Sandrapati Vijaya Kumar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4557 AP

                                1




           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                         ****

WRIT PETITION Nos.35726 & 37037 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION No.35726 OF 2018

Between:

Sandrapati Vijaya Kumar

.....Petitioner.

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare Department and Tribal Welfare Department, A.P. Secretariat, Guntur and another .....Respondents

WRIT PETITION No.37037 OF 2018

Between:

Asuri Srinivasa Rao                                ..Petitioner.

AND

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, (APPSC), Vijayawada, Krishna District and another

.....Respondents

DATE OF COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27.09.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

_________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

_________________ V. SRINIVAS, J

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

+ WRIT PETITION Nos.35726 & 37037 OF 2018 % 27.09.2023 +WRIT PETITION No.35726 OF 2018

Between:

# Sandrapati Vijaya Kumar ........Petitioner. And

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare Department and Tribal Welfare Department, A.P. Secretariat, Guntur and another .....Respondents

+WRIT PETITION No.37037 OF 2018

Between:

#Asuri Srinivasa Rao                            .....Petitioner.

AND

$ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, (APPSC), Vijayawada, Krishna District and an .....Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.No.35726 of 2018):

Sri N. Ravi Prasad

Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.No.37037 of 2018):

Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao

^ Counsel for the 1st respondent: Smt Sumathi, GP for

Services -I in W.P.No.35726 of 2018

Counsel for the 2nd respondent: Sri T. Balakrishna, SC for APPSC in W.P.No.35726 of 2018

< Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1 2019 9 SCC 276

2 (2021) 4 SCC 542 3(2022) 11 SCC 779 4 (2019) 9 SCC 276 5 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 6 (2017) 1 SCC 350 7 (2016) 2 SCC 328 8 (1988) 4 SCC 526 9 (1984) 3 SCC 706

10 (1984) 3 SCC 706

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION Nos.35726 & 37037 OF 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

1. Heard Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the

petitioner in W.P.No.35726 of 2018 and Sri S. Satyanarayana

Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, in W.P.No.37037 of

2018. Smt Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for Social

Welfare Department and Sri T. Balakrishna, learned standing

counsel for Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, (in

short, APPSC) in both the writ petitions.

2. In W.P.No.35726 of 2018 the memo of proof of service on

the unofficial respondents 4 to 9 open competition category,

selected candidates, securing lesser marks than the petitioners

was filed. But, there is no representation for those respondents.

3. Both the writ petitions involve common question of law

and are being decided by the common judgment.

FACTS IN W.P.No.35726 OF 2018 - (PETITIONER S. VIJAY KUMAR):

4. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short,

―APPSC‖) issued notification No.55/2011 dated 28.12.2011 to

fill up 57 posts of Hostel Welfare Officers, Grade-II (Group-IV) in

Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare Department in Krishna

District.

5. Three (3) posts out of 57 were reserved for Scheduled

Caste candidates (S.Cs). The petitioner S. Vijaya Kumar applied

and secured 203 marks (46th rank). He appeared for verification

of the original documents on 19.06.2013, but in the final

selection list, his name did not find place.

6. One candidate in this reserved category, namely N.

Chandra Mohan (SC) secured 216 marks (12th rank).

7. The last selected candidate in General/Open Competition

Category (OC) G. Pulla Reddy secured 211 marks (21st rank).

8. The petitioner stood at Sl.No.4 in the merit of SC

candidate. The other two SC posts were filled by the candidates

namely E. Maheswar Rao securing 210 marks (25th Rank), and

G. Abbulu securing 204 marks (44th rank).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that N.

Chandra Mohan (SC) on his merit should have been selected

and shifted to post in O.C. The petitioner then would have been

selected based on his marks in S.C category.

10. The petitioner filed O.A.No.106 of 2016 which was

dismissed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for

short, ―the Tribunal‖) on 20.09.2018.

11. This petitioner has filed W.P.No.35726 of 2018 with the

following prayer:-

―..........to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for records in O.A.No.106 of 2016 and declare the same as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble A.P.A.T in O.A.No.106 of 2016 dated 10.09.2018 and direct respondents 1 to 3 to select the petitioner in the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II in SC category as per notification No.55/2011 dated 28.12.2011 and to pass such other orders.‖

FACTS IN W.P.No.37037 OF 2018 (PETITIONER ASURI SRINIVASA RAO):

12. Pursuant to the same notification, the petitioner of

W.P.No.37037 of 2018 Asuri Srinivasa Rao, applied under the

reserved category of B.C-D. Out of 57 posts, 3 were reserved for

B.C-D. The petitioner secured 201 marks and was at Sl.No.4 of

the merit of B.C-D.

13. In this reserved category one candidate namely

Gollapally Srinivasa Rao (BC-D) secured 216 marks (13th) rank.

14. As aforesaid the last selected candidate in O.C, G. Pulla

Reddy secured 211 marks.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

other two B.C-D selected candidates are N. S. Nagaraju (204

marks, 43rd rank) and K.V Gopi Krishna (202 marks, 49th rank).

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if G.

Srinivasa Rao (BC-D) was selected as per his merit, in O.C, then

this petitioner would have been selected against the 3rd post

reserved for B.C-D category.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 8

vacancies occurred due to non-joining of the selected

candidates.

18. This petitioner initially filed O.A.No.7282 of 2013 which

was disposed of by order dated 18.11.2016 by the Tribunal with

direction to the authorities to consider the petitioner's case.

But, this was set aside in W.P.No.4097 of 2017 filed by the

APPSC, vide order dated 15.02.2017 and the matter was

remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits in

accordance with law. Thereafter, the O.A No.7282 of 2013 was

dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.09.2018.

19. This petitioner has filed W.P.No.37037 of 2018 with the

prayers as under:

―........to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of CERTITIORI and call for the records on the file of the A P Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in O.A.No.

7282/2013 dated 10.09.2018 and quash or set aside the same by further declaring the entire procedure adopted by the respondents in the matter of selecting the candidates in furtherance of recruitment Notification No.55/2011 dated 28.12.2012 for the post of Hostel welfare Officer Gr-II and also selecting the person who secured 216 marks 13th rank against B.C-D vacancy instead of selecting him against OC vacancy while selecting a OC community candidate who secured 211 marks against OC vacancies is as highly illegal arbitrary unjust improper unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to consider/appoint the petitioner herein as Hostel welfare officer Gr-II in pursuance of Notification 55/2011 dated 28.11.2011 against BCD roster point with all consequential benefits such as seniority other allied benefits w e f the day on which other candidates selected/ appointed and to pass such other orders.‖

CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS:

20. Sri N. Ravi Prasad and Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao,

learned counsels for the petitioners in both the writ petitions

respectively submitted that, the candidates of the reserved

category i.e., S.C and B.C-D, respectively, who obtained highest

marks 216 in their respective reserved categories, on the basis

of their merit, deserved to be placed in O.C, as the last selected

candidate in open/general category obtained 211 marks only. If

that was done the petitioners would have been selected in their

respective reserved category. The respondents did not follow the

settled principle of law, that the reserved category candidates on

the basis of their merit competing with the O.C candidate, are to

be shifted to the O.C, seats/posts. Consequently, the action of

the respondents as also the judgments of the Tribunal are

legally unsustainable.

21. Learned counsels for the petitioners placed reliance in

Pradeep Singh Dehal vs State of Himachal Pradesh &

Others1, Saurav Yadav and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and others2 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another

vs. Sandeep Choudhary and another3 in support of their

aforesaid contentions.

22. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted

that the ‗Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of

Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975'

i.e., (in short, the Presidential Order) provides that 80% of the

posts for direct recruitment as notified shall be filled by local

candidates. They submitted that by shifting the meritorious

selected candidates in the S.C and B.C-D category in O.C on

their own merit would not violate the Presidential Order as all

those candidates are ‗Local Candidates'.

CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED GOVERNMENT PLEADER:

2019 9 SCC 276

(2021) 4 SCC 542

(2022) 11 SCC 779

23. Smt Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for Services-I

submitted that para 8 of the Presidential Order provides for 80%

posts to be filed by locals candidates. She submitted that

Government Memo No.29978/PE-Ser-II/2012 Education (P-Ser-

II) Department dated 20.12.2012, clarified that in making the

direct recruitment i.e 80% as prescribed in the Presidential

Order for the Locals only; and for un-reserved 20% both local

and Non-local, roaster points shall be maintained. She

submitted that the 20% shall be filled up first as per the merit

of the selected candidates in the provisional selection list,

including the local and non locals. Thereafter, 80% would be

filled only by the local candidates, excluding the non-locals from

such list, if there is any. For such purpose, the provisional

selection list of District Selection Committee (in short, DSC) is

divided in two parts; first part contains 20% of the posts and

the rest 80% in the second part.

24. Learned Government Pleader submitted that under 20%

two General Candidates (OC) namely M. Phani Dhurjati (228

marks, 1st rank) and M.V. Krishnan (224 marks 2nd rank) were

selected as per their merit and rank who got the highest marks.

N. Chandra Mohan (SC) secured 216 marks (12th rank).

Consequently, he was selected under his category of (SC) under

20% as per his merit. Two SC candidates E Maheswara Rao

(210 marks 25th rank) and other G. Abbulu (204 marks 44th

rank) were selected in their reserved (SC) category under 80%.

So, the petitioner S. Vijaya could not be selected being at 4th

place against 3 posts reserved for SC.

25. Learned Government Pleader submitted with respect to

the petitioner Asuri Srinivasa Rao, that Gollapally Srinivasa Rao

(BC-D) who secured highest 216 marks in his category was

selected under 20%, against the reserved post of B.C-D

(General). Two other next candidates of B.C.D namely N.S.

Nagaraju (204 marks) and K.V Gopi Krishna (202 marks) were

selected under 80% against the posts reserved for B.C-D. The

petitioner Asuri Srinivasa Rao, stood at Sl.No.4 (201 marks) in

B.C.D and consequently could not be selected against the 3

posts reserved for B.C.D.

26. Thus, the learned Government Pleader submitted that

the entire exercise was carried out by the DSC in accordance

with the procedure prescribed. No irregularity was committed in

the selection process. The Tribunal committed no illegality in

dismissing the O.A.No.106 of 2016 and O.A No.72802 of 2013.

CONTENTION OF LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR APPSC:

27. Sri T. Balakrishna, learned standing counsel for the

APPSC submitted that the role of the APPSC is to conduct

written examination and forward the rank list to the District

Collector for making selections. Pursuant to the notification,

after conducting the process, the ranking list in the order of

merit was communicated to the District Collector, Krishna

District for making selection duly following the rules. The

APPSC has no further role to play.

28. We have considered the submissions advanced by the

learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on

record.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

29. In view of the submissions advanced the following

points arise for our consideration.

(A) "(1) Whether in a case where the reserved category candidate secured more marks than the last selected general category candidate, such reserved category candidate will have to be adjusted in the general category post or only against the vacancies reserved for such category of candidate?

(2) Whether N. Chandra Mohan, (216 marks 12th rank) Scheduled Caste category candidate on the basis of his merit should have been adjusted against the general category post, being higher in merit than the last selected O.C candidate (211 marks), and if so, whether

the petitioner S. Vijay Kumar (SC) in W.P.No.35726 of 2018, should have been selected against the 3rd post for S.C on his merit position in S.C being at Sl.No.4?

(3) Whether Gollapally Srinivasa Rao (216 marks 13th rank) B.C-D category candidate, on the basis of his merit should have been adjusted against the general category post, being higher in merit than the last selected O.C candidate (211 marks), and if so, whether Asuri Srinivasa Rao the petitioner in W.P.No.37037 of 2018, should have been selected against the 3rd post for B.C-D on his merit position in B.C-D being at Sl.No.4?

(B) If the answer to point Nos. A(i), (ii) & (iii) is in affirmative, whether applying such law in giving effect to the reservation, under 80% posts for locals only, would result in violation of paragraph 8 of the Presidential Order, 1975 or not?

30. Before proceeding further, we shall put on record the

facts which are not in dispute as under:-

(i) The petitioners' merit position and the

marks obtained in their respective reserved categories.

(ii) The last selected candidate in O.C category

and his marks.

(iii) The merit position of N. Chandra Mohan

(SC) and Gollapally Srinivasa Rao (B.C-D) in their

respective reserved category and

(iv) N. Chandra Mohan (SC) and Gollapally Srinivasa

Rao (B.C-D), obtained higher marks 216, than, G. Pulla

Reddy the last selected O.C candidate (211 marks).

CONSIDERATION OF POINT-A:-1

31. We proceed to consider some judicial pronouncements of

Hon'ble the Apex Court on this point which have settled the law

on the subject.

32. In Pradeep Singh Dehal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

and others4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that every person is a

general category candidate. The benefit of reservation is

conferred to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other

Backward Class (OBC) category candidates or such other

category as is permissible under law. The Hon'ble Apex Court

referred the case of Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India &

Ors5 that if a reserved category candidate is in merit, he will

occupy a general category seat. The case of Vikas Sankhala v.

Vikas Kumar Agarwal6 was also referred in which it was held

that the reserved category candidate who obtains more marks

than the last general category candidate is to be considered as

(2019) 9 SCC 276

1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

(2017) 1 SCC 350

general category candidate and such reserved category

candidate has to be treated unreserved category candidate.

33. It is apt to refer paragraphs 14 and 15 of Pradeep Singh

Dehal (supra) as under:

―14. We find that the process of conducting separate interviews for the posts of Assistant Professor under general category and OBC category is wholly illegal. Though, none of the parties have raised any dispute about it but since the same is inherently defective, we are constrained to observe so. Every person is a general category candidate. The benefit of reservation is conferred to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC category candidates or such other category as is permissible under law. It is a consistent view of this Court starting from Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.6 that if a reserved category candidate is in merit, he will occupy a general category seat. In Indra Sawhney's case, the Court held as under:

―811. In this connection it is well to remember that the 6 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.‖

15. In judgment reported as Vikas Sankhala (supra), one of the questions examined was whether reserved category candidate who obtains more marks than the last general category candidate is to be treated as general category candidate. It was held that such reserved category candidate

has to be treated as unreserved category candidate provided such candidate did not avail any other special concession. The Court held as under:

―84.2. Migration from reserved category to general category shall be admissible to those reserved category can- didates who secured more marks obtained by the last un-reserved category candidates who are selected, subject to the condition that such reserved category candidates did not avail any other special concession. It is clarified that concession of passing marks in TET would not be treated as concession falling in the aforesaid category.‖

34. In Saurav Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held

that the principle that candidates belonging to any of the

vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in

―Open or General Category‖ is well settled. It was further held

that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are

entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their

selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the

categories for vertical reservation to which they belong.

