ORDER : 1. Seeking to set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.495/2010/ P&E/A1-2, dated 29.07.2016 issued by respondent No.3 and its consequential proceedings in Cr.No.10673/2009/CPE/A2, dated 04.11.2016 passed by respondent No.2 and consequently to direct the respondents to revise the Seniority List of the Inspectors of Prohibition & Excise in Zone V and the Integrated Seniority List for Multi Zone-III duly placing name of the petitioner above the name of respondent No.4, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior counsel, representing Sri P.Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner and respondent No.4 were appointed as Prohibition and Excise Inspector under direct recruitment through APPSC and their commencement of probation was fixed at 02.11.1996 and in respect of respondent No.4 the same was re- fixed as 27.07.1999 as he could not pass the departmental tests as required under Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. A final seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors of Zone V was published by orders of respondent No.3 dated 05.10.2007 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.100 and name of respondent No.4 at Sl.No.143 and in the remarks column against name of respondent No.4, it was specifically mentioned that his date of commencement of probation was fixed from 27.07.1999 due to his not passing of departmental tests within the stipulated time. Further, in the final Integrated Seniority List of Multi Zone-III consisting of Zones V and VI prepared by respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 29.09.2009, the name of respondent No.4 was shown at Sl.No.237 and the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.71. However, in the said seniority list dated 29.09.2009, the name of the one K.Vara Prasad was shown at Sl.No.236 i.e. above the name of respondent No.4 shown at Sl.No.237. Therefore, questioning the same, respondent No.4 filed O.A. No.11245 of 2009 wherein vide order dated 07.07.2010, the Tribunal had allowed the said O.A. duly setting aside the Integrated Seniority List dated 29.09.2009 and directed the official respondents to prepare the revised seniority list as per the merit assigned by APPSC. Therefore, questioning the same, respondent No.4 filed O.A. No.11245 of 2009 wherein vide order dated 07.07.2010, the Tribunal had allowed the said O.A. duly setting aside the Integrated Seniority List dated 29.09.2009 and directed the official respondents to prepare the revised seniority list as per the merit assigned by APPSC. Alleging non-implementation of the said order dated 07.07.2010, C.A. No.992 of 2011 was filed and the same was closed based on the compliance reported by the official respondents therein. However, respondent No.4 herein has filed CMA No.130 of 2014 in CA No.992 of 2011 alleging that the compliance reported was not a fact. Finally, in order to get over the appearance ordered in CMA No.130 of 2014, the official respondents have issued proceedings in Rc.No.495/2010/P&E/A1, dated 25.06.2016 proposing to revise the seniority of respondent No.4 at Sl.No.99A i.e. above the name of the petitioner herein solely on the ground that he secured more marks than the petitioner herein at the time of his initial appointment, to which, immediately the petitioner raised objections stating that as the respondent No.4 has not passed the required departmental tests, within the stipulated time, he cannot be placed above the name of the petitioner in the seniority list. However, brushing aside the said objections, the official respondents passed the order dated 29.07.2016 stating that on account of the order dated 07.07.2010 passed by the Tribunal, the seniority list has to be prepared in accordance with merit ranking alone and not based on roster point and the same is illegal and arbitrary. Though, the petitioner has instituted O.A. No.3620 of 2016 assailing the order dated 29.07.2016, the same was disposed by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.09.2016 directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing of Statutory Appeal and the same was directed to be disposed of by the authorities considering the fact that he was not a party to O.A. No.11245 of 2009, dated 07.07.2010, which are not binding on the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation dated 26.09.2016 along with an Appeal of even date seeking revision of zonal seniority list vide order dated 29.07.2016. However, vide order dated 04.11.2016, once again the said objections were brushed aside by respondent No.2 by placing misconceived reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9856-9860 of 2016 with Civil Appeal No.9861 of 2016 dated 27.09.2016. However, vide order dated 04.11.2016, once again the said objections were brushed aside by respondent No.2 by placing misconceived reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9856-9860 of 2016 with Civil Appeal No.9861 of 2016 dated 27.09.2016. Further, the exemption sought by the petitioner under Rule 16(h) of the 1996 Rules was also dismissed by the Government vide Memo dated 16.06.2016. It is further stated that the appeal dated 24.11.2016 preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.11.2016 passed by respondent No.2 is still pending and no orders are passed thereon till date. