-. ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed declaring the proceedings vide R.C.No.A2/1222/2018-1 dated 03.02.2023 and RC.No.A2/1222/2018 dated 14.06.2023 issued by 3 rd Respondent by revising the dates of completion of probation and regularization by cancelling dates of declaration of probation and regularization issued earlier and ordered for recovery of excess amount paid and the consequential memo in RC.No.Spl/A1/2023 dated 19.06.2023 issued by the 4 th Respondent and the 2 nd Respondent informing the rejection by the Government vide Memo No.FIN02-11036/39/2023-A SEC-DTA dated 01.09.2023 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under: The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Accountant on compassionate grounds and allotted to District Treasury Office vide proceedings RC.No.4665/10-B5 dated 09.10.2010 with a condition that the Petitioner should acquire certificate course of computers within a period of two years from the date of joining. - The Petitioner accordingly reported to duty on 05.01.2011 and had appeared for the Office Automation Examination held on 14.07.2011 and was successful. The State Board of Technical Education and Training had issued certificate of pass in the course in computers in Office Automation on 16.12.2011 and the Petitioner acquired the qualification as mentioned in the appointment order within the time stipulated. 3. Accordingly, the probation of the Petitioner in the cadre of Junior Accountant was declared on 13.07.2013 and the service was regularized with effect from 14.07.2011 i.e. the date on which the Petitioner had appeared for the examination as stipulated in the appointment order. On the basis of date of regularization in the post of Junior Accountant, the Petitioner was further promoted as Senior Accountant on 03.09.2013 and probation in the cadre of Senior Accountant was also declared on 30.08.2013 and his services in the said cadre were regularized with effect from 01.10.2013. 4. After completion of six (6) years of service as Senior Accountant, the Petitioner was also entitled for an increment under Automatic Advance Scheme and on account of the same, the Petitioner was appointed in the Special Grade Post of Senior Accountant vide proceedings dated 17.10.2022 and the pay scale was accordingly fixed. 4. After completion of six (6) years of service as Senior Accountant, the Petitioner was also entitled for an increment under Automatic Advance Scheme and on account of the same, the Petitioner was appointed in the Special Grade Post of Senior Accountant vide proceedings dated 17.10.2022 and the pay scale was accordingly fixed. While so, Respondent No.2 instructed Respondent No.3 to revise the date of regularization of the Petitioner in the cadre of Junior Accountant as per G.O.Ms.No.151 GA (SERVICES-G) Department dated 22.06.2004 and the Clarificatory Instructions dated 26.11.2013 on the basis of a representation by a colleague Senior Accountant in Sub-Treasury Office, Sattenapalli. - 5. Respondent No.3, without putting the Petitioner on prior notice, cancelled the regularization and orders were issued on 08.01.2013 and reassigned the regularization date as 22.10.2011 and date of probation as 21.10.2013 in the cadre of Junior Accountant by adopting the date of declaration of Office Automation Examination instead of appearing for the examination. Consequently, the date of promotion in the cadre of Senior Accountant was also modified and the Petitioner was also issued a memo on 19.06.2023 calling upon him to pay the excess paid amount in salary of Rs.2,05,707/-. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. - 6. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondents, it was pleaded that the date of regularization was taken from the date of declaration of results of examination, i.e. 22.10.2011, as per G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.06.2004, instead of date of appearance in the certificate course in computer examination. It is stated that the regularization of services of Petitioner from the date of appearing of the examination instead of date of declaration of results came to the notice of Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts when a complaint was received for revision of seniority in the category of Senior Accountant and therefore, the impugned action was taken. 7. It is further stated that, G.O.Ms.No.69 GA (Services-B) Department dated 24.07.2023 stating that the individuals, who were appointed on compassionate grounds for the post of Typist/L.D. Typist/U.D. Typist/Typist-cum- Assistant shall pass Computer Proficiency Test within a period of two years from the date of issuance of G.O and their services will be regularized from the date of their initial appointment as Typist/L.D. Typist/U.D. Typist/Typist-cum- Assistant and the said G.O can be taken as prospective effect and not applicable to the Petitioner. - 8. - 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned proceedings revising the regularization date of the Petitioner after lapse of more than 10 years in the initially appointed post of Junior Accountant cannot be sustained. Secondly, it is contended that the impugned proceedings were issued without any prior notice to the Petitioner and therefore, the impugned proceedings has to fail on both the grounds. 9. Reasoning: The Petitioner was regularized with effect from 14.07.2011 and was consequently promoted to the post of Senior Accountant in the year 2013. Taking into account the period of service in the cadre of Senior Assistant, the Petitioner was also granted Special Grade Increment under Automatic Advance Scheme. After lapse of 12 years from the date of regularization, the impugned proceedings were issued seeking to alter the date of regularization by relying on G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.06.2004. There is no explanation by the Respondents for the delay of more than 12 years in altering the date of regularization of the Petitioner. 10. The Respondents having accepted the date of regularization as 14.07.2011, having promoted the Petitioner to the cadre of senior Assistant and having granted special grade increment as per Automatic Advance Scheme, could not have turned around at this length of time to alter the date of regularization of the Petitioner. - 11. Similar is the view of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishnu Deo Thakur and another v. State of Bihar and others, 2000 SCC (L&S) 1106 . In the said case, grant of seniority from the date of initial appointment was questioned on the ground that the very appointments were irregular. The Hon’ble Supreme Court negatived the challenge on the ground of delay of more than 20 years. Paragraph 5 thereof is extracted below: 5. This decision is objected to by the petitioners on the ground that the Agriculture Teachers cannot be given seniority from the date of their appointment because their appointments were irregular. This issue has nowhere been referred to as raised by the petitioners; nor is it dealt with by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The appointments were made as far back as 1972-73 and were regularised around 1975. Such appointments cannot now be made the subject-matter of challenge after a lapse of over 20 years. - 12. This issue has nowhere been referred to as raised by the petitioners; nor is it dealt with by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The appointments were made as far back as 1972-73 and were regularised around 1975. Such appointments cannot now be made the subject-matter of challenge after a lapse of over 20 years. - 12. Similar view is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court when challenge to appointment and seniority was made 11 years after the order of appointment in State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik , (1976) 3 SCC 579 and held that the writ petition could not have been entertained after lapse of so many years. The relevant portion of Paragraph 14 thereof is extracted below: 14. ............ The High Court made light of this long and inexplicable delay with a casual remark that the contention was “without any force.” It overlooked that in June, 1974 it was setting aside an appointment dated March, 1962 of a person who had in the meanwhile risen to the rank of a Superintending Engineer. Those 12 long years were as if writ in water. We cannot but express our grave concern that an extraordinary jurisdiction should have been exercised in such an abject disregard of consequences and in favour of persons who were unmindful of their so-called rights for many long years. 13. The second ground is that the Petitioner is not put on notice when regularization is altered. The alteration of date of regularisation without notice cannot be sustained and the impugned proceedings is bad on this count as well. - 14. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 03.02.2023 and 14.06.2023 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.