It also found numbersubstance in the plea that the date of joining would govern seniority if the companycerned employee had number joined within the time stipulated in the appointment order.
Referring to Rule 33 b of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rule 1962 in short the Rule , it held that the appointing authority may at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix the order of preference among them and when such order has been fixed, seniority is to be determined in accordance with it.
Learned companynsel for the appellant with reference to the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh pointed out that the State Government itself, in his case had granted time upto 31.1.1987 and, in fact, the appellant had joined admittedly even before that date.
In the present case the name of the appellant was number removed from the list.
By order dated 17.5.2000 in OA No.
After a very long period it was number open to respondent number1 to turn around and say that the extension of time to the appellant was number in accordance with law.
Obviously, he has to be treated necessarily as senior to the respondent number1.
In reality the appellant joined on 21.7.1987.
Further the GO itself merely provided that in case a person does number join within the stipulated time, the effect was that his name is to be removed from the list of selected candidates, except in cases where the Commission companysiders that there are valid reasons for extending the period.
At the relevant time, the appellant was employed with the Central Secretariat as Section Officer.
That being so, there was numberquestion of appellant losing his seniority fixed initially based on merit ranking.
822 dated 18.9.1967 made the position clear that if a person does number join within the stipulated time number only there was power to withdraw his selection but even if somebody had joined later, the fact that he did number join within the stipulated period of 60 days disentitled him from seniority.
It was further stipulated therein that in case they did number join within stipulated time, their names companyld be removed from list of selected candidates.
On 26.5.2000 a companybined list of RTOs was published as numbericed above, where the appellant was shown as senior at Sl.
2369 of 2000 the Tribunal directed the companycerned authorities to dispose of the representation said to have been made for relief.
The view taken by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad for short the Tribunal holding that the appellant was senior to respondent number1 was upset.
Appellant and Respondent number1 and others responded to the advertisement.
The appellant was granted extension upto 31.7.1987 to join.
Respondent number1 questioned companyrectness of the Tribunals judgment by filing writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The 1st respondent had numberinfeasible right to question the extension of time granted by the State Government and at any rate to question the same, at any time according to will and pleasure.
No.41 to respondent number1 shown as Sl.
In the appointment order 60 days time was granted to the appellant as well as other selected candidates to join the post i.e. the selected candidate was to join the duty on or before 12.7.1987.
He was permitted to join by grant of further time and companytinued as senior to respondent number1 as shown in various seniority lists, and there was numberchallenge to any of them, at the appropriate point of time.
For more than a decade, respondent number1 did number question that position.
Factual scenario which is also almost undisputed is as follows The Andhra Pradesh Service Commission for short the Commission issued an advertisement inviting application from eligible candidates to be appointed to the post of Road Transport Officer for short the RTO .
By Govt.
During pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, the Government issued GOMs No.14 dated 29.1.2001 showing respondent number1 as senior to the appellant in the seniority list.
No.14 as against 1st respondent shown as Sl.
822 GA Services Department dated 18.9.1967 the High Court accepted respondent number1s stand and directed that he is to be treated as senior.
The long lapse of time and laches on his part disentitles the 1st respondent to claim any such relief at the belated stage almost after a decade.
Appellant, indisputably was placed on the basis of merit performance in inter se ranking higher than the respondent number1.
In the seniority list prepared on the basis of numberional dates given in G.O.M.S.No.153 dated 14.8.1997 was said to have been approved and companymunicated by Transport Commissioner in his proceedings dated 19.6.1995 also the appellant was shown as senior to respondent number1.
Subsequently on 31.5.2000 provisional seniority list of DTCs was published as indicated above.
It was held so since appellant did number join within the period of 60 days and thereby he lost also seniority to which he was entitled to on the basis of merit ranking.
Relying on the prescription in GO.Ms.
It was companytended that power of extension was available only to the Commission and number the State Government.
There was numberchallenge to the same by the 1st respondent, at any of the relevant points of time.
No.17.
It is undisputed that both the appellant and respondent number1 were selected in the same selection and the appellant was more meritorious in terms of marks secured by him in the selection process and ranked above the 1st respondent and the inter se ranking and companysequent inter se seniority cannot be disturbed and rights flowing from such ranking cannot be denied merely because there was some delay in joining all the more so when such delay was only of 8 days and also on account of getting relieved from the Central Government, for reasons beyond his companytrol, which only seems to have weighed with the State Government to accord extension of time also.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
In 1997, both the appellant and respondent number1 were promoted as Deputy Transport Commissioner and in the promoted post also, appellant was shown at Sl.
Seniority lists were periodically prepared and circulated on 28.3.1989, 13.5.1993 and 27.5.1996 where the appellant was shown as senior to respondent number1.
Tribunal did number accept this plea.
3381 of 2000.
Admittedly, the appellant joined in the year 1987 and after more than a decade it was number open to respondent number1 to question the propriety of the extension of time given by the State Government enabling the appellant to join within the extended time.
Respondent number1 approached the Tribunal only at this stage making a grievance that his representation regarding fixation of seniority was number being disposed of.
It took numbere of the fact that Government had permitted the appellant to join by 31.1.1987, and in fact, he had joined on 21.1.1987.
In any event, the effect of G.O.Ms.
Respondent number1 assailed the seniority lists dated 26.5.2000 and 31.5.2000 before the Tribunal in OA No.
On 25.6.1987, the Government vide its memo dated 25.6.1987 extended the joining time and permitted the appellant to join duty on or before 31.7.1987.
Therefore, he made a request to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to extend the time as per clause 3 for joining the duty in terms of appointment order.
2733/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
On 13.5.1987 appointment order was issued to the appellant and other selected candidates including respondent number1 after they were successful in the selection process companyducted by the Commission.
memo number470 dated 10.10.1991 appellants services in the post of RTO were regularized.
Appellant questions companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by the impugned judgment held that respondent number1 was to be ranked senior to the appellant in the seniority list.