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to set aside the order dated 04.11.2016 in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that petitioner and respondent No.4 were appointed as Prohibition & Excise Inspector and joined on 21.11.1996 and 02.11.1996 respectively. Further, the services of the petitioner were regularized from 02.11.1996 and as respondent No.4 did not pass the requisite departmental tests, within the period of probation, he was penalized under Rule 16(h) and his date of commencement of probation was fixed as 27.07.1999 vide G.O.Rt.No.1993, Rev.(Ex.I) Dept., dated 09.09.2006. Thereafter, a provisional seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors of Warangal Division was communicated vide Cr.No.2643/2004/P&E/A1, dated 28.07.2006, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.100 and respondent No.4 at Sl.No.143. After considering the objections, the provisional seniority list was confirmed vide Cr.No.2643/2004/ P&E/A1-2, dated 05.10.2007, basing on which, the Integrated Seniority List of Multizone-III was prepared and communicated vide Cr.No.2399/2009/CPR/L3-3, dated 29.09.2009 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.71 and respondent No.4 at Sl.No.237. While so, respondent No.4 submitted a representa- tion that raising objection that one Sri K.Vara Prasad, who secured less marks than him, was placed at Sl.No.142. However, the fact remains that due to non-passing of requisite departmental tests, the probation of respondent No.4 was re-fixed as 27.07.1999. Similarly, the date of commencement of probation of said K.Vara Prasad was re-fixed by the Government as 25.07.1999 vide G.O.Rt.No.459, dated 16.03.2022. Accordingly, both the said individuals were pushed down in ranking list. However, the fact remains that due to non-passing of requisite departmental tests, the probation of respondent No.4 was re-fixed as 27.07.1999. Similarly, the date of commencement of probation of said K.Vara Prasad was re-fixed by the Government as 25.07.1999 vide G.O.Rt.No.459, dated 16.03.2022. Accordingly, both the said individuals were pushed down in ranking list. Thereafter, as per the order dated 07.07.2010 passed in O.A. No.11245/2009 and O.A.No.11590/1990 & batch, the Integrated Seniority List was revised as per merit and a revised provisional Integrated Seniority List was communicated on 25.03.2011 and the same was finalized on 06.09.2014 wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.78, respondent No.4 was placed at Sl.No.118 and K.Varaprasad was placed at Sl.No.118A. However, in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal in C.A. No.992/2011, the revised seniority list was issued placing respondent No.4 at Sl.No.99/A i.e. above the petitioner, as per merit, as the petitioner secured 313.6 marks whereas respondent No.4 secured 315.5 marks. Consequently, in the Integrated Seniority List, respondent No.4 was placed at Sl.No.77/A i.e. above the petitioner who was placed at Sl.No.77. Further, the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before respondent No.1. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and gone through the record. 6. A perusal of the material on record discloses that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were selected as Excise Inspectors by direct recruitment through Public Service Commission on obtaining 313.6 and 315.5 marks respectively and they joined service on 21.11.1996 and 02.11.1996 respectively. Further, the date of commencement of probation of respondent No.4 and petitioner were initially fixed at 02.11.1996 but as respondent No.4 could not complete the requisite departmental tests, within the period of probation, his probation period was extended upto the last date of passing of the last departmental test and accordingly he was deemed to have commenced his probation in the category of Prohibition & Excise Inspector w.e.f. 27.07.1999 i.e. two years anterior from the date on which he passed the last departmental test as stipulated under Rule 16 (h) of A.P. State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996, and Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1993, dated 