ORDER : (V. SUJATHA, J.) This Writ Petition came to be 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 Certiorari calling for all the connected records including the impugned proceedings in Roc.No.E2/11921/2011 dated 04.02.2015 and to quash the same as illegal and improper, and further declaring that I am the senior to the third respondent as per the marks obtained in the degree either by excluding the Indian Heritage and Culture and Science and Civilization or including the Indian Heritage and Culture and Science and Civilization by following the uniform policy and pass...” 2. The petitioner herein is a graduate in Bachelor of Arts from Sri Venkateswara University with 82.4% marks and belongs to Scheduled Caste category. In pursuance of a notification issued by the 2 nd respondent on 27.03.2008 for filling up the post of Junior Assistant meant for SCs, the petitioner has applied for the same and after due process of selection, the petitioner was given appointment order vide proceedings dated 23.01.2009 and was selected against roster point No.22/5. Accordingly, the petitioner has joined in the said post on 31.01.2009 and subsequently, her probation was declared by the 2 nd respondent management vide memo dated 15.10.2012 in the cadre of Junior Assistant with effect from 31.01.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has also acquired eligibility for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant by qualifying in the prescribed tests. 3. While the matter stood thus, basing upon the seniority list prepared at the time of petitioner’s appointment, the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 23.11.2012 has promoted the petitioner herein as Senior Assistant and has posted the petitioner to Services Wing (Technical); pursuant to which the petitioner has joined in the said post on 24.11.2012. 3. While the matter stood thus, basing upon the seniority list prepared at the time of petitioner’s appointment, the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 23.11.2012 has promoted the petitioner herein as Senior Assistant and has posted the petitioner to Services Wing (Technical); pursuant to which the petitioner has joined in the said post on 24.11.2012. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent has issued a notice dated 08.11.2013 wherein it is stated that based on a representation submitted by the 3 rd respondent, the recruitment cell of the 2 nd respondent temple has verified all the testimonials and marks memos of the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent herein who were appointed as junior assistants under limited recruitment vide proceedings dated 23.01.2009 and that the percentage of marks secured in their bachelor degrees were calculated and the mistake occurred previously was rectified, as a result of which the seniority of directly recruited junior assistants has been revised duly placing the name of 3 rd respondent above the petitioner herein. Stating thus, the respondent 2 nd respondent has sought for objections from the candidates, if any, pursuant to which the petitioner herein has submitted her objections vide letter dated 26.11.2013 wherein the petitioner has submitted as under: “My seniority has been revised on the grounds that my percentage of marks of Degree examination is less than to the percentage of Smt. K. Archana, Jr. Assistant which has been calculated by excluding the marks of Indian Heritage & Culture and Science & Civilization of Smt. K. Archana, Jr. Assistant and including the same subject marks of myself which is not correct. In this regard, I am to submit that, the percentage of Smt. K. Archana, Jr. Assistant is calculated (excluding the subject marks of Indian Heritage & Culture and Science & Civilization) as 82.6% and my percentage is calculated (including the same subject marks) as 82.4% which is contrary to the natural justice…” 4. After obtaining clarification from the controller of examinations of the respective universities of the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent herein, the 2 nd respondent has issued proceedings dated 04.02.2015 reverting the petitioner herein from the post of Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant on the ground that the 3 rd respondent secured 82.59% whereas the petitioner has secured 82.38%. After obtaining clarification from the controller of examinations of the respective universities of the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent herein, the 2 nd respondent has issued proceedings dated 04.02.2015 reverting the petitioner herein from the post of Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant on the ground that the 3 rd respondent secured 82.59% whereas the petitioner has secured 82.38%. As per Rule 33(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade, shall unless he had reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of petitioner’s appointment, following the marks secured by the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent in their degree, seniority was assigned to the petitioner at serial No.1544 and the 3 rd respondent at serial No.1548, which cannot be altered now by the 2 nd respondent after a lapse of six years.Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.When the writ petition came up for admission on 10.02.2015, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…Prima facie, the seniority list which was finalized on 04.01.2011 had attained finality and there was no appeal against the same. While the petitioner is serving the promotional post as Senior Assistant for about three years, the seniority list could not have been revised in Junior Assistant Cadre. Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner appears to have joined in the reverted post on05.02.2015. However, since the order impugned is not sustainable prima facie, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned proceedings and the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to work in the post of Senior Assistant pending further orders.” 5. The 2 nd and 3 rd respondents herein have filed a detailed counter affidavit, on similar lines, stating that in pursuance of the notification issued by the 2 nd respondent dated 27.03.2008, duly inviting applications from SC and ST candidates for filling up 33 backlog vacancies of Junior Assistant i.e. SC(G)-15 posts, SC(W)-8 posts, ST(G)-7 posts and ST(W)-3 posts, the respondents after following due process of selection issued appointment orders vide proceedings dated 04.02.2015. The merit list was prepared as per the percentage of marks scored by the candidates in their bachelor’s degree.As the petitioner has secured 82.38% in her graduation under SC(W)category, she was assigned the roster point of 22/5 vide proceedings dated 23.01.2009 and her temporary appointment was regularized with probationary rights with effect from 31.01.2009 and was accordingly declared as approved probationer from 31.01.2011. 6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the seniority of junior assistants who were appointed under limited recruitment in the year 2009 was prepared as per the merit order based on the marks secured in their graduation. As per the said merit order, one Kum. K.Madhavi, Junior Assistant who has secured 85.5% in degree and the petitioner herein who secured 82.4% were temporarily promoted as Senior Assistants vide proceedings dated 23.11.2012 under Rule 10(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules , subject to confirmation of seniority to be communicated, claims of seniors and subject to result of court cases and also necessary amendments to the existing TTD Service rules. Accordingly, the petitioner has reported for duty on 24.11.2012. It is further stated that the appointing authority later found that there are some lapses in selection process regarding the roster points earmarked to the categories of SC & ST, i.e., Women and General categories; that after verification, it was noticed that instead of strictly going by the merit list based on the marks secured by the candidates, i.e., merit-wise in both the categories, Sri S.Madhusudhana and 7 other SC candidates; and Sri M.NageswarNaik and 4 other ST candidates, who were down below in order of merit were appointed as Junior Assistants instead of considering other women candidates who were up about in merit list, since they secured high percentage of marks in their graduation. Subsequently, as per the decision taken by 2 nd Respondent, show cause notices were issued to the said 13 less meritorious candidates as detailed below, by proceedings dated 11-03-2010, so as to dispense with their services, thereafter, in response to the show cause notice and based on the material available on record, their services were dispensed with vide proceedings dated 04-01-2011, aggrieved by which the said 13 candidates have filed W.P.No.155 of 2011 before this Court praying to declare the proceedings dated 04.01.2011 through which their services were dispensed with as junior assistants as illegal, arbitrary and sought a direction to the respondents to continue them as junior assistants on the basis of their selection and appointment on 25.01.2009. The said writ petition was dismissed vide orders dated 20.07.2011, which was further carried in a writ appeal vide W.A.No.691 of 2011 in which this Court has issued the following interim order on 30.08.2011: “The respondents are directed to maintain Status-quo as regards the continuation of the service of the appellants.” 7. In pursuance of the interim order dated 30.08.2011, the said13 less meritorious candidates are being continued. It is further stated that the temporary services of the meritorious candidates who were not affected by the termination orders issued by TTD vide proceedings dated 04.01.2011 and who have not approached the Court and have completed more than two years of service in TTD were regularized with probationary rights and were also declared as approved probationers. Some of the said candidates were also promoted to the next cadre as per the seniority reckoned on merit order i.e. based on the marks scored in the graduation, duly applying the provisions of Rule 33(b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules . Pursuant to the same, the petitioner and Kum. K. Madhavi, were promoted as senior assistants. Consequent to effecting the said promotions, the 3 rd respondent has filed a representation on 21.02.2013 for revision of percentage of marks scored by her in graduation course. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner and Kum. K. Madhavi, were promoted as senior assistants. Consequent to effecting the said promotions, the 3 rd respondent has filed a representation on 21.02.2013 for revision of percentage of marks scored by her in graduation course. Accordingly, the Deputy Executive Officer (Recruitments) was directed to verify and inform about the order of merit arrived, who after examining the contents and marks scored by the candidates, the merit list was revised and the same was communicated vide proceedings dated 16.04.2013, wherein the 3 rd respondent and one Smt. B.Jayavani were shown at appropriate and entitled places, after rectifying the mistakes occurred in calculating the percentage of marks. Accordingly, the percentage of marks scored by the 3 rd respondent was revised from 79% to 82.6% and was shown at 3 rd place instead of 6 th place. In pursuance of the said revision of merit order, notices dated 08.11.2013 were issued to the affected persons whose seniority is going to be revised and objections, if any were called. As such, the petitioner herein, on 26.11.2013 has filed her objection contending to calculate the percentage of marks either on the basis of inclusion of marks scored in the subjects like Indian Heritage & Culture and Science & Civilization or by excluding the marks scored in the aforesaid subjects. She further contended that there is no uniformity in arriving at the percentage of marks scored by the candidates. The objection raised by the petitioner was referred to Devasthanams Law Officer (DLO) who opined to reconsider the matter and accordingly, a letter was addressed to the Deputy Executive Officer (Recruitments) for remarks who inturn has addressed a letter to the Controller of Examinations of S.V. University and Osmania University seeking clarity about the percentage of marks scored by the petitioner who graduated from S.V. University and the 3 rd respondent who graduated from Osmania University. 8. It is further stated that after duly obtaining clarity from both the universities in which the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent have studied, it was found that the 3 rd respondent has secured the highest percentage of marks i.e. 82.58% when compared to the petitioner who secured 82.38%. The DLO has also agreed to confirm the percentage of marks in respect of the said individuals as clarified by the Universities concerned. The DLO has also agreed to confirm the percentage of marks in respect of the said individuals as clarified by the Universities concerned. As per Rule 5(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules , for non-selection posts, the promotion to the higher posts shall be made in accordance with seniority-cum-fitness. But, in the instant case, no seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistants has been communicated and confirmed; therefore filing of appeal by the 3 rd respondent does not arise. The petitioner and one Kum. K. Madhavi were promoted as Senior Assistants after completion of three years and since no seniority/no merit order was communicated and no fit list as per seniority was published, the 3rd respondent has not filed any objection prior to effecting promotions to the two individuals. 9. It is further stated that the Government vide circular memo dated 20.05.2004 has issued instructions that no request for revision of settled seniority for a period which is more than three years old shall be considered. The seniority of junior assistants was not communicated and confirmed. The 3 rd respondent has filed a representation dated 06.12.2012 for rectification of the defects in calculating the marks within a period of three months from the date of effecting promotion orders to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 23.11.2012. The petitioner was considered for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant against the roster point 66/VI-SC(W) as per old seniority under rule of reservation. Owing to the said revision in seniority, the 3 rd respondent is to be considered for promotion to the cadres of Senior Assistant, in the place of the petitioner against SC(W) roster point with prospective effect. As two persons cannot be considered against the same roster point, the petitioner has been reverted as Junior Assistant vide speaking orders dated 04.02.2015. It is further stated that the petitioner has no legal or valid right, as such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard Sri. G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for Sri. K. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. N. Chidambara Sastry, learned Standing Counsel for TTD and Sri. J. Sudheer. 11. It is further stated that the petitioner has no legal or valid right, as such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard Sri. G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for Sri. K. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. N. Chidambara Sastry, learned Standing Counsel for TTD and Sri. J. Sudheer. 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit and has further stated that the petitioner, after being appointed as Junior Assistant vide proceedings dated 23.01.2009, was declared as approved probationer vide proceedings dated 15.10.2012. Learned counsel states that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the marks secured in graduated by the individuals was taken into consideration for deciding the merit and as per the same, the petitioner was placed above the 3 rd respondent in the merit list. Vide proceedings dated 04.01.2011, the 2 nd respondent has stated that after verifying the selection proceedings, the merit list is based on the marks secured by the candidates in the degree; wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No.4 with 82.4% and the 3 rd respondent was placed at serial No.10 with 79% of marks. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 23.11.2012, the 2 nd respondent has promoted the petitioner herein to the post of Senior Assistant and accordingly, the petitioner has joined in the said post on 24.11.2012. While the matter stood thus, the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 08.11.2013 wherein it is stated that based on a representation submitted by the 3 rd respondent, the recruitment cell of the 2 nd respondent temple has verified all the testimonials and marks memos of the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent herein who were appointed as junior assistants under limited recruitment vide proceedings dated 23.01.2009 and that the percentage of marks secured in their bachelor degrees were calculated and the mistake occurred previously was rectified, as a result of which the seniority of directly recruited junior assistants has been revised duly placing the name of 3 rd respondent above the petitioner herein. The petitioner has objected for the same vide letter dated 26.11.2013. The petitioner has objected for the same vide letter dated 26.11.2013. The 2 nd respondent, after obtaining clarity from the respective universities in which the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent were graduated, has issued the impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2015 reverting the petitioner herein to the post of Junior Assistant on the ground that the 3 rd respondent has secured 82.59% whereas the petitioner has secured 82.38% of marks. 12. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought the attention of this Court to Rule 33(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules , 1966 as per which the seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he is reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. As such, when the 2 nd respondent, at the time of the petitioner’s appointment has determined the merit marks secured by the individual in the degree to assign the seniority, cannot now alter the said seniority list at the instance of the 3 rd respondent after a lapse of six years. As per Rule 33(b) of the Rules, 1966, once a seniority is fixed at the time of selection, the same cannot be disturbed inter-se with reference to the candidates position in such list. If at all the 3 rd respondent is aggrieved by the said seniority list fixed by the respondent, she could have preferred an appeal as per Rule 26 of the Rules, within a period of three months, which was not preferred by the 3 rd respondent in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in S.B. Dogra V. State of Himachal Pradesh , [1993 (2) All SLJ 92] , wherein it is held as under: “…For that a tentative or provisional gradation list was directed to be prepared with a view to giving an opportunity to the officers whose seniority was determined in the list to make their representations in order to satisfy the Government regarding any mistake or error that may have crept in. If the employee concerned did not file his representation within the period prescribed after the date of the publication of the provisional gradation list, then his representation should have been rejected outright. If the employee concerned did not file his representation within the period prescribed after the date of the publication of the provisional gradation list, then his representation should have been rejected outright. It is erroneous to contend that the employee concerned should have waited for filing his representation or objection until the final gradation list was published. Therefore, the representation filed by the respondent long after the expiry of the time mentioned in the gazette publishing the provisional gradation list was rejected as related…” Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2015. 13. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent on the other hand has reiterated the grounds raised in the counter affidavit and has further stated that subsequent to effecting promotion to the petitioner herein to the cadre of Senior Assistant, the 3 rd respondent has filed a representation dated 21.02.2013 for revision of percentage of marks scored in her graduation course, in pursuance of which upon the letter addressed by the Deputy Executive Officer (Recruitments), the recruitment wing has revised the merit list vide proceedings dated 16.04.2013 as per which the 3 rd respondent was placed at 3 rd place instead of 6 th place. As such, notice dated 08.11.2013 were issued to the affected individuals due to the revision of merit list which includes the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner vide letter dated 26.11.2013 has contended that the calculation of percentage should be based either with inclusion of marks scored in the subjects like Indian Heritage & Culture and Science & Civilization or by excluding the marks scored in the aforesaid subjects and that it should be the same for both the persons. Pursuant to the same, the DLO has addressed a letter to the Deputy Executive Officer (Recruitments) calling for remarks and accordingly a letter was addressed to the controller of examinations of the respective universities in which the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent have graduated, seeking clarity with regard to the percentage of marks scored by the individuals. Upon clarification from the respective universities, it was found that the 3 rd respondent has secured 82.58% of marks and the petitioner has secured 82.38% of marks. Hence, the seniority list was revised and the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant. 14. Upon clarification from the respective universities, it was found that the 3 rd respondent has secured 82.58% of marks and the petitioner has secured 82.38% of marks. Hence, the seniority list was revised and the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant. 14. