WP/3440/2021 of Chitra Srinivasa Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

This Writ Petitionis filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

to call for the records pertaining to Group-1 Notification[No][ f8/2011]

and the final select list dated

07.03.2018 and the marks and the roster points of the[candidates][ selected][ tor][ MPDO][ and][ hold the action of]Andhra Pradesh Public Service CommissionIn selecting higher meritorious candidate with 411.5 marksagainst BC-B general vacancy while selecting the candidate with lessermarksagainstOC vacanciesfor thepost of MPDO thereby selecting only 3 BC-B General candidates out of 4 BCB General vacancies leading to.denial of selection and appointment of the petitioner for the post of MPDO under BC-B General Category andconsequently direct Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission i.e., 1" respondent to select the petitioner asMPDO against the 4th vacancy of MPDO under BCB General Category on par with other selected candidateswith all consequential benefits by Issuance of Writ of Mandamus and pass....”Andhra Pradesh Public Service CommissionIn selecting higher meritorious candidate with 411.5 marksagainst BC-B general vacancy while selecting the candidate with lessermarksagainstOC vacanciesfor thepost of MPDO thereby selecting only 3 BC-B General candidates out of 4 BCB General vacancies leading to.denial of selection and appointment of the petitioner for the post of MPDO under BC-B General Category andconsequently direct Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission i.e., 1" respondent to select the petitioner asMPDO against the 4th vacancy of MPDO under BCB General Category on par with other selected candidateswith all consequential benefits by Issuance of Writ of Mandamus and pass....”

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has filed OA.No.598 of2018 before the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal, aggrieved by hisnon-selection into Group-I Services in pursuance of notification No.18/2011. ThatAPPSC (1st respondent) filed its counter affidavit and the petitioner also filedhisreplyaffidavittothesaidcounter.However,thematterispendingadjudication before the Hon'ble Tribunal andin the meanwhile, the Hon'bleAPAT has beenabolished, however,the pending O.Ashavenotbeentransferred to this Hon'ble Court.In view of the said circumstances,it hasbecome necessary for the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Courtin asmuch as this Hon'ble Court has been entertaining writpetitions, whoaresimilarly placed like the petitioner as no person can go remediless.It is furtherstated that the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issuedGroup-1 Notification 18/2011in November, 2011 calling for applications fromthe eligible candidates. The petitioner responded to the same. He was givenhall ticket No.AP90201518 and he was successful in preliminary examinationand also appeared in main examination.2018 before the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal, aggrieved by hisnon-selection into Group-I Services in pursuance of notification No.18/2011. ThatAPPSC (1st respondent) filed its counter affidavit and the petitioner also filedhisreplyaffidavittothesaidcounter.However,thematterispendingadjudication before the Hon'ble Tribunal andin the meanwhile, the Hon'bleAPAT has beenabolished, however,the pending O.Ashavenotbeentransferred to this Hon'ble Court.In view of the said circumstances,it hasbecome necessary for the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Courtin asmuch as this Hon'ble Court has been entertaining writpetitions, whoaresimilarly placed like the petitioner as no person can go remediless.It is furtherstated that the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issuedGroup-1 Notification 18/2011in November, 2011 calling for applications fromthe eligible candidates. The petitioner responded to the same. He was givenhall ticket No.AP90201518 and he was successful in preliminary examinationand also appeared in main examination.

While so, the matter was carried out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court withregard to defective key answers for 6 questions in preliminary examinationand the Hon'ble Apex Court removed such 6 questions from 150 questionsand directed the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission draw the meritlistafreshfor144questionsandtore-conducttheprocessafresh.Accordingly main examinations were conducted afresh in September, 2016 byboth the Public Service Commissions. As the petitioner belongs to residuary

