JUDGMENT : BATTU DEVANAND, J. 1. These Writ Appeals are filed aggrieved by the interim order, dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.21099 of 2025. 2. Since the facts in all these Writ Appeals are similar, therefore, W.A.No.983 of 2025 is taken as the lead case, and the facts stated therein are hereinafter referred to for convenience. 3. Heard Sri Srinivas Dammalapati, learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for the appellants and Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, Sri A.Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 6 and Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.7. Perused the material available on record. 4. The facts leading to filing of W.A.No.983 of 2025 are herein under:- The 1 st Respondent herein/writ petitioner has filed W.P.No.21099 of 2025 aggrieved by the Memo.No.REV01-LANA/645/2025-SER-II, dated 31.07.2025 upholding the proceedings issued by the appellants herein rejecting the 1 st respondent claim for consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector in the coming DPC constituted vide G.O.Rt.No.609 Revenue (Services-I) Department dated 19.06.2024. After hearing, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order, dated 13.08.2025 directed the appellants herein to consider the case of 1 st respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector with reference to actual completion of two years of service as required under the Rules considering the peculiar circumstances. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein filed I.A.No.02 of 2025 and Respondent No.7 filed I.A.No.07 of 2025 seeking to implead them as respondents in the writ petition and the said applications were ordered by the Court. The impleaded respondents also filed interlocutory applications vide I.A.Nos.3 and 8 of 2025 seeking to vacate the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.08.2025 and the appellants herein also filed I.A.Nos.04 & 05 of 2025 seeking to vacate the said interim order. 5. The impleaded respondents also filed interlocutory applications vide I.A.Nos.3 and 8 of 2025 seeking to vacate the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.08.2025 and the appellants herein also filed I.A.Nos.04 & 05 of 2025 seeking to vacate the said interim order. 5. The learned Single Judge having considered the submissions of the respective counsels appeared therein and after perusing the material available on record and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied by the learned counsels appearing on both sides dismissed the vacate petitions and directed the appellants to consider the case of the Respondent No.1 and the similarly situated persons for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Collector taking the notional date of officiation as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.428 dated 08.06.2022 from 01.09.2008 in the cadre of Tahsildar including for calculating the qualifying service from the said date. The learned Single Judge by exercising inherent power conferred of this Court extended the validity of panel year of 2024-25 by a further period of three (03) weeks. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.Nos.3,4,5 and 8 of 2025, the present Appeals have been filed. 6. Having considered the submissions of the respective counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, particularly the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 29.08.2025, wherein the vacate petitions are dismissed, it appears that admittedly the 1 st respondent along with others was appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO) on 05.03.2005 vide Proceedings in Rc.No.187/2005-A7, dated 26.02.2005 pursuant to the Notification No.10 of 1999 issued by the A.P Public Service Commission. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and worked in both cadre for more than 16 years and also become eligible to be promoted as Commercial Tax Officer(CTO). The selection process taken up under Notification No.10/1999 was challenged before this Court and the matter went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5099 of 2006, wherein the Apex Court held that G.O.Ms.No.124, dated 07.03.2022 is only prospective and it cannot be applied retrospectively and further directed to conduct the selections as per the rules in vogue as on the date of notification and accordingly the seniority shall be based on the merit ranking obtained in the selection process. 7. 7. In view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5099 of 2006, the A.P.P.S.C has prepared a fresh merit list. The Respondent No.1 was allotted to the Revenue Department and posted as probationary Deputy Tahsildar on 08.09.2021 vide CCLA’s Ref.No.SER.II(1)/560/2017, dated 11.08.2021 and after completion of training, departmental tests and probation period in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar, he was promoted as Tahsildar. Subsequently, Appellant No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.428 Revenue (Services-II) Department, dated 08.06.2022, fixing the date of officiation as 01.09.2008. Vide the said G.O., permission was accorded to the CCLA to adjust the probationary Deputy Tahsildars appointed in 2 nd and 3 rd rounds as per Rule 24 (C) of the Rules, 1996 and mentioned that date of officiation