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the 3 rd respondent has not filed any appeal against the seniority list of Junior Assistants, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as per Rule 5(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules , in respect of non-selection posts all appointment by promotion to higher posts shall be made in accordance with seniority-cum-fitness and as per the eligibility list prepared from the cadre of Junior Assistants, however, in the present case, no seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistants was communicated nor confirmed and as such, the question of filing an appeal by the 3 rd respondent does not arise. Since no seniority list/merit list was published, the 3 rd respondent has not filed any objection prior to effecting promotion to the petitioner. Even as per memo dated 20.05.2004, the Government has instructed that no request for revision of settled seniority for a period which is more than three years old shall be considered. The 3 rd respondent has filed her representation on 06.12.2012 which is within three months from the date of issuance of promotion to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 23.11.2012. He further stated that the respondents have followed the due procedure while issuing the impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2015 by reverting the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant and the same warrants no interference of this Court. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 15. On a perusal of the material available on record it can be understood that in response to a notification issued by the 2 nd respondent on 27.03.2008 for filling the post of Junior Assistant reserved for SCs, the petitioner has applied and was selected after due selection process. On 23.01.2009 she received the appointment order, and was appointed against roster point No. 22/5. The petitioner has joined the post on 31.01.2009, and her probation was declared by the 2 nd respondent on 15.10.2012, effective from the same date. On 23.01.2009 she received the appointment order, and was appointed against roster point No. 22/5. The petitioner has joined the post on 31.01.2009, and her probation was declared by the 2 nd respondent on 15.10.2012, effective from the same date. After qualifying the prescribed tests, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and accordingly, on 23.11.2012, the 2 nd respondent promoted the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant, posting her to the Services Wing (Technical), where she assumed the said charge on 24.11.2012. However, in November 2013, pursuant to a representation made by the 3 rd respondent, the 2 nd respondent reviewed the marks and testimonials of both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, identifying the discrepancy in the calculation of their degree marks, leading to the 3rd respondent being ranked above the petitioner in the seniority list. The 2nd respondent issued a notice calling for objections, from the 3 rd respondent and other candidates including the petitioner for which the petitioner submitted her objections on 26.11.2013. After obtaining clarification from the universities, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings on 04.02.2015, reverting the petitioner from Senior Assistant back to Junior Assistant. 16. As rightly pointed out by learned Standing Counsel, as per Rule 5(b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules , promotions to higher posts in non-selection categories must follow the principle of seniority- cum-fitness, based on the eligibility list prepared from the cadre of Junior Assistants. However, in the present case, no seniority list or merit list for the Junior Assistants was communicated or confirmed till 04.02.2015. Hence, after identifying a discrepancy in the calculation of degree marks of the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent, in pursuance of the representation submitted by the 3 rd respondent after duly calling for the objections from the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent was placed above the petitioner in the seniority list. Even otherwise, the 3rd respondent did not have an opportunity to file an appeal or objection against the seniority list which was prepared initially basing on the merit secured by the candidates, as no such list was available at that time. Furthermore, according to the Government’s memo dated 20.05.2004, no revision of settled seniority for periods older than three years would be entertained. Furthermore, according to the Government’s memo dated 20.05.2004, no revision of settled seniority for periods older than three years would be entertained. The 3rd respondent’s representation was made on 06.12.2012, within three months from the date of the petitioner’s promotion on 23.11.2012, which falls within the stipulated period for raising such concerns. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the 2nd respondent, by duly following the appropriate procedure, has issued the proceedings dated 04.02.2015, hence, the impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2015 warrants no interference by this Court. 18. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Petition, shall stand closed.