Stateof Andhra Pradesh (ZoneII)hepreferredto appearforthemainexamination conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission.As per the revised vacancy position meant for State of Andhra Pradesh 52vacancies were earmarked for the post of MPDO which is a multi zonal post.The petitioner belongs to BC-B community. As per the said vacancy position 4vacancies were mentioned for BC-B General 3 vacancies for BC-B womenwithwhichthepetitionerisnotconcerned,therefore,15-OCGeneralVacancies as well. The petitioner is entitled to compete for all State vide postsin his category i.e. BC-B and also the OC vacancies. The petitioner is alsoentitled for claiming15 vacancies of MPDO meant for[OC][ General][ and][ 4]vacancies meantfor BC-BGeneral.Itisfurther stated that the AndhraPradesh Public Service Commission released the marks of 294 interviewedcandidates on the very same dayi.e. 20.02.2018. The petitioner got 401.5marks (357 marks for mains and 44.5 marks for interview). Amongst the BC-Bcandidates interviewed^ the petitioner is 4th in the merit after accommodatingthe meritorious BC-B candidates into State vide posts[and][ Assistant][ Audit]Officer posts (Zonal Posts). The petitioner is entitled for claiming for the 4thpost of MPDO under BC-B General. However, Public Services[Commission]selected only 3 BC-B candidates against BC-B General vacancies. They areHallTicketsNos.91803446(407marks),90705643(406.25 marks) and91874522 (404 marks). In normal course, the petitioner[with][ 401.5][ marks]isentitled for selection for the 4th vacancy under BC-B General Category.Inthis regard, the petitioner submitted representation on 09.03.2018, which was i acknowledged by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission,[wherein]^the petitioner raised the above issue. But, there is no response from AndhraPradesh Public Service Commission.Hence, the present writ petition.

3. The counter affidavit has been filed by therespondent.Whiledenying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, theCommission issued Notification and in Post Code No. 16i.e., MPDO posts,there were 04BC(B)(G) vacanciesnotified(2CF+2(G)).Intheselectionprocess, there was a procedure and Rules to select the candidates for CFvacancies. As such, the carry forward posts have to be filledfirst’ as perprocedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.277 GA, (SC & ST cell B), Dept., Dated22.03.1976.Accordingly,thetopmeritoriouscandidate amongBC-B(G)candidates who opted for MPDO posts was accommodated in the BC-(B)(G)CF with Regd. No. AP91881297 (411.5 marks). Similarly,[the][ next][ meritorious]BC (B) (G) candidate was accommodated with Regd.No.AP91803446 (407marks) in the BC-(B) (G) CF. The remaining two (02) next meritorious BC-(B)(G) candidates with Regd.No.AP90705643 (406.25 marks) and Regd.No.AP91874522 (404 marks) were accommodated under BC-B (G) category.ThisistheprocedurefollowedintheselectionprocesstoselectthecandidatesforCFvacanciesaspertheprocedurelaiddowninG.O.Ms.No.277 GA, (SC & ST cell B), Department, Dated[22.03.1976.]In thisprocess, the petitioner has not come up for selection[due][ to][ his][ lower][ merit]i.e., 401.5 marks.Therefore,thepetitioner's claimof accommodating thehighly meritorious BC-(B) (G) CF candidate (Regd. No.AP91881297 (411.5

