ORDER : PULLA KARTHIK, J. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the final seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 Home (Ser.I) Department dated 29.12.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the rules and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be placed at Sl.No.96 instead of Sl.No.176 and further consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion and pass…” 2. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.3. In spite of service of notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5, there was no representation on their behalf. 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a notification in the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh, vide Notification No.18/2011 dated 28.01.2011, inviting applications for Group-I Services, which included the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police – Civil (category-II) in the Andhra Pradesh Police Service. As such, in pursuance of the same, the petitioner submitted his application. Subsequently, after a prolonged litigation, the selections were finalized during October, 2017, and the petitioner herein was selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil). However, despite the petitioner’s selection, his appointment order was unduly delayed and was issued only during January, 2018, and the entire recruitment was delayed only due to the fault of the authorities. It was further submitted that a provisional seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police, dated 25.11.2022, was issued by the respondents, wherein, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.176, i.e., well below the promotees who have actually been appointed temporarily, and thus, the same is illegal and arbitrary. It was also submitted that the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are placed at Sl.Nos.96, 97 and 98 respectively, have been made parties in their representative capacity, as they are the first three persons over and above whom the petitioner is entitled to be placed in the seniority list. 3.2. It was also submitted that the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are placed at Sl.Nos.96, 97 and 98 respectively, have been made parties in their representative capacity, as they are the first three persons over and above whom the petitioner is entitled to be placed in the seniority list. 3.2. It was further submitted that at the time of bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the posts allotted to the State of Telangana were 209, and later, the cadre strength was shown as 242, out of which, 1/3rd posts have to be filled in by Direct Recruitment. The Rule specifically prescribes the Roster for Direct Recruitment, viz., 1 st , 4 th and 7 th out of 10 vacancies. Further, while filing up the vacancies, Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, has to be followed, and all the vacancies arising in that particular year have to be calculated and the eligibility of a person for promotion has to be assessed as on the commencement of panel year, i.e., 1 st September of the year, and a person fully qualified and eligible to be promoted by 31 st August of the panel year, is to be considered for promotion during the panel year. Here, no year-wise panels have been prepared taking into consideration all the arising vacancies in that particular year and all the promotees have been bunched together without assigning them the panel years. Further, in 2017, a review of the cadre was undertaken and the cadre strength has been increased to 312, in which, 94 vacancies are to be filled in by Direct Recruitment, and 218 vacancies have to be filled in by promotees. While preparing the seniority list, the cadre strength itself has not been determined and the vacancies arising year-wise, have also not been calculated. As such, it was contended that the entire action of the respondents is in clear violation of the Statutory Rules. 3.3. It was further submitted that the seniority list has not been prepared from the year 2014 as was directed by this Court. In fact, the entire quota has been wrongly worked out and the promotees have been given promotions in excess of their quota. Further, the promotions given on ad hoc basis cannot be counted for seniority. 3.3. It was further submitted that the seniority list has not been prepared from the year 2014 as was directed by this Court. In fact, the entire quota has been wrongly worked out and the promotees have been given promotions in excess of their quota. Further, the promotions given on ad hoc basis cannot be counted for seniority. Therefore, it is no longer res integra that where the initial ad hoc promotion was not in accordance with the rules, seniority would have to be determined from the date of regularization and not from the date of initiation entry. However, unfortunately, the promotees who were promoted on ad hoc basis have been brought over and put in a bunch over the petitioner, affecting his seniority. 3.4. It was further submitted that as per the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005, vide Rc.No.724/RTI/2022 dated 12.12.2022, no regular promotions had been taken up and all the affected promotions were on ad hoc basis only, without conferring any rights to the promotees. Therefore, in view of the specific disclosure, the question of conferment of seniority to those promotees from 2017, over and above the petitioner is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Further, the petitioner has submitted his objections to the seniority list dated 25.11.2022, on 03.12.2022, wherein, he had pointed out that his rights over promotion as crystallized in the year 2013 itself or at least in 2017, when the selections were finalized, and also pointed out that the time spent in the Courts could not have been held against the petitioner, especially, when the delay is due to the fault of the respondents. It was further submitted that Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, has been violated, and preparation of panel has not been done, as mandated by the Rules, and the recruitment rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.157 dated 01.06.1998, have also not been followed, and that the entire exercise of seniority has been undertaken without first determining the cadre strength. It was further pointed out in his objections that the promotees, who have been appointed in excess of their quota, cannot be granted seniority. Hence, he is entitled to be placed at Sl.No.96, instead of Sl.No.176, as shown in the provisional seniority list. 3.5. It was further pointed out in his objections that the promotees, who have been appointed in excess of their quota, cannot be granted seniority. Hence, he is entitled to be placed at Sl.No.96, instead of Sl.No.176, as shown in the provisional seniority list. 3.5. However, without considering any of the aforesaid objections of the petitioner, the respondents have issued the impugned final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, placing the petitioner at Sl.No.176. It was further submitted that it is well-settled law that a seniority list could not have been finalized without considering the objections. Hence, the action of the respondents in brushing aside the objections of the petitioner, without actually considering that the promotees were given promotion on ad hoc basis only but not regularly, and that they were neither put on probation nor were they confirmed in that cadre, is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the main objection of the petitioner that year- wise panels have not been prepared and year-wise vacancies have also not been calculated, have also not been considered at all, and all his objections were unjustly rejected, and said action will upset the balance between the direct recruits and the promotees. As such, the said rejection is clearly illegal and arbitrary. 3.6. It was further submitted that the appointment of promotees was on ad hoc basis and no vacancies were available for promotees at that point of time, as the posts were created only subsequently. Therefore, the promotees cannot be assigned the dates, which had no vacancies meant for their quota. Further, neither a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was conducted nor panels were prepared by the Screening Committee before the promotions were affected. The entire newly sanctioned vacancies have been filled in by the promotees, and then, the action of the respondents in regularizing the services of such promotees with retrospective dates is clearly illegal and arbitrary. 3.7. It was further submitted that the seniority list was prepared without actually determining the cadre strength and the year-wise vacancies, and even without preparing the panels for each year, the seniority list was finalized. 