MALLAPARDHASARADHI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 issuing the 9 notification No. 11 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023 direct recruitment to the posts of Group-ll Services for being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, against the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785, and other judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 11727 of 2022 dated 28.04.2023, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to issue a fresh notification for direct recruitment to the posts of Group-ll Services fixing the roster for reservations in accordance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785, and other judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 11727 of 2022 dated 28.04.2023, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 dated 07.12.2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay the Notification No.11 of 2023 for direct recruitment to the posts of Group-ll Services for not fixing the roster for reservations in accordance with judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785, and other judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 11727 of 2022 dated 28.04.2023, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the 10 petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to implead the Proposed Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 as Respondents Nos. 3 to 11 in the present Writ Petition and IAs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC

2. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 6148/2025 Between: KUMAR, RAJEEV T. 1. TELANGALAPUDI RAJASEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC GRADUATE, R/O. DOOR NO.30-210, ABM COMPOUND, RAILWAY 0PP. PANCHAYATRAJ GUEST HOUSE, STATION ROAD, VINUKONDA, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522647. S/O

2. SEEKIRIBOYANA S.SREERAMULU GRADUATE, METTUPALLI, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518221. S/O. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC R/O. DOOR NO.8-41, PEAPALLY, GANGALA RAJU,

3. SETTI NANI, S/O. S.CHIRANJEEVULU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC GRADUATE, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-7, MAIN STREET, GURANDI VILLAGE BRAMINI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT -532456.

4. DAVARASINGI YUGANDHAR, S/O. D. APPANNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC R/O. PEDDAVEEDI, MARLAPADU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532218. GRADUATE, 11

5. KARIMIREDDY SIVAJI, S/O. K. APPALANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC GRADUATE, R/O. DOOR NO.5- 48, BOMMURU, AJAHMUNDRY , EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT -533124. RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,

6. NAKKA VENKATA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. N. LAKSHMANA RAO. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC GRADUATE, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-10, LABHAM VILLAGE, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532445.

7. ALLU KOTESWARARAO, S/O. A.RAMMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC GRADUATE, R/O. DOOR NO. 1- 109, PEDDA STREET, PASUKUDI VILLAGE BRAMIN MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, -532456.

8. KILLANA NEELARAJU, S/O K. BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC GRADUATE, R/O. DOOR NO. 1- 62, CHINNADIMILI VILLAGE, KORAMA POST, BRAMINI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT -532455.

9. YAGANTI ESWAR, S/O. Y.AIIURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC GRADUATE, R/O. DOOR NO.2-79, PEDDA NALLA KALUVA, THURIMELLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523372. ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED GENERAL (SERVICES) VELAGAPUDI, BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DEPARTMENT

2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SERVICE, COMMISSION (APPSC), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, R AND B BUILDING, M. G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PUBLIC 12

3. GUNTHA VENKATA SAIKUMAR, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (BC-A 112618755), R/O. 9-83,PENUGOLANU VILLAGE, GAMPALAGUDEM MANDAL, NTR DIST 521401.

4. BOPPUDI HANUMANTH MANIKANTA PRASADA RAO, S/O SRINIVASARAO AGED ABOUT 28YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (OC 111408114) ADDRESS-6- 22,BESIDE LRUKUPALEM, MUPPLAA (DISTRICT)-522403 TEMPLE, (MANDAL), PALNADU ANJANEYASWAMI

5. VENKATARAMANAPPA GARI RAGHU, S/O N. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (BC-A 112304647) R/O. D.NO 1/189- A, MAINROAD LEPAKSHI, LEPAKSHI, SATYASAI DISTRICT-515331

6. PILLA PRASAD, S/O NAGESWRARAO AGE27, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT, (EWS 110803688) R/O. D.NO2-15, INDUPALLI, AMALAPURAM PIN 533221. PULLELAVARI STREET,

7. UDUMULA SESHI REDDY, S/O UDUMULA PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YRS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (OC 111306021) R/0 - 7-52, DUBAGUNTA (VILLAGE), PAMURU(MANDAL), PRAKASAM (DISTRICT)- 523108.

8. ESWAR ANAPARTHI, S/O A V N S RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (OC 110908466) R/O.D.NO.36-45- 06, INNISPETA,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, 533101. MOCHERLA VARI STREET,

9. SIDDATAPU RAMA S/O VENKATAREDDY AGE 28 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (EWS 111412615) ADDRESS2-42, KRISHNA REDDY, 13 KODIGUDLAPADU PRAKASAM (DIST),523254 (WEST), KANIGIRI (MANDAL),

10. BITTU PAVAN KALYAN, S/O BITTU VENKATESWARA RAO, AGE 26 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED, (BC-B 111308524 ) R/O 1-32 BALUSUPADU VILLAGE , JAGGAYYAPETA DISTRICT RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 10 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 VIDE IA.NO.2 OF 2025 IN WP.NO.6148 OF 2025. MANDAL, NTR ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, on in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the (i) The Roaster fixed in Rule 22(2)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 issued in GO.Ms.No.436, General Administration (Services-D) Department, dated 15.10.1996 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 02.08.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.3 General Administration (Services-D) Department dated 17.01.2024 contrary to the Judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. state of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCO 745, and the Office Memorandum of Government of India vide No.36012/2/96 Estt. (Res) dated 02.07.1997 (ii) Notification No. 11/2023 dated 07.12.2023 issued by the Respondent Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to the Posts of Group-ll Services, General/ Limited Recruitment fixing the Roster for the backward classes viz., SC/ST/CBC/OBC by adopting vacancy-based reservation and in advertising the carry forward vacancies and also fixing the Roster points for specially-abled and women as illegal, irrational, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Judgements of the Honble Supreme Court of India in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCO 745, and Office Memorandum vide 14 issued by No.36012/2/96-Estt dated 02/07/1997 of the Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personal and Training) of the Government of India and consequently quash the Notification No. 11/2023 dated 07.12.2023 Respondent Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and also direct the Respondents to fix the Roster in Rule 22(2)(e) 02.08.2023 General Administration G.O.Ms.No.77 dated (Services-D) Department to the extent of amending Rule 22(2)(e), Rule 22(2)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 issued in GO.Ms.436, General Administration (Services-D) Department, dated 15.10.1996 as per the Judgments of the Honble Supreme Court of India and the Office Memorandum of Government of India vide No.36012/2/96 Estt. (Res) dated 02.07.1997 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Notification No.11/2023 dated 07.12.2023 Direct Recruitment to the Posts of Group-11 Second Services, General/Limited Recruitment Respondent and pass such issued by IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to implead the petitioners here in as Respondent No. 03 to 10 in the Writ Petition No. WP.6148 OF 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 15

1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC

2. THANDAVA YOGESH

3. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 6294/2025 Between:

1. SK. MAHABUB SUBHANI,, S/O. LATE SK. BAJI, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4T-1/1-137, FEEDER ROAD, NEAR APSARA LODGE, BRAMARAMBHAPURAM, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT

2. KOMPALLI RAJU,, S/O. LATE K. DEVADAS, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.6-1/11-18, MATHANGI JAMES STREET, FIZARPET, CHITTI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT,

3. KONIGAPAGA ANIL BABU,, S/O. K. RAJU, AGED 28 MORAMPUDI VILLAGE, YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-50, DUGGIRALA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

4. MEDEPALLI BHAGYASRI,, D/O. LATE M. BABU RAO, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.34-132, VADDENAGAR, KONDAPALLI, NTR DISTRICT

5. SAGANABOYANA VENKATESWARLU,, S/O. S. SRINU, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 12-1159/2, 10TH LINE, MAHANADU, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

6. LINGAMPALLI RAJ KUMAR,, S/O. L. CHINTHAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4-50 HARIJANAWADA, PEDDA PULIPAKA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

7. UPPALURI KASI BALA BRAMHA CHARI,, S/O. U. CHANDRAMOULI, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-78, KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, LINGAREDDY PALLI POST, 16 KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

8. BANAVATHU RAVI BABU,, S/O. B. RAMBABU, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4-17, KOKILAMPADU VILLAGE TIRUVURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT

9. KONDAMADUGULA KRISHNA JYOTHI,, D/O. K. AGED 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-24, VENIGANDIA, NAGIREDDY, VEMAREDDY TEMPLE STREET, GUNTUR DISTRICT

10. MADDISETTY PRASANNA,, W/O. M. NAGARAJU, AGE 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.77-145/4-8, SUNDARAIAH NAGAR, GOWTHAMGARI STREET, PAYAKAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOD BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT

3. GUNTHA VENKATA SAIKUMAR, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (BC-A 112618755), R/O. 9-83,PENUGOLANU VILLAGE, GAMPALAGUDEM MANDAL, NTR DIST 521401.