is to be fixed notionally as on 01.09.2008 in the cadre of Tahsildar for the candidates who were appointed in 2 nd and 3 rd rounds in relaxation of rule 33(a) of A.P State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 subject to eligibility of the candidates on par with their batch mates within prescribed time. 8. The contention of the 1 st respondent herein is that once the notional date of officiation is fixed the same shall be taken up for consideration for computing the qualifying length of service in the feeder category for promotion to the higher category and the said notional service shall be counted for the purpose of declaration of probation also in the feeder category. As such, the appellants has to consider the request of the 1 st respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector. 9. Admittedly, the main Writ Petition is pending as on today. At the stage of admission, the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition itself passed an interim order on 13.08.2025, wherein the appellants are directed to consider the case of Respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector with reference to actual completion of two (02) years of service. The vacate petitions filed by the official and unofficial respondents were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 29.08.2025. 10. Upon careful examination of the material available on record, it is clear that the 1 st respondent/Writ Petitioner did not complete his two (02) years of service in the cadre of Tahsildar. He worked more than 16 years as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. 10. Upon careful examination of the material available on record, it is clear that the 1 st respondent/Writ Petitioner did not complete his two (02) years of service in the cadre of Tahsildar. He worked more than 16 years as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. As per the rules in vogue, for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector one has to complete two (02) years of service in the cadre of Tahsildar. Admittedly, the 1 st respondent has not completed two (02) years of service as Tahsildar, as such he is not entitled for the post of Deputy Collector. 11. However, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh would submit that after appointing the 1 st respondent in the cadre of Tahsildar in compliance of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court he was placed above the implead petitioners. As on today in the seniority list, the 1 st respondent is placed above than the implead petitioners. The learned Advocate General further submits that after completion of two (02) years of service in the cadre of Tahsildar, the 1 st respondent and similarly situated persons will be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector subject to otherwise they are eligible, for the panel year 2025-26 and they will be promoted by July, 2026. Thereafter, 1 st respondent will be placed above than the implead petitioners in the seniority list of the Deputy Collector. 12. The statement made by the learned Advocate General has to be considered as a statement made by the State. Accordingly, the statement made by the learned Advocate General is placed on record. 13. Sri A.Satya Prasad and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsels for Respondent Nos.2 to 7 would submit that as per the statement made by the learned Advocate General, the name of the 1 st respondent has to be placed above Respondent Nos.2 to 7 after effecting promotions to them for the panel year 2025-26. 14. 13. Sri A.Satya Prasad and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsels for Respondent Nos.2 to 7 would submit that as per the statement made by the learned Advocate General, the name of the 1 st respondent has to be placed above Respondent Nos.2 to 7 after effecting promotions to them for the panel year 2025-26. 14. In view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General that after completion of two (02) years of service of the 1 st respondent in the cadre of Tahsildar he will be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector for the panel year 2025-26 and he will be placed above than the implead petitioners, in our considered view no prejudice will be caused to the 1 st respondent. In view of the interim order of this Court, the entire process of promotion to the post of Deputy Collectors are stalled and admittedly, the panel year 2024-25 expired and the extension of validity of the panel year granted by the learned Single Judge also expired. 15. In view of the aforesaid mentioned facts and reasons, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge on 29.08.2025 in I.A.Nos.3,4,5 and 8 of 2025 in W.P.No.21099 of 2025 and order, dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Court in W.P.No.21099 of 2025 against which the vacate petitions are filed in I.A.Nos.3,4,5 and 8 of 2025. 16. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.08.2025 in I.A.Nos.3,4,5 and 8 of 2025 in W.P.No.21099 of 2025 and order, dated 13.08.2025 in W.P.No.21099 of 2025 are hereby set aside. The validity of the panel year of 2024-25 is hereby extended for a period of four (04) weeks from today. 17. With the above directions, the Writ Appeals are allowed. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.