JUDGMENT Nyapathy Vijay, J. - The present Writ Appeals are directed against the Order dated 02.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.18875 of 2021 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The Appeals are filed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 i.e. State and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 respectively. 2. The parties herein are referred to as per the nomenclature in the Writ Petition. 3. The facts leading to this case are as follows:- The writ petitioner in W.A.No.353 of 2023 was appointed as Pharmacist, Grade-II on 07.09.1995, which is a District cadre post. The writ petitioner along with Smt. M. Aruna and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 i.e. K. Suresh Kumar and K. Hemalatha had made representation to the Government on 24.04.2018 to consider their case for 'appointment by transfer' to the post of Junior Analyst in the Drugs Control Administration under 20% quota by relaxing the Rule-3, Category-1 of A.P. Drugs Control Administration Service Special Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1994') issued vide G.O.Ms.No.411, HM & FW (L.2) Department, dated 11.08.1994. 4. As the representations were not being considered, all of them filed O.A.No.1393 of 2018 before A.P. Administrative Tribunal in not disposing of the representation. On 05.09.2018, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed an interim order directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 24.04.2018 within a period of eight (8) months. 5. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.1 had issued Memo No.781/I.1/2012, dated 05.02.2019 directing Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner and others for appointment to the post of Junior Analyst in the Drugs Control Administration by relaxing the Rule-3, Category-1 of the Rules, 1994. It was also clarified that those who are willing to come to the post of Junior Analyst must forgo their seniority in the present Unit and take last rank after the last regular candidate in the new Unit as these transfers are from the District cadre to State cadre. Respondent No.2 was advised to take the individuals as per their seniority, qualifications by following the rule of reservations and that they shall take last rank in the category of Junior Analyst in the Drugs Control Administration. 6. In compliance of the Memo issued by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 issued proceedings vide Proc.Rc.No.387/E2/2018, dated 08.02.2019 appointing the petitioner, M. Aruna and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 as Junior Analysts subject to the relaxation of Rule-3, Category-1 of the Rules referred to above. 6. In compliance of the Memo issued by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 issued proceedings vide Proc.Rc.No.387/E2/2018, dated 08.02.2019 appointing the petitioner, M. Aruna and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 as Junior Analysts subject to the relaxation of Rule-3, Category-1 of the Rules referred to above. The conditions of appointment were specified in the said proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petitioner and others had joined as Junior Analysts and their probation was declared on 20.11.2020 regularizing their services. 7. On 26.02.2020, a tentative seniority list among the petitioner and others who were appointed as Junior Analysts was drawn and objections were called for. As per the tentative seniority list, the petitioner was placed at the bottom while Smt. M. Aruna and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 were placed above the petitioner at Sl.Nos.4, 5 & 6. This was the breaking point for the joint pursuit for appointment as Junior Analyst among the petitioner and the un-official respondents and is the genesis for this litigation. The petitioner submitted her objections on 04.03.2020 stating that she is the senior most vis-a-vis Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and contended that she should be placed at Sl.No.5 rather than Sl.No.7. 8. On the objections submitted by the petitioner, Respondent No.2 sought clarification from Respondent No.1 with regard to fixation of seniority among the petitioner and the un-official respondents. Respondent No.1 thereupon issued impugned proceedings vide Memo No.HMF01-DRGC0DDCA (MISC)/28/2020-1, dated 29.09.2020 directing Respondent No.2 to consider the deputation period of Smt. M. Aruna and Respondent No.3 as Junior Analysts for reckoning notional seniority without any monetary benefits from the dates of joining in the deputation post of Junior Analyst vide G.O.Rt.No.461 dated 23.11.2016 and fix seniority as per Rule 35(b) of A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1996'). 