35. In Saurav Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court also

considered the second view taken by the different High Courts,

that after vertical reservations are provided, for accommodating

candidates, for effecting horizontal reservation, the candidates

from reserved categories can be adjusted only against their own

categories under the concerned vertical reservation and not

against the ―Open or General Category‖. The Hon'ble Apex Court

held that the second view is neither based on any authoritative

pronouncement nor does it lead to a situation where the merit is

given precedence. Subject to any permissible reservations i.e.

either Social (Vertical) or Special (Horizontal), opportunities to

public employment and selection of candidates must purely be

based on merit. Any selection which results in candidates

getting selected against Open/General category with less merit

than the other available candidates, will certainly be opposed to

principles of equality. There can be special dispensation when it

comes to candidates being considered against seats or quota

meant for reserved categories and in theory it is possible that a

more meritorious candidate coming from Open/General

category may not get selected. But the converse can never be

true and will be opposed to the very basic principles which have

all the while been accepted by the Apex Court. It was held that

the second view will not only lead to irrational results where

more meritorious candidates may possibly get sidelined but will,

of necessity, result in acceptance of a postulate that Open /

General seats are reserved for candidates other than those

coming from vertical reservation categories. Such view will be

completely opposed to the long line of decisions of the Apex

Court.

36. It is to reproduce paras 26 to 30, 38, 39 and 44 of Saurav

Yadav (supra) as under:

"26. The principle that candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in ―Open or General Category‖ is well settled. It is also well accepted that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories for vertical reservation that they belong. Apart from the extracts from the decisions of this Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1] and R.K. Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] the observations by the Constitution Bench of this Court in V.V. Giri v. D. Susi Dora [V.V. Giri v. D. Susi Dora, (1960) 1 SCR 426 : AIR 1959 SC 1318] , though in the context of election law, are quite noteworthy: (AIR pp. 1326-27, paras 21-22) ―21. ... In our opinion, the true position is that a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe does not forego his right to seek election to the general seat merely because he avails himself of the additional concession of the reserved seat by making the prescribed declaration for that purpose. The claim of eligibility for the reserved seat does not exclude the claim for the general seat; it is an additional claim; and both the claims have to be decided on the basis that there is one election from the double-Member constituency.

22. In this connection we may refer by way of analogy to the provisions made in some educational institutions and universities whereby in addition to the prizes and scholarships awarded on general competition amongst all the candidates, some prizes and scholarships are reserved for candidates belonging to backward communities. In such cases, though the backward candidates may try for the reserved prizes and scholarships, they are not precluded from claiming the general prizes and scholarships by competition with the rest of the candidates.‖

27. The High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand, and Gujarat have adopted the same principle while dealing with horizontal reservation whereas the High Court of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh have taken a contrary view. These two views, for facility, are referred to as the ―first view‖ and the ―second view‖ respectively. The second view that weighed with the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh is essentially based on the premise that after the first two steps as detailed in para 18 of the decision in Anil Kumar Gupta [Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173] and after vertical reservations are provided for, at the stage of accommodating candidates for effecting horizontal reservation, the

candidates from reserved categories can be adjusted only against their own categories under the vertical reservation concerned and not against the ―Open or General Category‖.

28. Thus, according to the second view, different principles must be adopted at two stages; in that:

(I) At the initial stage when the ―Open or General Category‖ seats are to be filled, the claim of all reserved category candidates based on merit must be considered and if any candidates from such reserved categories, on their own merit, are entitled to be selected against Open or General Category seats, such placement of the reserved category candidate is not to affect in any manner the quota reserved for such categories in vertical reservation.

(II) However, when it comes to adjustment at the stage of horizontal reservation, even if, such reserved category candidates are entitled, on merit, to be considered and accommodated against Open or General seats, at that stage the candidates from any reserved category can be adjusted only and only if there is scope for their adjustment in their own vertical column of reservation.

Such exercise would be premised on following postulates:

(A) After the initial allocation of Open General Category seats is completed, the claim or right of reserved category candidates to be admitted in Open General Category seats on the basis of their own merit stands exhausted and they can only be considered against their respective column of vertical reservation. (B) If there be any resultant adjustment on account of horizontal reservation in Open General Category, only those candidates who are not in any of the categories for whom vertical reservations is provided, alone are to be considered.

(C) In other words, at the stage of horizontal reservation, Open General Category is to be construed as category meant for candidates other than those coming from any of the categories for whom vertical reservation is provided.

29. The second view may lead to a situation where, while making adjustment for horizontal reservation in Open or General Category seats, less meritorious candidates may be adjusted, as has happened in the present matter. Admittedly, the last selected candidates in Open General female category while making adjustment of horizontal reservation had secured lesser marks than the applicants. The claim of the applicants was disregarded on the ground that they could claim only and only if there was a vacancy or chance for them to be accommodated in their respective column of vertical reservation.

30. Both the views can be compared and the issues involved in this matter can be considered in the light of a hypothetical illustration with following assumptions:

30.1. The total seats available are 100; comprising of 50 seats for ―Open/General Category‖. The reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes is at 20%, 10% and 20% respectively

and all candidates from these reserved categories are otherwise eligible to be considered against Open General Category.

30.2. The percentage of seats available for ―Women‖ by way of compartmentalized horizontal reservation is 30%.

30.3. Out of all qualified candidates, when first 50 meritorious candidates are picked up to fill up the seats for ―Open/General Category‖:

(a) There are only 11 women in first 50 candidates in ―Open/General Category‖; and

(b) the last five persons in the ―Open/General Category‖ viz. the candidates at Serial Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 are--

   Sl. No. 46        --             Open Category           --        Male
   Sl. No. 47        --             Open Category           --        Male
   Sl. No. 48        --            Scheduled Caste          --        Male
   Sl. No. 49        --            Scheduled Caste          --        Male
   Sl. No. 50        --            Scheduled Caste          --       Female

(c) first four female candidates in the waiting list, who do not belong to any of the reserved categories, are having overall merit position at Serial Nos. 52, 64, 87 and 88.

(d) Going by the steps indicated in para 18 of the decision in Anil Kumar Gupta [Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173] , at the stage of filling up seats for Scheduled Castes Category, there are 7 females among 20 candidates with last 2 candidates being females whose overall ranking in the merit list is at Serial Nos. 80 and 86.

(e) Similarly, the seats for Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Categories are filled up.

(f) Out of 20 candidates selected in Other Backward Category there are 09 females.

―38. The second view is thus neither based on any authoritative pronouncement by this Court nor does it lead to a situation where the merit is given precedence. Subject to any permissible reservations i.e. either Social (Vertical) or Special (Horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection of candidates must purely be based on merit. Any selection which results in candidates getting selected against Open/General category with less merit than the other available candidates will certainly be opposed to principles of equality. There can be special dispensation when it comes to candidates being considered against seats or quota meant for reserved categories and in theory it is possible that a more meritorious candidate coming from Open/General category may not get selected. But the converse can never be true and will be opposed to the very basic

principles which have all the while been accepted by this Court. Any view or process of interpretation which will lead to incongruity as highlighted earlier, must be rejected.

39. The second view will thus not only lead to irrational results where more meritorious candidates may possibly get sidelined as indicated above but will, of necessity, result in acceptance of a postulate that Open / General seats are reserved for candidates other than those coming from vertical reservation categories. Such view will be completely opposed to the long line of decisions of this Court.‖

44. Having come to the conclusion that Appellant 1 and similarly situated candidates had secured more marks than the last candidates selected in ―Open/General Category‖, the logical consequence must be to annul said selection and direct the authorities to do the exercise de novo in the light of conclusions arrived at by us. However, considering the facts that those selected candidates have actually undergone training and are presently in employment and that there are adequate number of vacancies available, we mould the relief and direct as under:

44.1. All candidates coming from ―OBC Female Category‖ who had secured more marks than 274.8928 i.e. the marks secured by the last candidate appointed in ―General Category-Female‖ must be offered employment as Constables in Uttar Pradesh Police.