3.7. It was further submitted that the seniority list was prepared without actually determining the cadre strength and the year-wise vacancies, and even without preparing the panels for each year, the seniority list was finalized. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Amit Singh v. Ravindra Nath Panday and others , [ (2022) 20 SCC 559 ] , held that in any year of recruitment, appointments are to be made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, and that regular promotions shall not be made unless the selections are made from both the sources. Likewise, in Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab and others , [ (2006) 6 SCC 673 ] the Hon’ble Apex Court held it mandatory to apply the rota and quota rule while determining the seniority where the same is provided for under the Rules. rota and quota must necessarily be reflected in the seniority list and any seniority list prepared in violation of the rota and quota rule is bound to be negated. However, in the present case, the respondent authorities failed to notice that the recruitment process was completed by the year 2014, and the issuance of appointment order to the petitioner was unduly delayed due to the administrative lapses on their part alone. Therefore, the petitioner is legally entitled for seniority over and above the temporarily promoted candidates. 3.8. It was further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, has also emphasized the need for preparation of year-wise panels, by including all the persons who are qualified that year. It was also held that the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot bunch together the vacancies for all the years, as this would result in enlarging the field of choice for the purpose of selection. It was further submitted that in the present case, all the promotees have placed en bloc without reference to the panel year. Thus, the said action of the respondents is clearly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74, Home (Services-I) Department, dated 29.12.2022. 3.9. In support of his submissions/contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5966 of 2021 dated 08.12.2021 and in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra). 4.1. 3.9. In support of his submissions/contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5966 of 2021 dated 08.12.2021 and in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra). 4.1. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home (Services), appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, submitted regarding the recruitment to Group-I Services, that insofar as all the other departments are concerned, the appointment orders to the selected candidates were issued in the year 2017 itself, after completion of verification of original documents, whereas, in the Home Department, the appointment orders were issued on 20.01.2018 to the petitioner herein and another candidate. Further, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission published Notification No.18/2011 dated 28.11.2011, notifying 263 vacancies in Group-I services, among which, 5 posts were Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), and had finalized the selections and communicated the list of selected candidates to the Government vide Letter No.617/RS-1/GR- 1/2016 dated 15.11.2017, and requested the Government to verify the antecedents and original certificates, and to issue the appointment orders only after being fully satisfied with the particulars of the candidates. Hence, there was a gap of only two months from the date of communication to the date of issuance of the appointment orders, which can be construed as the period required for verification of antecedents and certificates, by communicating to the respective zones/schools/colleges and universities. Therefore, there was no abnormal delay. 4.2. It was further submitted that the seniority list of Inspectors of Police of seven ranges issued in the united Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Rt.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 ended in dispute. Consequently, the seniority list issued in the category of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil), Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) and Superintendent of Police (NC) based on the seniority list of the Inspectors could not be operated for the purpose of allocation of State-cadre officers between states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana till the year 2020. Consequently, the seniority list issued in the category of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil), Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) and Superintendent of Police (NC) based on the seniority list of the Inspectors could not be operated for the purpose of allocation of State-cadre officers between states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana till the year 2020. Therefore, to meet the administrative agencies, ad hoc promotions were affected from time to time in the categories of Superintendent of Police (NC), Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), subject to the issuance of a rectified integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil), and in the higher categories by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and also subject to final allocation of the personnel between the two States based on the said seniority lists. 4.3. Further, as per the interim orders dated 19.09.2017 in W.P.No.9654 of 2016 and batch, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the cadre controlling authority till 01.06.2014, issued the following combined seniority lists in the categories as noted against each, up to 01.06.2014: G.O.Ms.No.153, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 05.10.2018 – State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police (Civil) of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. G.O.Ms.No.187, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 29.11.2018 - Final Combined Seniority List of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil)(Direct Recruits and Promotees). G.O.Ms.No.197, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 12.12.2018 - Seniority List of Additional Superintendents of Police (NC) of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states for the panel years from 1988–89 to 2013–14. G.O.Ms.No.200, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 14.12.2018 - Seniority List of Superintendent of Police (NC) of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states for the panel years from 1995–96 to 2013–14. 4.4. Further, as per the interim orders of this Court dated 18.08.2020 in W.P.No.4139 of 2020, the Government has made final allocation of State cadre employees in the category of Superintendent of Police (NC), Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), based on the above seniority list issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the seniority list of Telangana officers in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) issued vide G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 29.11.2018, was communicated to the individuals vide Memo.Rc.No.408/G3/2020–1 dated 08.12.2020, which was up to the period of 2010–11 panel years only. Therefore, the petitioner’s name did not figure in the list as claimed by him, as he was appointed in the year 2018 only. 4.5. Therefore, the petitioner’s name did not figure in the list as claimed by him, as he was appointed in the year 2018 only. 4.5. Further, this Court, vide order dated 21.12.2020 in W.P.No.14878 of 2020, permitted the respondents to undertake only regular promotions to the posts of Additional Superintendents of Police (NC) and Superintendent of Police (NC), conferred IPS and Ex – cadres. Therefore, to enable to affect regular promotions to the above categories, the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.247, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 10.02.2021, has constituted a Screening Committee to streamline the ad hoc promotions issued in the categories of Superintendents of Police (NC) and Additional Superintendents of Police (NC) in the Telangana state from 2014 onwards. Thereafter, the Committee constituted by the Government, after examining the posts allotted to Telangana State during bifurcation and the posts sanctioned subsequently in both the above categories from time to time in Telangana State and the service record of each individual, has made its recommendations for inclusion of eligible officers in the year wise panels from 2013–14 (part) to 2019- 20. Subsequently, the recommendations of the Screening Committee were accepted by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 23.03.2021, and all the ad hoc promotions in the categories of Superintendent of Police (NC) and Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) were regularized from the panel years 2014-15 (part) to 2019-20, from the respective lower categories as per the G.O.s issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and assigned dates in the vacancies existing in Telangana state from 02.06.2014 till 31.08.2020 vide G.O.Ms.Nos.37 and 38, both dated 26.03.2021. Thereafter, regular promotions to the above categories were also completed in the panel years 2020–21. 