9. Consequently, Respondent No.2 revised the tentative seniority list on 25.10.2020 and finalized the seniority list vide Proceedings dated 23.11.2020. On the basis of the seniority list, Smt. M. Aruna was appointed by transfer as Drugs Inspector temporarily vide Proceedings dated 31.03.2021. The petitioner had specifically pleaded that as regards Smt. M. Aruna, she has no grievance and the issue of seniority is only with regard to Respondent Nos.3 & 4. 10. On the basis of the seniority list, Smt. M. Aruna was appointed by transfer as Drugs Inspector temporarily vide Proceedings dated 31.03.2021. The petitioner had specifically pleaded that as regards Smt. M. Aruna, she has no grievance and the issue of seniority is only with regard to Respondent Nos.3 & 4. 10. Respondent No.2 filed his Counter stating that the seniority list was finalized as per the impugned Government Memo dated 29.09.2020 and that there was no variance to the Government Memo, dated 05.02.2019, the seniority of Smt. M. Aruna and Respondent No.3 was fixed taking into consideration their deputation service and in accordance with Rule 35(b) of the Rules, 1996. 11. Respondent No.3 filed his Counter Affidavit supporting the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2020 and that Govt. Memo dated 05.02.2019. It was also pleaded that condition No.4 of Govt. Memo, dated 05.02.2019 specifies that the previous service should be foregone for the purpose of seniority and the seniority in the cadre of Junior Analyst was fixed as per Rule 35(b) of the Rules, 1996, which is to the effect that the seniority shall be fixed with reference to the date of joining duty. 12. The learned Single Judge after referring to the contentions of the respective counsels allowed the Writ Petition after referring to the Full Bench Judgment dated 25.09.2012 in W.P.No.27933 of 1996 and Judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in S.P. Abdulla Saheb Vs. K.Krishna Murth, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 404 = (2017) 2 ALT 296 (DB) and the 1996 Rules. Hence, the present Writ Appeals are filed by the State as well as by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 individually. 13. Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for Respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner, Sri V.Ramesh, learned G P (S-IV) for Respondent Nos.1 & 2, Sri N.Joy, learned counsel for Respondent No.3, Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. 14. The learned counsel for writ petitioner and the learned counsel for Respondent No.3 also filed their written arguments. The counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the language used in the orders of appointment by transfer i.e. 05.02.2019 and Rule 33 & Rule 34 of the 1996 Rules. The case laws cited before the learned Single Judge were relied upon. 15. The counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the language used in the orders of appointment by transfer i.e. 05.02.2019 and Rule 33 & Rule 34 of the 1996 Rules. The case laws cited before the learned Single Judge were relied upon. 15. In the written arguments of learned counsel for Respondent No.3, the emphasis was on Rule 36 of the 1996 Rules and that the seniority should be fixed in accordance with this Rule. 16. The argument of Sri V. Ramesh, learned G P (S-IV) apart from supporting the letter of the Government vide Memo No.HMF01-DRGC0DDCA (MISC)/28/2020-1, dated 29.09.2020 was that, there was a time frame of 15 days fixed for joining the post of Junior Analyst in the appointment order and since Respondent Nos.3 & 4 joined earlier in the said post, they were seniors in view of Rule 35(b) of the Rules, 1996. Similar contention was also urged in the written arguments of Respondent No.3. Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 adopted the arguments of Sri V.Ramesh and Sri N.Joy. 17. The following issues fall for consideration:- (i) Whether the deputation period could be counted for reckoning seniority in the Cadre of Junior Analyst where appointment was by transfer and in relaxation of Rule 3 Category-I of Rules, 1994? (ii) Whether the fixation of seniority in the Cadre of Junior Analyst should be reckoned from the date of actual joining or date of actual joining after the time prescribed for joining? (iii) Whether the writ petitioner is senior to the Respondent No.3 and 4? 