4. BOPPUDI HANUMANTH MANIKANTA PRASADA RAO, S/O SRINIVASARAO AGED ABOUT 28YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (OC 111408114) ADDRESS-6- 22,BESIDE LRUKUPALEM, MUPPLAA TEMPLE, (MANDAL), PALNADU ANJANEYASWAMI 17 (DISTRICT)-522403

5. VENKATARAMANAPPA GARI RAGHU, S/O N. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (BC-A 112304647) R/O. D.NO 1/189- A, MAINROAD LEPAKSHI, LEPAKSHI, SATYASAI DISTRICT-515331

6. PILLA PRASAD, S/O NAGESWRARAO AGE 27, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT, (EWS 110803688) R/O. INDUPALLI, D.NO2-15, AMALAPURAM PIN 533221. PULLELAVARI STREET,

7. UDUMULA SESHI REDDY, S/O UDUMULA PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YRS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (OC 111306021) R/0 - 7-52, DUBAGUNTA (VILLAGE), PAMURU(MANDAL), PRAKASAM (DISTRICT)- 523108.

8. ESWAR ANAPARTHI, S/O A V N S RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (OC 110908466) R/O.D.NO.36-45- 06, INNISPETA,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, 533101. MOCHERLA VARI STREET,

9. SIDDATAPU RAMA KRISHNA S/O VENKATAREDDY AGE 28 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED (EWS 111412615) ADDRESS 2-42, KODIGUDLAPADU PRAKASAM (DIST),523254 (WEST), KANIGIRI REDDY, (MANDAL),

10. BITTU PAVAN KALYAN, S/O BITTU VENKATESWARA RAO, AGE 26 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED, (BC-B 111308524 ) R/O 1-32 BALUSUPADU VILLAGE , JAGGAYYAPETA DISTRICT RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 10 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 VIDE IA.NO.2 OF 2025 IN WP.NO.6294 OF 2025. MANDAL, NTR 18 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in issuing Notification No.11/2023 dated 7-12-2023 for filling of the vacant posts of Group-11 services in various departments with irregular roster point allocation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, contrary to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharawal v State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to issue fresh notification to the post of Group-11 services by fixation of roster for reservation in accordance with the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharawal v State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 and Ministry of Personnel vide No.36012/2/96-Estt. dated 2-7-1997 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to notification no.11/2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to implead the petitioners here in as Respondent No. 03 to 10 in the Writ Petition No. WP.6294 OF 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SODUM ANVESHA 19 Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC

2. THANDAVA YOGESH

3. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 6675/2025 Between:

1. BHAVITAVYA KUDUPUDI, D/O. K. RAM BABU, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-24, NEAR KOTTA RAMALAYAM, SIVAKODU VILLAGE, RAZOLE MANDAL, B.R. AMBEDKARKONASEEMADISTRICT

2. CHENNU SAI UMESH,, S/O. CHENNU GANGADHARAM AGED 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-30-17/1A, CHURCH STREET, SUBBA RAO PETA, NEAR VENKATA RATNAM HOSPITAL, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

3. DANDUGULA NARESH, , S/O. D. RAMAIAH, AGED 29 MALAYALA VILLAGE, YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5/59, NANDIKOTKUR MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT

4. TALARI SOMASEKHAR,, S/O. T. ANJANEYULU AGED RAMASAMUDRAM 25 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-49, VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

5. DUDEKULA IBRAHIM,, S/O. D. RAMZAN, AGED 30 MUGATHI VILLAGE, YEARS, R/O. H.NO.5/73, NANDAVARAM MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT

6. ROUTHU MAHESH,, S/O. R. SRINU, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-101, JODUBANDALA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

7. GAVARA JAYALAKSHMI,, D/O. G. GOWRI NAIDU, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-102, KALAMRAJUPET 20 VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT GAJAPATHINAGARAM MANDAL,

8. SELA GAYATHRI,, D/O. S. MARLINGAM, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4-178/5, SURYA NILAYAM, NEAR GANTALAMMATHALLI TEMPLE, BESIDE MASJID STREET, POOLAPALLI, PLAKOLLU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

9. CHINTAKAYALA BHAVANI,, D/O. CH. BANDAPPAYYA, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-1, MUTYALAMMA PALEM, VENKATAPATHI PALEM, PARAWADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT

10. REDDI SANTOSH KUMAR,, S/O. S. SURYANARAYANA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-23-45, BALAGA, BAVAJI NAGAR, SRIKAKULAM

11. DONKADA MURALI,, S/O. D. SIMHACHALAM, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-117, B.C. COLONY, GEDDALUPPI, SEETHA NAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM

12. CHELLURI DURGA PRASAD,, S/O. CH. SAMBA, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-05, MARADANA STREET, GARBHAM VILLAGE, MERAKAMUDIDAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

13. PONNAMANDA POORNA CHANDRAVATHI,, D/O. P. VENKATA CHALAPATHI RAO, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.6-39, MAIN ROAD, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, DUMPALAKODUDIBBA VILLAGE KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT SAI

14. SANKARASETTY S. VEERANJANEYULU, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.57-7- 23/2, GF-5, SAMPATH NILAYAM, GOKUL NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM PRAVEEN,, S/O.

15. GUDAPUVALASA TILAK, , S/O. G. PAPARAO, AGED 27 21 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.22-2-142, ASHOK NAGAR, NEAR NALLACHERUVU RING ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM

16. GUDAPUVALASA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. G. PAPARAO, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.22-2-142, ASHOK NAGAR, NEAR NALLACHERUVU RING ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM

17. M. MOHAN, , S/O. M. GAJENDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS, PADMAVATHI NAGAR, NAGARI R/O. D.NO.6/119, MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

18. G.P. CHENNA KESAVA REDDY,, S/O. G.P. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-3503-1, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, YEMMIGANUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT

19. REGANI ANAND KUMAR,, S/O. R. ATCHIBABU, AGED PALEM, YEARS, R/O. NALLA REGULA 31 SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

20. KOTA SANDEEP KUMAR,, S/O. K. RAMAYYA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.6-34, PAVULURIVARIGUDEM, TIRUMALAMPALEM, DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELURU DISTRICT

21. SRINU CHIGURUPALI,, S/O. GARAYYA CHIGURUPALLI, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-111, PATA PETA, SUBBARAYAPURAM KRISHNAMPALEM VILLAGE, POST, DEVARAPALLE MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

22. NARA SIVASANKARA,, S/O. N. KONDAIAH, AGED 42 DODDIPALLI VILLAGE, YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-55, KALAKADA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

23. THOTA KRISHNAIAH RAJKUMAR,, T.K. NARASIMHULU AGED 33 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.18-8- 64/A1, MADHURA NAGAR, TIRUPATI S/O. 22

24. YALLA VENKATA SATYA ANIL,, S/O. Y. SUBBA RAO, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.5-96/28, PHASE-1, SRI AMEENPUR MYTHRI VILAS, KRISHTAREDDIPET, MANDAL, DISTRICT, TELANGANASTATE SANGAREDDY

25. ENNI SATYA VARUN,, S/O. SATYANANDA RAO, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.8-67, PLOT NO. 104, VENKATA SAI NILAYAM, PENDURTI, LIC COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM

26. GUJJARI ADITYA SESHA SAI,, S/O. G. VIJAYA, AGED PEDDIPALEM, 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-16, ANANDAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

27. VANGARA NAVEEN,, S/O. V. SUBBA RAO, AGED 26 40 HOUSES COLONY, YEARS, R/O. D.NO.9-606, IPURUPALEM VILLAGE, CHIRALA MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT

28. UMMADABOINA V SREENIVASULU, S/O. U. RANGAIAH, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2, MUTYALAPADU VILLAGE, CHAGALAMARRI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT

29. PAGOTI SANDHYA, /O. P. RAMMURTHY, AGED 23 PEDDA VEEDHI, YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-250, KAMBAKAYA, SRIKAKULAM

30. THATICHERLA SHATHAJ, S/O. T. SYED IBRAHIM AGED 33 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-934-A, TEACHERS COLONY, RUDRAMPETA BYPASS, ANANTAPURAMU