4.6. It was further submitted that the seniority list issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in three categories, i.e., Superintendent of Police (NC), Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) were up to 01.06.2014 only. Thereafter, regular promotions to the above categories were also completed in the panel years 2020–21. 4.6. It was further submitted that the seniority list issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in three categories, i.e., Superintendent of Police (NC), Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) were up to 01.06.2014 only. Hence, the Government of Telangana, in the above G.O.s, has regularized the ad hoc promotions already given from 2014 onwards in Telangana State as per seniority and eligibility of the candidates and also affected regular promotions to the categories of Superintendent of Police (NC) and Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) in the panel years 2020–21, as ordered by this Court in its order dated 21.12.2020 in W.P.No.14878 of 2020, and as of now, the process of affecting promotions to the above categories, i.e., Superintendent of Police (NC) and Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) has been completed for the panel year 2022–23. However, in view of the interim orders of this Court dated 25.04.2023, in the present writ petition, the promotions to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) could not be taken up. 4.7. Further, a similar action has been taken up to streamline the ad hoc promotions given in the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) from 02.06.2014 to 31.08.2021, based on the above final rectified integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) vide G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 05.10.2018. Further, in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 21.12.2020, to affect regular promotions to the category of Additional Superintendent of Police (NC), the seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil), in continuation of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 29.11.2018, is essential as the same was already exhausted. Hence, respondent No.2, as the appointing authority in respect of second-level gazetted post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), has constituted a Screening Committee as per Rule 7 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, vide proceedings Rc.No.192/G3/2022 dated 03.11.2022, and the Committee was instructed to scrutinize certain aspects while making the recommendations. 4.8. Hence, respondent No.2, as the appointing authority in respect of second-level gazetted post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), has constituted a Screening Committee as per Rule 7 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, vide proceedings Rc.No.192/G3/2022 dated 03.11.2022, and the Committee was instructed to scrutinize certain aspects while making the recommendations. 4.8. Accordingly, based on the final rectified seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) issued in G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 05.10.2018, read with the Office Memo dated 13.04.2022, the Screening Committee has recommended/prepared the year-wise panels of Inspectors of Police (Civil) vide proceedings dated 13.04.2022, showing the candidates fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) from the panel year 2013–14 (part) to 2020–21 in the posts allocated to Telangana State and the posts sanctioned subsequently, after verifying the service records of each Inspector of Police. Thereafter, based on the recommendations of the Screening Committee, a provisional seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) was issued vide Memo.Rc.No.192/ G3/2022 dated 25.11.2022, calling for objections, and in the said list, the petitioner’s name was appropriately placed at Sl.No.176 as per the date of his appointment to the police service. Subsequently, on receipt of objections, proposals have been sent to the Government for finalization of the seniority list, and the Government, after examining the proposals and remarks thereon, issued the final combined seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) (direct recruits and promotees) with affect from 02.06.2014 to 31.08.2021 vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, duly disposing of all the objections, including the objections raised by the petitioner herein, and the same was communicated to all the individuals vide proceedings dated 30.12.2022. 4.9. Therefore, an elaborate exercise was undertaken by the Screening Committee by following the Service Rules, DPC Rules and the Government instructions on Roster Points, duly restricting the regularization of promotions of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) only in the vacancies that arose in promotee quota prior to the issuance of the seniority list in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was illegally and arbitrarily placed at Sl.No.176 in the seniority list, i.e., below 80 promotees appointed on temporary basis, has no basis and is incorrect. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was illegally and arbitrarily placed at Sl.No.176 in the seniority list, i.e., below 80 promotees appointed on temporary basis, has no basis and is incorrect. Further, the statutory rules conferred a right to the promotees to the extent of 70% of the sanctioned posts under promotee quota and all those placed above the petitioner were promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) and regularized in their quota only. 4.10. It was further submitted that as per the Service Rules governing the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 01.06.1998, in a cycle of 10 vacancies, 1 st , 4 th and 7th are to be filled in by direct recruitment and the remaining, by promotion, i.e., 30% by direct recruitment and 70% by promotions. Further, the above Service Rules specified rota and quota system in the matter of filling of vacancies in the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil). It was also submitted that as per Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, to affect promotions, the panel of candidates for appointment shall be prepared by taking into account 1 st September as the qualifying date and on that basis, estimate the vacancies that arise from 1 st September to 31 st August of the succeeding year. However, due to non-undertaking of direct recruitment on regular basis, all the earmarked vacancies in direct recruits quota are carried forward without being filling up and are notified to the Public Service Commission for filling up the same by conducting recruitment, as and when taken up by the Government. Further, in the event, the vacancies are filled in by promotion on administrative exigencies, such promotions are treated to be purely on ad hoc basis without any right either for regularization of service or for counting seniority for further promotion, and such promoted candidates are liable for reversion to lower category without any notice. Hence, both the direct recruits and the promotees shall be shown as a bunch in the seniority list by applying Rule 33(a) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, which specifies that seniority of person shall be determined from the date of his first appointment to the Service. Hence, both the direct recruits and the promotees shall be shown as a bunch in the seniority list by applying Rule 33(a) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, which specifies that seniority of person shall be determined from the date of his first appointment to the Service. Therefore, there is no irregularity or infirmity in showing the promotees en bloc in the seniority list as they have occupied the posts under their quota only, and also, the published seniority list is the outcome of year-wise panels only. 4.11. Further, the Screening Committee has gone through the year-wise cadre strength of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) (direct recruitment and promotion quotas) and the number of individuals working and vacancies arose in the respective quotas, and only then, regularized the services of only the promoted Deputy Superintendents of Police against the vacancies arose in their quota only, by keeping the direct recruitment quota unfilled. The final seniority list does not reflect year-wise panels, except the dates assigned to the individual officers. Further, the absence of a regular recruitment against the direct recruitment quota is resulting in the carrying forward of vacancies that need to be filled in by the Public Service Commission, as and when notified, and the rota and quota system specified in the Service Rules is not being reflected in the final seniority list published, wherein, the direct recruits are bunched together with a common date of appointment to service and the promotees with their respective dates of promotion/regularization in the vacancies arose in their quota. 