THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.NO.21978 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per GM,J) Questioning the order dated 3-11-2008 passed in O.A.No.5360 of 2006 and the order dated 26-6-2009 passed in Review M.A.No.3343 of 2008, the present writ petition been filed. The brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Education Department on compassionate grounds and he joined in the said post on 6-12-1975. While working in the Education Department, he was subjected to selection process conducted by the District Selection Committee, Medak and was selected and allotted to the Commercial Taxes Department by the District Collector, Medak on 29-11-1976. While so, the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, had published an integrated seniority list in the cadre of Lower Division clerks and his name was shown at serial No.194 and his date of appointment was shown as 6-12-1975. Subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 29-07-1987. While so, the 3rd respondent published the seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistants vide proceedings dated 18-3-1993. In the said seniority, his name was shown at serial No.76. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A.No.264 of 1996 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with seniority by taking into account the notional dates of promotion as shown in the seniority list dated 18-3-1993 for the purpose of promotion/in-charge arrangements to the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. In pursuance of the said order, he was promoted as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer on 9-8-1996. Thereafter, 2nd respondent published a revised final seniority list of Senior Assistants on 21-3-2005, wherein his name was shown at serial No.149. After publication of the said seniority list, he filed an appeal on 22-4-2005 to the 2nd respondent and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 18-3-2006, holding that his services in Education Department cannot be counted for seniority in Commercial Taxes Department. According to the petitioner, from the cadre of Junior Assistants upto the cadre of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, the respondents have taken the initial date of appointment in the Education Department. Thereafter, nearly 20 years, the respondents are estopped from revising the seniority. The respondents cannot alter the seniority contrary to the directions issued in OA. In fact, a review MA No.3343 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the present appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer is only on adhoc basis with reference to the provisional seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant prepared at Serial No.76, prepared on 18-3-1993. Even after regularization of the seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant on 19-3-2005, his adhoc promotion as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer did not get affected. Further, the seniority and promotion of the petitioner earlier was only on the provisional basis and subject to finalization of seniority by the appointing authority. His provisional seniority and adhoc promotion to Assistant Commercial Tax Officer do not confer any further right to him for promotion as Deputy commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner is not entitled for fixation of any seniority in this Department with reference to his previous service in the Education Department and he is entitled for seniority in the present Department only from the date when he joined in this department. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material brought on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted to the unit of Commercial Taxes Department from Education Department on 29-11-1976 by the District Collector, when he was allotted from Education Department to Commercial Taxes Department by the District Collector, Medak is to be treated as transfer on administrative grounds but not otherwise. He further submits that once the transfer is on administrative grounds, the service rendered by the petitioner is to be reckoned in the Education Department for the purpose of determining seniority in the Commercial Taxes Department. In support of his contention, he relied upon Rule 27 (i) of the AP Ministerial Service Rules, 1966, which reads hereunder: “Whenever a transfer is made on administrative grounds from one unit to another unit, such transfer is liable to be treated as administrative grounds only but not otherwise” Placing reliance on Rule 35 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, wherein it is held that the seniority of a member of service, class or category transferred from one unit of appointment to another unit of appointment on administrative grounds shall be determined with reference to the date of seniority of such member in the former unit, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above rule position, the petitioner is entitled to reckon the seniority from the date on which he was appointed in the Education Department i.e., on 6-12-1975, but not from the date on which he was allotted to the Commercial Taxes Department. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for services II appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that though the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in Education Department, stated to be on regular basis by way of compassionate appointment, he appeared for District Selection Committee where selection is also for substantive appointment. He further submits that having appeared for the District Selection Committee and selected for Commercial Taxes Department, for all practical purposes his selection is a fresh one for the purpose of assigning seniority in the Commercial Taxes Department, in the cadre in which he is selected. He also submits that the petitioner is not entitled for fixation of any seniority in the Commercial Tax Department and he is entitled to seniority in the Department only from the date when he joined in the Department. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7360 and 7361 of 2002 wherein it is held that transfer of Government servant from the unit of appointment to another unit of appointment, would amount to fresh appointment on his joining in the new unit of appointment and the seniority of such Government servant in the new unit appointment would be from the date he/she joined and his/her previous service cannot be counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the new unit of appointment. A perusal of the record goes to show that the petitioner was originally appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1975 in Education Department, Medak District on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the District Selection Committee and was selected and allotted Commercial Taxes Department in Medak District vide proceedings dated 29-11-1976. The only contention putforth by the petitioner is that once he was allotted from Education Department to Commercial Taxes Department, through selection process by the District Selection Committee, Medak, his services in the Education Department shall be treated as transfer. He relied on G.O.Ms.NO.687 GAD, dated 3-10-1977, wherein it is stated that compassionate appointment after 1973 shall be treated as regular appointment without subjecting them to the normal process of recruitment. But, the said GO goes to show that it would apply in the cases where a Government servant is appointed in a particular department of the State Government, he need not be subjected to further process of recruitment like appearing for the examination being conducted by the selection authority for the post he/she is appointed. In the case on hand, the petitioner himself appeared for the District Selection Committee and was selected and for all practical purposes his selection is a fresh one for the purpose of assigning seniority in the Commercial Taxes Department. Further, the Apex Court in similar set of circumstances held that transfer of Government Servant from unit of appointment to another unit of appointment, would amount to fresh appointment on joining in the new unit of appointment and the seniority of such Government servant in the new unit of appointment would be from the date he/she joined and his/her previous service cannot be counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the new unit of appointment. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the guidelines of the Apex Court enunciated in the above decision cited supra, we deem that the Tribunal having considered all the aspects, held that past service of the petitioner in the Education Department can be taken into account in the Commercial Taxes Department for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits but not for seniority and there is no illegality or material irregularity in the order impugned and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J rkk Dated: 20-6-2011