44.2. Appropriate letters in that behalf shall be sent to the candidates concerned within four weeks.

44.3. If the candidates concerned exercise their option and accept the offer of employment, communications in that behalf shall be sent by the candidates concerned within two weeks.

44.4. On receipt of such acceptance, the codal and other formalities shall be completed within three weeks.

44.5. Letters of appointment shall thereafter be issued within a week and the candidates concerned shall be given appropriate postings.

44.6. For all purposes, including seniority, pay fixation and other issues, the employment of such candidates shall be reckoned from the date the appointment orders are issued.

44.7. The employment of General Category-Females with cut-off at 274.8928 as indicated by the State Government in its affidavits referred to in paras 6 and 10 hereinabove are not to be affected in any manner merely because of this judgment.‖

37. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) the question

for consideration was as under:-

―Whether in a case where the reserved category candidates secured more marks than the general category candidates, such reserved category candidates will have to be first adjusted in the general category pool and they shall be considered for appointment in the general category pool or against the vacancies meant for reserved category candidates?‖

38. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the reserved

category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the

general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in

unreserved categories. It was held that even while applying

horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if

the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured

higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered

against the seats meant for unreserved candidates. It was held

that the candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well

stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and

position in the merit list entitles them to do so.

39. It is apt to refer para 8 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited (supra) with its sub paras as under:

―8. While considering the aforesaid issue, few decisions of this Court on the above point are required to be referred to.

8.1 In the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) in paragraph 812, it is observed and held as under:-

―812. We are also of the opinion that this rule of 50% applies only to reservations in favour of backward classes made under Article 16(4). A little clarification is in order at this juncture : all reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as ―vertical reservations‖ and ―horizontal reservations‖. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped [under clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations -- what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains -- and should remain -- the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure.‖

8.2 In Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), in paragraphs 8 to 11, it is observed and held as under:-

―8. We may also refer to two related aspects before considering the facts of this case. The first is about the description of horizontal reservation. For example, if there are 200 vacancies and 15% is the vertical reservation for SC and 30% is the horizontal reservation for women, the proper description of the number of posts reserved for SC, should be:―For SC : 30 posts, of which 9 posts are for women.‖ We find that many a time this is wrongly described thus:―For SC : 21 posts for men and 9 posts for women, in all 30 posts.‖ Obviously, there is, and there can be, no reservation category of ―male‖ or ―men‖.

9. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are ―vertical reservations‖. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc. under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are ―horizontal reservations‖. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745], Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [ (1995) 6 SCC 684] and Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L. Yamul [(1996) 3 SCC 253]. But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of ―Scheduled Caste women‖. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example:

If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC woman candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC woman candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman

candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four woman SC candidates. (But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four woman candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess woman candidates on the ground that ―SC women‖ have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.)

10. In this case, the number of candidates to be selected under general category (open competition), were 59, out of which 11 were earmarked for women. When the first 59 from among the 261 successful candidates were taken and listed as per merit, it contained 11 woman candidates, which was equal to the quota for ―general category women‖. There was thus no need for any further selection of woman candidates under the special reservation for women. But what RPSC did was to take only the first 48 candidates in the order of merit (which contained 11 women) and thereafter, fill the next 11 posts under the general category with woman candidates. As a result, we find that among 59 general category candidates in all 22 women have been selected consisting of eleven woman candidates selected on their own merit (candidates at Sl. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 19, 21, 25, 31, 35 and 41 of the selection list) and another eleven (candidates at Sl. Nos. 54, 61, 62, 63, 66, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79 and 80 of the selection list) included under reservation quota for ―general category women‖. This is clearly impermissible. The process of selections made by RPSC amounts to treating the 20% reservation for women as a vertical reservation, instead of being a horizontal reservation within the vertical reservation.

11. Similarly, we find that in regard to 24 posts for OBC, 19 candidates were selected by RPSC in accordance with merit from among OBC candidates which included three woman candidates. Thereafter, another five women were selected under the category of ―OBC women‖, instead of adding only two which was the shortfall. Thus there were in all 8 women candidates among the 24 OBC candidates found in the selection list. The proper course was to list 24 OBC candidates as per the merit and then find out number of woman candidates among them, and only fill the shortfall to make up the quota of five for women.‖ (emphasis supplied)‖.

8.3. In the case of Uttaranchal Public Service Commission Vs. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204, the High Court took the view that the reserved category candidate, on her own merit was entitled to be considered in the general category and she could not have been counted against the reserved category. While upholding the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed and held in paragraphs 3, 4, 13 and 15 as under:-

―3. Out of 42 posts, 26 were filled up by general category and 16 by reserved category candidates. Some women candidates stood selected in the general category while others had been given the benefit of horizontal reservation being residents of Uttaranchal. Respondent 1, being aggrieved preferred Writ Petition No. 780 of 2003 (M/B) in the High Court of Uttaranchal seeking quashment of select list dated 31-7-2003 mainly on the ground that women candidates belonging to Uttaranchal had secured marks making them eligible to be selected in the general category and had it been done so, Respondent 1 could have been selected in the reserved category being a woman of Uttaranchal. It had also been pleaded in the petition that some of the women candidates who not only claimed the benefit of horizontal reservation but have been selected giving the said benefit, did not submit their respective certificate of domicile at the time of filling up the application forms but they produced the said certificate at a later stage and it was accepted.

4. The High Court accepted the first submission of Respondent 1 after examining the record of selection and came to the conclusion that the last selected woman candidate who was given the benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the general category. Thus, the said candidate ought to have been appointed against the general category vacancy and Respondent 1 ought to have been offered the appointment giving her the benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women. Hence, these appeals.

13. In fact, the High Court allowed the writ petition only on the ground that the horizontal reservation is also to be applied as vertical reservation in favour of reserved category candidates (social) as it held as under:

‗In view of the above, Neetu Joshi (Sl. No. 9, Roll No. 12320) has wrongly been counted by Respondent 3/Commission against five seats reserved for Uttaranchal Women General Category as she has competed on her own merit as general candidate and as the fifth candidate the petitioner should have been counted for Uttaranchal Women General Category seats.'

Admittedly, the said Neetu Joshi has not been impleaded as a respondent. It has been stated at the Bar that an application for impleadment had been filed but there is nothing on record to show that the said application had ever been allowed. Attempt had been made to implead some successful candidates before this Court but those applications stood rejected by this Court.

14. The view taken by the High Court on application of horizontal reservation is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [(2007) 8 SCC 785], wherein dealing with a similar issue this Court held as under : (SCC pp. 790-91, para 9)

‗9. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SCs, STs and OBCs under Article 16(4) are ―vertical reservations‖. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc. under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are ―horizontal reservations‖. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745], Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684] and Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L. Yamul [(1996) 3 SCC 253].) But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of ―Scheduled Caste women‖. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite

number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women.'

15. In view of the above, it is evident that the judgment and order of the High Court is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria [(2007) 8 SCC 785]. The judgment and order impugned herein is liable to be set aside and all the consequential orders become unenforceable and inconsequential. Thus, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated 26-10-2005 passed in Mamta Bisht v. State [WPMB No. 780 of 2003, order dated 26- 10- 2005 (Utt)] is hereby set aside. No costs.‖ (emphasis in original)

8.4. In Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L. Yamul, (1996) 3 SCC 253 after noticing the Larger Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and R.K. Sabharwal (supra), it is observed in paragraph 13 to 16 as under:

"13. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that if a candidate is entitled to be admitted on the basis of his own merit then such admission should not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or any other reserved category since that will be against the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 16(4).

14. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217] commonly known as Mandal case, this Court held thus : (SCC p. 735, para 811) ‗811. In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes;

they will be treated as open competition candidates.'