31. THATICHERLA MASOODVALI, S/O. T. SYED IBRAHIM AGED 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-934-A, TEACHERS COLONY, RUDRAMPETA BYPASS, ANANTAPURAMU

32. PABBINEEDI V CH SUDHAKAR, S/O. VISHNU PRABHAKAR RAO, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-81, 23 MARUTHI NAGAR, NADAKUDURU, KARAPA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOD BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring impugned action of the Respondents particularly 2nd Respondent in issuing Notification No.11/2023, dt.07.12.2023, for the executive and non-executive posts under Group-ll services by earmarking roster slots for specialized categories (Women/PBD and other categories) under horizontal reservation being contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Case and amended Rule 22 of A.P State Subordinate Service Rules 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14,15 and 16 of Indian Constitution and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to issue fresh notification to the post of Group-ll services in accordance with law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 24 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to implead the petitioners here in as Respondent No. 03 to 10 in the Writ Petition No. WP.6675 OF 2025 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 7618/2025 Between:

1. VEERAVALLI S/O. VENKATESWARA SRIMANNARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC GOVT. TEACHER, R/O. H.NO.5-295, SANTHA MARKET ROAD, VENDRA POST, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534210. RAO,

2. GOTTAPU GANAPATHI, S/O. G. SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.4- 178, VIJAYANAGARAM THERIM, DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-535126. LOCHERLA,

3. SRINIVASA RAO MEKALA, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. 4- 65, MUNAGODU VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-535126. 25

4. KUNAPULI HARIPRASAD, S/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.7/2551, SWARAT NAGAR, PRODDUTUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516360.

5. MENAVATH SWAMI NAIK, S/O. MENAVATH DEVULA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC- UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.N0.1-148A, KRR THANDA, PANYAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-518112.

6. HEMANTH SAI SAKE, S/O. ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC- UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.N0.4/36-A-1, KOVARAMGUNTTAPALLI, BALAPANUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516484.

7. BODUGU GIRI, S/O. BODUGU RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC- UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. 4-64, KHADHRPALEM VILLAGE, RAMALAYAM STREET, KALIGIKI MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-524225.

8. T.DASARADHA RAMI REDDY, S/O. T.KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC- UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. STREET, D.NO.1-52, RAMALAYAM MANDAL, BASIREDDYVARIPALEM, ANDHRA PRADESH-523281. GANDLURU

9. DASARIGIRIDHAR YADAV, S/O. DASARI KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.1-128, PATHURU MILIU, OLD TOWN, KANGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523230.

10. THUMMLA PUSHPA NAGA, S/O. THUMMLA SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, VEEDHI, R/O. KARANAMGARI D.NO.1-72/1, 26 DHARMAJIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-524462. AGED 11. NELATURU NARASAIAH, S/O. N.PAPAIAH, R/O. ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, D.NO.2/206, KUMMAR KOTTALU, BADVEL, ANDHRA PRADESH-516227.

12. CHINNAMANAIDU S/O. DARPU SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC UN- EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.1-54, CHINTHLAPUDI VALASA, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM, ANDHRA PRADESH- 532460. REDDY,

13. JAGANA MANOHAR, S/O. J. VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. NAIDU STREET, VENKAM PETA, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIJAYANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 535522.

14. DODDI RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. DODDI NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. 24-6, DODDIVARI PALEM, ACHANTA MANDAL, ANDHRA PRADESH-534123.

15. PRAVEEN KUMAR KOVVURU, S/O. CHINAPANCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. 999-NEDURUPALLI VILLAGE, PODALAKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-524309.

16. PEMULA DILLAIAH, S/O. PEMULA VEERA RAGHAVULU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC UN-ERNPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.2-234, KONDAPI VILLAGE, KONDAPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523270.

17. KOORUNGULA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O. K.VENKATA OCC UN- COLONY, RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, D.NO.3-107, R/O. SC 27 SOWDARADINNE VILLAGE, KOILAKUNTIA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

18. KHASIMVALI RAMGIRI, S/O. PEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.4-79, SINGARAPALLI VILLAGE, BESTHAVARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523346.

19. YEDALA RAM PRASAD REDDY, S/O. Y. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC UN- EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.N0.8-IOA, SOMAIAE NUBYLU, GANDIA PENTA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515521.

20. GUJJALA BHARATH KUMAR, S/O. G. PEDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. SURYACHANDRAPURAM, D.NO.2/1049, ANANTHAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-515672.

21. REDDI ESWARA RAO, S/O. R. SRI RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.3- BANDALUPPI VILLAGE, 26, NAIDU VEEDI, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, ANDHRA PRADESH- 535527.

22. KALLUTIA VANI, S/O. CHINNNAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.2- 40, AKBARABAD, AKBARABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH- 524234.

23. MALA SUJATHA, S/O. M. SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE R/O. D.NO.9- 364, TEACHERS COLONY, YADIKI, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515408.

24. K. PRASAD, S/O. KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 R/O. D.NO.1-161, YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, AEECHAIADDI, MADAKASIRA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR (NOT DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515303. 28 QUALIFIED)

25. YAMPALAKU MAHESH BABU, S/O. Y. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. NARPALA, GADAMNAGEPALLI, D.NO.3-152, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515425.

26. MANCHE VIJAYA BABU, S/O. M.THIRUPALU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.4- 74, CHERLOPALLI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523356.

27. MANOHAR TUNGANA, S/O. MADHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.16- 298, GANDHI NAGAR STREET, SOMPETA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

28. GOLLA YADAV, MURALI KRISHNA S/O. G.OMKARANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC UN-ERNPLOYEE, R/O. 9E, 76-8, NEW REVENUE COLONY, KALYANADURGAM POST AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 515761. (APPLIED BUT NOT APPEARED IN EXAM). ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIAT, DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (SERVICES), GENERAL

2. ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, R AND B BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 29 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 issuing the direct notification No. 11 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023 recruitment to the posts of Group-11 Services for being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, against the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785, and other judgments including the judgment of the Honble High Court in W.P. No. 11727 of 2022 dated 28.04.2023, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to issue a fresh notification for direct recruitment to the posts of Group-11 Services fixing the roster for reservations in accordance with the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785, and other judgments including the judgment of the Honble High Court in W.P. No. 11727 of 2022 dated 28.04.2023, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Notification No.11 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023 for direct recruitment to the posts of Group-ll Services for not fixing the roster for reservations in accordance with judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in (1995) 2 see 745, Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service 30 Commission reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785, and other judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 11727 of 2022 dated 28.04.2023, pending disposal of the above Writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC

2. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 7985/2025 Between:

1. DULAM SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O DULAM VENKATA REDDY, AGE 25 YRS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 18/9, STREET, ALIVELLUMANGAMMA JANGAMASHWARA PURAM, GURAZALA GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522415. GUDI

2. GANGI REDDY GARI RAMA, D/O GANGI REDDY GARI KATAMAIAH AGE 27 YRS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 2/42, OC COLONY, CHILLIVARI PALLI, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT-515631.

3. KAGITHA KARTHIK ANAND, S/O KAGITHA BHARGAVA NARAYANA, AGE 23 YRS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 6- 24, DHARMARAJUCHERUVU VILLAGE, DONTIKURRU PANCHAYAT, KATRENIKONA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533 212. YRS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE,

4. VEDURURI SAMANTH, S/O V. VENKATESWARLU AGE 1/60, 24 LAKKAVARIPALLI, GOPAVARAM MANDALAM, KADAPA DISTRICT - 518 228. R/O 31

5. AVULA HARIPRIYA, D/O A. NARASIMHULU, AGE 33 R/07-1-218/6, YRS, UNEMPLOYEE, GANDHINAGAR, BADVEL, KADAPA DISTRICT - 516 227. OCC

6. MUMMIDI V V N LOHIT KUMAR, S/O M. SRINIVASA RAO, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, FLAT NO. 102, TSR ANJANA RESIDENCY, AISHWARYA LAYOUT, NEAR RTC COLONY, SAIBABA TEMPLE, SRINIVASA NAGAR, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530048.

7. DANDURI VENKATA SAI NAIDU, S/O D. NAGARAJU, AGE 22 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 1-203-Z-73-F, POWER OFFICE, BACK SIDE, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT -523316.

