ORDER : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings of Respondent No.2 in R.C.No.EHE05-11021(38)/1/2024-SER I-IE, dated 02.01.2025, wherein Respondent No.3 is promoted to the post of Chief Auditor (Gazetted) in violation of Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Rules, 1993 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.302, Education (IE) Department, dated 30.12.1993, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition are as follows; The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 03.05.1993 in the office of the Commissioner of Intermediate Education and was allotted to the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, on bifurcation. Subsequently, the Petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant and further promoted as Superintendent/Auditor in the year 2015 and has been working in the said post ever since. While so, the ACB had raided the house of the Petitioner on the allegation of disproportionate assets and the Petitioner was initially placed under suspension on 18.02.2021, subsequently, vide G.O.Rt.No.68, School Education (Vig.) Department, dated 09.05.2023, the suspension of the Petitioner was revoked. It is stated that the Charge sheet is yet to be filed by the ACB. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.3 was appointed as Chief Auditor (Gazetted) contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Rules, 1993 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.302, Education (IE) Department, dated 30.12.1993. It is stated that the post of Superintendent and Auditor are interchangeable posts in the Department and that the name of the Petitioner was figured at Sl.No.4 in the list of eligible candidates considered for promotion to the post of Chief Auditor (Gazetted) and according to the Petitioner, he alone is eligible for promotion, as he has the requisite experience. It is stated that Respondent No.3 does not have sufficient experience as Auditor as required under the Rules. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Respondent No.2 filed a Counter Affidavit stating that the District Promotion Committee (DPC) was constituted to recommend suitable candidates for the post of Chief Auditor (Gazetted) for the panel year 2024-25. After evaluating all eligible candidates and service records, the DPC prepared the seniority list in the existing cadre of Superintendent/Auditors by duly verifying the satisfactory service certificates. As per the list prepared, Respondent No.3 was at Sl.No.2 while the Petitioner was at Sl.No.4. - 5. After evaluating all eligible candidates and service records, the DPC prepared the seniority list in the existing cadre of Superintendent/Auditors by duly verifying the satisfactory service certificates. As per the list prepared, Respondent No.3 was at Sl.No.2 while the Petitioner was at Sl.No.4. - 5. It is stated that the DPC after examining the eligibility list and relevant Rules i.e. G.O.Ms.No.302, Education (IE.I) Department, dated 30.12.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.66, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 30.01.1991 had approved the candidature of Respondent No.3. In the light of the recommendation of the DPC, Respondent No.3 was appointed to the post of Chief Auditor. It was also stated that Respondent No.3 was working as Auditor from 2010 and drawing salary as Auditor from 2010 onwards. 6. It is further stated that the Petitioner failed to submit satisfactory service certificates for the relevant period, and in the absence of such a certificate, the Petitioner was not considered by the DPC. It is further stated that the name of the Petitioner was included in the panel for consideration only on account of orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.12571 of 2024, dated 03.07.2024, which is filed by the Petitioner and even though the Petitioner was facing ACB allegation, which is awaiting filing of charge sheet. 7. Respondent No.3 also filed Counter Affidavit contending that Respondent No.3 has requisite qualifications to be appointed as Chief Auditor (Gazetted) and he is the senior to the Petitioner in the cadre of Superintendent/Auditors. It is stated that Respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 24.05.2005, whereas the Petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2013 as he had acquired minimum qualification of degree only in the year 2011. - 8. It is also stated that Respondent No.3 was promoted as Superintendent/Auditor on 16.07.2010, while the Petitioner was promoted to the said post only in the year 2015. The Respondent No.3 further stated that the Petitioner is facing serious charges of corruption and his name cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Auditor (Gazetted) in terms of G.O.Ms.66, GAD Department, dated 30.01.1991. 9. The Respondent No.3 further stated that the Petitioner is facing serious charges of corruption and his name cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Auditor (Gazetted) in terms of G.O.Ms.66, GAD Department, dated 30.01.1991. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the qualifications for the purpose of Chief Auditor (Gazetted) have been specified under the Rules referred above and the appointment under the Rules requires a person having Bachelor Degree in a recognized University and must have three (3) years experience as Superintendent/Auditor and also must have experience of not less than as Auditor in the Collegiate Intermediate Education. - 10. The Senior Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 have qualifications referred in the Annexure i.e. University Degree and experience as Superintendent/Auditor for three (3) years, but Respondent No.3 does not have experience in actual auditing, as required under the Rules. It was contended that the principal criteria is eligibility and not the length of service and as Respondent No.3 does not have requisite qualification, the seniority is of no consequence. The learned Senior Counsel would further emphasize for appointment as Chief Auditor (Gazetted). Learned Senior Counsel in the course of arguments passed on the audit reports prepared by the Petitioner after his appointment as Superintendent/Auditor. A Division Bench Judgement of this Court in W.P.No.10387 of 2013 relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel to substantiate his arguments. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri E. Samba Siva Prathapa would submit that the appointment of Respondent No.3 is in consonance with the Rules, and that the Petitioner is facing serious charges framed by the ACB, cannot be considered for promotion to the sensitive post of Chief Auditor (Gazetted). Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the requirement of having physical experience in auditing, as mentioned in the Rules, is not required for the post of Chief Auditor, as three (3) years experience is sufficient for them to be promoted. - 12. Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 supported the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General and contended that the appointment of Respondent No.3 is in consonance with the Rules. 13. - 12. Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 supported the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General and contended that the appointment of Respondent No.3 is in consonance with the Rules. 13. Having heard the respective counsels, the entire case revolves around the understanding of the eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of Chief Auditor (Gazetted) as per Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Rules, 1993 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.302, Education (IE) Department, dated 30.12.1993. 14. The method of appointment as per Rule 3 of the above Rules reads as under; “Chief Auditor (Gazetted): By appointment by transfer of Superintendent/Auditors in Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service in the Intermediate Education Department.” 15. The Rules with reference to the Method of Appointment and Qualifications to the post of Chief Auditor (Gazetted) along with other posts are specified in the Annexure of the Rules. The same is extracted below; - Chief Auditor (Gazetted) i) Must possess a Bachelor Degree of a University in India established or incorporated under a Central Act, State Act or a Provincial Act or an Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission or an equivalent qualification. ii) Must have experience for a period of not less than 3 (Three) years as Superintendent or Auditor. iii) Must have experience for a period not less than 3 (Three) years as Auditor in the Collegiate/Intermediate Branch. 16. There is no dispute that the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 have the qualifications in clause (i) and (ii) in the above tabulated format. The core dispute is with regard to clause (iii) in the above tabulated format. A closer study of the qualifications in clause (ii) and (iii) makes it perplexing as why there is a specific requirement of 3 years as Auditor in collegiate/intermediate branch under clause (iii) above, in re-iteration of 3 years of experience as Superintendent or Auditor in clause (ii) 17. The answer to this is in understanding the cadre of Superintendent in the A.P. Ministerial Rules, 1998 i.e. the cadre from which the appointment by transfer is effected. The cadre of Superintendent in the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 includes various designations in various departments. The answer to this is in understanding the cadre of Superintendent in the A.P. Ministerial Rules, 1998 i.e. the cadre from which the appointment by transfer is effected. The cadre of Superintendent in the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 includes various designations in various departments. The post of Superintendent is classified as Class-A; Category (1) under Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 and reads as under; - “Class -A: Category-I Superintendents: Superintendents in the Offices of the Heads of Departments, Directorates and other Subordinate Offices including the posts in the basic scale of pay as that of Superintendents though differently designated but excluding the posts covered by other Special Service Rules- “ (a) …………………. (b) …………………… (c) ……………………. (d) ……………………. (e) Auditors including posts in the basic pay scale of Superintendents designated as:· (i) Auditor / Senior Auditor. (ii) Commercial Auditor. (iii) Internal Auditor. 18. The highlighted portion of the above Rule refers to Auditors in the basic pay scale of Superintendents and designated as Auditor/Senior Auditor, Commercial Auditor and Internal Auditor are also coming under the term “Superintendents”. The post of auditor is not department specific and therefore the qualification (iii) emphasises on experience as Auditor in the Collegiate/Intermediate Branch. The Clause (iii) of the Qualifications for appointment to the post of Chief Auditor (gazetted) mentioned in Annexure is only to clarify Clause (ii) which says Superintendent or Auditors with experience of 3 years is a qualification required to be considered for appointment by transfer - 19. The emphasis of the qualification (iii) is experience in collegiate/intermediate education and not in other departments. The purpose of qualification (iii) is to remove ambiguity of qualification (ii) as there would be claims from superintendents/auditors working in other departments for the said post. The other way of understanding the qualification (iii) is that the experience of auditing in other departments would not suffice. 20. In the Counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2, it is specifically stated at paragraph no.11 that the Respondent No.3 has been working and drawing salary as Auditor in the department with effect from 2010 onwards and there is no reply affidavit denying this fact. As the Respondent No.3 is working as and drawing salary as Auditor since 2010, the same would suffice the requirement of qualification (iii) for appointment as Chief Auditor (Gazetted). As the Respondent No.3 is working as and drawing salary as Auditor since 2010, the same would suffice the requirement of qualification (iii) for appointment as Chief Auditor (Gazetted). The argument of the learned Senior Counsel that a person should have physical experience of auditing in the collegiate/intermediate education branch cannot be sustained as the qualifications in the Rules do not mention as such. The Division Bench Judgment of this court in W.P.No.10387 of 2013 relied upon is not of relevance to the facts of the case as the Department had disputed the experience of 3 years of the individual therein as he was working in a different section of the department and only had experience of 2 years and 7 months as auditor only unlike in this case. - 21. The second aspect is that the candidature of the Petitioner could not be considered by the DPC as the ACRs for the years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 the satisfactory service certificate was shown as negative. As the satisfactory service certificate is a mandatory requirement for consideration of the candidature of an individual for promotion, the Petitioner’s case was not considered. 22. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 23. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.