ORDER : 1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue an appropriate Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the entire procedure adopted by the 1st respondent for placing the petitioner’s name below the person who secured last rank in the present impugned seniority list drawn and Ref.No.A4/1554/2019, dated 10.02.2020 than that of the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to the provisions of Rule 33(b) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules r/w clarification letter issued by the 3rd respondent vide CCLA’s Ref.No.Ser.IV (1)/303/2019, dated NIL.10.2019 including contrary to various judicial pronouncements and clear violative of all cannons of law and set aside the same and consequently to hold that the placement of the petitioner shown in the earlier integrated seniority list drawn vide Ref.No.A4/1554/2019, dt:23.12.2019 of the 1st respondent holds good for all the purposes and further direct the respondents, particularly 1st respondent to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Village Revenue Assistant by strictly following the principle of merit/ ranking assigned by the selection committee at the time of selection as criteria and not date of joining, as the criteria and pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Pursuant to the notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 07.12.2011 for Direct Recruitment for the post of Village Revenue Assistant, petitioner appeared and secured 64 marks with first rank. Since the candidature of the petitioner is ignored, she was constrained to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.6264 of 2012. The Hon’ble Tribunal by its order dated 21.12.2012 allowed the O.A and directed the respondents therein to appoint the petitioner as Village Revenue Assistant of Chanduvai Village. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued posting orders vide Ref. No.A/2681/2011, dated 22.02.2013 by Sub-Collector, Rajampet. After issuance of the posting orders, petitioner joined duty on 28.02.2013. (a) 1st respondent, being the competent authority, has drawn integrated seniority list among Village Revenue Assistants working in YSR Kadapa District vide proceedings dated 01.04.2016 and called for objections from the individuals. The name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.120. The seniority list was drawn by following rank/merit assigned by the Selection Committee during the process of selection. (a) 1st respondent, being the competent authority, has drawn integrated seniority list among Village Revenue Assistants working in YSR Kadapa District vide proceedings dated 01.04.2016 and called for objections from the individuals. The name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.120. The seniority list was drawn by following rank/merit assigned by the Selection Committee during the process of selection. (b) 1st respondent has drawn final seniority list and communicated to Tahsildars in the District/RDO’s and requested to publish the said list in all concerned offices vide Ref.No.A4/1335/2016, dated 08.11.2017. In the said list, the name of the petitioner was included at Sl.No.148. The list was prepared in terms of Rule 33(b) of State and Subordinate Service Rules as well as merit list issued by the Selection Committee. (c) As the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent has drawn up provisional seniority list of VRAs working in the District vide Ref.No.A4/1554/2019, dated 28.08.2019 and requested the Tahsildars/RDOs in the District to publish the said list calling for objections if any within seven (7) days from the date of its publication. The name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.1683. Petitioner submitted her objections. However, the 1st respondent without rectifying the mistake, has drawn up another provisional seniority list of VRAs in the District vide Ref.No.A4/1554/2019, dated 24.12.2019 and requested the Tahsildars/RDOs to publish the said list in the offices duly calling for objections if any. In the said seniority list, the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.1563. Finally, integrated seniority list of VRAs was prepared vide proceedings in Ref.No.A4/1554/2019, dated 10.02.2020. The name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.1684. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Counter was filed by the 1st respondent. In the counter-affidavit, it was contended that the list prepared vide Ref.No.A4/1335/2016, dated 08.11.2017 is not integrated seniority list. It is seniority list of Village Revenue Assistants having Intermediate and above qualifications and it was prepared taking date of joining as criteria but not merit/rank assigned by the Selection Committee. Since, the Village Revenue Assistants have Intermediate qualification are less in number, petitioner was placed at Sl.No.148. As per the operational guidelines of CCLA Ref.No.Ser.IV(1)372/2016-1, dated 13.03.2019, provisional integrated seniority list of Village Revenue Assistants i.e., irrespective of qualification (all working VRAs), had been prepared taking the date of joining into service as criteria and published vide Ref.No.A4/1554/2019, dated 28.08.2019. Since, the Village