The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a long-running challenge by three Prohibition and Excise Inspectors who questioned the revision of their seniority and promotions. The Division Bench held that promotee officers cannot claim permanent seniority over posts meant for direct recruits merely because they temporarily occupied those slots.
The ruling was delivered on January 20, 2026, by Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela while deciding Writ Petition No. 31902 of 2017.
Background of the Case
The petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Assistants and later promoted or transferred as Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspectors. A final seniority list for Zone-I was issued in August 2007 and remained unchallenged for years.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Questions Media Defamation Claims, Reserves Verdict in Newslaundry Case
Problems arose when the department proposed further promotions in 2013. Certain direct recruits objected, arguing that their rightful seniority positions had been blocked by promotees occupying posts meant for direct recruitment. Acting on government instructions and earlier court directions, the department revisited the seniority list, leading to the dispute.
Aggrieved by this revision, the petitioners approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which rejected their claim in 2017. That order was challenged before the High Court.
Court’s Observations
Hearing the matter, the Bench acknowledged the general principle that settled seniority should not be disturbed after a long gap. However, it clarified that this protection does not apply when seniority correction is required to place direct recruits in their legally earmarked slots.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Denies Bail to Prayag Group Chiefs in ₹2,800 Crore Money Laundering Case
“The petitioners accepted promotion with clear conditions,” the Bench observed, noting that promotees who occupy direct recruit vacancies do so subject to rules governing probation and seniority.
The court relied on government circulars and settled Supreme Court law, emphasizing that quota or rota rules apply for recruitment, not for determining inter se seniority once appointments are made. It further observed that probation and seniority of promotees cannot override the statutory rights of direct recruits.
As the Bench put it,
“Simply because promotees temporarily occupied direct recruit slots, they cannot claim seniority over direct recruits appointed later as per rules.”
Read also:- Madras HC Slams Police Inaction in Pachaiyappa’s Trust Case, Seeks Explanation from Top Officers
Decision
Upholding the Tribunal’s order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It ruled that the government was justified in revising the seniority list to correctly place direct recruits according to service rules and cyclic points.
The court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned government memos and confirmed that the petitioners could not prevent such revision merely by citing delay or past promotions.
With this, the writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were closed. No costs were awarded.
Case Title: A. Srirangam Dora & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 31902 of 2017
Date Pronounced: 20 January 2026