4.12. It was further submitted that the cadre strength of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) allotted to the State of Telangana on bifurcation, i.e., as on 02.06.2014, was 242, and subsequently, 70 posts were sanctioned in the year 2017, due to formation of new Rachakonda Commissionerate and re-organization of 10 Police units into 29 Police units. As per the cadre strength, the direct recruitment quota was 73 posts for the panel year 2013–14 (part) to 2016–17, and the same was increased to 94 posts from panel year 2016–17 onwards. Similarly the quota of promotees was 169 up to the panel year 2015–16 and was increased to 218 from the panel year 2016-17 onwards. Hence, the regularization of promotees was confined to 169 posts up to 2015–16, and from 2016–17, to 218 posts only. Similarly the quota of promotees was 169 up to the panel year 2015–16 and was increased to 218 from the panel year 2016-17 onwards. Hence, the regularization of promotees was confined to 169 posts up to 2015–16, and from 2016–17, to 218 posts only. Further, prior to the recruitment of the petitioner herein as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) in the year 2018, the last direct recruitment was taken up in the united Andhra Pradesh and all those who were appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) in the year 2012 have already been included in G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 29.11.2018 en bloc. Hence, the petitioner and the other individual, 2 0 appointed in the year 2018 have been placed at their appropriate places in the impugned seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022. 4.13. It was further submitted that as per Rule 33 (c) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, whenever notional promotion is granted, such date of notional promotion shall be taken into consideration by computing the qualifying length of service in the feeder category for promotion to the next higher category and that notional service shall be counted for the purpose of declaration of probation also in the feeder category. Further, due to a delay in the bifurcation process and allotment of personnel to Telangana State, ad hoc promotions were inevitable in view of the administrative constraints which arose due to law and order situations, general elections to State Legislature, Parliament, Local Bodies, etc. Further, the ad hoc promotions were not affected randomly but were affected initially from the approved seniority list of Inspectors of Police of three ranges of Telangana State as per the permission accorded by the Government vide Memos dated 31.10.2017 and 26.06.2018, and subsequently, from the State-wide seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued vide G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 05.10.2018. Further, the ad hoc promotions were not affected randomly but were affected initially from the approved seniority list of Inspectors of Police of three ranges of Telangana State as per the permission accorded by the Government vide Memos dated 31.10.2017 and 26.06.2018, and subsequently, from the State-wide seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued vide G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 05.10.2018. Thereafter, as per the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.14878 of 2020 and 14039 of 2020 and batch, dated 21.12.2020 and 31.12.2020 respectively, the Government, being the competent authority has streamlined all the ad hoc promotions in the posts sanctioned from time to time by assigning the dates of promotion as Deputy Superintendents of Police to all the individuals as per the seniority list only to the extent of promotee quota as per the seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 05.10.2018, duly notifying 91 vacancies meant for direct recruitment to the Telangana State Public Service Commission, Hyderabad, vide Notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022. The remaining individuals who were promoted in excess of the promotee quota on administrative exigencies are being continued on ad hoc basis only without any probationary rights and subject to reversion lower category without any notice. 4.14. It was further submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Service Rules, the period of probation of the promotee Inspectors is one year within a continuous period of two years, and as per Rule 18 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, at the end of the prescribed period of probation, the orders declaring the probation are to be issued by the Appointing Authority, and if no such order is issued within one year from the date of expiry of the probation period, 2 2 the probation is deemed to have completed satisfactorily with retrospective effect from the date of expiry of prescribed period of probation. Therefore, by virtue of permitting notional dates for seniority and other service related purposes and deemed provision existing for declaration of probation in the Service Rules as stated above, the probation of all the individuals included in the G.O.s is deemed to have been declared after completion of one year from the respective assigned dates of promotions as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil). 4.15. 4.15. It was further submitted that the petitioner sought for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and a reply was given to him vide office letter dated 12.12.2022, as per the existing status at that point of time. Subsequently, the orders finalizing the seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) were issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, and the objections raised by the petitioner to the provisional seniority list dated 25.11.2022 were disposed of at the time of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.74. Further, the petitioner was appointed to the police service as a Deputy Superintendent of police (Civil) under direct recruitment, vide G.O.Ms.No.84 dated 19.01.2018, but he is claiming seniority over and above respondent No.3, who is placed at Sl.No.96, 2 3 who was assigned the date of promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), w.e.f., 01.02.2017, is itself irregular as he was not even selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police as on the date of promotion assigned to respondent No.3. 4.16. It was further submitted that the Government, in Circular Memo.No.16/Ser.A/93-39 dated 21.14.1999, has issued instructions specifying that the quota/rota rule is applicable only for the purpose of recruitment and not for the purpose of determining inter-se- seniority. It was further submitted that out of the sanctioned strength of 312, the promotee quota of 218 has been reflected in the seniority list published in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, and initially, 42 posts were notified to the Telangana State Public Service Commission for direct recruitment vide office letter dated 18.05.2018, with the consent of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.54, Finance Department, dated 17.05.2018, but the same was put on hold, pending issuance of the new Presidential Order-2018. Subsequently, a revised indent was sent for 91 posts, out of the 94 posts under the direct recruitment quota, and the Public Service Commission, in turn, issued notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022 and also conducted the preliminary examination. On their recruitment, they shall be appointed in posts meant for them. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the promotees occupied the direct recruitment vacancies is incorrect and devoid of facts. 4.17. On their recruitment, they shall be appointed in posts meant for them. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the promotees occupied the direct recruitment vacancies is incorrect and devoid of facts. 4.17. It was further submitted that the provisional seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) was issued after following all the Rules governing the post, and only after disposing of all the objections raised by the candidates, including that of the petitioner, the impugned final seniority list was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022. Further, the probation of the petitioner, being a direct recruit, was declared as it is mandatory, whereas, all other individuals including the ones in the seniority list were promotees, and were promoted on ad hoc basis at various points of time due to pending seniority disputes, and subsequently, their promotions have been regularized by assigning notional dates in the seniority list as per their eligibility and seniority in the panel-year wise vacancies and are deemed to have completed the probation period of one year from their respective dates of regularization. 