09.09.2006, to that effect. While so, the provisional seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors was prepared by respondent No.3 vide Circular No.2643/2004/P&E/ A1, dated 28.07.2006, wherein the name of petitioner was shown at Sl.No.100 and respondent No.4 at Sl.No.143, basing on the date of regularization of services in the cadre of Prohibition & Excise Inspector. Thereafter, after considering the objections raised by certain individuals, the said provisional list was confirmed by third respondent vide Circular No.2643/2004/P&E/A1-2, dated 05.10.2007. Basing on the final seniority lists of Zone V and II, the Integrated Seniority List of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors of Multizone-II was also prepared vide Circular No.2399/2009/CPR/ L3-3, dated 29.09.2009 wherein the name of petitioner was placed at Sl.No.71 and respondent No.4 at 237 and one K.Vara Prasad at Sl.No.142. The record further discloses that admittedly respondent No.4 failed to pass requisite departmental tests within the period of probation of three years. As such, the Government has re-fixed his date of commencement of probation as 28.07.1999. Likewise, in case of K.Vara Prasad also, his date of commencement of probation was also re-fixed by the Government as 25.07.1999 vide G.O.Rt.No.459, dated 16.03.2022. Therefore, both the individuals i.e. respondent No.4 and K.Vara Prasad were pushed down from original APPSC ranking list due to alteration of date of commencement of probation as 28.07.1999 and 25.07.1999 respectively and were accordingly placed at Sl.Nos.144 and 143 respectively. Aggrieved by the placement of said K.Vara Prasad above his name and challenging the said Integrated seniority list dated 29.09.2009, respondent No.4 has filed O.A. No.11245 of 2009 and vide order dated 07.07.2010, the Tribunal has allowed the said O.A. holding as under: “In these circumstances, the impugned seniority list, dated 29.09.2009, is liable to be set aside and the respondents are directed to prepare the seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors in Multi Zone-III strictly as per the merit assigned by the 4 th respondent-APPSC, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by following the procedure prescribed under the rules and shall consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent as per his seniority and if he is within the zone of consideration as per the directions of this Tribunal.” 7. In compliance of the above order, the respondent authorities have revised the Integrated Seniority List of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors as per merit vide Circular No.12782/2009/CPE/13, dated 25.03.2011 and the said list was finalized on 06.09.2014 wherein the names of the petitioner, respondent No.4 and K.Vara Prasad were placed at Sl.Nos.78, 118 and 118A respectively. Further, in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal in C.A. No.992/2011, respondent No.3 has again revised the Zonal seniority list and placed respondent No.4 at Sl.No.99/A i.e. above the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 21.03.2011, considering the merit assigned by the APPSC. Consequently, in the Integrated Seniority List of Multizone-III (consisting of Zone V and VI), respondent No.4 was placed above the petitioner vide proceedings dated 29.07.2016 and the same was confirmed by respondent No.2 vide Proceedings dated 04.11.2016. 8. Here, it is pertinent to observe that petitioner is not a party to any of the proceedings before the Tribunal and the lis was admittedly confined between respondent No.4 and K.Vara Prasad. That apart, respondent No.4 has not chosen to challenge G.O.Rt.No.1993, Rev.(Ex.I), Dept., dated 09.09.2006, whereby the date of commencement of probation of respondent No.4 was extended in the category of Prohibition & Excise Inspector w.e.f.27.07.1999 and the same has attained finality. 9. In view of the above peculiar facts of the case and having regard to the fact that the appeal dated 24.11.2016 filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the Government, this Court is of the view that it is appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal at the earliest. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 24.11.2016, duly giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by putting all the affected parties on notice, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, there shall be stay of proceedings dated 29.07.2016 of respondent No.3 and proceedings dated 04.11.2016 passed by respondent No.2. It is needless to say, the parties are at liberty to raise all the legal grounds during the course of hearing before respondent No.1. 11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.