marks)) against OC (G) vacancyis not sustainable in the eye of law.Itisfurtherstatedthatasperprocedureandrulesallthecarryforwardedvacancies have to be filled up first read with G.O.Ms.No.277GA, (SC & ST cell- B), Dept., Dated 22.03.1976, as such, the carry forwarded[vacancies][ under]OC, BC-A andBC-B.,so onfilled asfirst,in theprocess Regd.No.AP91881297 (411.5 marks) candidate was selected under BC-B (G) carryforwarded vacancy andthereon,Regd.No. AP91203008(410.9marks)candidate was selected under OC (G) vacancy as per procedure in vogue.Hence, the claim of the petitioner to consider his request is no more a validground.Itis further statedthat the situation quoted by thePetitionerisirrelevant to the present issue i.e. the issue in OA[No. 161]of 2007 is related tothe "waiting list". Hence, the allegation is not sustainable in the eye of law.With regardto the representation of the petitioner[dated][ 09.03.2018,]itisstated that this respondent was thoroughly examined the representation andfoundnofaultonthepartoftheselectionlistdated07.03.2018andaccordinglydisposedoftherepresentationon11.04.2018pursuanttoNotification No. 18/2011 dated 28.11.2011 and found selection list is in order.Hence, the allegations made by the Petitioner are not[maintainable.]In view ofthe facts and submissions made above, the petitioner is not entitled for anyrelief as prayed for. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner;learnedGovernmentPleaderforServices-IandSri V.VenkataNagaraju,learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating themaverments madein the petition, submits that, the APPSC's[adherence]toG.O.Ms.No.277, a decades-old government order,is not only outdated butalsounconstitutional.He submitsthat,if a reservedcandidate achieveshigher merit and qualifies for an unreserved vacancy, they should not becounted against the reserved quota. Instead, they should[be][ considered][ for]the unreserved category, allowing another reserved candidate to occupy thereserved vacancy.Learned counsel further submits that, as a remedy to thisG.O.Ms.No.277, the State Government in its Circular Memo No.181/Ser/D/80-1 dated 11.02.1980 has stated that the candidates recruited on merit-in opencompetition shouldnot be counted against any reservedvacancies,Hefurther submitsthat the tribunalinO.A. hasdirectedthePublicServiceCommission to remove high meritorious reserved candidates from reservedvacancies and accommodate them against het general quota,Reservedcandidates who were entitled to be consideredin the reserved slots were tobe selected instead.Despite the Tribunal’s decision, the APPSC allegedlycontinue to follow the old, baseless andillegal procedure,leadingto thepetitioner’s contention that this persistence is tantamount to fraud.Despitesecuring a merit score of 401.5 marks, they were not[selected][ for][ the][ BC-B]General vacancy, whereas candidates with lower marks were allocatedtothese positions. This inconsistency raises questions about the fair and uniformtreatment of BC-B candidates in the selection process.He further submitsthat the candidates with lower scores were selected against open category

(OC) vacancies, even when higher-scoring BC-B candidates[were][ available.]This deviation from merit-based selection for OC vacancies is presented as aninconsistency that adversely affects the petitioner's chances. Therefore, theAPPSCviolatedreservationprinciplesbyplacinghigher-scoringBC-Bcandidates against BC-B General vacancies, potentially carrying forward thevacancies for reserved categories. This deviation from[standard][ reservation]practices could be considered inconsistent with established[norms.]He furthersubmitsthatthefailureofthe APPSCtorespondtothepetitioner’srepresentationindicatesalackof transparencyin theselectionprocess.Transparency is essential in ensuring that candidates[are][ informed][ about][ the]status of their concerns and grievances.The absence of a response raisesquestions about the openness and fairness of the selection process.Further,respondingtorepresentationsisa fundamental aspect of providing dueprocess to individuals involvedin administrative or legal proceedings.Hesubmits that the petitioner has submitted his representation seeking for hisredress that for clarification on the alleged inconsistenciesintheselectionprocess.The failure to respond, denies the petitioner an opportunity for a fairhearingorresolutionwhichisaviolationoflegalmaxim“AudiAlteramPartem”.

6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner hasplaced reliance on a decision reportedin Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Sandeep Choudhary and others^ wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

In the case of Uttaranchal Public Service Commission \/s. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204, the High Court took theview that the reserved category candidate, on her own merit was entitled to be considered in the general categoryand she could not have been counted against the reserved category. While upholding the judgment of the High Courtthis Court observed and held in paragraphs 3, 4, 13 and 15 as under- “3. Out of 42 posts, 26 were fitted up by general category and 16 by reserved category candidates. Some womencandidates stood selected in the general category while others had been given the benefit of horizontal reservationbeing residents of Uttaranchal. Respondent 1, being aggrieved preferred Writ Petition No. 780 of 2003 (M/B) in theHigh Court of Uttaranchal seeking quashment of select list dated 31-7-2003 mainly on the ground that womencandidates belonging to Uttaranchal had secured marks making them eligible to be selected in the general categoryand had It been done so. Respondent1 could have been selected in the reserved category being a woman ofUttaranchal.It had also been pleaded in the petition that some of the women candidates who not only claimed thebenefit of honzontal reservation but have been selected giving the said beneift, did not submit their respectivecertificate of domicile at the time of filling up the application forms but they produced the said certificateat a laterstage and it was accepted.

