- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellant questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by the impugned judgment held that respondent No. 1 was to be ranked senior to the appellant in the seniority list. The view taken by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') holding that the appellant was senior to respondent No. 1 was upset.
(3.) 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'). Appellant and Respondent No. 1 and others responded to the advertisement. On 13-5-1987 appointment order was issued to the appellant and other selected candidates including respondent No. 1 after they were successful in the selection process conducted by the Commission. 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. At the relevant time, the appellant was employed with the Central Secretariat as Section Officer. 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. 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. In reality the appellant joined on 21-7-1987. By Govt. memo No. 470 dated 10-10-1991 appellant's services in the post of RTO were regularized. 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 No. 1. There was no challenge to the same by the 1st respondent, at any of the relevant points of time.;