ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. The 2 nd respondent - Directorate of Insurance issued proceedings dated 08.09.2016, impugned in this Writ Petition, whereby and whereunder the services of petitioner – Senior Assistant , District Insurance Office, Khammam (Zone- V) have been regularized in the category of Senior Account with effect from 07.09.2010 and placed on probation for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years with instructions to pass the requisite departmental tests during the period of probation. It is stated that petitioner completed two years or probation by 06.09.2012 but he could not pass the requisite departmental tests during the said two year period, as such after obtaining explanation from the individual, probation was extended for a period with effect from 07.09.2012 in terms of General Rule 17(b) of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The said extended period of probation has also been completed by 06.09.2013, however, petitioner acquired departmental tests by 10.02.2014 i.e. beyond five months after the extended period of probation. Therefore, his case has been referred to the government which advised to take action as per Rule 16(h) for declaration of their probation considering the date of publication of result of last examination which would be two years anterior to the said date for commencement of probation. Therefore, the date of commencement of probation and the date of declaration in respect of petitioner is fixed under Rule 16(h) as 23.02.2012 FN and 23.02.2014 FN respectively. Consequently, seniority would be determined in the category of Senior Accountant in Zone-V with effect from 23.02.2012. 2. The grievance of petitioner is that the date mentioned in the impugned proceedings is not the date of regularization of services and commencement of probation and the change of date would deprive his allowances and also seniority in service. According to petitioner, his appointment was conditioned that he should clear departmental examinations under the Service Rules within three years ie. with an appearance of six departmental tests or two tests in a year. While two sessions of departmental tests are mandatory in a year or six departmental tests sessions in three years, the Government could conduct only four departmental tests within a period of 2010 to 2013 due to Telangana agitations during that period. Apart from the above, he was also put to another inconvenience ie. While two sessions of departmental tests are mandatory in a year or six departmental tests sessions in three years, the Government could conduct only four departmental tests within a period of 2010 to 2013 due to Telangana agitations during that period. Apart from the above, he was also put to another inconvenience ie. he should mandatorily appear for Accountant test Sub-ordinate Part-II and Departmental tests for the Employment of Andhra Pradesh life Insurance Paper-I, though he applied for two tests, could not appear to one of the Test Paper-I, due to the same date and timing, as such, petitioner mandatorily needed to appear and pass in another session of Departmental Test. Petitioner was deprived of two sessions due to Telangana agitation and one session due to the time table scheme of Departmental test by the APPSC which deprived him to pass the department test in the given probation period under 16(a) and 17(b) under the rules of AP Sub-ordinate service rules, 1996. In case the departmental Exams are not cleared within three years, the service to the probation will fall under 16(h) along the Governors Rule 31 for the probation but not to the seniority. Petitioner cleared the tests vide Notification No. 09 of 2013 with the results declared on 10-02-2014 which is nothing but the Fifth session of Departmental Tests to his appointment. As such, respondents over-looked the number of Sessions of departmental test to the period of Probation and not considering the agitations of Telangana, and the above time table scheme in considering the appointment of seniority i.e. from 07.09.2010 to 23.02.2012. Respondent 2 and 3 applying Rule 16(h) for extension of probation only provided for the continuation of services of the individual but not for deprivation of seniority in the circumstances of involuntary losing of sessions of taking the Departmental test for no fault of petitioner, hence, the action of Respondents 2 and 3 is highly erroneous, arbitrary and against o the principle of nature justice. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that petitioner was selected and allotted to A.P. Government Life Insurance Department to the post of Senior Accountant vide proceedings dated 15-06-2007 and under Rule 16 (a) of A.P. State and Sub-ordinate service Rules, 1996 read with Rule (7) of Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance (Sub) Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.289, Finance & Planning (FW. Admn-II) Department, dated. 18-10-1983. Accordingly, appointment orders were issued to the above candidate vide Director of Insurance Proceeding No. (570), dated 09-08-2010 in the united state of Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted that the applicant was regularized and placed on probation on 07-09-2010 vide this Director of Insurance proceeding dated 11-10-2012 in the category of Senior Accountant under Rule 16 (b) of A.P. State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996 read with Rule 7 of Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance (Sub) Service Rules for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years, with a condition to pass the departmental tests ie. Insurance and Book keeping and Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-1, during the period of probation, as the said tests are prescribed for declaration of probation, but he could not pass the requisite departmental tests during the said probation period, as such after obtaining explanation from the individual, his probation has been extended for a period w.e.f. 07-09-2012 in terms of General Rule 17 (b) of A. P. State and subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The said extended period of probation has also