8. OM PRASAD KONDRU, S/O DURGA RAO K. AGE 39 11-296/6, YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, POLAKAMPADU KORI NEAR CHURCH, TADEPALLI, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 522501. R/O ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, R AND B MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA BUILDING DISTRICT, AP PUBLIC

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL SECRETARY ADMINISTRATION AP SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATI VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP (SER.I) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT TO ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to grant appropriate relief 32 more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the Notification No.11/2023, dated 07.12.2023 issued by the 1ST Respondent herein and all other consequential proceedings in pursuance of the Notification illegal, malafide, unconstitutional. No.11/2023 as arbitrary, violating Articles 14, 16 AND 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from contrary to Rule 22 of the AP State AND Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, as amended from time to time and set- aside the same and issue consequential directions directing the 1ST Respondent to issue fresh Notification to select the candidates for various posts under Group-11 Services strictly in terms of Rule 22 of the AP State ANDSubordinate Service Rules and allow the Petitioners to apply for various posts in Group - II Services and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Notification No. 11/2023, dated 07.12.2023 issued by the 1ST Respondent herein including publishing the results in pursuance of the main examination conducted on 23.02.2025, IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to implead the Proposed respondent nos. 3 to 11 as Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 in the present Writ Petition and IA s and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 33

1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC

2. Between: WRIT PETITION NO: 7999/2025

1. LENKA NARAYANA RAO, S/O APPALANAIDU AGE. 28 YEARS , OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 1-90 RAMALAYAM STREET, IPPALAVALASA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM- 535581

2. SAPALA SISINDRI, S/O S. PENCHALAIAH AGE . 28 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 12/68, MANDARAM (VILL. AND P.O. RAJPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. PIN. 516126

3. PITTU AJAYKIRAN REDDY, S/O PITTU VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY, AGE 32 YRS, R/O 1-197A-1, PEDAPULUGUVARIPALAM, DISTRICT BAPATLA- 522111.

4. PERAM YEDUKONDALU, S/O PERAM VENKATA 30 YEARS, OCC. AGE NARASA REDDY, UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 1-53, POLAVARAM, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523254.

5. TALARI BHARATH KUMAR, S/O TALARI GANGANNA, AGE . 29 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 2/166, 2ND WARD, CHINTAKUNTA VILLAGE, DUVVUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT - 516172.

6. KOKKILIGADDA S/O HEMANTH KOKKILIGADDA BALA RAJU, AGE . 29 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 1-2, ETIMOGA, KRISHNA DISTRICT- 521120. KUMAR,

7. MANIPATRUNI BHARATH KUMAR, S/O MANIPATRUNI . 27 YEARS, OCC. AGE LAKSHMANA RAO, 34 UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 4-4-81,4-4-81, MULCODHAR STREET, KOTABOMMALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT- 532195.

8. PULI SREEVANI, D/O PULI OBUL REDDY, AGE 36 YRS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 1-6, W/O M. NAGARJUNA REDDY, MUNDLAPADU, GIDDALUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT -523367. NEAR ANDHRA BANK,

9. MALA VEERESH, S/O M. RANGANNA, AGE . 32 YRS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 1 -2, PEDDA MARRIVEEDU (VILLAGE), KURNOOL GONEGANDLA MANDAL, DISTRICT. - 518463.

10. PATCHABATLA VENKATA SULOCHANA, D/O P. SUBBA RAO, AGE . 37 YRS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, 7-112/2, (VILL AND P.O), PATHOORU, PANDILLA PALLI VETAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523184.

11. YEDDULA SUDHEER, S/O Y. RAGHUNATHA BABU, AGE . 27 YRS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 3-65, B.C. COLONY, AYYAVARI KODUR BANDI ATMAKUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518523. (VILLAGE),

12. VURIBINDI MADHU MALATHI, D/O V. MADDULETI AGE . 42 YRS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 3-67, MANYASRI NILAYAM, BALAJI RESIDENCY, KURICHEDU ROAD, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523247.

13. NALLABOTHULA ARUN N. SIVALINGAMAIAH, AGE 26 YRS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O COLONY, KALLUR(P.O.) KURNOOL DISTRICT - 518003. 76-97-B-R-P-121, GOPINAGAR KUMAR, S/O

14. MALLI RAKESH, S./O M. PRASAD, AGE 25 YRS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 11-89 , SYDADUPALLI (VILL. AND P.O.) RAPUR MANDAL NELLORE DISTRICT-524414.

15. JESTADI SWARAJ, S/O JESTADI OBULESU, AGE . 27 35 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 10-4, S.C. COLONY, VILL.) AYYAVARIPALLI SEETHARAMAPURAM MANDAL, SPSR, NELLORE DISTRICT -524310. (P.O. AND

16. GANJI VENKATA SATEESH, S/O GANJI SRINIVASA RAO, AGE . 26 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 1-2- 89 PANIDAM SOCIETY COLONY, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522403.

17. MURIKINATI REDDY S/O MURIKINATI JAYARAMI REDDY, AGE 29 YRS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, 1-28, CHENNAMUKKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT - 516269. KISHORE REDDY,

18. NAGNAM VEERA RAGHAVULU, S/O NAGNAM SRI RAMULU, AGE . 29 YEARS, OCC . UNEMPLOYEE, R/O D/NO. 88, DAKKILI (M), CHAPALAPALLE VILLAGE NELLORE DISTRICT. 524 134. ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, R AND B MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA BUILDING DISTRICT, AP

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GENERAL AP ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATI VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP (SER.D) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT TO ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the 36 Constitution of India declaring the St Notification No.11/2023, dated 07.12.2023 issued by the 1st Respondent herein and all other consequential proceedings in pursuance of the Notification No.11/2023 as arbitrary, illegal. malafide, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from contrary to Rule 22 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, as amended from time to time and set-aside the same and issue consequential directions directing the 1st Respondent to issue fresh Notification to select the candidates for various posts under Group-ll Services strictly in terms of Rule 22 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules and allow the Petitioners to apply for various posts in Group - II Services and IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Notification No. 11/2023, dated 07.12.2023 issued by the 1st Respondent herein including publishing the results in pursuance of the main examination conducted on 23.02.2025, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC

2. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 8001/2025 Between:

1. LINGAM YALLAIAH, S/O L. SIVARAMAIAH AGE 29 YRS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 1/128, SINGA REDDY PALLI, 37 PENAGALUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT - 516237, AP

2. BORRA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O B. SUBBARAO, AGE 36 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 1/163, RAMALAYAM WEST P.O.) (VILL GODAVARI DISTRICT. - 534235 AP AKIVEEDU MANDAL, .AND ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, R AND B BUILDING MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP PUBLIC

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL SECRETARY ADMINISTRATION AP SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATI VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A (SER.D) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT TO ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the St Notification No.11/2023, dated 07.12.2023 issued by the 1 Respondent herein and all other consequential proceedings in pursuance of the Notification No.11/2023 as arbitrary, illegal. malafide, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from contrary to Rule 22 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, as amended from time to time and set-aside the same and issue consequential directions directing the 1st Respondent to issue fresh Notification to select the candidates for various posts under Group-11 Services strictly in terms of Rule 22 of the AP State and 38 Subordinate Service Rules and allow the Petitioners to apply for various posts in Group - II Services and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Notification No. 11/2023, dated 07.12.2023 issued by the 1®* Respondent herein including publishing the results in pursuance of the main examination conducted on 23.02.2025, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC WRIT PETITION NO: 9373/2025 Between:

1. B SIVARAMAKRISHNA NAIK, S/O B. RAMULU AGED 28 YEARS, H.T.NO.111309958, R/O 1-111, NEARMPP SCHOOL, GOLLAMANDALA THANDA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. .

2. V. VENKATA LAKSHMI SARAYU REDDY, D/O V. VENKATA JANADHANA REDDY, AGED 24 YEARS, H.T.NO.112212308, R/O 2/153B, U. RAJUPALEM, VEERAPUNAYUNIPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA. .