15. In R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745] the Constitution Bench of this Court considered the question of appointment and promotion and roster points vis-à-vis reservation and held thus : (SCC p. 750, para 4)

‗4. When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserved categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserved category candidates can compete for the non- reserved posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the Services under the State. It is, therefore, incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion that the Backward Class/Classes for which the reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State Services. While doing so the State Government may take the total population of a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State Services. When the State Government after doing the necessary exercise makes the reservation and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for the said Backward Class then the percentage has to be followed strictly. The prescribed percentage cannot be varied or changed simply because some of the members of the Backward Class have already been appointed/promoted against the general seats. As mentioned above the roster point which is reserved for a Backward Class has to be filled by way of appointment/promotion of the member of the said class. No general category candidate can be appointed against a slot in the roster which is reserved for the Backward Class. The fact that considerable number of members of a Backward Class have been appointed/promoted against general seats in the State Services may be a relevant factor for the State Government to review the question of continuing reservation for the said class but so long as the instructions/rules providing certain percentage of reservations for the Backward Classes are operative the same have to be followed. Despite any number of appointees/promotees belonging to the Backward Classes against the general category posts the given percentage has to be provided in addition.'

16. In Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684] (SCC at p. 705) it has been held that while determining the number of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the candidates belonging to reserved category but selected/promoted on the rule of merit (and not by virtue of rule of reservation) shall not be counted as reserved category candidates.‖

8.5 In a more recent decision this Court in the case of Saurav Yadav Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542 after referring to all the earlier judgments on vertical reservation has observed and held that it is well settled that candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in "open or general" category and it is also further observed that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories that they belong.

8.6 Similar view has been expressed by this Court in another recent decision of this Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi Vs. Pinki Asati, (2022) 1 SCALE 534. By the said decision, it is reiterated that the reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in unreserved categories. It is further observed and held that even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates. It is further observed that the candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so.

40. Thus it is well settled in law that:

i) the candidates belonging to any of the

vertical reservation categories are entitled to be

selected in open/general category on the basis of

their own merit. The reserved category candidates

securing higher marks than the last of the general

category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in

unreserved category.

ii) the selection of the reserved category

candidates, based on their own merit to a post/seat

in unreserved category cannot be counted against

the quota reserved for the category to which they

belong. Despite any number of opportunities

belonging to reserved category of SC/ST/OBC

against the general category posts, the given

percentage of reservation has to be proceeded in

addition.

CONSIDERATION OF POINTS A.2 AND A.3 TOGETHER:

41. As per the list of the selected candidates, annexed and the

details mentioned in para 4 of the counter affidavit of the 3rd

respondent, in Open Category (General) there are two OC

candidates selected under 20% and there are seven (7)

candidates selected under 80%. In total there are Nine (9) OC

candidates selected. Under 20%, the OC candidates at Sl.No.1

and 2 obtained 228 and 224 marks respectively. Under 80% the

OC candidates at Sl.Nos.1 to 7 obtained 224, 220, 215, 215,

215, 214 and 211 marks respectively.

42. The part of the list/chart of OC/General Category selected

candidates as in the counter affidavit is as under:

"20% OPEN LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL

1. M. Phani Dhurjati OC General 1 228 Krishna

2. M.V. Krishna Rao B.C-D General 2 224 Krishna converted ex.ser.men

OC General (Open) under 80%:

1.    K.T. Kumar                B.C-C     General    3        224   Krishna

2     S.Hari Krishna            OC        General    6        220   Krishna

3     Ch.Srinivasa Rao          OC        General    15       215   Krishna

4     R. Srinivasa Rao          B.C.B     General    16       215   Krishna

5     PBS. Kumar                OC        General    17       215   Krishna

6     P. Siva                   OC        General    18       214   Krishna

7     T. Pullareddy             OC        General    21       211   Krishna

43. Thus, in OC category 5 selected candidates fromSl.No.3 to

7 (under 80%) obtained lesser marks than N. Chandra Mohan

(SC) (216 marks) and Gollapally Srinivasa Rao (BC-D) (216

marks).

44. Resultantly, in view of the settled law as in Pradeep Singh

Dehal (Supra), Saurav Yadav (Supra) and Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited (supra), N. Chandra Mohan (SC) and Gollapally

Srinivasa Rao (B.C-D), on their merit position were entitled in

law to the posts in unreserved (OC) Category.

45. N. Chandra Mohan (SC) and Gollapally Srinivasa Rao

(B.C-D) shall not be counted against the quota reserved for their

respective SC, and B.C-D categories. The entire reservation

quota will be intact and available. Consequently, under their

respective reserved categories there would be only two (2)

selected candidates in each category and to the extent of one

post in each such categories, the reservation quote is unfilled.

46. If the reserved category candidates N. Chandra Mohan

(SC) and Gollapally Srinivasa Rao (B.C.D), on their own merit

are given posts in open category, as per the settled law, the

petitioner of both these writ petitions would get selection in

their respective reserved category against 3rd reserved post,

each, as they both stand at Sl.No.4 in their respective category

and on shifting of N. Chandra Mohan (SC) and Gollapally

Srinivasa Rao (BC-D) against OC posts, the petitioners would

be within the reserved posts of their respective reserved

categories.

CONSIDERATION OF POINT-B:-

47. We proceed to consider the A.P. Public Employment

(Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct

Recruitment) Order, 1975 (in short, ―the Presidential Order).

48. The Presidential Order, 1975 is enacted under Article

371-D of the Constitution of India. It provides for the special

provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Article

371-D(1) provides that the President may by order made with

respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, provide,

having regard to the requirements of each State, for equitable

opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different

parts of such State in the matter of public employment and in

the matter of education and different provisions may be made

for various parts of the States. Article 371-D(2) provides that an

order made under clause(1) may in particular, (c) specify the

extent to which, the manner in which and the conditions

subject to which, preference or reservation shall be given or

made (i) in the matter of Direct Recruitment to post in any such

cadre referred to in sub-clause(b) as may be specified in this

behalf in the order to or in favour of candidates who have

resided or situated for any period specified in the order in the

local area in respect of such cadre, University or other

educational institutions as the case may be.

49. Article 371-D of the Constitution of India is reproduced as

under:

―[371-D. Special provisions with respect to [the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana].--

[(1) The President may by order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana, provide, having regard to the requirement of each State, for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of such State, in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various parts of the States.]

(2) An order made under clause (1) may, in particular,--

(a) require the State Government to organise any class or classes of posts in a civil service of, or any class or classes of civil posts under, the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State and allot in accordance with such principles and procedure as may be specified in the order the persons holding such posts to the local cadres so organised;

(b) specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regarded as the local area--

(i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre (whether organised in pursuance of an order under this article or constituted otherwise) under the State Government;

(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under any local authority within the State; and

(iii) for the purposes of admission to any University within the State or to any other educational institution which is subject to the control of the State Government;

(c) specify the extent to which, the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, preference or reservation shall be given or made--

(i) in the matter of direct recruitment to posts in any such cadre referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this behalf in the order;

(ii) in the matter of admission to any such University or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this behalf in the order,

to or in favour of candidates who have resided or studied for any period specified in the order in the local area in respect of such cadre, University or other educational institution, as the case may be.