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

In Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L Yamul, (1996) 3 SCC 253 after noticing the Larger Bench decision of this Court in the caseof 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 hisown ment then such admission should not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste or ScheduledTnbe 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 heldthus: (SCC p.735, para 811)‘811.In this connectionit is well to remember that the reservations under Article16(4) do not operatelike a communal reservation.It may well happen that some members belonging to, say.Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition ifeld on the basis of their own merit; they will not be countedagainst 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 thequestion of appointment and promotion and roster points vis-a-vis reservation and held thus: (SCC p. 750, para 4) ‘4When 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 reservedcategones and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reservedposts. On the other hand the reserved category candidates can compete for the non-reserved posts and in the eventof their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out thepercentage of reservation. Article16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make anyprovision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which,intheopinion of the State is not adequately represented In the Services under the State. It is, therefore, incumbent on theState Government to reach a conclusion that the Backward Class/Classes for which the reservation is made is notadequately represented in the State Services. While doing so the State Government may take the total population ofa particular Backward Class and its representation in the State Services. When the State Government after doing thenecessary exercise makes the reservation and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for" the saidBackward Class then the percentage has to be followed strictly. The prescribed percentage cannot be varied orchanged simply because some of the members of the Backward Class have already been appointed/promotedagainst the general seats. As mentioned above the roster point which is reserved for a Backward Class has to befilled by way of appointment/promotion of the member of the said class. No genera! category candidate can beappointed against a slot in the roster which is reserved for the Backward Class. The fact that considerable number ofmembersrelevant factor of a Bac^ard for the State Class Government have been to appointed/promoted review the question of against continuing general reservation seats In the for the State said Services class but may so long be[a]as the instructions/rules providing certain percentage of reservations for thn Backward Classes are operative the same have to be followed. Despite any number of appointees/promotees belonging to the Backward Classes againstthe general category posts the given percentage has to be provided in addition.

16. In Union of Indiav.Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684] (SCC at p705)it has been held that whiledetermining the number of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the candidates belonging toreserved category but selected/promoted on the rule of merit (and not by virtue of rule of reservation) shall not becounted 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 alt the earlier judgments on vertical reservation has observed andheld that it is well settled that candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to beselected in “open or general" category and it is also further observed that if such candidates belonging to reservedcategories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against thequota 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 SadhanaSingh Dangi Vs. Pinki Asati, (2022)1 SCALE 534. By the said decision,it is reiterated that the reserved categorycandidates 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 honzontal reservation, merit must begiven precedence and if the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are moremeritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates.It is further observed thatthe candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categoriesif theirmerit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so.

9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand,it is noted thatthe aforesaid two candidates, namely, Mr. Alok Kumar Yadav and Mr. Dinesh Kumar, belonging to OBC category,were required to be adjusted against the general category as admittedly they were more meritorious than the last ofthe general category candidates appointed and that their appointments could not have been considered against theseats meant for reserved category. Consequently, after considering their appointments in the general category,[the]seats meant for reserved category were required to beirlled in from and amongst the other remaining reservedcategory candidates on merit such as respondent No. 1 herein.If such a procedure would have been followed,[the]original applicant - respondent No. 1 would have got appointed on merit in the reserved category seats in the vacancycaused due to the above procedure. Therefore, as such the High Court has not committed any error in observing andholding that the aforesaid two candidates, namely,Mr. Alok Kumar Yadav and Mr. Dinesh Kumar,will have[to][ be]adjusted against the general category candidates and accordingly responder t No. 1 being a reserved categorycandidate and being at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list of reserved category was to be appointed.

7. In another case reportedin Sadhana Singh Dangi andothers versus Pinki Asati and others^, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court heldthat “The law laid down in Saurav Yadav v State of U.P.^ is very clear thatevenwhileapplyinghorizontalreservation,themeritmustbegivenprecedence and that if the candidates who belong to SCs, STs[ and][ OBCs]have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be consideredagainst the seats meant for unreserved candidates”.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a CircularMemo No.181/Ser/D/80-1dated 11.2.1980, wherein the Government of A.P.stated that “The opinion tendered by Mr. Satyanarayana, Law Secretary at

para 22 on p-28 and reiterated at para 52 on page 19 is contrary to precedentand statutory enjoined position.G. O. Ms. No. 1790 Education dated 23.9.1970,whichis the foundationfor thestatutory rule 22 of theA.P.State andSubordinate Services Rules, positively enjoins by para[17][ that][ the][ candidates]recruited on merit in open competition should not be counted against anyreserved vacancies.”

