ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not treating my appointment as TP.Gr-II notionally with effect from the date on which the 6th respondent and others who have secured lesser marks than the Petitioner were got appointed and enjoying more benefits than the petitioner with all consequential benefits like time scale, increments, seniority, pension and other benefits as illegal, improper, unjust and arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the respondents forth with to treat the appointment of the petitioner as Telugu Pandit-Gr-II taking his merit rank on par with the 6th respondent and others who secured lesser merit than the petitioner and extend all the benefits by revising his basic pay, increments, pension and other benefits notionally and release the arrears and pass …” 2. Brief facts of the case are that a notification was issued on 11.05.2022 for recruitment of teachers and the petitioner applied for the post of Language Pandit Gr.II and selected as Vidya Volunteer. The 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 21.04.2003 cancelling the selection of the petitioner on the ground that he possessed pre-degree certificate. Against the said orders, petitioner filed O.A.No.4602 of 2005 and initially interim order was granted directing to reserve one post and the said O.A., was disposed of on 29.09.2006. Against the said orders, D.E.O., Nellore filed W.P.No.23266 of 2010 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 06.10.2010 confirming the orders passed in O.A. After dismissal of the Writ Petition, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 10.02.2011 appointing the petitioner as Special Vidya Volunteer, Language Pandit (Telugu) prospectively, whereas the other selected candidates were appointed immediately after selections in the year 2003. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 23.01.2014 deputing the petitioner for training and after training he issued proceedings dated 23.01.2015 allowing regular time scale prospectively instead of granting time scale from the date on which the lesser merit candidate was appointed with increments, revised pay scales and seniority and other consequential benefits on par with those 2002 DSC candidates. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 23.01.2014 deputing the petitioner for training and after training he issued proceedings dated 23.01.2015 allowing regular time scale prospectively instead of granting time scale from the date on which the lesser merit candidate was appointed with increments, revised pay scales and seniority and other consequential benefits on par with those 2002 DSC candidates. The 6th respondent who secured 62 marks, shown at Sl.No.44 got appointed in the year 2003 itself and his basic pay is Rs.38,130/-, whereas the petitioner secured 63 marks and shown at Sl.No.41 and getting basic pay of Rs.38,130/-. As the delay is on the part of the authorities in appointing the petitioner, he is not responsible for the delay, as such the petitioner filed a representation to the 1st respondent on 04.01.2021 ventilating his grievances, but on orders are passed so far. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition is filed by the respondents reiterating the facts and further submitting that the petitioner passed Telugu Language Pandit Training in November, 2014 which is minimum qualification to hold the Language Pandit Post. He was also promoted to the post of School Assistant (Telugu) on 02.11.2019 and after one year, he submitted representation to the respondents. As per Rule 26 (d) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, no appeal for restoration of seniority or assignment of notional seniority on par with his junior shall be entertained by the appellate authority after a period of 90 days from the date on which junior is promoted. The District Educational Officer issued proceedings dated 26.07.2021 rejecting the request of the petitioner stating that it is not feasible to consider his case at this juncture. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, Division Bench of common High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by the Government in W.P.No.15936 of 2016 dated 02.06.2016 and W.P.No.14913 of 2015 dated 03.10.2017 holding that the direction given by the erstwhile APAT holds good and directed the authorities to extend the notional seniority and increments from the date of appointment of other candidates and monitory benefits from the date of joining. 6. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the both the counsel, this Court found that the petitioner who belongs to BC(A) community secured 63 marks in the selection and his appointment was shown at Sl.No.41 in the merit list, whereas the candidates who secured less marks of 62 to 44 were given appointment in the year 2003. The case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Pre-Degree Certificate possessed by him is not requisite qualification as per the rules. Subsequently, after filing of the OA and W.P.No.23266 of 2020 before the combined High Court, the petitioner was appointed as Special Vidya Volunteer vide proceedings dated 17.02.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has got superior merit over those selected candidates. Obviously on the ground that PDC certificate possessed by the petitioner is not the requisite qualification, he was not appointed, whereas the other less meritorious candidates were appointed in the year 2003 itself. For the fault committed by the respondents, the petitioner could not be appointed along with the other selected candidates who got lesser merit than the petitioner, for which the petitioner is made to suffer. Denying the benefit of past service with effect from the date, the less meritorious candidates were appointed, it would be wholly anomalous, if persons of superior merit are treated as juniors to the persons with inferior merit, that too, for the fault committed by the respondents. In a similar situation, the combined High Court vide order dated 02.06.2016 dismissed W.P.No.15936 of 2016, while confirming the order dated 12.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2838 of 2013 dated 12.03.2014 and dismissed W.P.No.14913 of 2015 dated 03.10.2017 directing the authorities to extend the notional seniority and increments from the date of appointment of other candidate and monetary benefits from the date of joining. The petitioner is also entitled for the similar benefit. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for notional appointment from the date on which the 6th respondent who is the less meritorious candidate was appointed to the post of Telugu Pandit Grade-II, however, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefits on the principle of no work no pay. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.