6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that unofficial respondents were not put on probation when they were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Jails on ad hoc basis on 13.04.2006 in terms of Rule 36 (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules’); that inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees have to be determined in terms of Rule 33 (a) of the Rules taking note of the first date of appointment; that the petitioners are continuing in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jails and at this point of time, if the seniority is altered, it will have an impact on their service conditions and therefore, balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners; that temporary services of unofficial respondents were regularized by orders, dated 16.10.2012 and 18.10.2012 and it was further modified on 18.11.2012; that in pursuance of direction of this Court in earlier round of litigation, Government has not given notice to the affected parties so as to make representation to the authorities; that the order passed by the Government, which was impugned before the Tribunal, is null and non est in the eye of law because it does not contain any reasons and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted interim order or at least status quo to be maintained till disposal of the Original Applications.