9. Learned counselfor thepetitioner whilerelyingonthe abovedecisions and submissions, prayed to allow the present writ petition.

10. Percontra,learned GovernmentPleaderappearingfortherespondents while opposing for allowing the writ petition, submits that, as perprocedure and rules all the carry forwarded vacancies have to be filled up firstread with G.O.ms.No.277 GA (S&ST cell-B) Department, dated 22.03.1976,as such, the carry fonwarded vacancies under OC, BC-A and BC-B filledasfirst,in the process Regd. No.AP91881297 (411.5 marks)candidatewasselectedunder BC-B(G) carry forwarded vacancy andthereon,Regd.NO.AP91203008 (410.9 marks) candidate was selected under OC(G) vacancyas per procedure in vogue.Hence, the claim of the petitioner to consider hisrequest is no more a valid ground.With regard to the representation of thepetitionerdated9.3.2018learnedGovernmentPleadersubmitsthattherespondent was thoroughly examined and found no fault on the part of theselectionlistdated7.3.2018andaccordinglydisposedofthesaidrepresentation on11.04.2018in pursuanceof the notificationNo. 18/2011dated 28.11.2011 and found that the selection list is in order.Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner are not maintainable and hence prayed todismiss the writ petition.

11. On a perusal of the material,it is observed that,it is an admittedfact that the APPSChas issuednotification,videNotificationNo. 18/2011dated28.11.2011(Group-1Services-2011)invitingOn-Lineapplicationsthroughtheproformaapplicationtobe madeavailableonWebsiteforrecruitment to the posts of GROUP-1 Services.In pursuance of the same, thepetitionerhasappliedforthe sameandwassuccessfulinpreliminaryexamination and also appeared in main examination.It is observed that, asper revised vacancy position meant for State of Andhra[Pradesh][ 52][ vacancies]were earmarked for the post of MPDO whichis a multi zonalpost.Thepetitioner herein belongto BC-B community and as per the said vacancyposition 4 vacancies were mentioned for BC-B General[3][ Vacancies][ for][ BC-B]women.It is also an adm.itted fact that the petitioner got 401.5 marks (357marks for mains and 44.5 marks for interview) and that amongst the BC-Bcandidates, the petitioneris the 4thin themerit after accommodating themeritorious BC-B candidates into State vide posts and[Assistant][ Audit][ Officers]posts (Zonal posts).Therefore,it is the contention[of][ the][ learned][ counsel][ for]the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for claiming for 4“^ post of MPDOunder BC-B General.However, PSC selected only 3 BC-B candidates againstBC-B General vacancies.

12. It is further contention of the petitioner thatif the BC-B candidatewho occupied the 1®* BC-B (G) vacancy with 411.5 marksis shiftedto OC

n

candidate for which the petitioner is otherwise entitled in law, then a vacancy ^will be caused by chain reaction and the 4*^ vacancy meant for BC-B (G)canbe provided to the petitioner.

13. Further,in the counter affidavit, the respondent-Public’ServiceCommission clearly admitted that the candidate who got 410.9 marks with HallTicket No.AP 91203008 was appointed against OC (G) vacancy while BC-Bcandidate who secured411.5 markswithHall TicketNo.91881297wasallocated and selected under BC-B(G) vacancy. Moreover,it is the contentionof the PSCthatsucha procedure wasadoptedby thembasedonG.O.Ms.No.277dated22.3.1976whichaccordingtoPublicServiceCommission, says that carried forward reserved vacancies shall be filled firstbefore undertaking the further selection process and therefore, as there were2 BC-B(G) carried forward vacancies out of the 4 BC_B(G) vacancies notified,first 2 were filled up by considering the BC-B candidates i.e., candidates with411.5 marks and 407 marks.In so far as the candidate who got 407 marks isconcerned, there is no issue in as much as he would not have gotten into OCvacancy in view of his lower rank.Commission clearly admitted that the candidate who got 410.9 marks with HallTicket No.AP 91203008 was appointed against OC (G) vacancy while BC-Bcandidate who secured411.5 markswithHall TicketNo.91881297wasallocated and selected under BC-B(G) vacancy. Moreover,it is the contentionof the PSCthatsucha procedure wasadoptedby thembasedonG.O.Ms.No.277dated22.3.1976whichaccordingtoPublicServiceCommission, says that carried forward reserved vacancies shall be filled firstbefore undertaking the further selection process and therefore, as there were2 BC-B(G) carried forward vacancies out of the 4 BC_B(G) vacancies notified,first 2 were filled up by considering the BC-B candidates i.e., candidates with411.5 marks and 407 marks.In so far as the candidate who got 407 marks isconcerned, there is no issue in as much as he would not have gotten into OCvacancy in view of his lower rank.