4.18. It was further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police vide G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 19.01.2018, and according to Clause 14-b of the Government Circular Memo dated 21.04.1999, the seniority of a direct recruit is to be determined only from the date of his joining but not from the date on which the vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment arose. As such, the petitioner was rightly placed at Sl.No176 in impugned final seniority list. Further, no direct recruitment vacancy has been utilized for regularization of the services of the Deputy Superintendents of Police working against direct recruitment quota. Thus, the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022. Therefore, there are no merits in the present case, and it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 4.19. Further, no direct recruitment vacancy has been utilized for regularization of the services of the Deputy Superintendents of Police working against direct recruitment quota. Thus, the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022. Therefore, there are no merits in the present case, and it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 4.19. In support of his submissions, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suraj Parkash Gupta and others v. State of J&K and others , [ (2000) 7 SCC 561 ] 5.1 In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of there being a specific quota between the direct recruits and the promotees, direct recruitment had not been taken up and only the promotees are being appointed in excess of their quota, and the need for creation and filling up of these ad hoc posts has arisen only because the promotee quota was itself taken up and filled up without making any effort to take up the direct recruitment. Further, these supernumerary posts were all filled up by promotees and are now sought to be regularized in utter violation of Rule 5 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The said posts are selection posts and for filling up of which year-wise panels have to be prepared. Further, the roster which prescribes that the 1st, 4th and 7 th vacancies will have to be filled up through direct recruitment has to be followed year wise. However, the said rules are ignored and in complete disregard to these rules, only the promotees have been appointed and on ad hoc basis. 5.2. It was further submitted that the promotions have been given to the unofficial respondent without their completing the mandatory five years of service, which is contrary to the Rules. Further, no Screening Committee was formed to send the promotion proposals to the Telangana State Public Service Commission through the Government, which is the procedure to be followed before affecting any promotions as per Section 5 and 6, because the said post is a selection post and the above procedure is a mandatory one. Further, no Screening Committee was formed to send the promotion proposals to the Telangana State Public Service Commission through the Government, which is the procedure to be followed before affecting any promotions as per Section 5 and 6, because the said post is a selection post and the above procedure is a mandatory one. It was further submitted that G.O.Ms.No.137, which prescribes the quota, has not been followed, though it is stated that the direct recruitment vacancies have been carried forward and in those vacancies, the promotees are being appointed on ad hoc basis. Further, by citing the lack of personnel, supernumerary posts have been created without reference to any cadre strength or to the service rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.137, and these ad hoc promotions are being scrupulously regularized. Further, the counter affidavit filed by the respondent reveals that in the year 2017, the cadre strength has been increased by 70, but only the direct recruitment vacancies have not been filled up while the vacancies of the promotees have duly been filled up. 5.3. It was further submitted that the present promotions have been filled in without following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 5 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, hence, the said promotions have to be treated as only ad hoc. Even if year-wise panels are followed, the petitioner would have to be placed at Sl.No.150. However, the entire exercise of effecting promotions, without even preparing a proper seniority list is wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside, and the Circular Memo.No.16 dated 21.04.1999, cannot override the service rules in G.O.Ms.No.137. Therefore, granting seniority to the promotees over and above the petitioner is highly illegal. It was further submitted that Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 28 mandates that year-wise panels have to be prepared. However, without doing so, the respondents granted seniority to promotees by placing them over and above the petitioner. As such, the said action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 5.4. It was further submitted that as per the counter filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the details by which the vacancies have been created and the specific orders creating those vacancies, have not been annexed. The said orders have also not been spelt out except stating that 70 posts have been created in the year 2017. 5.4. It was further submitted that as per the counter filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the details by which the vacancies have been created and the specific orders creating those vacancies, have not been annexed. The said orders have also not been spelt out except stating that 70 posts have been created in the year 2017. In this regard, it has now come to light that 16 ACP/DSP posts, i.e., 13 Civil + 3 others, have been created vide G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 22.09.2016, while bifurcating and changing the nomenclature of the Rachakonda Police Commissionerate. It was further submitted that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 24.04.2017, had created 62 posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police, which include 57 Civil. As such, since both these G.O.s have been issued after the panel for the year 2016-17 has been finalized, they must be carried forward to 2017-18 panel. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the following points arise for adjudication of this Court. (1) Whether the respondents followed Rule 3 Note 1 of the Telangana State Police Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 01.06.1998 (special rules), while preparing the seniority list? (2) Whether the promotees are entitled to acquire seniority from the date of their ad hoc promotions? (3) Whether non-joinder of necessary party is fatal to the case or not? (4) Whether the posts created on 24.04.2017 and 22.09.2016 by virtue of G.O.Ms.Nos.62 and 159, respectively can be considered for granting promotions in the panel year 2016–2017? 7. As regards Point No.1, a perusal of the record discloses that consequent upon bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, and in view of non-preparation of the seniority lists, ad hoc promotions had been granted in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), without conducting any Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings, and without consulting the Public Service Commission, as mandated by the relevant rules. Further, the services of those promotees were regularized in the year 2022 only, after the constitution a Screening Committee. 8. The primary contention of the petitioner herein is that the respondents have prepared the year-wise panels in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police in blatant violation of Rule 3 Note 1 of the Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 01.06.1998. The relevant Rule reads as under: “3. 