ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the proceedings issued vide Memo No 30021/133/Ex I1/2018 Dated 08.04.2021 by rejecting the request to relax Rule 16(h) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 and not restoring the seniority based on the merit and ranking assigned by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission on par with the other peers issued vide G.O.Ms.No.241, 242, 243, Dated 13.03.2019, as highly illegal, arbitrary and in utter violation of Art 14 and 21 of the constitution of India besides contrary to the Supreme Court judgment rendered in (2016) 6 ALT 47 and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to relax Rule 16(h) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 by following Supreme Court judgment rendered in (2016)6 ALT 47 and on par with the other peers issued vide G.O.Ms.No.241, 242, 243 dated 13.03.2019 and pas….” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected as Excise Inspector in the year 1996 through APPSC and was appointed as Prohibition and Excise Inspector and allotted to Zone-III and he joined in the said post on 02-11-1996. Subsequently, he was as promoted as Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent in the year 2014 and Excise Superintendent in the year 2021 and that since the date of his joining he was worked with utmost satisfaction without any remarks from any corner whatsoever. It is further stated that the petitioner has appeared for Subordinate Officers Test part-I and passed in all the examinations except in accounts during his probation period. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he passed Accounts test on 02-06- 2002 and in this regard, the respondents, invoking Rule 16(h) of Rules, 1996, extended his probation and fixed the revised date of commencement of probation from 01.06.2000 instead of 02.11.1996. In furtherance of the same, the 1strespondent issued G.O.R.T.No.1416, Dated 30.07.2003 treating his probation period from 01.06.2000 to 02.06.2002 instead of 02.11.1996 to 02.06.2002. In furtherance of the same, the 1strespondent issued G.O.R.T.No.1416, Dated 30.07.2003 treating his probation period from 01.06.2000 to 02.06.2002 instead of 02.11.1996 to 02.06.2002. Thus, by virtue of the extension of his probation and revised date of commencement of his probation, the petitioner was denied 4 years of regular service and as a result his promotional avenues were effected and the juniors who secured lesser marks were placed above the petitioner in the provisional seniority list. Therefore, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents requesting to relax Rule 16(h) of Rules, 1996 and consider his 4 years as regular service and restore the seniority based on merit and ranking fixed by the APPSC. But the respondents have not consider his case and hence the petitioner approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A No. 1411 of 2018 seeking a direction to consider my representation for relaxing Rule 16(h) of Rules, 1996 and restore the seniority based on the merit and ranking assigned by APPSC by duly considering 4 years of his regular service. The same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Tribunal without giving any reasons vide its order Dt:19-07-2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred WP No. 28389 of 2018 before this Hon'ble Court and the same was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court with a direction to the respondents to dispose of his representation Dt:04-07-2018 within 4 weeks, in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2016 (6) ALT 47. But the 1st respondent without considering his representation rejected the same, which is in utter deviation from the settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Kalyan C.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, the respondents herein considered the request of various individuals who are similarly placed and relaxed Rule 16(h) of Rules 1996 and restored the seniority based on merit and ranking fixed by the APPSC. In this regard, requests of one V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, M. Sudheer Babu, M. Radha Krishna amongst many others were considered and passed G.O.Ms.No.241, 242, 243, dated 13.03.2019 respectively relaxing Rule 16(h) of Rules 1996 and restored their respective seniority based on merit and ranking fixed by the APPSC. In this regard, requests of one V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, M. Sudheer Babu, M. Radha Krishna amongst many others were considered and passed G.O.Ms.No.241, 242, 243, dated 13.03.2019 respectively relaxing Rule 16(h) of Rules 1996 and restored their respective seniority based on merit and ranking fixed by the APPSC. But, while considering the request of the petitioner, the respondents have rejected the same in callous and capricious manner without assigning any reasons and without application of mind which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has opposed for allowing the petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. Perused the material on record. 7. As seen from the impugned Memo vide Memo No.30021/133/Ex.I(1)/2018, dated 08.04.2021, wherein it was mentioned that “keeping in view the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in WPNo.28389 of 2018, dated 10.08.2018 has been examined in consultation with the advisory departments and decided that it is not feasible to consider his request, since there is no specific provision on the A.P. Excise Service Rules, 1961 for extending the probation of the probationer till the individual passes the tests the provision in the A.P. State &Subordinate Service Rules 1996 will be applicable and the date of commencement of the probation of Sri S.Ravi Kumar was correctly changed, vide orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.1416 Revenue (Ex.1) Department, dated 30.07.2003 and there is no need to review these orders….” 