ORDER : KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar Motupalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, appearing for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the action of the 2 nd respondent in issuing proceedings vide CR. No.12021/56/2020/CPE/B1-3, dated 05.07.2022, rejecting the objections, and the consequential proceedings of revised final integrated seniority list of Assistant Prohibition Excise Superintendents vide CR. No.12021/56/2020/CPE/B1, dated 21.07.2022. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as an ‘Excise Inspector’ in the year 1996 through APPSC. He was subsequently promoted as Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent in 2013 and later promoted as Prohibition & Excise Superintendent in 2018. 4. The petitioner contends that he belongs to Zone-IV category and the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent is a multi zonal post, where under Zones-I and II would fall under multi Zone-I and Zone-III and IV would fall under multi zone-II. It is further contended that the 2 nd respondent issued proceedings vide CR. No.7569/2014/CPE/B3, dated 28.04.2016, communicating the final integrated seniority list for Multi Zones I and II. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No.32 in the panel year 2010-11 for promotion to the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent. It is stated that the list was notified in 2017, showing the petitioner at Sl.No.91, the 3 rd respondent at Sl. No.139, and the name of the 4 th respondent was not even included in the said notification. 5. It is further contended that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) had recommended certain names of Assistant Excise Superintendent to the posts of Prohibition & Excise Superintendent in the panel years at 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 10 posts of Excise Superintendents were filled up from the category of Assistant Excise Superintendents(AES) from the panel year 2010-11. In connection thereto, the government has issued G.O.Ms.14, Revenue (Excise) Department, dated 08.01.2018 accepting the recommendations of the DPC in issuing revised panels. The petitioner contends that consequent to the said promotion, 10 posts of Assistant Excise Superintendents would fall vacant making space for 10 Excise Inspectors to be promoted as AES. However, the 2 nd respondent issued provisional seniority list where the unofficial respondents 3 & 4 were shown at Sl.No.85 and 89 respectively, whereas the petitioner was shown at Sl. No.112. The petitioner contends that consequent to the said promotion, 10 posts of Assistant Excise Superintendents would fall vacant making space for 10 Excise Inspectors to be promoted as AES. However, the 2 nd respondent issued provisional seniority list where the unofficial respondents 3 & 4 were shown at Sl.No.85 and 89 respectively, whereas the petitioner was shown at Sl. No.112. Objecting to the said provisional seniority list, the petitioner has filed his objections on 27.11.2021. The 2 nd respondent rejected the said objections of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 05.07.2022 in CR. No.12021/56/2020/CPE/B1-3, and thereafter, revised integrated seniority list vide CR. No.12021/56/2020/CPE/B1, dated 21.07.2022 of Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendents of multi zone-I, II and III for panel years 2007-08 to 2013-14 was issued showing the petitioner at Sl.No.39 of panel year 2012-13, the respondents 3 & 4 were shifted to panel years 2010-11 at Sl.Nos.29 and 30. Challenging the rejection of the objections dated 05.07.2022 and the consequential proceedings of integrated seniority list dated 21.07.2022, the instant petition has been filed. 6. It is contended by the petitioner that in the final integrated seniority list prepared, the posts of Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendents for of multi Zone-I & II, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.32. The 3 rd respondent was shown at Sl.No.46 in the panel year 2012-13, whereas the 4 th respondent’s name was not even figured in the said list. However, the final seniority list dated 21.07.2022, which was issued without considering the objections of the petitioner, the petitioner was pushed down, whereas the respondents 4 & 5 were shown above the petitioner. 7. It is contended by the petitioner that the government vide G.O.Ms. No.14, dated 08.01.2018, has approved ten individuals of multi zone-II for notional promotion to the posts of Prohibition & Excise Superintendents in the panel year 2010-11, but only seven vacancies were shown and thus three substantive vacancies should be added in the panel year 2010-11. The petitioner contends that the objections of the petitioner to the provisional seniority list dated 17.11.2021 were brushed aside. 8. The petitioner contends that the objections of the petitioner to the provisional seniority list dated 17.11.2021 were brushed aside. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2 nd respondent without considering the objections of the petitioner passed the impugned proceedings, observing that the final seniority list of Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendents was issued for the years 2007-08 to 2013-14 and final integrated seniority list were issued on 23.12.2016, duly disposing the similar objections which were filed by the individuals. The 2 nd respondent rejected the objections, observing that there is no change in the substantive vacancies and since the petitioner has not filed any specific objections against the placements of the unofficial respondents. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has no grievance against the respondents 3 & 4 and 5 in the panel year 2010-11, there were subsequently three more vacancies added and if the same are taken into consideration, the petitioner would considered, he would be eligible for promotion in the panel year 2010-11. 9. The 1 st & 2 nd respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the government has relaxed application of Rule 16(h) of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules to respondents 3 & 4 and two others who were shown below the petitioner in the seniority list issued in 2016. Thus the petitioner was pushed down in the revised seniority list. 10. The 3 rd & 4 th respondents filed counter affidavit stating that seniority list was finalized and published on 23.04.2019, in which the names of the respondents 3 & 4 was shown at Sl.No.5 & 6 respectively, whereas the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.9, based on merit. Further, it is contended that the respondents have obtained 325.1 and 325.05 marks respectively whereas the petitioner secured 317.65 marks in the selection process and as such his placement below us is based on merit by following Rule 33 (b) and 36 (1) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules and that the petitioner never raised any objection nor filed any appeal against his placement in the seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors in Zone IV and integrated seniority list of Multi Zone II consisting of Zones III and IV. Based on the seniority the category, the respondents 3 & 4 have stated to have filed a representation for awarding notional seniority in the category of AESs. Since no action was taken on the same, the petitioners have filed W.P. No.9062 of 2021. The said Writ Petition was disposed of. Based on the orders in the Writ Petition, it is stated that the subject seniority list has been prepared showing the names of the petitioner against panel year 2012-13 and the respondents against panel year 2010-11. 11. Considered the rival submissions. 12. The respondents while disposing of the objections has summarily stated that similar objections raised by the petitioner had been disposed of earlier without adverting to or considering the substantive contention raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of the vide CR. No.12021/2/2023/CPE/B1-(21), dated 30.06.2023, passed in connection with objections filed by V. Sreedhar Rao, AP&ES, Nandyal. A perusal of the same depicts that the panel years for 2018-19, 2019-20 are now being reviewed. 13. In view of the same, the petitioner, who is also shown in panel year 2018-19, the 2 nd respondent is directed to re-consider objections dated 27.11.2021, raised by the petitioner, without reference to the impugned proceedings vide CR. No.12021/56/2020/CPE/B1-3, dated 05.07.2022, and pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 14. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.