8. The primary contention of the petitioner herein is that the respondents have prepared the year-wise panels in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police in blatant violation of Rule 3 Note 1 of the Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 01.06.1998. The relevant Rule reads as under: “3. Method of Appointment: Note-1: In every cycle of ten vacancies, the appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall be as follows, namely: Vacancy Number Method of Recruitment 1st Direct Recruitment 2nd Promotion 3rd Promotion 4th Direct Recruitment 5th Promotion 6th Promotion 7th Direct Recruitment 8th Promotion 9th Promotion 10th Promotion 9. From a reading of the above Rule, it is evident that a rota-quota system is prescribed, wherein, 30% of posts are earmarked for direct recruits and 70% for the promotees, and the rotation of vacancies for every block of ten vacancies is clearly specified as 1 st , 4 th , and 7 th vacancies being allocated for direct recruitment. 10. Further, while filling up the vacancies, the procedure outlined under Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, must be scrupulously followed. As per the said Rule, all the vacancies arising in a particular year must be calculated and the eligibility of the candidates for promotion must be assessed as on the commencement of the panel year, i.e., 1 st September of the year. However, in the instant case, no material has been placed on record to substantiate that proper year-wise panels have been prepared and the vacancies arising each year had been properly calculated while affecting promotions. 11. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra), wherein, it was held that the seniority must be determined by strictly adhering to the established rota and quota systems so as to ensure a fair and equitable seniority list. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder. “ 52. That by getting appointment orders ahead of direct recruits the promotees had already enjoyed more perks than the direct recruits by way of pay, etc. This became possible because the selection process of promotees was shorter as compared with that of direct recruits. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder. “ 52. That by getting appointment orders ahead of direct recruits the promotees had already enjoyed more perks than the direct recruits by way of pay, etc. This became possible because the selection process of promotees was shorter as compared with that of direct recruits. The injustice to direct recruits cannot be compounded by relegating them in the matter of seniority also by placing the promotees en block above the direct recruits especially when both of them (promotees and direct recruits) were selected against the same requisition sent by the Government to the Punjab Public Service Commission. 59. We have also referred to the decisions rendered by this Court. This Court said rota and quota must necessarily be reflected in the seniority list and any seniority list prepared in violation of rota and quota is bound to be negated. The action of the respondents in determining the seniority is clearly in total disregard of rota- quota rule prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. The action is, 3 2 therefore, clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Thus, we hold: 1. that the action of the State is contrary to the 1976 Rules; 2. the seniority under the 1976 Rules must be based on a collective interpretation of Rule 18 and Rule 21 of the 1976 Rules; 3. the action of the authorities is negation of Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules in determining the seniority by the impugned order. Since the action is contrary to law laid down by this Court, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal and grant the relief as prayed for by the appellant. 60. We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare the seniority list of the appellants who belong to the PCS (EB) in accordance with Rule 18 and read with Rule 21 of the 1976 Rules by fixing seniority according to the roster prescribed under Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. Fresh seniority list should be drawn within three months.” 12. From the above, it is clear that where a rotation system is provided in the Rules, along with a quota, seniority should be determined strictly as per the said rotation and the determination of seniority as per the rota is equitable for both the direct recruits as well as the promotees. From the above, it is clear that where a rotation system is provided in the Rules, along with a quota, seniority should be determined strictly as per the said rotation and the determination of seniority as per the rota is equitable for both the direct recruits as well as the promotees. However, in the instant case, the respondents failed to apply the rota-quota principles while finalizing the seniority list, and the same vitiates the seniority list prepared by the respondents. 13. It is a well-settled law that the Special Rules necessarily prevail over the General Rules. As such, the reliance placed by the respondents on Rule 33 (a) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and the Circular Memo dated 21.04.1999, is unfounded. The instructions by way of a Circular Memo cannot override the statutory Special Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India . Hence, in view of the Special Rules and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra), no weight can be attached to the said Circular Memo dated 21.04.1999. 14. As regards Point No.2, admittedly, the promotees, including respondent No.3 herein, were granted promotions only on ad hoc basis, due to non-finalization of the seniority lists. Subsequently, a Screening Committee was constituted in the year 2022, and the services of all the ad hoc promotees were regularized, without preparing the year-wise panels. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mhabemo Ovung and others v. M. Moanungba and others , [2024 SCC OnLine 2281] , wherein, it was held as follows: “ 9. As stated before us, the post of Junior Engineer was governed by the 1997 Rules in terms of which 90% recruitment is to be done by direct recruitment and 10% by way of promotion. As stated before us, prior to 2003 selection by the Nagaland Public Service Commission no direct recruitment was made. Any seniority list of Junior Engineer which may have been circulated earlier will not have any bearing in the case in hand. After the direct recruitment of the Junior Engineers a tentative seniority list was circulated on 31.05.2004. Its finalization remained pending for years. During the interregnum 47 posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, working in the Nagaland Public Works Department were upgraded to Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) vide Letter dated 11.10.2007. After the direct recruitment of the Junior Engineers a tentative seniority list was circulated on 31.05.2004. Its finalization remained pending for years. During the interregnum 47 posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, working in the Nagaland Public Works Department were upgraded to Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) vide Letter dated 11.10.2007. After considering claims and objections of all the incumbents working in the cadre of Junior Engineers, the seniority list was finalized on 26.03.2018. 10. The appellants in C.A.@S.L.P.(C) No. 17102 of 2021 were shown at Serial Nos. 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 & 80 in the aforesaid seniority list; they being the direct recruits. Respondent Nos. 1 to 16 who were earlier working as Sectional Officer, Grade- I, the post which was subsequently upgraded as Junior Engineer vide letter dated 11.10.2007 were shown at Serial Nos. 156, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 157, 158, 159, 174 & 179. 11. Aggrieved against the aforesaid seniority list, two writ petitions were filed before the High Court. W.P.(C) No. 74(K) of 2019 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 16 herein whereas W.P.(C) No. 264(K) of 2018 was filed by 29 other incumbents who were earlier working as Sectional Officer, Grade-I, the post which was upgraded to Junior Engineer vide order dated 11.10.2007. 12. Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed both the writ petitions as the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, whose post was upgraded only on 11.10.2007 as Junior Engineers could not be treated to be senior to the Junior Engineers who were directly recruited on 01.05.2003. The impugned seniority list as circulated on 26.03.2018 was upheld. 