Retrospective Change In Probation Date Can't Be Used To Alter Settled Seniority, Violates Service Rules & Natural Justice: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that once an employee's seniority has attained finality after rendering long years of service, the authorities cannot revise it by changing the date of probation after a long lapse of time. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 175]

The Court further held that such action, taken without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, is hit by the principles of natural justice and violates the applicable service rules.

Allowing a writ petition filed by a Senior Assistant of a temple, Justice Balaji Medamalli set aside the revised seniority list that retrospectively changed the petitioner's date of probation, resulting in his juniors being promoted ahead of him and recovery proceedings being initiated against him.

The Court directed the authorities to restore his appropriate place in the seniority list with all consequential benefits, including promotion on par with his juniors.

The Court observed:

“Once the seniority attained finality in view of the long service rendered by the employee in the officiating post, the same cannot be interdicted after long lapse of time. As the above said both the rules which are admittedly applicable to the petitioner's case, the authorities cannot now revise the seniority in the name of change of date of probation on the pretext of acquisition of qualification and also initiating recovery proceedings apart from denying promotion to the petitioner is nothing but unsettling the settled or accrued rights of the petitioner. Apart from the above, the action of the 3rd respondent in proceeding with the impugned action is without issuing any notice or without conducting any enquiry and everything is behind back of the petitioner, as such, the same is hit by the principles of natural justice apart from violation of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 read with AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”

The case arose from the revision of the petitioner's seniority in a temple establishment. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds in 2007. His probation was declared in 2010 and he was promoted as Senior Assistant in 2017.

Several years later, while preparing the seniority list for promotion to the post of Superintendent, the authorities treated the petitioner's probation as having been declared only in 2015, when he passed the required Accounts Test, instead of the earlier year. As a result, he was moved down in the seniority list, recovery proceedings were initiated against him for alleged excess payments, and his juniors were promoted ahead of him.

Aggrieved by the revised seniority list and the consequential proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court.

He contended that the authorities had no power under the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 to revise his seniority after the prescribed limitation period. He submitted that his probation and subsequent promotion had remained unquestioned for several years and that the impugned action was taken without issuing any notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing.

The official respondents contended that the petitioner's probation could be reckoned only from 2015, when he passed the mandatory Accounts Test. The unofficial respondents, who were the petitioner's juniors and had secured promotion to the post of Superintendent on the basis of the revised seniority list, supported the authorities' action. They argued that the revision of the petitioner's seniority and the consequential proceedings were in accordance with the applicable service rules.

Examining the record, the High Court noted that the petitioner's probation had been declared in 2010 and his promotion as Senior Assistant in 2017 had remained unquestioned for several years. It found that the authorities revised his seniority solely on objections raised during the preparation of the seniority list for promotion, without issuing any notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing.

Holding that the authorities could not unsettle the petitioner's accrued rights by retrospectively changing the date of probation after long years of service, the Court quashed the revised seniority list and consequential proceedings.

It accordingly directed restoration of the petitioner's proper place in the seniority list with all consequential benefits, including promotion on par with his juniors.

Case Title: Karothu Surya Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 6546 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: Peddibhotla Venkata Sai Rajesh

Counsel for the Respondents: Chintapalli Srinivas, GP for Endowments, and D.V. Sasidhar

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 175