(3) The President may, by order, provide for the constitution of an Administrative Tribunal for 6[the State of Andhra Pradesh and for the State of Telangana] to exercise such jurisdiction, powers and authority [including any jurisdiction, power and authority which immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty- second Amendment) Act, 1973, was exercisable by any court (other than the Supreme Court) or by any tribunal or other authority] as may be specified in the order with respect to the following matters, namely:--

(a) appointment, allotment or promotion to such class or classes of posts in any civil service of the State, or to such class or classes of civil posts under the State, or to such class or classes of posts under the control of any local authority within the State, as may be specified in the order;

(b) seniority of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to such class or classes of posts in any civil service of the State, or to such class or classes of civil posts under the State, or to such class or classes of posts under the control of any local authority within the State, as may be specified in the order;

(c) such other conditions of service of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to such class or classes of posts in any civil service of the State or to such class or classes of civil posts under the State or to

such class or classes of posts under the control of any local authority within the State, as may be specified in the order.

(4) An order made under clause (3) may--

(a) authorise the Administrative Tribunal to receive representations for the redress of grievances relating to any matter within its jurisdiction as the President may specify in the order and to make such orders thereon as the Administrative Tribunal deems fit;

(b) contain such provisions with respect to the powers and authorities and procedure of the Administrative Tribunal (including provisions with respect to the powers of the Administrative Tribunal to punish for contempt of itself) as the President may deem necessary;

(c) provide for the transfer to the Administrative Tribunal of such classes of proceedings, being proceedings relating to matters within its jurisdiction and pending before any court (other than the Supreme Court) or tribunal or other authority immediately before the commencement of such order, as may be specified in the order;

(d) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees and as to limitation, evidence or for the application of any law for the time being in force subject to any exceptions or modifications) as the President may deem necessary.

7[(5) The order of the Administrative Tribunal finally disposing of

any case shall become effective upon its confirmation by the State Government or on the expiry of three months from the date on which the order is made, whichever is earlier:

Provided that the State Government may, by special order made in writing and for reasons to be specified therein, modify or annul any order of the Administrative Tribunal before it becomes effective and in such a case, the order of the Administrative Tribunal shall have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be.]

(6) Every special order made by the State Government under the proviso to clause (5) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before both Houses of the State Legislature.

(7) The High Court for the State shall not have any powers of superintendence over the Administrative Tribunal and no court (other than the Supreme Court) or tribunal shall exercise any jurisdiction, power or authority in respect of any matter subject to the jurisdiction, power or authority of, or in relation to, the Administrative Tribunal.

(8) If the President is satisfied that the continued existence of the Administrative Tribunal is not necessary, the President may by order abolish the Administrative Tribunal and make such provisions in such order as he may deem fit for the transfer and disposal of cases pending before the Tribunal immediately before such abolition.

(9) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority,--

(a) no appointment, posting, promotion or transfer of any person--

(i) made before the 1st day of November, 1956, to any post under the Government of, or any local authority within, the State of Hyderabad as it existed before that date; or

(ii) made before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty- second Amendment) Act, 1973, to any post under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, the State of Andhra Pradesh; and

(b) no action taken or thing done by or before any person referred to in sub-clause (a),

shall be deemed to be illegal or void or ever to have become illegal or void merely on the ground that the appointment, posting, promotion or transfer of such person was not made in accordance with any law, then in force, providing for any requirement as to residence within the State of Hyderabad or, as the case may be, within any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh, in respect of such appointment, posting, promotion or transfer.

(10) The provisions of this article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.‖

50. Paras 8,10, 11 and 12 of the Presidential Order, 1975

relevant for the present case, are being reproduced as under:

"8. Reservation in the matter of direct recruitment:-

(1) 80% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any time.

(a) in any local cadre under the State Government comprising posts belonging to the category of lower division clerk or a Category equivalent to or lower than that lower division ?Clerk; and

(b) in any cadre under a local authority comprising post carrying a scale of pay the minimum of which, or a fixed pay which does not exceed the minimum of the scale of pay or lower division clerk, shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such cadre.

(c) (i) in any local cadre under the State Government comprising posts belonging to the categories of Teachers in the Andhra Pradesh School Education Subordinate Service and all other similar or equivalent categories of posts of teachers under any Department of the State Government; and

(ii) in any cadre under a Local Authority or under any such other Management, as may be notified by the State Government from time to time carrying a Scale of Pay equal to that of posts in the Andhra Pradesh School Education Subordinate Service shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such cadre.

(Added by G.O.Ms.No.2, G.A.(SPF.A) Depat, Dt.03.01.2002, w.e.f.1.06.2001)

(2) 70% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any time;

(a) in any local cadre under the State Government comprising posts belonging to non-gazetted categories other than those referred to in item (a) of sub-paragraph (1) and

(b) in any cadre under a local authority comprising posts carrying a scale of pay, the minimum of which, or a fixed pay which exceeds the

minimum of the scale of pay of a lower division clerk, but does not exceed Rs.480/- per mensum on any amount corresponding to it as may be specified in this regard in the successive revisions of pay scales granted by the State Government from time to time shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such cadre. (G.O.Ms.No.635, G.A. (SPF.A) Dept., dated 30-11-93.)

(3) 60% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any time in any local cadre under the State Government comprising posts belonging to the categories of Tahsildars, Assistant Executive Engineers, Assistant Agricultural Officers, Inspector of Police and Motor Vehicle Inspectors shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to the local area in respect to of such cadre.

(G.O.Ms.No. 498, G.A. (SPF.A) Dept., dt.16-7-1977)

(G.O.Ms.No. 34, G.A. (SPF.A) Dept., dt.24-1-1981) (G.O.Ms.No. 635, G.A. (SPF.A) Dept., dt.30-11-1993) (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraph (2) or sub- paragraph (3) where, in respect of any of the categories referred to in the said paragraphs a single cadre has been organized for two or more zones under sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3, 70% or as the case may be, 60% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at anytime in such cadre shall be reserved in favour of and allocated amongst the local candidates in relation to each of the local areas in respect of such cadre in the ratio specified in the Second Schedule against the zone comprising each such local area.

(5) 60% of the posts under the State Government belonging to the category of Civil Assistant Surgeons to be filled by direct recruitment at any time shall be reserved in favour of and allocated amongst the local candidates in relation to the local area specified in column (1) the Table below in the respective ratios specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof.

THE TABLE

       Local area                                                  Ratio
I.     Districts of Srikakulam, Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam     13
II.    Districts of East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna       18
III.   Districts of Guntur, Prakasham and Nellore                  15
IV.    Districts of Chittoor, Cuddapah, Anantapur and Kurnool      18
V.     Districts of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal and Khammam 15

Districts of Ranga Reddy (excluding such areas as from part VI. of the City of Hyderabad) with effect from 15-8-1978,17 Nizamabad, Mahaboobnagar, Medak and Nalgonda.

(6) While determining under this paragraph the number of posts to be reserved in favour of Local candidates any fraction of a post shall be counted as one.

(7) While allocating under sub-paragraph (4) or sub-paragraph (5) the reserved posts amongst the candidates in relation to different local areas fractions of a post shall be adjusted by counting successively the fractions in descending order of magnitude as one and where the fraction to be so counted cannot be selected by reason of the fractions being equal the selection shall be by lot.

(8) Notwithstanding any thing contained in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph.

(a) there shall be at least one post left unreserved out of the post filled by direct recruitment at any time to any local cadre; and

(b) there shall be, as far as possible, at least one post allocated for the local candidates in respect of each local area.

(10) Power to Authorise issue of Directions:- (1) The President, may, by order, require the State Government to issue such directions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to this: Order to any local authority and such local authority shall comply with such directions.

(2) The State Government may, for the purpose of issuing any direction under sub-paragraph (1) or for satisfying itself that any directions issued under sub-paragraph (1) have been complied with require by order in writing any local authority to furnish them such information, report of particulars as may be specified in the order and such local authority shall comply with such order.

11. Order to have over-riding effect:- The provisions of this order shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any Statute, Ordinance Rule regulation or other order made before or after issue of this order in respect of direct recruitment to posts under the State Government or any local authority.