3. S. MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O S. JAFFAR, AGED 28 YEARS, H.T.NO.112404997, R/O 20-150, LONIKOTA ANANTHAPURAMU STREET, DHARMAVARAM DISTRICT. 39

4. O. MADHU KIRAN, S/O O. KESAVA, AGED 23 YEARS, H.T.NO.112421003, R/O 5/121, OBULANAYUNIPALLI VILLAGE, MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. DHARMAVARAM

5. M. THRINETHRA, S/O M. SREENIVASULU, AGED 24 YEARS, H.T.NO.112617826, R/O 1/3473-2-1, SRI RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, YEMMIGANUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

6. POOJA BHAVANI, S/O T. PUMA CHANDRA RAO AGED 30 YEARS, H.T.NO.111405830, R/O 11-772E1, NCC ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

7. L. NAGARJUNA, S/O L. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 28 9-146, PAPIREDDIPALEM, YEARS, PAPIEDDYPALEM, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. H.T.NO.111710480, R/O

8. V. SRAVANI, D/O V. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 37 YEARS, H.T.NO.110605103, R/O 6-85/1, SRI DURGA BOOK CENTER, NEAR SARASWATHI PRESS STREET, NARSIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

9. A. VASANTHA KUMAR, S/O A. BRAHMAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, 5-68, PEDAALAVALAPADU VILLAGE, P.C. PALLI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. H.T.NO.111702784, R/O

10. SK. KONDAIAH, S/O SK. MEERAVALI, AGED 25 YEARS, H.T.NO.111705362, R/O 2-36, K. AGRAHARAM, PONNALURU MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

11. LALITHA G, W/O G. JAYARAM, AGED 36 YEARS, H.T.NO.111901087 R/O 26-149, MUTHACHARAPALEM, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

12. S. SAI SWAROOPA, D/O S. NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED 25 YEARS, H.T.NO.112411848, RIO 27/1856-3, SATYA 40 NAGAR, SAI ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. DHARMAVARAM MANDAL,

13. S. RAMBABU, S/O S. APPALAKONDA, AGED 30 R/O 6-62, ANANDHA YEARS, H.T.NO.110704908, NAGARAM, KOMARAGIRI, U. KOTHAPALLI, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

14. B. DEVA KRISHNAIAH, S/O B. SUBBANNA, AGED 34 YEARS, H.T.NO.112022331, R/O MURAMUTLAPALLI VATHALUR POST, VILLAGE, LEBAKUVARIPALLI, PULLAMPETA, KADAPA DISTRICT.

15. Y. UPENDRARAO, S/O Y. NARASIMHULU, AGED 28 YEARS, H.T.NO.110507632, R/O TELLAVANIPETA VILLAGE, PRIYAGRAHARAM POST POLAKI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

16. G. KUMAR, S/O G. SURIBABU, AGED 31 YEARS, H.T.NO.110514060, R/O 1-18, RAJU STREET, A.S. PETA, VIZIANAGARAM

17. Y. MONITHA, D/O Y. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 28 YEARS, H.T.NO.111203678, R/O 14-710, 2ND FLOOR, SF2, SRI DATTA NILAYAM, 0PP. KANURU SUBSTATION, 3 LANE, MANIKYA NAGAR, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA.

18. S. VEERENDRA, S/O K. SIDDAPPA, AGED 29 YEARS, 7-10, H.T.NO.111902201, KADHIRIMUTHANAPALLLI VILLAGE, SANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. R/O

19. K. NAGARJUNA, S/O K. PICHAIAH, AGED 28 YEARS, H.T.NO.111711777, R/O 1-223B, VITTALAPURAM, MAIN ROAD, TALLURU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

20. M. PAVAN SWAROOP, S/O M. BANGARU RAJU, AGED 27 YEARS, H.T.NO.110906163, R/O 3-142, AMBEDKAR 41 STREET, AMUJURU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SECRETARIAT

2. THE ANDHRA SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, R AND B BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. PRADESH PUBLIC ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in earmarking acancies for women under horizontal reservation in the Annexure-I to the Notification Dt.07.12.2023 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent APPSC to select the candidates afresh by revising the selected candidates list of mains examination for further process of selection i.e., to the Computer Proficiency Test by deleting and de- notifying the horizontal reservations points meant for Sports Persons, Ex-servicemen and Woman, Meritorious Persons with Benchmark Disabilities the Notification Dt.07.12.2023 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay 42 all further proceedings of the notification Dt.07.12.2023, pending disposal of this writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC

2. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 11232/2025 Between:

1. SANGI SREEHARSHA YADAV,, S/O. RANGAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.21-405-32B, KAPARTHI NAGAR, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

2. SATTI CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY,, S/O. ESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.7-463, OLD TOWN, ANAPARTHI, EAST GODAVRI DISTRICT.

3. K. T. NISCHAL KUMAR NAIK,, S/O. TIMMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-5-530, ANDHRA BANK COLONY, RAM NAGAR EXTENSION, ANANTAPUR.

4. G.P.S. HIMA BINDU,, D/O. BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.64-11-2/13, SUBAN SAHEB STREET, KAKINADA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SECRETARIAT 43

2. THE ANDHRA COMMISSION, REP. BY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. SERVICE ITS SECRETARY, HOD PRADESH PUBLIC ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring impugned action of the Respondents particularly 2nd Respondent in issuing Notification No. 11/2023, dated 07.12.2023, for the executive and non- executive posts under Group-II services by earmarking roster specialized categories (Women/PBD and other categories) under horizontal reservation being contrary to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Case and amended Rule 22 of Andhra Pradesh State Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 in terms of G.O.Ms.77, dated 02.08.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of Indian Constitution and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to issue fresh notification to the post of Group-II services in accordance with law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 further proceedings Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay the Notification No.11/2023, dated 07.12.2023 issued by the 2"^^ Respondent including the ongoing certificate verification in terms of Web Note dated 09.04.2025 commencing from 21.04.2025 to 22.05.2025 pending disposal of the present Writ Petition and pas pursuance of Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. S DILIP JAYA RAM 44 Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC

2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 45 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.Nos.4633 and 15202 of 2024 and 3306, 6148, 6294, 6675, 7618, 7985, 7999, 8001, 9373, 11232 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: The batch of writ petitions is filed seeking to declare the Notification No.11 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023, issued by Respondent No.2/APPSC, notified for direct recruitment to the posts of Group-II Services as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. As the issue in these writ petitions is common, with the consent of learned counsel, the matters were taken up for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.

3. Before going into the narration of facts, it is necessary to note that interim order seeking stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notification was sought and a learned single Judge of this Court passed a detailed order on 20.02.2025 refusing interim order in W.P.No.4633 of 2024 and W.P.No.15202 of 2024. Questioning the same, W.A.Nos.160 of 2025 and 217 of 2025 were filed. W.A.No.160 of 2025 was dismissed as 46 withdrawn and no interim orders were passed in W.A.No.217 of

4. W.P.No.4633 of 2024 is taken up as the lead case and the facts are as under: Facts of the Case : Petitioner is a graduate in B.Com., and is eligible for consideration for all the posts enumerated in the impugned notification except certain posts that require additional technical qualification. It is pleaded that the impugned notification does not provide equal opportunities to all the applicants in compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of irrational fixation of roster points in respect of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, B.Cs., Women and EWS. It is pleaded that the fixation of the roster in vertical reservation is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others1 and the roster points fixed by APPSC for horizontal reservation do not align with the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and 1 (1995) 2 SCC 745 47 others2. It is pleaded that on account of the incorrect roster points, there would be over-representation of certain categories and under-representation of certain categories, affecting the right to be treated equally.

5. It is also pleaded that as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in R.K.Sabharwal’s case (1 supra), reservation in jobs for SC/ST/OBC should apply to posts and not to vacancies. It is further stated that the Government of India had issued an Office Memorandum on 02.07.1997 to bring in the policy of reservation in tune with the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court referred above. It is stated that the roster has to serve and comply with the percentage of reservation as mentioned in the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, with a maximum ceiling at 50%. It is stated that a tabular statement was extracted in the affidavit calculating the roster on the lines of the model roster issued by the Government of India. A comparison of the impugned roster followed by the model roster was also extracted in the affidavit. It is stated that the reservation should be post-based and not vacancy-based. It is further pleaded that the only way to fix the roster for ensuing recruitment 2 (2007) 8 SCC 785 48 is to take the entire sanctioned strength and first adjust the existing appointments in the roster which is equivalent to the sanctioned strength and then only it would be known whether the representation of social categories in the appointments already done will be known to be in excess or not. It is only after this exercise, the roster points can be fixed in the vacancies.