13. A perusal of the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court shows that it had totally misdirected itself while examining the 1997 Rules; the date of appointment of the private contesting respondents as Sectional Officer, Grade-I and the date of their regularization as such. The aforesaid facts were not of any relevance for the decision of the question of seniority amongst the members of the cadre of Junior Engineers. All what was required to be considered was the date on which they became members of the cadre of Junior Engineers coming from two different sources. As to whether the upgradation of the post was right or wrong is not an issue canvassed before this Court. All what was required to be considered was the date on which they became members of the cadre of Junior Engineers coming from two different sources. As to whether the upgradation of the post was right or wrong is not an issue canvassed before this Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has further gone wrong in considering the upgradation of post of Sectional Officer and certain other posts to that Junior Engineers prior to 01.05.2003 when direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineers was made for the first time. That historical background did not have any relevance for the reason that prior to 2003 never before in the cadre of Junior Engineers there was recruitment from two different sources. The dispute arose only thereafter. 14. The dates on which the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were promoted as such either on officiating basis or their promotions were regularlised though as per the Order dated 31.03.2007 effective from the date when the DPC was held i.e. 16.03.2007 will not have any bearing on the case in hand. Even if the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, are treated to be working from the date they were officiating as such, nothing hinges on that as far as the seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers is concerned. It is for the reason that the post of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, on which they were working was upgraded to that of Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) vide letter dated 11.10.2007.” 15. Similarly, in Malook Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others , [ (2022) 17 SCC 765 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the ad hoc promotions dehors the rules cannot be counted for seniority. This principle dictates that individuals employed in a temporary or ad hoc capacity are not entitled to seniority based on their ad hoc tenure if they are later regularized. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder: “22. The law on the issue of whether the period of ad hoc service can be counted for the purpose of determining seniority has been settled by this Court in multiple cases. In Direct Recruits [Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 339] , a Constitution Bench of this Court has observed : (SCC pp. 725 & 744-45, paras 13 & 47) “13. In Direct Recruits [Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 339] , a Constitution Bench of this Court has observed : (SCC pp. 725 & 744-45, paras 13 & 47) “13. When the cases were taken up for hearing before us, it was faintly suggested that the principle laid down in Patwardhan case [S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 3 SCC 399 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 391] was unsound and fit to be overruled, but no attempt was made to substantiate the plea. We were taken through the judgment by the learned counsel for the parties more than once and we are in complete agreement with the ratio decidendi, that the period of continuous officiation by a government servant, after his appointment by following the rules applicable for substantive appointments, has to be taken into account for determining his seniority; and seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for, as was pointed out, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. The principle for deciding inter se seniority has to conform to the principles of equality spelt out by Articles 14 and 16. If an appointment is made by way of stopgap arrangement, without considering the claims of all the eligible available persons and without following the rules of appointment, the experience on such appointment cannot be equated with the experience of a regular appointee, because of the qualitative difference in the appointment. To equate the two would be to treat two unequals as equal which would violate the equality clause. But if the appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules made for regular substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for purpose of seniority. Same will be the position if the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary. … *** 47. Same will be the position if the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary. … *** 47. To sum up, we hold that: (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to a rule, his seniority has to counted from the date of appointment and not according to date of his confirmation. The corollary to the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stopgap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account considering the seniority.” (emphasis supplied) … 25. The Notification dated 3-5-1977 stated that the ad hoc appointments were made in administrative interest in anticipation of regular appointments and on account of delay that takes place in making regular appointment through the agencies concerned. In this regard, the vacancies were notified to the employment exchange or advertisements were issued, as the case may be, by appointing authorities. The appointments were not made on the recommendation of the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board. However, subsequently a policy decision was made to regularise the ad hoc appointees since their ouster after a considerable period of service would have entailed hardship. Thus, the initial appointment was supposed to be a stopgap arrangement, besides being not in accordance with the rules, and the ad hoc service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority.” 16. From the above, it is quite clear that the ad hoc appointments/ promotions granted dehors the Rules cannot form the basis for determining seniority. Thus, retrospective regularization cannot disturb existing seniority norms, particularly where the rights of the direct recruits are directly involved. Hence, in the case on hand, when the Screening Committee regularized the services of the ad hoc promotees in the year 2022, it was incumbent upon it to apply the rota rule prescribed under Rule 3 Note 1 of the Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 01.06.1998, and assign seniority accordingly. Here, in the instant case, there is only one direct recruit, i.e., the petitioner herein, who has to be placed appropriately and the effect would have been negligible. Here, in the instant case, there is only one direct recruit, i.e., the petitioner herein, who has to be placed appropriately and the effect would have been negligible. Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner is not claiming seniority from a date prior to his appointment or from any other specific date, rather, he is challenging the manner of promotion of promotees en bloc over him without following the rota rule. In view of the above, the decision relied on by the learned Government Pleader of Services (Home) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. As regards Point No.3, the respondents raised an objection that all the promotees against whom the petitioner is claiming seniority have not been made parties. It is well-settled law that impleadment in a representative capacity is sufficient, particularly when a general seniority list is under challenge, rather than the services of particular individuals. Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla and others v. Arvind Rai and others , [ (2022) 12 SCC 579 ] , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “ 45. The other ground taken by the High Court for non-suiting the appellants were that they had not impleaded all the affected Junior Engineers. For the said proposition, the Division Bench [Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Rajeev Nain Upadhyay, 2019 SCC OnLine All 4782] of the High Court has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar [Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 16 SCC 187 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 532] . The above case was in respect of selection and appointment on the ground that the same had been made only on the basis of interview without holding any written test. The High Court had quashed [Vinay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2003 SCC OnLine Pat 960] such selection and appointments even of those appointees who were not even parties to the petition. It was in these circumstances that this Court held that the appointments of non- parties could not be quashed. Facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable. 46. The High Court had quashed [Vinay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2003 SCC OnLine Pat 960] such selection and appointments even of those appointees who were not even parties to the petition. It was in these circumstances that this Court held that the appointments of non- parties could not be quashed. Facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable. 46. The Division Bench of the High