18. Issue No.3: Taking into consideration the joint representation of the contesting parties hereto for appointment to the post of Junior Analyst and the interim order of the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1393 of 2018, Respondent No.1-State issued Proceedings dated 05.02.2019 permitting Respondent No.2 i.e. Director General, Drugs Control Administration to issue 'appointment by transfer' order to the petitioner, Respondent No.3, Respondent No.4 and another as Junior Analysts in relaxation of Note to Category-1(ii) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. The paragraph No.4 of the Government Memo reads as under: '4. The paragraph No.4 of the Government Memo reads as under: '4. Government after careful examination of the issue hereby direct the Director General, Drugs Control Administration, A.P., Guntur to consider the request of the individuals i.e., (Smt. A. Aruna, Smt. B.V. Usha Rani, Sri K. Suresh as Junior Analysts under 20% promotional quota, in relaxation of Note of Category 1(ii) of Rule-3 of AP Drugs Control Administration Service Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.411, HM&FW (L2) Department, Dt.11.08.1994 and also in pursuance of the interim orders of the APAT in O.A.No.1393/2018, dt.05.09.2018 by following due procedure in vogue and no person in the feeder category should not be effected either now or in future for promotion to the post of the Junior Analyst and he is also advised to take the individuals as pr their seniority, qualifications by following Rule of Reservation and they shall take last rank in the category of Junior Analyst in the Drugs Control Administration.' 19. Consequently, Respondent No.2 vide Proceedings dated 08.02.2019 issued appointment orders. 20. The Rule 36 of the 1996 Rules, speaks of fixation of inter-se seniority of employees whose dates of probation are the same. The Rule 36 of the 1996 Rules is extracted below for ready reference: '36. Inter-se seniority where the dates of commencement of probation are same: The seniority of the persons in the service shall be determined as follows:- (i) in respect of the candidate selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or other selecting authorities by direct recruitment, shall be with reference to their ranking assigned irrespective of the date of commencement of their probation in that category; (ii) in respect of the persons promoted or appointed by transfer (involving promotion), the dates from which they were placed on their probation; (iii) in respect of persons covered under item (ii) above, in case the date of commencement ofprobation is the same, whoever is aged shall be the senior; (iv) in respect of persons appointed on transfer on administrative grounds, shall be from the date on which the individual was placed on probation in the original department; and (v) in respect of the persons appointed on request transfer, the date ofjoining of such person in the new department/unit. ' 21. ' 21. The sub-rule(i) is applicable in cases where the employees are selected by direct recruitment through A.P. Public Service Commission or other selecting authorities and their seniority will be fixed with reference to their rankings. This sub-rule is not relevant to this particular case. The sub-rule (ii) speaks about persons promoted or appointed by transfer (on promotion) and their inter-se seniority will be from the dates on which they were placed on their probation. The sub-rule (iii) is with reference to sub-rule (ii) which speaks of a situation where commencement of probation is the same, the person whose age shall be reckoned as senior. These sub-rules apply in normal course of promotion and appointment by transfer on promotion, but in this case, the appointment by transfer was made in relaxation of the 1994 Rules and therefore the Sub Rule (ii) and (iii) are not relevant to the facts of this case. The sub-rule (iv) is with regard to the persons appointed on transfer on administrative grounds and sub-rule (v) is with regard to the persons transferred on request. The Sub-rule (v) is not of any relevance to the facts of this case as this is not a case of request transfer. 22. In respect of sub-rule (iv), persons appointed on transfer on administrative grounds, the seniority shall be reckoned from the date on which the individual was placed on probation in the original department. The case on hand falls under sub-rule (iv) of the abovementioned Rule and the reasons for that are given in the following paragraph. 23. Respondent No.1/Government had permitted Respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner and the un-officials respondents along with Smt. M. Aruna as Junior Analyst vide Proceedings dated 05.02.2009 in exercise of power of relaxation. The 1994 Rules being special Rules, the relaxation of such special Rules shall be in accordance with Rule 31 of the 1996 Rules. 