6. Respondent No.1-State filed its counter, wherein the background of framing of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 is mentioned. As per Respondent No.1, a One-man Commission was appointed for comprehensive review and examination of the Rules including Rules of General applicability, A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules and numerous Special Rules pertaining to services of the Government Departments and to revise and update in the context of several changes that have taken place in the administrative structure of various Departments. The One-man Commission submitted its report on 06.11.1990 and on the basis of the report, the General Administration (Services-A) Department had consulted the Finance Department, Law Department and Secretary, APPSC for their concurrence of the draft Rules. After concurrence of all the concerned, the Rules were framed. 49

7. It is also stated that the State had framed a policy of reservation the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Women, Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, Ex-servicemen, Meritorious Sportspersons and Economically Weaker Sections from time to time and incorporated reservation in these categories in Direct Recruitment. The provision of reservation was incorporated in Rule 22-A of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The fixation of roster points has been done duly taking into consideration all the prevailing codes of reservation for roster cycle of 100 points for Direct Recruitment.

8. Subsequently, the cycle of 100 points had been amended include Women, Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, Ex-servicemen, Meritorious Sportspersons and Economically Weaker Sections for implementation of horizontal reservation to them. It is further pleaded that the roster of 100 points has been implemented in the State since 1996 onwards in all Departments and has withstood the test of time. It is further stated that G.O.Ms.No.77, G.A.(Ser.D) Department, dated

02.08.2023 was issued amending the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 providing horizontal reservation. It is also 50 stated that the issue of reservation is a policy decision which cannot be interdicted by this Court.

9. Respondent No.2-APPSC filed its counter affidavit stating that a notification was issued on 07.12.2023 for recruitment to 899 vacancies belonging to Group-II Services in the State. The preliminary examination was scheduled on 25.02.2024 for a total of 4,83,525 candidates who applied for the post. It was pleaded that the writ petition was filed belatedly and the Petitioner is guilty of laches. It is further stated that the Petitioner having applied pursuant to the notification had filed the present writ petition without any bona fides. It is further stated that the State Government by G.O.Rt.No.78, Finance (HR1-PLG and Policy) Department, dated 31.03.2022, G.O.Ms.No.98, Finance (HP1- PLG&Policy), dated 28.08.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.112, Finance (HR1-PLG&Policy) Department, dated 20.10.2023 permitted to fill up the posts that fell vacant from different Departments in the State Government.

10. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the notification is in accordance with the amendments to Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and the notification 51 and recruitment process is in accordance with the Rules. It is stated that the recruitment is being undertaken by the State to fill the posts that fell vacant in each of the Departments as per the details furnished by them. The categories of posts that fell vacant in the Departments were also indicated in the requisitions and the Respondent No.2 does not provide any reservation by itself. The Respondent is only undertaking the recruitment process to fill vacancies that were caused in the respective categories of the posts for which the requisition was sought. It is further stated that the roster is implemented in the form of „running account‟ from year to year and this is to make sure that Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes get their percentage of reserved posts. It is further stated that „running account‟ would ensure that it does not result in excessive reservation and the reservation is worked out in relation to the number of posts which form the cadre strength.

11. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the concept of vacancy has no relevancy in operating the percentage of reservation. It is further stated that all the vacancies that were caused in each Department are not caused on account of increased cadre strength and therefore, allegations regarding 52 excessive reservation is wholly uncalled for. It is further stated that the Petitioner did not state to which category he belongs and how he is aggrieved by the impugned notification and the impugned notification cannot be maintained. It is further stated that the Petitioner cannot make any grievance of the reservation or adequacy of reservation, as all of them relate to recruitment of vacancies and not to any post. It is further stated that no reliance can be placed on roster points framed by the Government of India and the vacancies are being filled up as per the Rules of the State Government. It is further stated that there is no need to follow 100 point roster in filling up vacancies. It is further stated that the vacancies with reference to post code numbers 35, 46, 51 and 52 are reserved for respective categories as per the requisitions placed by respective Departments. The vacancies are caused in those respective Departments in the respective categories of candidates and there cannot be any illegality and the Petitioner cannot have any grievance at any rate.

12. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 were impleaded pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 09.04.2025. A counter affidavit was filed by the impleaded Respondents in W.P.No.6675 of 2025 53 which was adopted as counter in lead case W.P.No.4633 of 2024 also. It is stated in the counter affidavit that notification was issued on 07.12.2023 and the selection process consists of two tests i.e. screening test and main examination. The screening examination was conducted on 25.02.2024 and the results were declared on 10.04.2024 in the ratio of 1:100. The probable cut-off marks are fixed at 18 or less i.e. 12% of the maximum marks of

150. It is stated that the unsuccessful examinees who have not even qualified in the screening examination had filed writ petitions questioning the validity of the notification and the same is not bona fide. A Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and another v. State of Bihar and others3 was relied upon to sustain the said plea.

13. It is further stated that thousands of aspirants spent their time and valuable resources of money in the examination process and in anticipation that the selection process will be concluded at the earliest, so that they can take the next step in their life. However, the litigation for every recruitment notification resulted in loss of avenues for the Petitioners. It is further stated that the issue of filling a post at suitable roster point comes into play only 3 (2017) 4 SCC 357 54 after preparation of merit list. Hence, the relief for setting aside the notification does not arise. A Division Bench judgment of Jarkhand High Court referred to in LPA.No.565 of 2022, dated

11.08.2023 was relied upon to substantiate the plea that every defect need not be a ground for quashing the notification and defects which can be cured need not be quashed. It is further stated that in none of the writ petitions there is reliance of any malpractice in conducting of screening or main examination and there is no reason for the notification to be quashed at this stage. It is further stated that the main examination was conducted on

23.02.2025 in which 79,451 aspirants have appeared. A tabular statement was also provided showing the stages at which the writ petitions were filed by various candidates to substantiate the plea that there are absolutely no bona fides in the challenge to the impugned notification.

14. Contentions: Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that prescribed formats are provided for providing information to APPSC whenever Direct Recruitment is taken up and in the present case, as many as 31 Departments did not do any exercise regarding inadequacy of vacancies and incomplete formats were furnished to APPSC and the same is an 55 incurable defect. Learned counsel further emphasized that the notification provides vacancies for candidates to be appointed under horizontal reservation and this per se is not in consonance with the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria's case (2 supra) and therefore, the same cannot be sustained.

15. Learned counsel referred to G.O.Ms.No.77, dated

02.08.2023, wherein Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules was amended specifically providing only horizontal reservation for certain categories and contrary to the same, the notification straight away reserves vacancies for such candidates. Learned counsel had referred to clauses 4.18 and 4.19 of the notification and contended that the note appended to various vacancies is contrary to the same.

16. Sri Bodduluri Srinivas, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that horizontal reservation is converted into vertical reservations and that the reservation should be with reference to the number of posts and not with reference to the vacancies and that the same is in contravention of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal's case (1 supra). It is further contended that horizontal reservation had not fixed roster points 56 and that by virtue of determining the vacancies for horizontal reservation, there is excess reservation and in the process, merit is a casualty.

17. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria's case (2 supra) and Anil Kumar Gupta and others v. State of U.P and others4. Learned counsel pointed out the indents forwarded by various Departments which show carry forward vacancies along with Women vacancies and roster points, which cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further submits that if the indent is accepted in totality, the horizontal reservation would exceed the prescribed quota. It is also contended that after bifurcation of the State, recruiting adequate strength of various cadres was not undertaken by the State Government and without referring to the adequacy, recruitment effected. Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel adopted the arguments of Sri Bodduluri Srinivas.

18. Sri M.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, would reiterate the contentions mentioned above and contended that reservation was provided even for a single post and the same 4 1995 SCC (5) 173 57 unsustainable. It is further contended that, as per the notification, is reverse discrimination and further submitted G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 02.08.2023 is not followed in a strict sense.

19. Sri P. V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel, contended that the Service Commission acted in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.5, GAD (Ser.A) Department, dated 05.01.2018 and contended that the Petitioners/his clients did not apply for the posts which were reserved for Women.