Court also relied upon another judgment of this Court in Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. [Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 704] This case again related to challenge to appointments and in the said case there was no impleadment even in the representative capacity. In such circumstances, this Court said that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. In fact, this judgment helps the appellants. Para 50 thereof is reproduced below : (SCC pp. 288-89) “50. … (1) A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as the respondents or at least some of them being before it as the respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as the respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.” (emphasis supplied) 47. The third case relied upon by the Division Bench for the above proposition, namely, State of Uttaranchal v. Madan Mohan Joshi [State of Uttaranchal v. Madan Mohan Joshi, (2008) 6 SCC 797 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 197] was again a case where none of the affected parties were impleaded not even in the representative capacity. In such circumstances, this Court remanded the matter to the High Court leaving it open to the original petitioners therein to move an appropriate application for impleading some of the affected teachers in their representative capacity. 48. In such circumstances, this Court remanded the matter to the High Court leaving it open to the original petitioners therein to move an appropriate application for impleading some of the affected teachers in their representative capacity. 48. The fourth case relied upon by the Division Bench on the above proposition is Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. [Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 8 SCC 129 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1916] In this case also, the affected parties were not impleaded and this Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Prabodh Verma [Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 704]. 49. In Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. [Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 119] , C.K. Thakker, J., held that the case falls within the ambit of non- joinder of necessary parties as none of the 66 candidates against whom the complaint was made, were made parties. It further held that some of the respondents should have been arrayed in representative capacity. Para 41 is reproduced below : (SCC p. 780) “41. Regarding protection granted to 66 candidates, from the record it is clear that their names were sponsored by the employment exchange and they were selected and appointed in 1998-1999. The candidates who were unable to get themselves selected and who raised a grievance and made a complaint before the Tribunal by filing applications ought to have joined them (selected candidates) as the respondents in the original application, which was not done. In any case, some of them ought to have been arrayed as the respondents in a “representative capacity”. That was also not done. The Tribunal was, therefore, wholly right in holding that in absence of selected and appointed candidates and without affording opportunity of hearing to them, their selection could not be set aside.” (emphasis supplied) 50. In the recent case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. [Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 736] , Ashok Bhushan, J., laid emphasis that when there is a long list of candidates against whom the case is proceeded, then it becomes unnecessary and irrelevant to implead each and every candidate. If some of the candidates are impleaded then they will be said to be representing the interest of rest of the candidates as well. The relevant portion of para 81 from the judgment is reproduced below : (SCC p. 119) “81. … We may further notice that the Division Bench [Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 5970] also noticed the above argument of non- impleadment of all the selected candidates in the writ petition but the Division Bench has not based its judgment on the above argument. When the inclusion in the select list of large number of candidates is on the basis of an arbitrary or illegal process, the aggrieved parties can complain and in such cases necessity of impleadment of each and every person cannot be insisted. Furthermore, when select list contained names of 2211 candidates, it becomes unnecessary to implead every candidate in view of the nature of the challenge, which was levelled in the writ petition. Moreover, few selected candidates were also impleaded in the writ petitions in representative capacity.” 51. The present case is a case of preparation of seniority list and that too in a situation where the appellants (original writ petitioners) did not even know the marks obtained by them or their proficiency in the examination conducted by the Commission. The challenge was on the ground that the Rules on the preparation of seniority list had not been followed. There were 18 private respondents arrayed to the writ petition. The original petitioners could not have known who all would be affected. They had thus broadly impleaded 18 of such Junior Engineers who could be adversely affected. In matters relating to service jurisprudence, time and again it has been held that it is not essential to implead each and every one who could be affected but if a section of such affected employees is impleaded then the interest of all is represented and protected. In view of the above, it is well settled that impleadment of a few of the affected employees would be sufficient compliance of the principle of joinder of parties and they could defend the interest of all affected persons in their representative capacity. Non-joining of all the parties cannot be held to be fatal.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. In view of the above, it is well settled that impleadment of a few of the affected employees would be sufficient compliance of the principle of joinder of parties and they could defend the interest of all affected persons in their representative capacity. Non-joining of all the parties cannot be held to be fatal.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when there is a long list of candidates against whom the case is being processed with, even if some of the candidates are impleaded, they will be said to represent the interest of the rest of the candidates as well. Therefore, the objection of the respondents that the petitioner has not impleaded all the promotees cannot be countenanced. 19. As regards Point No.4, which is regarding the vacancies created by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 22.09.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 24.04.2017, i.e., 13 Civil and 3 others and 57 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) and 8 others, it is to be noted that both the G.O.s have been issued after the panel has been finalized in the year 2016-17. Hence, they must be carried forward to the panel year 2017-18. Further, as per Rule 4 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, a vacancy cannot be treated as a substantive vacancy until they are in existence for a continuous period of five years. Further, as per Rule 6, only the vacancies existing as of 1 st September of the preceding year are eligible to be included for the promotions of that particular panel year. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the vacancies created under G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 22.09.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 24.04.2017, could not have been retrospectively included in the 2016-17 panel year, and they were required to be carried forward to the panel year 2017-18 only. 20. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned final seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, has been prepared in utter violation of the statutory Rules and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra). Therefore, the impugned final seniority list is liable to be set aside. 21. Therefore, the impugned final seniority list is liable to be set aside. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74, Home (Services-I) Department, dated 29.12.2022, and the respondents are directed to prepare a fresh seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police, without including the vacancies created vide G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 22.09.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 24.04.2017, duly taking into consideration the mandate of rota rule issued in Note 1 of Rule 3 of the Telangana Police (Civil) Service Rules (G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 01.06.1998), and place the petitioner at the appropriate place. The said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.