ORDER : (PULLA KARTHIK, J.) Since the lis involved in all these writ petitions is inter se related with each other, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order. 2) Heard Sri D.Bala Kishan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.28040 of 2023, 27064 and 28764 of 2024 and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent authorities. In spite of service of notice on respondent No.6 in W.P.No.28040 of 2023, none appeared on her behalf. 3) Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the seniority list dated 21.09.2024 duly counting the seniority of the petitioners from the date of passing of Survey Training Test instead from the date of promotion, W.P.Nos.28040 of 2023 and 27064 and 28764 of 2024 are filed. 4) The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.28040 of 2023 is that originally they were appointed as Junior Assistants on 01.07.2013 after due selection through Group-IV Services and allotted to erstwhile Mahabubnagar District. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Senior Assistants vide Proc.No.A2/2945/2016, dated 10.10.2016, with a precondition to pass the Survey Training within one year. Accordingly, they joined in the said posts and are working as such. Thereafter, they were deputed to Survey Training held between 28.12.2016 to 07.02.2017 in second spell and accordingly they have completed the training within the period of probation. However, their services were regularized in the post of Senior Assistant from the date of completion of survey training i.e. 13.06.2017 vide Proc.No.A1/672/2016, dated 19.06.2017, instead from the date of their promotion to the said post on 10.10.2016, which is clearly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that after creation of new Districts, the services of the petitioners were taken over to the control of O/o. Collectorate, Rangareddy District. While so, the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant dated 30.06.2023 was communicated by respondent No.3 wherein the names of petitioner were included at Sl.Nos.36, 38 and 40 respectively. It is further submitted that after creation of new Districts, the services of the petitioners were taken over to the control of O/o. Collectorate, Rangareddy District. While so, the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant dated 30.06.2023 was communicated by respondent No.3 wherein the names of petitioner were included at Sl.Nos.36, 38 and 40 respectively. But, based on the objections raised by some of the employees, the official respondents have issued the final seniority list of Senior Assistants working in Ranga Reddy District vide Lr.No.A1/2328/2023, dated 05.09.2023, pushing down the names of the petitioners to Sl.Nos.78, 79 and 80 duly taking the date of passing the survey training test, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.1) Similarly, the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.27064 of 2024 is that they were originally appointed as Junior Assistants in erstwhile Medak District during the year 2013 and thereafter they have passed Revenue Test Part I, II and III, Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. It is further submitted that based on the promotions given by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, to several Junior Assistants who have completed three years services, passed Revenue and Accounts Tests, but could not complete Survey Training, to the cadre of Senior Assistants, petitioners herein have also made representation dated 09.05.2017 to consider their case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. Considering the same, respondent No.3 issued Proc.No.A2/708/2017, dated 18.05.2017, promoting these petitioners temporarily to the cadre of Senior Assistants with a precondition to pass the Survey Training Test within one year. Accordingly, they are working as Senior Assistants. Thereafter, they were deputed to Survey Training held between 28.12.2016 to 07.02.2017 in the second spell and they have completed the same within the period of probation. Consequently, respondent No.3 has issued Proc.No.A2/708/2017, dated 04.07.2017 revoking the condition and regularizing their services in the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f.04.07.2017 instead from the date of their promotion on 18.05.2017, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2) Likewise, the case of the petitioners in W.P. No.28764 of 2024 is that they were initially appointed as Junior Assistants in erstwhile Mahabubnagar District on 12.09.2011, 02.07.2013 and 22.07.2013 respectively. 4.2) Likewise, the case of the petitioners in W.P. No.28764 of 2024 is that they were initially appointed as Junior Assistants in erstwhile Mahabubnagar District on 12.09.2011, 02.07.2013 and 22.07.2013 respectively. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Senior Assistants vide Proc.No.A2/2945/2016, dated 10.10.2016, with a precondition to pass the Survey Training within one year and they joined the said posts and are working as such. Even before they were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, the petitioners herein were deputed for Survey Training held between 24.06.2016 to 04.08.2016 in the first spell and they have completed the same within the period of probation. However, their services were regularized in the post of Senior Assistant from the date of completion of Survey Training i.e. 27.10.2016 vide impugned Proc.No.A1/672/2016, dated 19.04.2017, instead from the date of their promotion on 10.10.2016, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that after creation of new Districts, the services of the petitioners were taken over to the control of O/o. Collectorate, Rangareddy. It is further submitted that the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant dated 30.06.2023 was communicated by respondent No.3 wherein the names of petitioners were included at Sl.Nos.35, 36 and 39 respectively. But, based on the objections raised by some of the employees, the official respondents have issued the final seniority list of Senior Assistants working in Ranga Reddy District vide Lr.No.A1/2328/2023, dated 05.09.2023, pushing down the names of the petitioners to Sl.Nos.74, 75 and 76 duly taking the date of passing the survey training test, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that while issuing the impugned final seniority list, no notice was served on the petitioners and unjustly their places in the seniority list was altered and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Further, due to pushing down of the seniority based on the dates of regularization of services, their seniority was affected in the zonal seniority list affecting their further promotion to the cadre of Superintendents. Further, while sending for Survey Training, the respondents have not followed the seniority, for