23. Respondent No.1/Government had permitted Respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner and the un-officials respondents along with Smt. M. Aruna as Junior Analyst vide Proceedings dated 05.02.2009 in exercise of power of relaxation. The 1994 Rules being special Rules, the relaxation of such special Rules shall be in accordance with Rule 31 of the 1996 Rules. The Rule 31 reads as under:- 'Rule 31: RELAXATION OF RULES BY THE GOVERNOR:-Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the Governor shall have the power to relax any rules contained in these rules or special rules, in favour of any person or class of persons, in relation to their application to any member of a service or to any person to be appointed to the service, class or category or a person or a class of persons, who have served in any civil capacity in the Government of Andhra Pradesh in such manner as may appear to be just and equitable to him, where such relaxation is considered necessary in the public interest or where the application of such rule or rules is likely to cause undue hardship to the person or class ofpersons concerned.' 24. The twin criteria for relaxation of special Rules is that it should be in public interest or to mitigate undue hardship to the person or the class of persons. As per the 1994 Rules, the method of appointment to the post of Junior Analyst is (i) Direct Recruitment and (ii) By promotion of Laboratory Technician. 25. In relaxation of this mode of recruitment, the petitioner and unofficial respondents were appointed as Junior Analysts. Notwithstanding the request of the contesting parties to consider appointment as Junior Analyst, the power of relaxation exercised by the Government in this case, should be construed as in public interest and for administrative reasons. If the power of relaxation is to be construed as one exercised on request of the contesting parties, then the very relaxation exercised by the Government would stand vitiated as no undue hardship was made out nor can be made out by the petitioner or unofficial respondents. Therefore, in the case on hand, the sub-rule(iv) of the 1996 Rules would be applicable. 26. As mentioned above, the sub-rule(iv) speaks about seniority from the date on which the individual was placed on probation in the original department. Therefore, in the case on hand, the sub-rule(iv) of the 1996 Rules would be applicable. 26. As mentioned above, the sub-rule(iv) speaks about seniority from the date on which the individual was placed on probation in the original department. In this case, the dates on which the individuals were appointed in their original department are tabulated below:- Sl.No. Name of the employee Name of the Post Date of appointment 1. Smt.B.V. Usha Rani Pharmacist, Grade-II 06.09.1995 2. Sri K.Suresh Kumar Pharmacist, Grade-II 07.09.1995 3. Smt.K.Hemalatha Pharmacist, Grade-II 04.10.1995 The original department under the Rules is with regard to their appointment as Pharmacists, Grade-II. As the writ petitioner was appointed and joined the post as Pharmacist Grade-II earlier than the un-official respondents. The petitioner would have to be reckoned as senior vis-a-vis Respondent Nos.3 & 4. 27. The Rule 35, which was relied on by Respondent No.1 speaks about fixation of seniority in the case of transfers on request or administrative grounds. The Rule 35 reads as under:- '35. FIXATION OF SENIORITY IN THE CASE OF TRANSFERS ON REQUEST OR ON ADMINISTRATIVE GROUNDS:- (a) The seniority of a member of a service, class or category transferred from one unit of appointment to another unit of appointment, on administrative grounds, shall be, determined with reference to the date of seniority of such member in the former unit. (b) The seniority of a member of a service, class or category, who is transferred on his own request from one unit of appointment to another unit of appointment shall be fixed with reference to the date of hisjoining duty in the latter unit ofappointment.' 28. The Rule 35(a) also speaks of seniority in the former Unit for determination of seniority. The Rule 35(b) speaks of fixation of seniority when an individual is transferred on his request and in cases of such individuals, the seniority will be from the date when the employee joined the duty in the later department as mentioned above. The appointment of the petitioner and the un-officials respondents cannot be termed to be an appointment on request, but should be termed as an appointment on transfer on administrative grounds as mentioned above, as they were appointed in relaxation of rules. Therefore, either under Rule 35(a) or Rule 36(iv) of the 1996 Rules, the writ petitioner is senior than Respondent Nos.3 & 4. Therefore, either under Rule 35(a) or Rule 36(iv) of the 1996 Rules, the writ petitioner is senior than Respondent Nos.3 & 4. The Respondent No.1 and 2 were well aware of this particular fact and that is apparent from the order of seniority mentioned in the proceedings of Respondent No.2 on 08.02.2019. Therefore, the issue No.3 is answered holding that the writ petitioner is senior to Respondent Nos.3 & 4. 