12. Removal of Doubts:- For the removal of doubts, it is declared that nothing in the order shall affect the operation of provisions made by the State Government or other competent authority before or after the commencement of this Order in respect of reservation in the matter of appointments to posts in favour of any backward classes of citizens, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in so far such provisions are not inconsistent with this order.

51. As per para 8(1), of the Presidential Order, 80% of the

posts are to be filled by direct recruitment at any time in a local

cadre as mentioned therein.

52. As per para 11 of the Presidential Order, the provisions

of the Presidential Order shall have effect notwithstanding

anything contained in any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or

other order made before or after the commencement of the

Presidential Order in respect of direct recruitment to posts

under the State Government or any local authority.

53. As per Para No.12 of the Presidential Order, for removal of

doubts it was declared that nothing in the Presidential Order

shall effect the operation of any provisions made by the State

Government or other competent authority before or after the

commencement of the Presidential Order in respect of

reservation in the matter of appointments to posts in favour of

any backward classes of citizens, the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes, in so far as such provisions are not

inconsistent with the Presidential Order.

54. The Government of A.P issued G.O.Ms.No.8 General

Administration (SPF.A) Department dated 08.01.2002, providing

for the manner of selection of local candidates, in terms of para

8 of the Presidential Order. Previously, on the same subject

G.O.Ms.No.763 GA(SPFA) Department dated 15.11.1975 was in

force. This was amended vide G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 08.01.2002.

55. The G.O.Ms.No.8 General Administration (SPF.A)

Department dated 08.01.2002 reads as under:

"GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (ORGANISATION OF LOCAL CADRES AND REGULATIONOF DIRECT RECRUITMENT) ORDER, 1975 -

MANNER OF SELECTION OF LOCAL CANDIDATES - PROCEDURE - FURHER INSTRUCTIONS - ISSUED.

(G.O.Ms.No.8, General Administration (SPF.A) Department Dated 8th January, 2002) ORDER:

In terms of para-8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, i.e., Presidential Order, referred to in the reference first read above, in the case of District Cadres, 80% of the posts under Direct Recruitment are served for local candidates, as defined inpara-7 of the Presidential Order. The remaining 20% of the posts are open posts for which local and non-locals have to be considered on the basis of combined merit. This aspect has already been clarified in the U.O. Note fourth read above. The government have also issued instructions in the G.O. third read above on the manner in which the posts have to be filled up.

2. Government have re-examined the matter of filing up of the posts as prescribed in the G.O third read above. Accordingly it is decided that while filling up of the posts under Direct Recruitment, the first 20% of posts should be filled following combined merit list of locals and non-local and, thereafter, the remaining 80% of the posts shall be filled up by locals only. However, while filling up of the posts the

special representation under rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules shall be followed suitably.

3. Accordingly the following amendment is issued to the procedure prescribed in paras 3 and 4 of the Annexure I to the G.O. (P) No.763, General Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 15th November, 1975.

4. In respect of the Annexures-II&III to the G.O. 3rd read above orders will be issued separately.

AMENDMENT

5. In the said orders, in the Annexure-I(5)

(i) for paragraphs 3 and 4 the following shall be substituted namely:-

"Para 3: The provisional list shall be divided into two parts. The first part will comprise first 20% of the list. The second part will comprises the balance 80%. In case the provisional list does not contain any non- local candidate in the second part, the list shall be approved.

Para 4: If however on the scrutiny referred to in para 3 it is found that there are non-local candidates in the second part of the list, then these candidates shall be removed and replaced by local candidates ensuring that the rule of reservation is followed.‖

(ii) the illustrations thereunder shall be omitted.

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

P.V. RAO, Chief Secretary to Government.‖

56. According to G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 08.01.2002, (as

amended) while filling up of the posts under direct recruitment

the first 20% of posts shall be filed following combined merit list

of locals and non locals. Thereafter, the remaining 80% of the

posts shall be filled up by locals only. The provisional selection

list shall be divided into two parts. First shall contain first 20%

and the second, part shall contain rest 80%. In case the

provisional list does not contain any non-local candidate in the

second part (i.e 80%), the list shall be approved. If, however, on

scrutiny it is found that there are non-local candidates in the

second part, then these candidates shall be removed and

replaced by local candidates ensuring that the rule of

reservation is followed.

57. The G.O.Ms.No.8 specifically provided that while filling

up the posts, the special representation under Rule 22 of the

A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 (for short, ―the

Rules, 1996‖) shall be followed suitably.

58. Relevant part of Rule 22 i.e 22(1) and 22(2) of the Rules,

1996, is reproduced as under:

―Rule 22:

Special Representation (Reservation):

(1) Reservation may be made for appointments to a service, class or category in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Women, Physically handicapped, Meritorious Sportsman, Ex- Servicemen and such other categories, as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time, to the extent and in the manner specified hereinafter in these Rules or as the case may be, in the special rules. The principle of reservation as hereinafter provided shall apply all appointments to a service, class, or category.

(i) by direct recruitment, except where the Government by a General or Special Order made in this behalf, exempt such service, class or category;

(ii) otherwise than by direct recruitment where the special Rules lay down specifically that the principle reservation in so far as it relates to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only shall apply to such services, class, or category to the extent specified therein.

(2)(a) The unit of appointments for the purpose of this Rule shall be one hundred vacancies, of which, fifteen shall be reserved for scheduled for Scheduled Castes, six shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, twenty-five shall be reserved for the Backward Classes and the remaining fifty-four appointments shall be made on the basis of open competition and subject to Rule 22-A of these rules.‖

59. Thus, Rule 22 of the Rules, 1996 provides for specified

representation (reservation) for appointments to a service, class

or category in favour of the OBCs, S.Cs and S.Ts, woman, etc.

60. In view of paragraph 12 of the Presidential Order, which

declared that the Presidential order shall not effect the

operation of the provisions made by the State Government or

other competent authority before or after the commencement of

the Presidential order in respect of reservation in the matter of

appointment to posts in favour of any backward class of

citizens, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, in so

far as such provisions are not inconsistent with the Presidential

Order, we are of the view that the provisions relating to

reservation in favour of OBCs, S.Cs, and S.Ts which are not

inconsistent with the provisions of the Presidential order, shall

also operate in the field and shall have to be given effect to in

terms of the Presidential Order itself.

61. According to the learned Government Pleader, the last

selected/general candidate under 20% obtained 224 marks. The

selected candidates of B.C-D and SC under 20% obtained only

216 marks and therefore could not be shifted to the general

category post. The said submission is not acceptable. It

proceeds on the assumption, as if the settled law with respect to

giving unreserved post to a reserved category candidate on the

basis of his own merit, is to be applied, firstly under 20% and

then separately under 80%. In our view the settled law, would

apply taking all the posts together i.e 100%, considering the

entire selection at a time. It cannot be divided in 20% and then

80%.

62. In our view, N. Chandra Mohan (S.C) (216 marks) and

Gollapally Srinivasa Rao (B.C-D)(216 marks) deserves to be

shifted under 80%, O.C post, as the last selected general

category candidate obtained 211 marks only, to give full effect to

the reservation provisions as per the settled law. Contrary

thereto, would be against the law of the land declared by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, binding under Article 141 of the

Constitution of India.

NO VIOLATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER, 1975:

63. We are not oblivious of the fact that in view of Article 371-

D (10) of the Constitution of India the provision of Article 371-D

as also the Presidential Order shall have effect notwithstanding

anything in any other provision of the Constitution or in any

other law for the time being in force. Para 11 of the Presidential

Order also provides for the Presidential Order to have overriding

Effect, notwithstanding anything contained in any Statue,

Ordinance, Rule, regulation or other order made before or after

issue of the Presidential Order in respect of direct recruitment

to posts under the State Government or any local authority.