Revenue Assistants have Intermediate qualification are less in number, petitioner was placed at Sl.No.148. As per the operational guidelines of CCLA Ref.No.Ser.IV(1)372/2016-1, dated 13.03.2019, provisional integrated seniority list of Village Revenue Assistants i.e., irrespective of qualification (all working VRAs), had been prepared taking the date of joining into service as criteria and published vide Ref.No.A4/1554/2019, dated 28.08.2019. Objections were also called for. CCLA in Ref.No.Ser.IV(1)/303/2019, dated 01.11.2019 informed that earlier promotion to VRAs were given basing on the date of joining in the post. Since there is no recruitment through recruitment agency during the year 2011 and 2013, Village Revenue Assistants were directly recruited. CCLA, A.P., Vijayawada issued operational guidelines as follows: “a) The seniority of the directly recruited candidates shall be fixed as per the District merit ranking duly assigning the notional dates as per the proviso of Rule 33(b) of Andhra Pradesh State subordinate Service Rules; b) For remaining VRAs who were appointed by other means like compassionate grounds, etc., the date of joining into service shall be taken.” 4. During the recruitment of Village Revenue Assistants in the year 2011 and 2013, three Revenue Divisional Officers have issued selection orders at different dates and the concerned Tahsildars have issued appointment orders on different dates. As such, the candidates joined accordingly on different dates. Some candidates who were not joined as Village Revenue Assistants approached APAT and pursuant to the orders of APAT, they were joined after lapse of six months and one year etc. 5. Petitioner is one of the candidates who approached APAT. Later, the petitioner joined duty on 28.02.2013. Petitioner has not been appointed simultaneously on par with other selected candidates while other candidates were appointed in May, 2012 and the same is contrary to Rule 33(b) of A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules. In view of the same, revised provisional integrated seniority list of Village Revenue Assistants was prepared duly following guidelines issued by CCLA, Vijayawada. In the process, all the Direct Recruitment candidates have been accommodated in the seniority list as per their merit except the candidates who joined at later dates as per the Court orders in the seniority list taking their date of joining as criteria. In the process, all the Direct Recruitment candidates have been accommodated in the seniority list as per their merit except the candidates who joined at later dates as per the Court orders in the seniority list taking their date of joining as criteria. The seniority list was communicated to all the Tahsildars and RDOs vide Ref.No.A4/1335/2016, dated 08.11.2017 was prepared taking into consideration the date of joining as criteria but not as per the merit/ranking assigned in terms of Rule 33(b) of the Rules. 6. As per the orders of CCLA vide Ref.No. Ser.IV(1)/372/2016-1, dated 13.03.2019, provisional integrated seniority list of Village Revenue Assistants i.e., irrespective of qualification had been prepared with all working Village Revenue Assistants (2016) taking into consideration of their date of joining into service as criteria and published in the District Collector, Kadapa District vide Ref. No.A4/1554/2019, dated 28.08.2019 calling for objections. In the said list, petitioner’s name was placed at 1683 as she joined duty on the FN of 28.02.2013. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that seniority list prepared, impugned in the writ petition, was not prepared in accordance with Rule 33(b) of the Rules. Thus, the seniority list prepared by 1st respondent needs to be set aside. 9. Learned Assistant Government pleader would contend that the seniority list impugned in the writ petition was drawn up as the Rules and there are no merits in the writ petition and the same liable to be dismissed. 10. The undisputed facts as per the pleadings and the material papers are that pursuant to the notification dated 07.12.2011 issued by the 1st respondent for Direct Recruitment for the post of VRA, the petitioner is qualified, and she secured 64 marks with first rank. Petitioner applied for the post of VRO of Chanduvoi Village of Atlur Mandal, as per the notification. 11. At the time of verification of certificates, it was noticed that Chanduvoi Village was submerged under Somasila Project. Tahsildar, Atlur was directed to submit factual report, Tahsildar, Atlur in turn submitted report about submersion of Village under Somasila Project. It is also reported that 85 families are settled at Atlur Cross roads and others in Kadapa and other places. 11. At the time of verification of certificates, it was noticed that Chanduvoi Village was submerged under Somasila Project. Tahsildar, Atlur was directed to submit factual report, Tahsildar, Atlur in turn submitted report about submersion of Village under Somasila Project. It is also reported that 85 families are settled at Atlur Cross roads and others in Kadapa and other places. District Collector, Kadapa has been requested to accord permission to appoint one VRA post at Atlur Cross Roads in addition to the existing sanctioned strength to meet the revenue needs of the villagers of Chanduvoi Village settled at Atlur Cross Roads. 