https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302829 The Court ruled in a case involving the Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial Service that both permanent and temporary posts of District and Sessions Judges were part of the Service. Seniority had to consider the length of service against both temporary and permanent posts, rejecting the argument that temporary service should not count. The Court held that the Special Rules provided a comprehensive scheme for appointment and seniority, dismissing the contention that Rule 10(a)(i) of the State Rules applied. Despite petitioners' earlier appointment, respondents were rightly given seniority based on continuous service against temporary and permanent posts, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. en-us Tue, 23 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jun 2022 18:06:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302829 The Court ruled in a case involving the Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial Service that both permanent and temporary posts of District and Sessions Judges were part of the Service. Seniority had to consider the length of service against both temporary and permanent posts, rejecting the argument that temporary service should not count. The Court held that the Special Rules provided a comprehensive scheme for appointment and seniority, dismissing the contention that Rule 10(a)(i) of the State Rules applied. Despite petitioners' earlier appointment, respondents were rightly given seniority based on continuous service against temporary and permanent posts, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302829