8. As seen from the material, it is observed that, admittedly the petitioner was selected as Excise Inspector in the year 1996 through APPSC and was appointed as Probation and Excise Inspector. Though the petitioner passed Subordinate Officers Test Paper-I and all, the respondents, invoking Rule 16(h) of Rules 1996 extended his probation and fixed the revised date of commencement of probation from 01.6.2000 instead of 2.11.1996. In furtherance of the same, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1416 dated 30.07.2003 treating the petitioner’s probation period from 1.6.2000 to 2.6.2002 instead of 2.11.1996 to 2.6.2002. Thus by virtue of the same the petitioner denied 4 years of service. It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that several individuals who are similarly placed have approached the respondent's seeking relaxation under Rule 16(h) of Rules, 1996 and the same were considered by the respondents. Thus by virtue of the same the petitioner denied 4 years of service. It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that several individuals who are similarly placed have approached the respondent's seeking relaxation under Rule 16(h) of Rules, 1996 and the same were considered by the respondents. But the respondents did not choose to consider the request of the petitioner for the reasons best known to them. Further, even though the petitioner made representations to consider his request, the 1strespondent without considering his representation in right perspective and without giving any reasons, rejected the representation of the petitioner which is in utter deviation from the settled law. 9. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the request of various individuals who are similarly placed and relaxed Rule 16(h) of Rules 1996 and restored the seniority based on merit and ranking fixed by the APPSC and in this regard the requests of one V Chandrasekhar Reddy, M Sudheer Babu and M. Radha Krishna amongst many others were considered and passed GOs. The said G.Os were also placed on record. 10. On a perusal of the above G.Os., the above persons were submitted representations for relaxation of Rule 16(h) of A.P. State subordinate Service Rules and the same were considered by the Government ordered to relax Rule 16(h) of the Rules on par with similarly situated persons and to treat the seniority of the applicants as per the ranking assigned y the APPSC in their respective cadres. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in R VenkataRamudu and another etc. versus State of A.P., and others, CIVIL Appeal Nos.9856, 9860 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C )Nos.6906-6910 of 2009), wherein the Apex Court observed with regard to Rule 16 and held that Rule 16 of the GENERAL RULES deals with various aspects of the probation of direct recruits, such as the commencement of probation (16(a), period of probation (16(c )), passing of tests or acquiring qualification prescribed either in the GENERAL or SPECIAL RULES(16(E )). 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the above Rule, held the Rule stipules that such a declaration is to be made at the end of the period of probation or the extended period of probation. 13. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the above Rule, held the Rule stipules that such a declaration is to be made at the end of the period of probation or the extended period of probation. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the Rule 16(h) : Rule 16(h) contains a stipulation which is in the nature of an exception to the stipulation contained in Rule 16(a) 10. While 16(a) declares that a direct recruit shall commence his probation “from the date of his joining the duty or from such other date as may be 9 See F/N 8. 10 Rule 16(a) – Commencement of probation for direct recruits – A person appointed in accordance with the rules, otherwise than under Rule 10, by direct recruitment shall commence his probation from the date of his joining the duty or from such other date as may be specified by the appointing authority : Provided that a person having been appointed temporarily under Rule 10 to a post in any service, class or category or having been so appointed otherwise than in accordance with the rules governing appointment to such post, subsequently appointed to the same post, in the same service or class or category, in the same unit of appointment, in accordance with the rules, shall commence his probation from the date of such subsequent appointment or from such earlier date as the appointing authority may determine, subject to the condition that his commencement of probation from an earlier date shall not adversely affect any person who has been appointed earlier or simultaneously, to the same service, class or category in the same unit specified by the appointing authority”, Rule 16(h) 11 stipulates that a probationer who does not pass the prescribed test “ shall be deemed to have commenced the probation with effect from the date to be fixed by the Government”. It creates a fiction by which the date of commencement of probation is altered from the actual date of commencement. The Hon’ble Apex Court while relying upon the above rules held that: In the context of the service such as the one to which R. Venkata Ramudu belongs, what is more relevant is the technical qualification of the employee and the experience gained in utilizing such technical qualification for the service of the State than the knowledge of Accounts, a subject which is of incidental significance. Because knowledge of accounts is relevant only for the discharge of administrative responsibilities to be shouldered by the engineers. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.VenkataRamudu’s case (supra), this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition while declaring the proceedings dated 08.04.2021 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal. 15. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings vide Memo No.30021/133/Ex.I(1)/2018, dated 08.04.2021 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. Further the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner to relax Rule 16(h) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rule 1996 by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in R. VenkataRamudu’s case (supra) within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.