As per case facts, a dispute arose regarding promotions to Deputy Executive Engineer posts under the Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Service Rules. The existing system involved a 24-point ... roster across three feeder categories: Assistant Executive Engineers (AEE), Assistant Engineers (AE), and Draughtsmen. Assistant Executive Engineers contended that juniors from Assistant Engineers, despite being diploma holders, were promoted ahead of them due to the roster. To address this, G.O.Ms.No.82 introduced provisos to prioritize seniority and date of appointment over the roster for AEEs. These provisos were challenged by Assistant Engineers, leading to the Administrative Tribunal setting aside G.O.Ms.No.82. The present writ petitions were filed by Assistant Executive Engineers, challenging the Tribunal's decision and the subsequent government order deleting the provisos. The question arose whether the government could impose additional conditions of seniority or educational qualification, which were not part of the initial service rules, on an established roster-based promotion system for distinct feeder categories, and if such stipulations were arbitrary or discriminatory. Finally, the Court affirmed the Administrative Tribunal's ruling, concluding that once a roster system for promotions from separate feeder categories is established, superimposing additional conditions like overall seniority is arbitrary. Such conditions could unjustly deprive a feeder category of its promotional slots, especially in the absence of a carry-forward mechanism for vacancies, thus lacking a rational connection to the promotion system. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, thereby upholding the removal of the contentious provisos.