64. We may refer to the case of Sandeep vs. Union of India7,

in which the Hon'ble Apex Court considering, inter alia, Dr.C.

Surekha vs. Union of India and others8; Pradeep Jain vs.

Union of India9, and Reita Nirankari vs. Union of India10

reiterated that the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh enjoys a

special privilege granted to it under Article 371-D of the

Constitution and the Presidential Order. In Reita Nirankari

(supra) the applicability of domicile test stated in Pradeep Jain

(supra) was excluded to State of A.P the view of the Presidential

Order, 1974 for A.P State, in relation to admission in the

Universities.

65. In view of the above, the only thing is that in applying such

law there should be no violation of the Presidential Order, 1975.

66. The Presidential Order is (1) to promote accelerated

development of the backward areas of the State of Andhra

(2016) 2 SCC 328

(1988) 4 SCC 526

(1984) 3 SCC 654

(1984) 3 SCC 706

Pradesh so as to secure the balanced development of the State

as a whole and (2) to provide equitable opportunities to different

areas in the State in the matter of education, employment and

carry prospects in public service. The object is not to deprive

the special reservation, which is so reflected from para 12 of the

Presidential Order itself, except to the extent of inconsistency,

with the Presidential Order.

67. The acceptance of the submission of the learned

Government Pleader would result in violation of the rules of

reservation as declared by Hon'ble Apex Court, ignoring the

merit of the reserved category candidates. It would result in not

fulfilling the prescribed percentage of quota for the reserved

categories, as the meritorious candidates on their merit,

competing with the OC candidates, are not to be counted

towards reserved quota post.

68. All the candidates selected either under 20% or under

80%, except one candidate in 20%, are locals of District

Krishna. One candidate T. Sailaja B.C-A (woman) Nellore

District, Non-Local, is selected under 20%. 80% is only for

locals. The last selected candidate in the O.C (General) T. Pulla

Reddy, (211 marks) is local candidate. N. Chandra Mohan (SC)

and Gollapally Srinivasa Rao (B.C-D) are also local candidates.

There would therefore be no violation of the Presidential Order.

The selected meritorious candidates N. Chandra Mohan (S.C)

and Gollapally Srinivasa Rao (B.C-D) are the local candidates.

So their shifting in the open category, based on their merit

under 80%, would not reduce 80% for locals. That 80% would

still be intact, only for locals.

69. In our aforesaid view, in giving effect to G.O.Ms.No.8,

there would be compliance with the law as laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurav Yadav (supra) and Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) and there would also be no

violation of para 8 of the Presidential Order, 1975.

70. In implementation of G.O.Ms.No.8 in preparation of

selection list, as per the rules of reservation, as also 80% to be

filled by local only, the State respondents ought to have ensured

the compliance of both. But this has not been done, in the

present case. The Government must ensure compliance with the

Presidential Order, para 12, as well, according to which the

Presidential order shall not effect the operation of any provision

made by the State Government or other competent authority,

before or after the commencement of the Presidential Order, in

respect of reservation in the matter of reserved posts of any

back ward class of citizens, the SC and STs in so far as such

provision is not inconsistent with the Presidential Order.

71. ‗Reservation', does not only mean to follow the % of

reservation fixed for the respective categories, but also the

manner in which such reservation is to be implemented.

72. We do not find any inconsistency, if the Presidential order

for 80% in favour of locals, is implemented by shifting reserved

category candidates of SC and B.C.D to the posts in general,

under 80% on their merit position, as they belong to ‗Locals'.

73. We do not see any reason not to apply, the law in Saurav

yadav (supra) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) with

respect to the reservation in favour of S.C, and B.C-D, and in

giving the reserved category candidates on their own merit the

post on O.C category, under 80% (Locals only). There are 5 OC

candidates in 80% below the marks of N. Chandra Mohan (SC)

and Gollapally Srinivasa Rao (B.C-D).

74. If N. Chandra Mohan (SC) and Gollapally Srinivasa Rao

(B.C-D) selected under 20% had been non-local, there might

have been force in the argument of the learned Government

Pleader that non-local reserved candidate on their merit cannot

be shifted to 80%, as that would result in violation of para 8 of

the Presidential Order. But that is not the case here.

75. The unofficial respondents 4 to 9 in W.P.No.35726 of

2018, the O.C candidates selected under 80% though obtained

less marks than the reserved category candidates, are not at

fault. It is the fault of the respondents 1 to 3 in implementing

the reservation rule and G.O.Ms.No.8 are in service for the last

many years. Under the circumstances, we do not feel it

appropriate to disturb their selection and appointments.

CONCLUSION:

76. Thus, on the points framed we hold as under:

A. (1) The reserved category candidates S.C, S.T and

OBC are entitled to be selected in open/general

category post/seat on the basis of their own merit,

securing higher marks than the last of the general

category candidate. Such selection of the reserved

category candidate cannot be counted against the

quota reserved for the category to which they belong.

The percentage of reserved categories fixed for such

reservation category has to be proceeded and filled, in

addition.

A. (2) N. Chandra Mohan (SC) (216 marks) on his own

merit, having secured higher marks than the last

general category candidate, (211 marks) should have

been allotted the post in O.C category. S.Vijya Kumar

(SC) the petitioner of W.P.No.35726 of 2018 is therefore

entitled and should have been selected against the 3rd

reserved post in the reserved category of S.C.

A.(3) Gollapally Srinivasa Rao (B.C-D) (216 marks) on

his own merit having secured higher marks than the

last general category candidate (211 marks) should

have been allotted the post in O.C category. Asuri

Srinivasa Rao (B.C-D) the petitioner of W.P.No.37037 of

2018 is therefore entitled and should have been

selected against the 3rd reserved post in the reserved

category of B.C-D.

B. The answer to point Nos.(A)(1),(2) & (3) being in

affirmative, applying the law as laid down in Saurav

Yadav (supra), and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

(supra), and thereby adjusting N. Chandra Mohan (SC)

and Asuri Srinivasa Rao (B.C-D) in O.C posts under

80%, locals only, would not violate the Presidential

Order, 1975, but it would be in consonance with paras

8 and 12 of the Presidential Order, 1975 read with rule

22 of the Rules, 1996 and G.O.Ms.No.8 dated

01.01.2002.

77. For the above consideration, we are of the considered view

that the Tribunal did not decide the O.A(s) correctly. It failed to

apply the settled law in correct perspective. The orders of the

Tribunal cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed.

78. In the result:

(1) The orders dated 10.09.2018 passed by the

Tribunal in O.A.Nos.106 of 2016 and dated 10.09.2018 in

O.A.No.7282 of 2013 are quashed.

(2) The respondents are directed to give appointments

to the petitioners of both the writ petitions in their respective

reserved categories, against the reserved posts of SC and B.C-D

respectively in those categories with all the consequential

benefits, after adjusting the meritorious selected candidates of

the reserved category; N. Chandra Mohan (SC) and Gollapally

Srinivasa Rao (B.C-D), in O.C posts under 80%.

(3) The entire exercise shall be completed within a

period of one month from the date copy of this judgment is

served to the official respondents.

(4) Both the Writ Petition Nos.35726 & 37037 of 2018

are allowed.

No order as to costs.

Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in the petition shall stand closed.

_________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

__________________ V. SRINIVAS,J

Date:27.09.2023

Note:

LR copy to be marked

B/o.

Gk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION Nos.35726 & 37037 OF 2018

Date: 27.09.2023

Gk