the reasons best known to them. Further, due to pushing down of the seniority based on the dates of regularization of services, their seniority was affected in the zonal seniority list affecting their further promotion to the cadre of Superintendents. Further, while sending for Survey Training, the respondents have not followed the seniority, for the reasons best known to them. Learned counsel has contended that when the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant was with a precondition to pass the Survey Test, the authorities ought to have sent the employees for Survey Training Test as per seniority. Since the respondents have not followed the seniority, the petitioners have deprived their seniority from the date of their promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, for no fault of them, which is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioners were never given the opportunity to undergo the Revenue Survey Training before they were promoted and as soon as the petitioners were sent for Training they have successfully completed the same within the period of probation. Therefore, they are entitled for counting of their seniority from the date of promotion but not from the date of completion of Training. In the instant cases, the delay in passing Survey Training is only administrative action and cannot be attributed to the petitioners herein. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Rules 15 and 16 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules and also F.R. 26 and 33. It is further contended that the authorities have counted the adhoc service of one Smt. A. Jyothi from 10.10.2016 and promoted her to the cadre of Naib Tahsildar in Zone-VI w.e.f.01.09.2023 whereas the said benefit is not extended to the petitioners and the same amounts to discrimination. As per F.R. 26, the last date of examination is to be reckoned for the purpose of counting seniority and as such the petitioners are deemed to have completed the Survey Training as on the date of their promotion. Learned counsel has strenuously contended that the persons who were junior to the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Assistants were shown over and above them in the final seniority list of Senior Assistants only on the ground that they has passed Survey Training ignoring the fact that the authorities have not followed seniority while sending the employees for Survey Training Test, for which, the petitioners cannot be penalized. Further, the delay in challenging the conformation orders dated 19.06.2017 cannot be taken into consideration as the petitioners came to know the facts only after the final seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistants dated 05.09.2023 was prepared and communicated to the petitioners. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to issue suitable directions to the respondent authorities to include the names of the petitioners in the seniority list of Senior Assistants duly taking the date of their promotion to the post of Senior Assistants but not passing the Survey Training. Reliance has been placed on M.V.Chalapathi v. Managing Director, APSRTC , Musheerabad, Hyderabad, 1999 (3) ALD 664 and J.V.S.P. Purnananda Rao v. Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P. , Hyderabad , [ 2006 (1) ALT 528 (D.B.)] 6) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents while admitting the factum of appointment of the petitioners to the post of Junior Assistants and further pre-conditional promotion to the post of Senior Assistants has contended that the petitioners were promoted as Senior Assistants on adhoc basis with specific condition duly invoking Rule 10(b) of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Learned Government Pleader has contended that in the promotion proceedings it was clearly mentioned that “(i) the promotion is purely temporary basis and does not confirm any right and the individuals are liable to be reverted to their original post at any time without assigning any reasons there for. The Services of the promotes performed in Sr. Asst. cadre will not be counted for seniority till acquisition of requisite qualification i.e., pass of Survey Training Examination.” It is further contended that it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases that adhoc promotions are considered where exigencies of public service necessitate such arrangements and even consideration of seniority do not enter into it. The incumbents continue to hold their substantive lower post and only discharge the duties of the higher post essentially as a stopgap arrangement and the petitioners cannot seek any seniority on such service. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India , [ AIR 1991 SC 1145 ] has held that asking an officer who substantively holds a lower post merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India , [ AIR 1991 SC 1145 ] has held that asking an officer who substantively holds a lower post merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later judgments holding that such promotions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny and the temporary/adhoc promotions cannot result into the grant of seniority. Learned Government Pleader has further contended that in the promotion orders it was clearly stated that all the appointments are temporary appointments, purely on temporary basis and the same will not be regarded as qualifying service for regularization as Senior Assistant and will not be counted as service as Senior Assistant. To that written undertaking was also taken from the employees that they will not claim any right and seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant and that the seniority will be based only on the service rendered by them after acquiring all the requisite qualifications. It is further contended that as the petitioners were appointed under Rule 10 (b) of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, Rule 16 (ii) cannot be made applicable to their case. Learned Government Pleader has further contended that the petitioners have not challenged the proceedings whereby their services were regularized, taking into consideration the acquisition of requisite qualification of Survey Training. Therefore, now it is not open for the petitioners to seek seniority from the date of adhoc promotion. As such, the present writ petitions are filed at belated stage and therefore liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 7) In reply, while reiterating the arguments already advanced, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 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 services in accordance with the Rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. By relying on the same, learned counsel has submitted that by applying the said principle of law, the services of the petitioners from the date of promotion to the post of Senior Assistant can be considered since there is no break in service and the petitioners are uninterruptedly discharging their duties from the date of their promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. 8) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 9) As can be seen from the record, admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants through direct recruitment on 01.07.2013. After completion of three years of service, they were promoted to the post of Senior Assistants as per Rule 10(b) of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, on adhoc basis, by which time, all the petitioners have passed the requisite tests, except Survey Training Test. However, the said promotion was subject to following conditions: 1) The promotion is purely on temporary basis and does not confirm any right and the individuals are liable to be reverted to their original post at any time without assigning reasons therefor. 2) The Service of the promotees performed in Sr.Asst. cadre will not be counted for seniority till acquisition of requisite pass of Survey Training Examination. 3) The Promotees shall not be eligible to an increment in the time of scale pay applicable to them unless they pass the tests, complete the training or acquire the qualification prescribed in the Spl. Rules, as a condition for the grant of increment to a member of the service class or category. 4) The promotees shall be replaced as soon as possible by the member of the service, who is entitled to the appointment under this rules. 5) The promotees are directed to join in the post within (15) days from the date of receipt of this order. 4) The promotees shall be replaced as soon as possible by the member of the service, who is entitled to the appointment under this rules. 5) The promotees are directed to join in the post within (15) days from the date of receipt of this order. If they fail to join in the post within the stipulated period of (15) days or evade to join the post by proceeding on leave, the offer of promotion shall be treated s automatically cancelled and their names shall deemed to have been omitted from the list of approved candidates and they shall forfeit the right of promotion both the present and in future for the post in terms of G.O.Ms.No.123, G.A. (Ser.A) Dept., dt.14.03.2004.” 10) From the above conditions, it is clear that the promotion of the petitioners as Senior Assistants was on adhoc basis and it was specifically mentioned in the promotion order that services of the promotees performed in the cadre of Sr. Assts. will not be counted till acquisition of requisite pass of survey training examination. 11) Further, though the petitioners were promoted as senior assistants on 10.10.2016 and 18.05.2017 respectively, admittedly, they have completed the survey training between 28.12.2016 to 07.02.2017 and 24.06.2016 to 04.08.2016, as the case may be, and the results were announced on 13.06.2017 and 27.10.2016 respectively. Thereafter, respondent No.4 has issued the impugned proceedings dated 19.06.2017 and 19.04.2017 regularizing the adhoc promotion of the petitioners in the senior assistant cadre from the date of survey training result i.e. 13.06.2017 and 19.04.2017 respectively, and now after a lapse of more than 6 years the petitioners are challenging the regularization proceedings. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that there is no delay on the part of the petitioners, but the fact remains that they are very much conscious of the regularization of their services from the date of publication of results of Survey Training examination and they failed to question the same immediately. 12) A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, dated 13.12.2021, has held that the delay of five to eighteen years, in preferring a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to be treated as inordinate. 12) A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, dated 13.12.2021, has held that the delay of five to eighteen years, in preferring a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to be treated as inordinate. In the present case also, there is a delay of more than six years on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court, which cannot be countenanced. 13) As regards the contention of the petitioners that the respondents have counted the adhoc service of one A.Jyothi in the cadre of Senior Assistant while promoting her to the cadre of Naib Tahsildar whereas the said concession is not extended to the petitioners herein is concerned, it is seen from the material papers annexed to W.P.No.27064 of 2024 (page 26) that said A.Jyothi was promoted as Senior Assistant on adhoc basis on 10.10.2016 whereas the material papers annexed to W.P.No.28040 of 2023 (page 24) establishes that adhoc promotion of said A.Jyothi was regularized w.e.f.13.06.2017 i.e. from the date of declaration of survey training results and the same is on par with the petitioners herein. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners in this regard is misconceived and disproved. 14) The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the persons shown below the petitioners in the promotion order dated 10.10.2016 were sent for Survey Training in first batch overlooking the petitioners, as a result of which, the services of the said individuals were regularized prior to the regularization of petitioners’ services and the said individuals became seniors to the petitioners in the seniority list of Senior Assistants. When that be so, the petitioners ought to have raised objections or taken necessary remedial measures at the relevant point of time i.e. at the time of sending their juniors for Survey Training overlooking their case and the petitioners ought to have diligent at the relevant point of time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this ground is unavailable to the petitioners at this stage. 15) Insofar as the decision in M.V.Chalapathi’s case (referred supra) is concerned, the same has no application to the case of petitioner since no discrimination is made out by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this ground is unavailable to the petitioners at this stage. 15) Insofar as the decision in M.V.Chalapathi’s case (referred supra) is concerned, the same has no application to the case of petitioner since no discrimination is made out by the petitioners. Similarly in J.V.S.P. Purnananda’s case (referred supra) , the Division Bench of this Court dealt with the case where the delay was occurred due to non-publication of official gazette. Therefore, the said case is also distinguishable on facts of the present case. 16) In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 17) Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.