Order : (K. MANMADHA RAO, J.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents call for the entire records leading up to issuing of the G.O.Ms.No.153, dated 5.10.2018 issued by the respondent declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law Violation of the Principal of Natural Justice and set aside the same on the basis of seniority of promotion to the petitioner on the date of joining and respondents not follow the procedure while fixing the seniority and effecting promotion to the post of Inspector of Police as Deputy Superintendent of Police ….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner studied B.Sc., and the respondent authorities issued police recruitment for the selection of Sub-Inspector of Police vide Notification Rc.No.9/R&T 11-1/93, dated 07.07.1993. The petitioner applied for the said post and got selected. Thereafter, the petitioner joined induction training at Hyderabad on 16.08.1995 at Andhra Pradesh Police Academy (for short “APPA”). After completion of training, the petitioner joined as Sub-Inspector of Police at Peddamandayam Police Station, Chittoor district in the year 1997 and got promoted as Inspector of Police on 18.08.2009 and the said probation period had been completed on 17.08.2010. While so, the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors has been prepared on the date of petitioner’s appointment by the Range DIGs/IGs of the state and the same was communicated to respective Zonal Sub-Inspectors. The Range DIGs/IGs office prepared the seniority list for the year 1995 and 1996 was clubbed on the plea that they were selected on the same notification. Further, the DIGs/IGs office prepared seniority list of Inspector of Police vide G.O.Ms.No.153, dated 05.10.2018 as per the directions of APAT vide order dated 22.03.2006 in O.A.No.1509 of 2006. Questioning the above said G.O., the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Further, the DIGs/IGs office prepared seniority list of Inspector of Police vide G.O.Ms.No.153, dated 05.10.2018 as per the directions of APAT vide order dated 22.03.2006 in O.A.No.1509 of 2006. Questioning the above said G.O., the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that as per the directions of the APAT, the Government vide Memo No.30958/Legal-I/A1/2005, dated 13.07.2006 have observed that “two sets of Sub-Inspectors were recruited pursuant to one notification and the candidates were selected from 1995 selection list, but they were sent for training in the year 1996 and the difference in dates of training or examination between the above two sets of Sub-Inspectors is only administrative in nature and as such all the applicants in O.A.No.1509/2006 are entitled to seniority along with 1995 batch Sub-Inspectors of Police by interspersing them at their rightful places taking PTC/APPA marks into account other things being equal. In pursuance of orders issued by DGP, AP vide Memo Rc.No.1300/E1/2006, dated 01.12.2006, in respect of fixation of seniority is applicable to all such Sub-Inspectors of 1995 batch along with the 1995 1 st batch of Sub-Inspectors of Police by interspersing them at their rightful places taking PTC marks into account other things being equal. As per the above instructions, show cause notice vide C.No.C1/197/2005, dated 11.12.2006 of DIG, Kurnool Range was issued to all effected Sub-Inspectors including the petitioner by calling objections if any in re-fixation of seniority. It is further stated that no objections were received from any Sub-Inspectors including the petitioner, the final orders on the show cause notice was issued vide C.No.C1/197/2005 (ROO No.45/2007), dated 09.02.2007 of DIG, Kurnool Range by re-fixation of seniority of the above Sub-Inspectors who were undergone nine months training from 11.11.1996 to 30.09.1997 recruited in the same notification and selected in the year 1995 selection list is interspersed at their rightful places taking into APPA marks along with the Sub-Inspectors who undergone nine months basic training from 16.08.1995 to 15.06.1996 and from 02.01.1996 to 08.11.1996 in A.P. Police Academy as issued instructions by the Government Memo No.30958/Legal-1/A1/2005, dated 13.07.2006 and Chief Office Endt.No.1533/E1/2005, dated 22.07.2006. 4. Heard Mr.P.V.Venkata Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for the respondents. 5. 4. Heard Mr.P.V.Venkata Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 2 nd respondent office prepared promotion list of Deputy Superintendent of Police in respect of 1996 batch ignoring the batch of 1955, which is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the petitioner made representations dated 07.12.2019 and 10.12.2019 to the Superintendent of Police and the 2 nd respondent prepared the promotion list without considering the petitioner’s representation and issued promotions to other persons without considering the merit list. He further submits that the petitioner is eligible for the promotion of Deputy Superintendent of Police, but the 2 nd respondent did not considered the representation and not confirmed the promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He further submits that the respondents have to prepare seniority list of promotion by considering the date of joining, but they have not followed the procedure while fixing the seniority and effecting promotion to the post of Inspector of Police as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He further submits that, though the petitioner is eligible for promotion, the respondents deliberately discriminated the petitioner and thereby regularized few of employees, who are very juniors and as such the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court passed Judgment in Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 of 2019 has held that “Seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent was not borne in service” and shall be determined by the order in which appointments are made to the service. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the common order of this Court dated 15.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.24572 of 2021 and batch, wherein this Court held as follows: “Therefore, on perusing the material on record and by observing the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit ’s case (supra 4), this Court is of the opinion that, once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. Further it is also to be noted that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.” Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to allow the writ petition. 8. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, as per the orders issued by the Government and Chief Office, the seniority of 16 Sub-Inspectors who were appointed w.e.f. 02.01.1996, one Sub-Inspector who was appointed w.e.f. 09.01.1996 and eight Sub-Inspectors who were appointed w.e.f. 11.11.1996 were interspersed in the seniority list along with 50 Sub-Inspectors of 1995 batch (who were appointed w.e.f. 16.08.1995) as per their marks of APPA by issuing show cause notice vide C.No.C1/197/2005, dated 11.12.2006 by calling objections if any on the re-fixation of the seniority and since no objections were received from anyone, final orders were issued vide Proceedings C.No.C1/197/2005 (ROO No.45/2007), dated 09.02.2007 of DIG, Kurnool Range. He further submits that, basing on the above revised seniority list, the promotions to the posts of Inspectors of Police were affected. The year wise seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Zone-IV (Kurnool and Ananthapuramu Ranges) for the years 1991-1192 to 2010-2011 was prepared for the preparation of notional seniority in the rank of Inspector of Police. The year wise panels were prepared in the rank of Inspector of Police (Civil) and submitted to the Government during the year 2014. In turn, the Government approved the same vide G.O.Ms.No.54, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 22.02.2014. He further submits that the petitioner did not submit any objections on the re-fixation of seniority of the above Sub-Inspectors along with 1995 batch Sub-Inspectors and also at the time of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 22.02.2014. While preparing year wise panels from 1972-1973 to 2010-2011 for the revision of above said G.O., the above seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Zone-IV (Kurnool and Ananthapuramu) taken into consideration and prepared the year wise panels in the rank of Inspector of Police (Civil) from 1972-1973 to 2010-2011. While preparing year wise panels from 1972-1973 to 2010-2011 for the revision of above said G.O., the above seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Zone-IV (Kurnool and Ananthapuramu) taken into consideration and prepared the year wise panels in the rank of Inspector of Police (Civil) from 1972-1973 to 2010-2011. He further submits that, according to the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors and vacancy position, the seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil), which was issued earlier vide G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 22.02.2014 was revised and accordingly published by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.153, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 05.10.2018. In the said seniority lists, the names of Sub-Inspectors for the year 1995-1996, the first person is proposed in the year wise panels, in the panel year 2007-2008 w.e.f. 20.11.2007 whereas the petitioner is proposed in the panel year 2008-2009 w.e.f. 01.03.2009 according to the seniority and eligibility. He further submits that, as per Government Memo No.57755/Ser-A/2004-1, dated 20.03.2004, no request for revision of seniority for a period which is more than three years old shall be considered. However, in the present case, the petitioner made request for fixation of seniority in the rank Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) after lapse of more than 23 years. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the record. 10. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and got selected and joined induction training at Hyderabad on 16.08.1995 at Andhra Pradesh Police Academy. The seniority of Sub-Inspectors who were appointed w.e.f. 02.01.1996, 09.01.1996 and 11.11.1996 were interspersed in the seniority list along with Sub-Inspectors of 1995 batch as per their marks of APPA. According to list of Sub-Inspectors and vacancy position, the seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil), which was issued earlier vide G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 22.02.2014 was revised and accordingly published by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.153, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 05.10.2018, wherein the names of Sub-Inspectors belonging to 1995-1996 batch, the first person proposed in the year wise panel in 2007-2008, whereas the petitioner was proposed in the panel year 2008-2009. 11. 11. In a Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association versus State of Maharashtra and others , [ (1990) 2 SCC 715 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “..Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.” 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Direct Recruit ’s case (stated supra), this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner herein is entitled to seniority of the promotion on the date of joining by fixing the seniority. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned G.O.Ms.No.153. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.153, Home (Services-I) Department, dated 05.10.2018 issued by the 1 st respondent is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the petitioner from the date of joining for effecting promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.