ORDER : D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J Writ Petition No.10205 of 2017 is filed challenging the order in O.A.No.7020 of 2014 and Batch, dated 28.04.2015, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. Writ Petition No.10280 of 2017 is filed challenging the order in O.A.No.7021 of 2014 and Batch, dated 28.01.2015, passed by the Tribunal. 3. Since the issues of fact and law in both these Writ Petitions are one and the same, with the consent of both the learned counsel, W.P.No.10205 of 2017 is taken up for hearing. 4. This Court has heard Sri V. Maheswar Reddy and Sri K. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsels for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents. 5. The issue involved in these writ petitions circles around the interpretation of rules of promotion for the writ petitioners. Learned counsel points out that on a wrongful interpretation of Rule 3 of the A.P. Works Accounts Service Special Rules, 1998 (G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 22.05.1998) the Tribunal had given promotion to the respondents and denied the same to the petitioner. It is his contention that the Tribunal wrongfully followed the orders in earlier O.A. and by ignoring the Rules directed the respondents to prepare seniority list. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that realizing the correct legal position the Government had also issued a Memo, dated 21.08.2014, clarifying the position relating to promotion to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer (W) Grade II. Yet the Tribunal ignored the correct interpretation and relied upon earlier orders of the Tribunal and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has no bearing to the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a plain and simple interpretation of the existing rule would make it very clear that the interpretation by the Tribunal is totally incorrect. He relies upon Anil Kumar Gupta and Others v Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, (2000) 1 SCC 128 and also particularly lays emphasis on the Division Bench judgment reported in K. Rajendra Prasad and Others v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2020 (3) Andh LD 295. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Memo, dated 21.08.014, sets out the correct position and the Rule 33 of the A.P. Subordinate Service Rules clarified the position correctly. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Memo, dated 21.08.014, sets out the correct position and the Rule 33 of the A.P. Subordinate Service Rules clarified the position correctly. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appears for Respondents 1 and 2 argues in line with what is stated by him in his counter. He points out that the special rules governing the subject of promotions in A.P. Works Accounts Services contained in G.O.Ms.No.86. According to him the appointment to the post of DAO (W), Grade II, shall be made by direct recruitment and also by recruitment by transfer from the categories of Senior Assistants and Superintendents. He further relies upon Note-II which is as follows: “Note 2:- (a) 50% (fifty per cent) of the substantive vacancies in the Category of Divisional Accounts Officers (Works) Grade-II shall be filled in by direct recruitment. (b) The vacancies other than those to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be filled in alternatively by the Superintendents of Group-A and Group-B as indicated below:- Group-A:- Superintendents in the Circles and Divisions of Roads and Buildings, Irrigation, including Major Projects, Public Health and Municipal Engineering and Panchayat Raj Engineering Departments. Group-B:- Superintendents working in the Accounts organization under the administrative control of Director of Works Accounts. In case, qualified and suitable Superintendents in any of these two groups are not available, the Senior Assistants in the respective groups, who are qualified, may be considered for appointment to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Grade-II. Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Seniority of a person appointed as Divisional Accounts Officer (Works) shall be governed by the provisions of Rule 33 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.” 8. Learned Government Pleader for Services also points out that as per the earlier direction of Tribunal, dated 25.03.1988, in O.A.No.43327 of 1990 and Batch and other orders, Government has already issued instructions and batch wise inter-se seniority of Superintendents was already fixed in the same lines since 2000 itself. He also points out from the counter that 242 individuals have been promoted in the years 1991-97 and 55 candidates were recruited directly between 1993-95. Orders were also issued in January, 2000 fixing notional seniority. He also points out from the counter that 242 individuals have been promoted in the years 1991-97 and 55 candidates were recruited directly between 1993-95. Orders were also issued in January, 2000 fixing notional seniority. With regard to the Memo, dated 21.08.2014, it is submitted that initially the Government issued the same, but later when it was realized that there is an error in the same, the Government has withdrawn the impugned Memo, dated 21.08.2014, by a further Memo dated 25.11.2015. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid. 9. Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents also supports the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader for Services and points out that the Government has withdrawn the Memo, dated 21.08.2014. He also relies upon the seniority list, dated 25.04.2018, by which the promotions were effected in line with the earlier memo. The impleaded respondents have also adopted the same line of reasoning in argument advanced earlier. 10. The method of recruitment viz., 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by transfer from Superintendents working in the Circles and by appointment by transfer of Superintendents is highlighted. He also points out that if no suitable Superintendents are available Senior Assistants, who were qualified, have to be appointed. COURT: 11. This Court after considering the submissions made notices that the post of DAO (W) Grade II of the Director of Works Account is governed by A.P. Works Accounts Service Rules 1999 (G.O.Ms.No.83). The rule is extracted hereunder: “(b) The post of DAO (W) Grade-ll in the 2 respondent's Organisation is governed by Andhra Pradesh Works Accounts Service Rules, 1998 (G.O.Ms.No.86 Finance (FW.WA.II) Department dated 22.05.1998). Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with Method of Appointment and Appointing Authority. In the table given under Rule 3, SI.No.6 deals with the post of Divisional Accounts Officers (Works) Grade-II and it reads as follows: Sl.No. Category (1) Method of Appointment (2) Appointing Authority (3) 1. … … … … 2. … … … … 3. … … … … 4. … … … … 5. … … … … 6. Divisional Accounts Officers (Works), Grade-II (CategoryVI) (i) By direct recruitment 50% (fifty per cent). … … … … 2. … … … … 3. … … … … 4. … … … … 5. … … … … 6. Divisional Accounts Officers (Works), Grade-II (CategoryVI) (i) By direct recruitment 50% (fifty per cent). (ii) The remaining 50% (fifty percent) shall be filled in by appointment by transfer of Superintendents working in the Circles and divisions of Roads and Buildings, Irrigation, including Major Projects, Public Health and Municipal engineering and Panchayat Raj Engineering Department; and by appointment by transfer of Superintendents working in the Accounts Organisation under the administrative control of Director of Works Accounts; and if no suitable Superintendents are available, by appointment by transfer of Senior Assistant in the Circles and Divisions of the Engineering Departments, referred to above, and the Senior Assistants working in the Accounts Organisation under the administrative control of Director of Works Accounts. Director of Works Accounts In case, qualified and suitable Superintendents in any of these two groups are not available, the Senior Assistants in the respective groups, who are qualified, may be considered for appointment to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Grade-II: Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the seniority of a person appointed as Divisional Accounts Officer (Works) shall be governed by the provisions of Rule 33 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996." 12. The note is very relevant for the purpose of decision in this case. 50% of the vacancies are to be filled up by direct vacancies. The other 50% is to be filled up by appointment by transfer from the Superintendents as described in Group A and B. In case qualified and suitable Superintendents are not available in any of these groups (Group A and B) the Senior Assistants in the respective groups “who are qualified” may be considered for appointment to the post of DAO (W) Grade II. This position is not in doubt. The proviso, however, shows that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rule, the seniority of a person appointed as DAO shall be governed by Rule 33 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. In the opinion of this Court, the provision which carves out an exception to the above provision clearly states that once a person is “appointed as a DAO” his seniority shall be governed by the provisions of the Rule 33. 13. In the opinion of this Court, the provision which carves out an exception to the above provision clearly states that once a person is “appointed as a DAO” his seniority shall be governed by the provisions of the Rule 33. 13. The core issue, however, in this case, is about the claim of the petitioner to be appointed as the DAO. He claims to be eligible as qualified and suitable Superintendents in Group A and B are not available. Against this Rule position the case is examined. 14. The earlier dispute between the parties in O.A.No.43327 of 1990 and Batch was with regard to promotion. The Tribunal by its order, dated 25.03.1998, directed the respondents to fix the inter se seniority from the date when the unofficial respondents became eligible. The Government has followed the same and it is apparent that the order has been followed and it continued to hold the field from 1998 onwards. 15. At this stage, the Government issued a Memo, dated 21.08.2014, which directed the respondents to follow only Rule 33 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 while making promotions. The petitioner before this, Court relying upon this Memo. The respondents have pointed out that the Government itself has withdrawn this Memo by a further Memo, dated 25.11.2015. This aspect has been suppressed by the petitioner and is not pleaded at all. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court to argue that the seniority of an employee in a particular category is to be determined according to the said judgment. A close examination of the order of the Division Bench shows that the issue that is examined by the Division Bench was whether “seniority of an employee in a particular category needs to reckon from the date of initial appointment in the said category or from the date he acquired the qualification to hold higher category of posts?” The issue here is different. The petitioner is claiming eligibility for promotion, provided there are unfilled vacancies and the Superintendents in Group A and B are not available for the post of promotion to DAO. He is not claiming promotion in the post of DAO at this stage. The petitioner is claiming eligibility for promotion, provided there are unfilled vacancies and the Superintendents in Group A and B are not available for the post of promotion to DAO. He is not claiming promotion in the post of DAO at this stage. Similar is the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Anil Kumar Gupta and others v Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, (2000) 1 SCC 128 . 17. Point No.2 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was “Whether while deciding if the respondents had two years experience, the experience gained while holding the diplomas could also be counted in addition to experience gained after obtaining a decree?” The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came to conclusion that two years professional experience need not be gained after the degree. On the other hand the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of J.G. Prasad Rao and others v The Secretary to Government and others, (1996) 7 SCC 51 , where a the similar rule fell for consideration for the post of DAO and inter se seniority was directed to be determined with reference to the date on which respective candidates passed the accounts test. Another decision reported in K.K. Deekshith and others v Rajasthan Housing Board and Another, 2014 STPL (Web) 579 SC is also followed. Thereafter, the Tribunal held that it is the day of passing of the Divisional Test, that is the criteria for fixing the seniority. The impugned Memo, dated 21.08.2014, was also set aside as it is contrary to earlier orders passed by the Tribunal and also contrary to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where the parties are Accounts Officer from the State of Andhra Pradesh. 18. Lastly, the Tribunal also notices that Rule 2 relates to seniority of the Divisional Accounts Officer, who are already appointed, but it does not deal with the inter se seniority of the Superintendents and Assistants, who are the feeder category for appointment by transfers. In so far as cadre of Superintendents is concerned Tribunal rightly held that the date of passing of the test is the criteria. This Court also agrees with the said opinion because of passing of the Divisional Test is an incentive for being promoted and it cannot be set at naught. 19. In so far as cadre of Superintendents is concerned Tribunal rightly held that the date of passing of the test is the criteria. This Court also agrees with the said opinion because of passing of the Divisional Test is an incentive for being promoted and it cannot be set at naught. 19. Lastly, this Court also notices that Memo was also withdrawn and the status quo anti was restored by the Government itself by its Memo, dated 25.11.2015. Therefore, the settled position also cannot be unsettled at this stage. 20. Considering all the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal did not commit any error while passing the impugned order. Therefore, both on fact and in law the Writ Petition is to fail. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.10205 of 2017 is dismissed. 21. In view of the orders passed in Writ Petition No.10205 of 2017, the other Writ Petition No.10280 of 2017 is also dismissed for the same reasons. No order as to costs. 22. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending in these Writ Petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.