14..The issue is whether the procedure adopted by[Public][ Service]Commission and the procedure as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.277 is valid andconstitutional and whether such an old and redundant procedure can befollowed, leading to denial of one BC-B reserve candidate of his employment.

15. As seen from G.O.Ms.No.277 General Administration (SC & STCell. B) Department, dated 22.03.1976, whereinit was mentioned at (iv) and(v) reads as under;

(IV) No gap should beleft in the roster for exampleif a reserved, vacancy,at, saypoint 22 has to be treated, for want of a suitable S.C/S.T. candidate, as /un-reserved, thecandidate actually appointed will be shown against that point itself. This vacancy will have tobe carried forward to the next recruitment year andit hasto befilledfirst by a S.C.S.T.candidate as the case may be in the succeeding recruitment year,

(v) At the beginning of each calender year particulars of reservation brought forwardfrompreviousyearsshouldbenotedintheregister.,Appointmentstosuchreservedvacancies be made first before the cycle of rotationis continued from thelast point of theprevious recruitment year.

16. It is well settled law that any reserved candidate in any selectioneitherforadmissionintoeducationalinstitutionsorinrecruitment,whoobtained higher merit so much as that he can get into unreserved vacancybased upon the merit, cannot be counted against the percentage/quota meantfor reserved candidate and that such meritorious reserved candidate has to beconsideredagainst unreservedvacancyonlybygiving wayforanotherreserved candidate to occupy reserved seat/vacancy.[When][ the][ law][ is][ clear,]the procedure adopted by the Public Service Commissionis incorrect andunconstitutional.

17. In Saurav Yadav’s case (supra 3) also, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld that, even while applying horizontal reservation, the merit must be givenprecedence and thatif the candidates who belongto[SCs][ STs][ and][ OBCs]have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be consideredagainst the seats meant for unreserved candidates.

I

J

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, by following the decisions ofHon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is inclined to allow thepresentwritpetitionwhile declaringtheactionof the respondentsinnotselecting the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the 1®‘ respondentto select the petitioner as MPDO against the 4*^ vacancy of MPDO under BC-B General category in pursuant to Group-1 Notification No. 18/2011and thefinal selectlist dated 07.03.2018onpar with other selected candidates, bygiving benefit of notional seniority from the date when the other candidateswere appointed.Itis made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to claimmonetary benefit as he was not appointed to the post on the principle of “NOWORK-NO PAY”. There shall be no order as to costs.

20. As a sequel, interlocutory applications,if any pending, shall standclosed.

Sd/- P.VINOD KUMARASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One fair copy to the Hon’ble DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO(For His Lordships Kind Perusal)

To,

1. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission,[R][ and][ B]Building, 2^^ Floor, M.G. Road (Bander Road), Opp;[Indira][ Gandhi]Municipal Complex, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Government[of]Andhra Pradesh.Building, 2^^ Floor, M.G. Road (Bander Road), Opp;[Indira][ Gandhi]Municipal Complex, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Government[of]Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department (GAD),State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,Guntur District.State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,Guntur District.

3. One CC to Sri J. Sudheer, Advocate [OPUC]

ssb

4. One CC to Sri V. Venkata Naga Raju, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CC’s to GP for Services-I, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]6.9 LR Copies6.9 LR Copies

7. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law,[Justice][ and]Company Affairs, New Delhi.Company Affairs, New Delhi.

8. The Secretary, A.P. Advocates’ Association Library, High CourtBuildings, Amaravathi.Buildings, Amaravathi.

9. Three CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDERWP.No.3440 of 2021

of??I2 9 JAN 2025\^. Current Section^i£fSI»ATC«*2^^

ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS