ORDER : K Manmadha Rao, J. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the Respondents in preparing and issuing final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers (Zonal, i.e., in so far as Zone-IV is concerned and integrated) prepared as per the length of service by Proceedings No.8844/CS1/2020, dated 30.11.2020 issued by the 1 st Respondent instead of preparing as per Rules 33, 33(b, proviso to Rule 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules is concerned, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rules 33, 33(b), proviso to Rule 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules and issue consequential direction directing the Respondents to forthwith review the final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers (Zonal i.e., in so far as Zone-IV is concerned and integrated) issued in Proceedings No.8844/CS1/2020, dated 30.11.2020 in terms of Rules 33, 33(b), proviso to Rule 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules by taking into account date of joining of Smt. Kambam Devika, i.e., 05.04.2013 in pursuance of the promotion order issued in Proceedings No.444/CS1/2013, dated 04.04.2013 and assigning the same date to Sri Madine Narayana Swamy also as well as the Petitioners including Smt. Kambam Devika, and further direct the Respondents from restraining to effect promotions to the post of Executive Engineers till reviewing the final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers (Zonal i.e., in so far as Zone-IV is concerned and integrated) prepared as per the length of service by Proceedings No.8844/CS1/2020, dated 30.11.2020 issued by the 1 st Respondent in terms of Rules 33, 33(b), proviso to Rule 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules by taking into account the date of joining of Smt.Kambam Devika, i.e., 05.04.2013 and assigning the same date to Sri Madine Narayana Swamy as well as Petitioners including Smt Kambam Devika ….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers in the year 2007 in the Public Health Department except the 5 th petitioner in the year 2008, in pursuance of selection made by A.P. Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in Public Health Department, whereas the 3 rd petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 in the Municipal Administration Department. Both the Deputy Executive Engineers (for short “DEE”) working in Public Health Department as well as Municipal Administration Department are eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer based on the combined integrated seniority list quota fixed in terms of the Special Rules. All the petitioners were promoted as DEEs in Public Health Department and Municipal Administration Department vide DPC recommendation vide Proceedings No.444/CS1/2013, dated 04.04.2013 in pursuance of including their names for the panel year 2012-2013. After receiving promotion orders dated 04.04.2013, the 1 st four petitioners joined on 06.04.2013, whereas the 5 th petitioner joined on 08.04.2013. While so, one M.Narayana Swamy, who belongs to reserved category, whose name placed at Serial No.1, in the order of promotion, dated 04.04.2013 joined on 07.04.2013. On the ground that M.Narayana Swamy is placed at Serial No.1, the authorities determined the seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers reckoning the seniority of DEEs only with effect from 07.04.2013. The 1 st respondent vide proceedings No.8844/CS1/2020, dated 28.10.2020 communicated the provisional seniority list of DEE (Zonal and integrated) as per the length of service, wherein the 1 st respondent issued the zonal seniority of DEEs for Zone-IV and other zones and the said provisional integrated seniority list dated 28.10.2020 discloses that the seniority list was prepared based on the length of service, but not as per Rules 33, 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules . The petitioners have submitted their objections to the aforesaid provisional seniority list of DEEs at zonal level as well as state level and requested to determine the seniority of the petitioners without reference to length of service and follow Rules 33, 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules by making representations dated 10.11.2020, 11.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 respectively. The 1 st respondent without application of mind, without giving any reasons, has rejected the objections submitted by the petitioners vide proceedings dated 30.11.2020. The 1 st respondent without application of mind, without giving any reasons, has rejected the objections submitted by the petitioners vide proceedings dated 30.11.2020. On the same day itself, the 1 st respondent issued final integrated state-wide seniority list of DEEs based on length of service vide proceedings No.8844/CS1/2023. Subsequently, the petitioners made representation to the Government requesting not to give effect to the seniority list issued by the 1 st respondent vide proceedings dated 30.11.2020. Aggrieved by the action of the 1 st respondent in issuing final seniority list vide proceedings dated 30.11.2020, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 1 st respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that, as per Rule 33(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules , the appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason, the order of preference among them, and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it. It is further stated that, as per Rule 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules , the integrated or common seniority list of a particular class, or category or grade in any service belonging to different units of appointment has to be prepared for the purpose of promotion or appointment by transfer to a class or category having different units of appointment or for any other purpose, such an integrated or common seniority list shall be prepared with reference to the seniority list of the persons inter-se belonging to the same units shall not be disturbed. The Zone is the criteria for the purpose of recruitment, promotion, seniority, discharge and appointment, etc, in respect of the post of DEE as per the presidential order. It is further stated that, based on the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the promotions were considered on 04.04.2013 to the post of DEE. In these promotions, the top most approved candidate under Zone-IV was M.Narayana Swamy and his date of joining in the promotion post of DEE was 07.04.2013. It is further stated that, based on the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the promotions were considered on 04.04.2013 to the post of DEE. In these promotions, the top most approved candidate under Zone-IV was M.Narayana Swamy and his date of joining in the promotion post of DEE was 07.04.2013. This date is assigned to the subsequent approved candidates (juniors) to M.Narayana Swamy in the seniority list of DEE to maintain the order/seriatum of the panel approved by the Department Promotion Committee (DPC). Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared virtually through video conferencing and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 1 st respondent alone prepared seniority list in the cadre of DEEs at Zonal level as well as at state level and reckoned the seniority of the petitioners only with effect from the actual date of joining of M.Narayana Swamy i.e., 07.04.2013 to all the petitioners, which is contrary to the statutory rules. He further submits that, one Deputy Executive Engineer by name K.Devika, who joined on 05.04.2013, but very unreasonably the authorities reckoned the seniority with effect from the original date of joining of M.Narayana Swamy i.e., 07.04.2013, even though the date of joining is not at all criterion to determine the seniority. He further submits that it is very unfortunate on the part of the 1 st respondent in initiating action in preparing seniority list in such a irregular, illegal manner, even though the issue with regard to seniority was settled number of occasions with regard to criterion to be followed and rules to be followed and nowhere no Court has accepted any seniority prepared based on the length of service, more particularly when the Rules are very much governed to determine the seniority of the employees in so far as the petitioners are concerned, in terms of Rules 33, 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules . He further submits that even though the petitioners has submitted their objections by way of representations, the 1 st respondent without giving any reasons has rejected the objections submitted by the petitioners in a casual manner, without examining the contents raised by the petitioners with reference to the rules, the 1 st respondent with bereft of reasons issued proceedings dated 30.11.2020. He further submits that, the 1 st respondent on the same date i.e., on 30.11.2020, issued final integrated state- wide seniority list of DEEs based on length of service, despite the fact that preparing such seniority based on length of service is contrary to statutory rules issued under proviso to Article 309 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules , apart from contrary to well settled law laid down by the Constitutional Courts in catena of decisions. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the petitioners are contending to take date of joining of K.Devika, who joined as DEEs on 05.04.2013 for determination of seniority of DEE under Zone-IV. He further submits that, K.Devika was also approved below the name of M.Narayana Swamy in the DEE promotions panel, which was approved by the DPC. The juniors approved below the name of M.Narayana Swamy in the approved panel should not be placed above the name of top most approved candidate at any cost, even though they are joined in the promotion post of DEE prior to M.Narayana Swamy as it hampers the sanctity of the approval of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Hence, the petitioners cannot compare the different joining dates of the subsequent approved juniors of M.Narayana Swamy. He further submits that, M.Narayana Swamy belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and his name was approved at top by DPC under ST roster point under Rule of Reservation in the 2013 Batch DEE promotions. The provisional seniority list of DEE is prepared as per the order of approved panel of the DEEs promotions as per Rule 33 and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and as per the length of service. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. The provisional seniority list of DEE is prepared as per the order of approved panel of the DEEs promotions as per Rule 33 and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and as per the length of service. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, proviso to Rule 33 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules reads as follows: “ 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. Provided that the seniority of a probationer or approved probationer in a service, class or category from which he stood reverted on the 1 st November, 1956 or prior to that date, shall be determined in the statewide gazetted posts in the Departments of the Secretariat and the offices of the Heads of Departments with reference to the notional date of continuous officiation with or without breaks in that service, class or category prior to the 1st November, 1956 to the date of re-appointment made thereafter, but it shall not disturb inter-seniority which obtained in the Andhra State. (This proviso shall be in force till 31st October, 1996). (b) The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason, the order of preference among them; and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it. Provided that the order of merit or order of preference indicated in a list of selected candidates prepared by the Public Service Commission or other selecting authority, shall not be disturbed inter-se with reference to the candidates position in such list or panel while determining the seniority in accordance with this rule and notional dates of commencement of probation to the extent necessary, shall be assigned to the person concerned, with reference to the order of merit or order of preference assigned to them in the said list.” 9. It is pertinent to mention here that, Rule 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules reads as follows: “ 34. PREPARATION OF INTEGRATED OR COMMON SENIORITY LIST OF PERSONS BELONGING TO DIFFERENT UNITS OF APPOINTMENT: Where as integrated or common seniority list of a particular class, or category or grade in any service belonging to different units of appointment has to be prepared for the purpose of promotion or appointment by transfer to a class or category having different units of appointment or for any other purpose, such an integrated or common seniority list shall be prepared with reference to the provision of sub-rule (a) of rule 33, provided that the seniority list of the persons inter-se belonging to the same units shall not be disturbed.” 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, it appears that, the 1 st respondent alone prepared the seniority list in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers at zonal levels as well as at state level and reckoned the seniority of the petitioners only with effect from the actual date of joining of M.Narayana Swamy i.e., 07.04.2013 to all the petitioners, which is contrary to the statutory rules. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that, the respondents have prepared the final seniority list as per the length of service, instead of preparing as per Rules 33, 33 (b) and 34 of A.P. State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide No.5544/CS1/2020, dated 30.11.2020 issued by the 1 st respondent. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings vide No.5544/CS1/2020, dated 30.11.2020 issued by the 1 st respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to prepare a fresh final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers in terms of Rules 33, 33(b) and Rule 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules , in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.