits flowing from Annexure – A12 Official Memorandum dated 11.02.2011 issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Excise. The Tribunal allowed the applications. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned AGA would contend that the counting of service of the respondents herein for seniority ought to have been taken from their deployment to the Excise Department in the year 2008 as Excise Guards against the regular sanctioned posts. The Tribunal grossly erred in considering the service of the respondents from the date of their regularization in the Department of Sericulture between 1991-1994 which tantamounts to granting of retrospective seniority when they were not entered in the parent department which is not permissible in law. The Tribunal grossly erred in considering the service of the respondents from the date of their regularization in the Department of Sericulture between 1991-1994 which tantamounts to granting of retrospective seniority when they were not entered in the parent department which is not permissible in law. The Tribunal has failed to apply the well settled principles of law to the case on hand while allowing the applications and directing the State/petitioners to re-fix the rankings of the applicants/respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 4 to 8, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 21 justifying the impugned order submitted that the Tribunal has extensively considered the factual aspects vis-à-vis well settled law inasmuch as the service of regularized employees in the supernumerary posts for the purpose of counting the seniority. Learned counsel submitted that the seniority of the regularized employees should be counted from the date of regularization and the service rendered in the supernumerary posts should be taken into account while issuing the seniority list. Inviting the attention of the Court to the Official Memorandum dated 05.09.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Tumkur District, Tumkur submitted that at the time of passing of the redeployment order itself it was made clear that the applicants/respondents have been redeployed to the post of Excise Guards, their seniority shall be determined as per the second proviso to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 and the conditions that their seniority shall be determined from the date of regularization in the mother department is to be imposed after fulfilling conditions laid down in the Government Order No.DPAR/2/SLC/90 dated 06.08.1990. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The fulcrum of dispute relates to the date to be considered for fixing the seniority of the applicants/respondents herein in view of their redeployment to the post of the Excise Guards subsequent to their regularization in the year 1991-94. The Official Memorandum dated 05.09.2008 relating to the redeployment of the supernumerary Group – C officials to the vacant posts itself makes it clear that the seniority of the officials who have been redeployed to the posts of Excise Guards shall be determined as per Second proviso to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 which reads thus:- “6. The transfer of a person in public interest from one class or grade of a service to another class or grade carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the later for the purposes of seniority; and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade from which he was transferred; xxxxxxxx Provided further, that the seniority of a person transferred in public interest vis a vis the persons actually holding the post in the Class or Grade to which he is transferred shall be determined on the date of such transfer with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade from which he was transferred.” 9. It is stated in the Official Memorandum dated 05.09.2008 that the seniority of the redeployed officials shall be determined from the date of their regularization in mother department after fulfilling conditions laid down in Government Order dated 06.08.1990. There is no dispute regarding fulfilling of the conditions in the Government Order dated 06.08.1990. As such, the conditions that their seniority shall be determined from the date of regularization in the mother department cannot be given a go-by by the petitioners -State merely for the reason that they are supernumerary posts notwithstanding their regularization. 10. The Tribunal has referred to the Application No.6742/2013 (T.C. Shylaja v. The Principal Secretary and another) as well as Application No.6740/2013 (S. Hulgappa v. Principal Secretary, Department of Operation and others), wherein it has been held that the service of the regularized employees in the supernumerary posts should be counted from the date of regularization and the service rendered in the supernumerary posts should be taken into account while giving ranking to the said employees in the seniority list. 11. It is stated at the bar that the said orders have been reached finality and the State has applied the said principles of law laid down by the Tribunal for similarly situated officials who were regularized on par with the applicants/respondents herein. 11. It is stated at the bar that the said orders have been reached finality and the State has applied the said principles of law laid down by the Tribunal for similarly situated officials who were regularized on par with the applicants/respondents herein. In such circumstances, discriminating the applicants/respondents herein on the ground of supernumerary posts which has already been considered by the Tribunal and held in favour of the similarly placed officials cannot be a ground for the State to challenge the issue which has reached finality insofar as similarly situated officials are concerned in fixing the seniority list. 12. In view of the well reasoned order of the Tribunal, we do not find any exception with the same and accordingly we approve the same. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. 13. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the State Government has published the promotion list on 31.01.2021 wherein some of the respondents herein are not figured who are indeed legally entitled to, for such promotion. It is needless to observe that such aggrieved respondents are at liberty to give a representation to the petitioners in this regard and on such representation being made, the State Government shall consider the same in the light of the observations made hereinabove and take a decision in accordance with law in an expeditious manner. All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.