20. In response, Learned Advocate General contended that the vacancies mentioned in the note in Annexure-1 are only indicative of the inadequacy in the cadre and that the clauses in the notification i.e. 4.18 and 4.19 and other similar clauses are explicit stating that horizontal reservation is only being provided to the Women, Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, Ex-servicemen and Meritorious Sportspersons and this adequacy will be determined after the merit vacancies are filled up as per the dicta of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria's case (2 supra). Learned Advocate General further pointed out that the impugned notification is verbatim similar to the recruitment notification issued by the High Court. 58

21. Learned Advocate General pointed out that indents given to the APPSC are an internal communication and aspirants/ Petitioners cannot have any claim vis-à-vis the indents. Learned Advocate General further contended that the vacancies are notified after determining the vertical and horizontal vacancies and, therefore, the question of issuing fresh roster would not arise. Learned Advocate General further submits that roster is implemented in the form of running account to make sure that candidates entitled to vertical reservation get their percentage of reserved posts. The running account would ensure that there is no excessive vertical or horizontal reservation and that the running account is in relation to cadre strength. Learned Advocate General further submitted that recruitment is an elaborate process involving multiple Departments, long man hours and mega logistics and the recruitment notification should not be quashed on trivial/curable defects, if any.

22. Sri G.Seena Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for APPSC adopted the arguments submitted by the learned Advocate General.

23. Sri R.V.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded Respondents in W.P.No.3306 of 2025 contended that 59 minimum qualification is prescribed as per the notification and G.O.Ms.No.5, GAD (Ser.A) Department, dated 05.01.2018 permits APPSC to fix minimum qualifying mark and contended that if the notification is quashed, persons, who are qualified as on date would lose the opportunity of being recruited on account of overage. Learned counsel further contended that challenge to the recruitment notification is at the instance of the training institutes as quashing of notification would ensure continuity of their business and the same is apparent from the fact that eminent counsel were engaged by unemployed youth.

24. Sri Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded Respondents would contend that the cut-off mark fixed by the Service Commission is 18 out of 150 marks and the Petitioners, who did not even qualify to get 18 marks, do not have bona fides to question the recruitment notification. He further submitted that the entire grievance of the Petitioners is with regard to excessive reservation of posts and even assuming the contentions of the Petitioners as correct for the sake of arguments, it was submitted issue of excessive recruitment/reverse discrimination are factors which can be 60 corrected by the Respondents at the time of appointment and that the same is a curable defect.

25. Learned counsel emphasized on a tabular statement filed along with the counter affidavit in W.P.No. 6675 of 2025 at Para 25, highlighting that the majority of the writ petitions are filed after the main examination was conducted by the Service Commission and just before the finalization of the selection process.

26. In reply, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel contended that the impugned notification cannot be sustained as no exercise was conducted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 02.08.2023 and specification of adequacy at the time of recruitment makes notification invalid.

27. Sri Bodduluri Srinivas, also submitted reply arguments stating that each cadre should have a separate roster and that should be the determinative basis for vacancies and recruitment should be on the basis of vacancies and not posts and reference was made to counter of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to sustain the argument.

28. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy and Sri M.Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel, Sri Bodduluri Srinivas, Sri G.V.Shivaji and Sri Thandava Yogesh, Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, 61 learned counsel the Petitioners and learned Advocate General, Sri G.Seena Kumar, learned standing counsel for APPSC on behalf of the Respondents.

29. On the basis of the submissions, the questions that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the impugned notification is bad for earmarking horizontal reservation? (2) Whether the applicants are prejudiced on account of earmarking of horizontal reservation? (3) Whether the impugned notification is contrary to the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.Sabharwal’s case (1 supra) and whether there is a need to prepare fresh roster? (4) Whether the Petitioners have locus standi to challenge the impugned notification? (5) Whether Public Service Commissioner has committed an error in fixing the ratio at 1: 100? Reasoning:

30. Issue Nos.1 and 2: Respondent No.2-APPSC issued Notification No.11 of 2023 on 07.12.2023 for Direct Recruitment to the posts of Group-II Services under the State. In the said notification, 331 Executive Posts and 566 Non-Executive posts in various Departments were notified. The recruitment process 62 consists of two stages i.e. screening (preliminary examination) followed by the main examination.

31. After the main examination, a computer proficiency test would be conducted to gauge the computer proficiency of the prospective recruits. The pay scale, age and educational qualifications prescribed for the respective posts, apart from specific requirements, have been mentioned in the notification.

32. Clause 4.1 of the notification specifies reservations to various posts i.e. vertical reservation in Direct Recruitment in respect of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections and horizontal reservation in respect of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, Women, Ex-servicemen and Meritorious Sports Persons as provided in Rule 22, Rules 22(A) and 22(B) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as amended G.O.Ms.No.77, G.A.(Ser-D) Department, dated 20.08.2023 etc. The horizontal reservation to Women is capped at 33 1/3 % and the reservation to persons with Benchmark Disabilities is fixed at 4% as per G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 02.08.2023. The procedure for certification will be as per the orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.36, 63 Dept., for Women, Children Differently Abled & Senior Citizens (Prog.II), dated 23.08.2023. The horizontal reservation Meritorious Persons and Ex-servicemen is capped at 2%.

33. Clause 4.1 of the notification is extracted below:

4.1. There will be Vertical Reservations in direct recruitment respect of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections and Horizontal Reservations in respect of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, Women, Ex-servicemen and Meritorious Sports Persons as per Rule 22, 22(A) and 22(B) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service rules, 1996 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.77, G.A.(Ser.D) Dept., Dt. 02.08.2023.

34. The above paragraph addresses the apprehension and the contentions of the Petitioners vis-a-vis horizontal vacancies shown upfront in the notification. The vacancies mentioned in the „Note‟ to all posts have to be construed only as an adequacy shortfall in the cadre regarding the classes of persons coming under the horizontal reservation.

35. The above understanding is amplified on a reading of paragraphs 4.2, 4.3, 4.9 and 4.17 of the notification. These paragraphs mention that Women, Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, Meritorious Sportspersons and Ex-servicemen would be provided horizontal reservation as per G.O.M.S.No.77, 64 G.A.(Ser-D) Dept., dated 02.08.2023. The paragraphs 4.2, 4.3,

4.9 and 4.17 of the notification are extracted below:

4.2: There shall be Reservation to Women horizontally to an extent of 33 1/3% in terms of Rule 22, 22 (A) and 22 (B) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as amended vide G.O. Ms. No. 77, GA(Ser-D) Dept., Dt:02.08.2023.

4.3: There will be reservations in direct recruitment in respect of Person with Benchmark Disability as per Rule 22, 22 (A) and 22 (B) of State and Subordinate Service Rules and read with Departmental Special Rules. However, PBDs reservation is not applicable for P.C.Nos.04 (Assistant Labour Officer), P.C.Nos.07 (Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector) & P.C.Nos.08 (Asst. Development Officer). Note-l: Only OH candidates are eligible for Post Code No.6 (Extension Officer (PR&RD). Note-ll: Only OH candidates are eligible for Post Code No.15 (Senior Accountant (HOD). Note-III: Only OH candidates are eligible for Post Code No.16 (Sr. Accountant (District). Note-IV: Only OH candidates are eligible for Post Code No.18 (Junior Accountant in various Departments).

4.9: The reservation to Meritorious Sportspersons will apply as per G.O.Ms.No.13, GA (Ser-D) Dept., dated: 23.01.2018, G.O.Ms. No.74, Youth, Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Dept., dated: 09.08.2012, G.O.Rt.No.473, Youth. Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports & YS) Dept., dated: 03.12.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.08, Youth, Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Dept., dated: 23.11.2020 read with G.O. Ms. No.77, G.A. (Ser-D) Department, Dt: 02.08.2023. In the event of non-availability of eligible Meritorious Sportspersons, two percent (2%) reservation of posts for them stand lapse as per G.O.Ms. No.77, G.A. (Ser- D) Dept., Dt: 02.08.2023.

4.17: Two percent (2%) reservation shall be provided to Ex- servicemen in Non-Executive category. Out of two percent (2%), one percent of posts shall be given to Women and if no eligible women Ex-servicemen candidate is available, two percent (2%) of reservation shall be filled up with men. If no 65 eligible Ex-service men are available, then the 2% or any shortfall of 2% of posts stand lapse as per G.O.Ms. No.77, G.A (Ser-D) Dept., Dt: 02.08.2023.

36. The G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 02.08.2023 referred to in the above paragraphs is the amendment to Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 providing horizontal reservation to Women, Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, Meritorious Sportspersons and Ex-servicemen. As per the amendments, Rule 22-A(4) and 22-B were introduced into the Rules specifying guidelines for horizontal reservation. The Rules 22-A, 22-B(iii), 22-B(iv) and 22-B (v) provide for a mechanism to implement horizontal reservation. The Rule 22-B(4)(iv), 22- B(5)(iv) and 22-A(5) (i) clearly mention that no roster points shall be assigned for horizontal reservation.