been completed by 06-09-2013. The applicant had acquired the departmental tests by 10-02-2014 (date of publication of result of last examination) i.e. beyond five months after the extended period of probation and the same was referred to the Government vide Letter dated 17-09-2014 for declaration of probation. Petitioner failed to attend Departmental Tests up to May 2013 for the reasons best known to him. It is also stated that after the correspondence made with Government from time to time, the Government declared probation of the applicant as per Rule 16 (h) for declaration of probation, considering the date of publication of result of last examination which would be two years anterior to the said date for commencement of probation vide Government Memo dated 01-08-2016 in the category of Senior Accountant. It is further stated that under Rule 16 (h), a probationer, who does not pass the prescribed tests or acquire the prescribed special qualifications within the period of probation or within the extended period of probation under rule 17 and whose probation is further extended by the Government by an order under Rule 31 till the date of his passing such tests or acquiring such qualifications, shall have to be commenced the probation with effect from the date to be fixed by the Government, which would be anterior to a date of his passing such tests or acquiring such special qualification and the same is considered by the Government without any deviation. As such, applicant’s declaration of probation was done vide Proceedings impugned duly considering the date of qualifying of his last examination under Rule 16 (h) of A.P. state and sub- ordinate service rules and under Rule 31 by the Government which is not violation or deviation of any rules. 4. Heard Sri V. Venkat Mayur, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri D. Hamsu Varma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. 5. Petitioner has taken out I.A.Nos. 1 of 2019 and 1 of 2021 to place on record the copy of notification No. 9 of 2013 dated 19.12.2013 issued by APPSC and postponement of date of commencement of probation order issued by the Finance Department in G.O.Rt.No. 1129, dated 18.08.2018 and proceedings No. 404, dated 27.01.2020 issued by Respondents 2 and 3. Both the Applications were ordered on 22.08.2023 and accordingly, the documents listed therein are taken on record. 6. As we all know, departmental tests are bi-yearly mostly in May and November. For May sessions, generally, notification would be in February or March and for November Sessions, it would be in June or July. Admittedly, petitioner joined the service on 07.09.2010, so, he has to pass the tests within two years i.e. from 07.09.2010 to 06.0-9.2012. Since he joined on 07.09.2010, he lost November, 2010 session. Subsequently, due to Telangana agitation, session of May 2011 was clubbed with November session of 2012 , as such, petitioner lost three sessions out of four sessions in appearing within the period of two years. Since he joined on 07.09.2010, he lost November, 2010 session. Subsequently, due to Telangana agitation, session of May 2011 was clubbed with November session of 2012 , as such, petitioner lost three sessions out of four sessions in appearing within the period of two years. During mandatory extended period under Rule 17(b), petitioner claims to have met with an accident, thereby he could not make May session of 2013 and appeared to November Session of 2013 through Notification dated 27.07.2013 which is very much within the period of probation to Rule 17(b) where petitioner cleared all the tests. In support of his case, petitioner placed on record the Notification No 9 of 2013 dated 19.12.2013 which is to the effect that APPSC has decided to hold the departmental tests, November 2013 Session Examinations from 30.01.2014 to 04.02.2014 which were scheduled to be held from 12.12.2013 to 01.12.2013 are postponed due to ongoing agitations in some parts of the State. In view of the circumstances beyond his control, delay in passing the departmental tests cannot be attributed to petitioner. 7. The seniority of a person shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service. The date of appointment is different from the date of commencement of probation. Both under General Rules and Special Rules, the commencement of probation is from the date on which a person appointed joins the duty. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Venkata Ramudu v. State of A.P. (Civil Appeal No. 9861 of 2016), dated 27.09.2016, wherein it has been held that ‘the conclusion of the Tribunal(confirmed by the High Court) that those persons who pass the Account Test within the prescribed period of probation constitute a different class than those who pass the Account Test after securing the benefit of extended period of probation and such later class shall not gain advantage by way of seniority over the class mentioned earlier is without any basis in the text of the Rules. If the Rule making authority desired to make such a distinction, it should have done so expressly. It is a different matter whether such a classification would stand to the test of Article 14. We do not propose to examine the same in this case’. If the Rule making authority desired to make such a distinction, it should have done so expressly. It is a different matter whether such a classification would stand to the test of Article 14. We do not propose to examine the same in this case’. In view of the said judgment, it is to be held that seniority of petitioner shall not be affected. 8. Further, from G.O.Rt.No. 1129, dated 18.08.2018, it could be seen that in respect of Sri N.S. Ravi Kumar, Senior Accountant, O/o the Assistant Director, District Insurance Office, Medak at Sangareddy, probation period was extended for a period of 38 days i.e. from 17.04.2016 to 25.05.2016 in relaxation of Rule 17(b) of General Rules, under Rule 31 of General Rule, 1996. 9. From the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, treating the date of declaration of regularization and commencement of probation of petitioner as 07.09.2010. No costs. 11. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.