12. As the matter stood thus, petitioner filed O.A.No.6264 of 2012 on the file of APAT, Hyderabad. The said O.A. was allowed at the stage of admission on 21.08.2012. Respondents 1 and 2 District Collector and Chairman, DSC Committee, Kadapa and RDO are directed to appoint the petitioner as VRA of Chanduvoi village of Atlur Mandal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Since the order was not implemented, petitioner filed C.A.1945 of 2012. 13. District Collector requested CCLA, Hyderabad to issue necessary clarification, whether permission was accorded for appointment of VRA to Atlur Revenue Cluster to overcome the needs of 85 families of Chanduvoi settled at Atlur Cross roads. CCLA in Ref.No.A2/2220/2012, dated 01.02.2013 clarified to fill up the vacancies in the existing sanctioned strength by selecting one among the three qualified and eligible candidates to meet the revenue needs of villagers of Chanduvoi Village settled at Atlur Cross Road. Petitioner was given posting orders vide Ref.No.A/2681/2011, dated 22.02.2013 and she joined duty on 28.02.2013. 14. As per the final seniority list of VRAs eligible for the promotion of VRO working in YSR Kadapa, dated 08.11.2017, name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.148. Petitioner secured 64 marks. One M.Sumeera Khanam who secured 61 marks belonged to Chinnamandem Village and Mandal, joined service on 25.05.2012. In the provisional seniority list prepared on 28.08.2019 her name was shown at Sl.No.1634. The said provisional seniority list was prepared basing on the date of joining of service. Petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.1683 since the petitioner joined duty on 28.02.2013. 15. In the provisional seniority list dated 24.12.2019, name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.1563. Name of the said M.Sumeera Khanam is shown at Sl.No.1570. The said provisional seniority list was prepared basing on the date of joining of service. Petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.1683 since the petitioner joined duty on 28.02.2013. 15. In the provisional seniority list dated 24.12.2019, name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.1563. Name of the said M.Sumeera Khanam is shown at Sl.No.1570. Though the said M.Sumeera Khanam joined service on 25.05.2012, however, the notional date of joining was shown as 28.02.2013. A perusal of the list dated 24.12.2019 would indicate that since the petitioner secured 64 marks and the M.Sumeera Khanam secured 61 marks, the said M.Sumeera Khanam was shown at Sl.No.1570 though she joined duty on 25.05.2012 treating the notional date of joining as 28.02.2013. Thus, in the provisional list dated 24.12.2019 was prepared treating the marks as criterion and all the other candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioner were shown below the petitioner. 16. However, when it comes to final integrated seniority list dated 10.02.2020, as can be seen from the list, it was prepared basing on the date of joining of service. Since, the petitioner secured 64 marks and she was denied the opportunity to join duty at the earliest point of time, the integrated seniority list seems prepared as per the date of joining but not as per the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee. 17. Rule 11 of A.P. State Subordinates Service Rules deals with the Limit for Joining Either of First Selection or On Promotion or on Appointment by Transfer:- (a) Direct recruitment :- A candidate selected for appointment by direct recruitment either through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or through any other agency, shall be required by the appointing authority to join in the post for which he has been selected within a period of 30 days taking the date of despatch (by registered post with acknowledgement due) of the appointment order as crucial date for reckoning the time limit. 18. Rule 33 of the Rules deals with seniority. 19. 18. Rule 33 of the Rules deals with seniority. 19. Rule 33(b) of A.P.State subordinate Service Rules which is relevant is extracted hereunder: “The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason the order of preference among them; and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it. Provided further that the order of merit or order of preference indicated in a list of selected candidates prepared by the Public service Commission or other selecting authority, shall not be disturbed inter-se with reference to the candidates position in such list or panel while determining the seniority in accordance with this rule and notional dates of commencement of probation to the extent necessary, shall be assigned to the persons concerned, with reference to the order of merit or order of preference assigned to them in the said list.” 20. Rule 36 of the A.P.State subordinate Service Rules deals with inter-se seniority from the date of seniority or the same. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 36 adambrates for the candidates selected by the APPSC or other selected committee shall be with reference to their rankings assigned irrespective of date of commencement of probation in that category. 21. A perusal of Rule 33 (b) r/w Rule 36 of A.P State subordinate Service Rules manifest that it is the list prepared by the Selection Commission or selecting authorities with their rankings assigned is the criterion to prepare the list of seniority. Operational guidelines issued by CCLA, extracted supra, also make it clear that the seniority of the direct recruitment candidates should be as per the district merit ranking duly assigned by the notional dates as per the proviso of Rule 33(b) of the A.P State subordinate Service Rules. 22. Ex.P.4 - the letter addressed by the District Collector vide Ref.No.A4/1335/2016, dated 08.11.2017 filed along with the writ petition, would reflect that it is the final seniority list of Village Revenue Assistants for the promotion to the cadre of Village Revenue Officer working in YSR District, Kadapa. In the said seniority list petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.148. 22. Ex.P.4 - the letter addressed by the District Collector vide Ref.No.A4/1335/2016, dated 08.11.2017 filed along with the writ petition, would reflect that it is the final seniority list of Village Revenue Assistants for the promotion to the cadre of Village Revenue Officer working in YSR District, Kadapa. In the said seniority list petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.148. It is also pertinent to mention here that integrated seniority list of VRAs working in YSR District, Kadapa would indicate that the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.120 and the name of M.Sumeera Khanam was shown at Sl.No.128 basing on the marks secured by them. The same was filed as Ex.P.3. Learned Government Pleader, however, disputed Ex.P.3 on the ground that it does not contain the signature of the issuing authority. However, in the counter-affidavit filed by 1st respondent while refuting the allegations in Para No.5 of the writ affidavit, it was not specifically adverted to regarding the list of 2016 Ex.P.3. In the absence of specific denial, this Court has to consider Ex.P.3 as true. 23. In the provisional seniority list prepared vide Ref.No.A4/1554/2019, dated 28.08.2019 Ex.P.5 the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.1563. A perusal of the said list would indicate that the authorities took the date of joining of the petitioner into service as criterion but not merit list prepared by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or the Selection Agency. The petitioner’s name should have been mentioned as per the merit list. 24. In fact, the material papers filed along with the writ petition would indicate that neither the provisional lists nor the integrated seniority list was prepared basing on the merit list. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner stood first however she was not given appointment immediately. Candidates who were secured less rank joined in service in May 2012. Petitioner jointed in service in Feb 2013. While preparing the integrated seniority list, it was prepared as if petitioner and others joined in duty in Feb 2013 but not in May 2012. 25. Thus, the course adopted by the 1st respondent in preparing the seniority list in the considered opinion of this Court, it is contrary to the Rule 33 (b) of the A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules and the operational guidelines issued by CCLA. 26. 25. Thus, the course adopted by the 1st respondent in preparing the seniority list in the considered opinion of this Court, it is contrary to the Rule 33 (b) of the A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules and the operational guidelines issued by CCLA. 26. In M.Ananda Rao and Another vs. Golconda Grameena Bank, Head Office, Hyderabad and others, (1998) 2 ALD 800 , it was held that seniority as per the rank allotted at the time of selection. The Hon’ble Apex Court also came with conclusion that the seniority has to be fixed as per the rankings allotted to the candidates at the time of selection. 27. Learned Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner has a right of appeal as per Rule 26 of the A.P.Subordinate Service Rules. 28. However, in the opinion of this Court, since fixation of the seniority list in the case on hand is against Rule 33(b) of the A.P. Subordinate Service Rules, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. The authorities violated the statutory Rules and hence the aggrieved party need not approach the appellate authority and writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 29. In view of the above discussion, the seniority list drawn vide Ref.A4/1554/2019, dated 10.02.2020 by the 1st respondent is set aside. 1st respondent shall prepare a fresh seniority list keeping in view the merit list prepared by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/Recruitment Agency keeping in view Rule 33(b) of the A.P.State Subordinate Service Rules r/w the operational guidelines issued by CCLA vide Ref.No.IV(1)/303/2019. 30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. This Court places, on record, its appreciation to the learned Senior Counsel Sri M.Surender Rao, for assisting the Court regarding Rule position. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.