29. Issue No.1: After a tentative seniority list was issued, the writ petitioner gave objections to Respondent No.2 for counting her seniority. Respondent No.2 sought clarification from Respondent No.1 as to the manner in which the objections of the writ petitioner were to be considered. Respondent No.1 issued a Memo dated 29.09.2020 directing Respondent No.2 to fix the seniority of the petitioner and the un-officials respondents as per Rule 35(b) of A.P. Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as their appointment was by transfer from the Unit of appointment of any other appointment on their request. As mentioned supra, since the appointment was in relaxation of the rules, the same is to be construed as an appointment on administrative grounds and not on request. 30. The other aspect is the dictate of the Government to count the deputation period of Smt. M. Aruna and Respondent No.3 for the purpose of seniority. The Rule 33 of the 1996 Rules prescribes the mode of determination of seniority. As per Rule 33(a), the seniority shall be from the date of first appointment in the service. The first and relevant part of Rule 33(a) reads as under:- '33. SENIORITY:- (a) The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade.' 31. The emphasis in this Rule is appointment and the term appointment was defined at Rule 2(2) of the 1996 Rules and the same reads as under:- '(2) Appointed to a Service:- A person is said to be 'appointed to a service' when, in accordance with these rules, except under rule 10 and in accordance with the Special Rules of adhoc rules applicable to such service he discharges for the first time, the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the probation, instruction or training prescribed for members thereof. ' 32. A combined reading of the above extracted Rules, the seniority of an individual shall be counted only when the appointment is in accordance with 1996 Rules. In this case, Respondent No.1 on 05.02.2019 permitted Respondent No.2 to appoint these contesting individuals in relaxation of Rules and consequently Respondent No.2 issued proceedings on 08.02.2019 appointing these contesting individuals. It is only from that date the contesting parties can claim to be appointed as Junior Analyst in accordance with Rules and only from that date, the seniority should be reckoned. The period of deputation of Respondent No.3 not being in accordance with Rules, cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. Therefore, the period of deputation can never be counted for the purpose of determination of seniority under 1996 Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indu Shekar Singh Vs State of U.P., 2006 (8) SCC 129 while considering whether deputation period could be included in the length of service opined at para 26 as under:- 'Furthermore, there is no fundamental right in regard to the counting of the services rendered in an autonomous body. The past service can be taken into consideration only when the Rules permit the same or here the special situation exists, which would entitle the employee to such benefit of past service.' This issue is accordingly answered. 33. Issue No.2: The petitioner and the un-official respondents were appointed on 08.02.2019 and a time frame of 15 days was granted to them for joining in the said post. The department and the un-official respondents claim seniority on the ground that they have joined the post of Junior Analyst earlier than the petitioner i.e. on 08.02.2019 and 13.02.2019 respectively and as such they are to be treated as seniors to the petitioner, who joined on 13.02.2019. 34. The fact that fortuitously some have joined the post of Junior Analyst earlier than the petitioner within the time frame of 15 days is not determinative for fixation of seniority. The date of appointment which is substantive is the date that should be followed by the department in fixing seniority. The Rule 35(a) also emphasizes on the term 'appointment' for determination of seniority and therefore the date of joining has no relevance to this case. The date of appointment which is substantive is the date that should be followed by the department in fixing seniority. The Rule 35(a) also emphasizes on the term 'appointment' for determination of seniority and therefore the date of joining has no relevance to this case. The date of joining would be relevant only in cases of request transfer and that too after the 15 days joining time and the same has no relevance to the facts of this case. This issue is accordingly answered. 35. In the light of the opinion of this Court on above issues, the grounds urged by Respondent No.1 and the un-officials respondents are bereft of any merit and the Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed. 36. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.