37. While understanding the provisions of the notification, the clear and unambiguous paragraph 4.1 r/w paragraph 4.2,4.3.4.9 and 4.17 would have to be given precedence as to the manner of filing up of vacancies rather than the „Note‟ to various posts. This understanding would align with the Rules.

38. Even dehors the paragraph 4.1 r/w paragraph 4.2,4.3.4.9 and 4.17, the recruitment cannot be contrary to the Rules and 66 such errors in the advertisement/notification would not enure to the benefit of any. In Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission,5 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was considering a dispute regarding upper age of the applicant vis-a- vis the recruitment notification and the Rules. It was held that error in the advertisement/ notification regarding upper age would not create any right as recruitment can only be as per the Rules. Paragraph 21 thereof is extracted below; 21. The present controversy has arisen as advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1-7-2001 and 1-7-2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules.

39. The above judgment was referred to in Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. wherein, it was held that statutory rules take precedence over errors in the notification. Paragraph 21 thereof is extracted below; 5 (2008) 17 SCC 703 67

21. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence.

40. In the light of the above, the vacancies mentioned in the Note appended to Annexure-I can be construed to be only as an indicator of shortfall of such class in the cadre. Now, it is too well settled that the horizontal reservation would be considered, only in the event of shortfall of quota prescribed to them, after the notified vacancies are tentatively filled up on merit and with classes coming under vertical reservation as held in Anil Kumar Gupta’s case (4 supra). The relevant portion of the judgment at paragraph 18 is extracted below; ―..The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservation is already satisfied — in case it is an overall horizontal reservation — no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom.‖ 68 In the light of the above, none of the claims regarding excessive quota for classes under horizontal reservation have no merit.

41. A sub-facet of this issue is to examine whether, on account of the so-called excessive reservation for women and others, some of the aspirants did not apply for the post. Paragraph 8 of the notification prescribes the procedure of the application. It provided five (5) steps for the application and the application is not post-specific. As per the procedure, the applicant has to fill the application recording local and non-local status and white card details only. At the time of application, there is no requirement to specify the post for which the applicant is aspiring.

42. It is important to note that the Post preferences and Zonal preferences will be taken online from the candidates at the time of the main examination as well as at the time of verification of certificates as per paragraph 15.8 and 15.9 of the notification. In spite of exercise of preferences, the Commission reserves the right to assign a candidate to any of the notified posts for which 69 he is qualified and eligible. Paragraphs 15.8 and 15.9 of the notification are extracted below:

15.8. Post preferences and zonal preferences will be taken through online from the candidates at the time of main examination as well as at the time of verification of Certificates. However the submission of option for post preferences and zonal preferences at the time of verification of Certificates is mandatory and will be considered as final for selection. Candidates are required to visit Commission's website regularly for this purpose.

15.9. It is hereby clarified that the said preferences are only indicative for being considered to the extent possible but not binding or limiting the Commission's powers under Article 315 to 320 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Commission has the power to assign a candidate to any of the notified posts for which he is considered to be qualified and eligible, subject to fulfilling the selection criterion. Mere claim of preference for any Zone for allotment against vacancy does not confer a right to selection for that Zone in particular or any Zone in general.

43. In the light of the above, none can claim any prejudice as they are not applying for a specific post, but for the vacancies notified in totality. The Issue Nos.1 and 2 are accordingly answered.

44. Issue No.3: A lot of emphasis was on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal's case (1 supra). In the said case, two aspects were enunciated i.e. if the persons from the reserved categories are appointed/selected on their own merit, they shall not be counted towards percentage of 70 reservation and the second aspect was that if the posts earmarked for Scheduled Castes/Tribes and Backward Classes in the roster are filled, the reservation is complete and roster cannot operate any further. Any post falling vacant in a cadre, thereafter, should be filled from the category i.e. reserved or general.

45. As regards the first principle in the above judgment, there is no grievance and the grievance is with regard to the manner in which the roster points are fixed. According to the Petitioners, a model roster was issued by DoPT., Government of India vide O.M.No.36012/2/96 SL.No.30(9), dated 02.07.1997 and all the Ministries/Departments were instructed to prepare roster in accordance with the same. On the basis of this model roster, the Petitioners came up with their own ideal roster, which according to the Petitioners should be followed in the present recruitment.

46. Firstly, the roster the State is prescribed under Rule 22(2) (e) of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and these Rules are framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and statutory in nature. This statutory rule of roster is not under challenge in these writ petitions and in the absence of any challenge, the Petitioners cannot question the 71 adherence the statutory roster as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 02.08.2023.

47. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Manjurani Routray6, held that declaring Rule 4(b) of the Scientific and Technical Group “A” (Gazetted) posts in the Ministry of Information Technology (in situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998 ultra vires was bad in the absence of any specific prayer and pleadings. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are extracted below; “10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the prayer made in the writ petition, it is luculent that Respondent 1 did not set out any grounds to declare Rule 4(b) of the Rules as ultra vires. No such relief was even prayed for in the writ petition. Respondent 1 in the writ petition merely sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order of CAT. Therefore in the given facts, there was no occasion for the High Court to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires.

11. While hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we asked Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Shibashish Mishra appearing on behalf of the respondents and intervenors, as to how, in the absence of any pleading setting out grounds challenging the vires of Rule 4(b) and in the absence of seeking any relief to that effect, the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires? In response, the learned Senior Counsel has fairly stated that it is a defect in the pleadings as well as in the relief sought before CAT and in the writ petition. But still, they made an 6 (2023) 9 SCC 144 72 unsuccessful attempt to satisfy this Court that the said rule appears to be discriminatory and therefore the High Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. It is a trite law that for striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made, that conspicuously missing in the present case. In the absence of such a pleading, the Union of India did not have an opportunity to rebut the same. The other side had no opportunity to bring on record the object, if any, behind the Rules that were brought into force. We are also of the considered view that, in the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari challenging the order of CAT, the High Court ought not to have declared Rule 4(b) as ultra vires in the above fact situation. Therefore, the High Court was not justified to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires.‖

48. Notwithstanding the above, the roster was fixed taking into consideration the prevailing quota of reservation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. Subsequently, certain roster points were fixed to Ex-servicemen, Meritorious Sportspersons, Women and for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities vide amendments to Rule 22 of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

49. In the light of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Daria and Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bist 2010 (12) SCC 204 and Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India regarding the manner in which the horizontal reservation was to be filled up, a Committee 73 was constituted by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.140, G.A.(Ser.D) Department, dated 16.11.2022 to examine the same. On the basis of the report of the Committee dated 10.04.2023, amendments were made to Rule 22 of the Rules, 1996 and a new roster was issued fixing reservation points only for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and EWs and Backward Classes.

50. Even prior to the amendment of the roster points, the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 incorporated the principles of the R.K.Sabharwal’s case (1 supra) and the principle of own merit and operation of the roster was incorporated in Rule 22 B & C vide G.O.Ms.No.188, G.A.(Ser.D), dated 18.12.2017 with effect from 19.10.2011. Though Rule 22 does not mention Backward Classes and EWS in as many words, contextually the same has to be read into the said Rule 22 B & C.

51. A single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23770 of 2017 and batch considered the issue whether the Roster under the A.P. State and Subordinate Rules,1996 is vacancy-based or post-based and held that the same is post based and in consonance with the Judgment in R.K. Sabharwal's case (1 supra). The paragraphs 48 and 49 are extracted below; 74 ―48. The petitioners had taken the stand that the roster point table under Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules is a vacancy based roster point system and not a post based roster point system. The relevant para of Rule 22 (e) reads as follows: 2(e): Appointments under this rule shall be made in the order of rotation specified below in a unit of hundred vacancies – filled up first 100 vacancies would be

49. The word ―vacancies‖ used in this rule is interpreted by the petitioners to mean that this roster point table is a vacancy based table. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabarwal (supra) had held that for the purpose of initiating the roster point system, accordance with the roster point table, and thereafter, the vertical reservation would be implemented by filling up the posts falling vacant by the persons belonging to the categories to which that post is to be applied in the roster table. In the circumstances, the word ―vacancies‖ used in Rule 22 (e) should be understood to mean that the initial vacancies are to be filled up as per the roster points and after the entire roster table is filled, the posts would be filled up by the persons falling in the category to whom that post falls. The roster point table set out in Rule 22 (d) is speaking of the initial vacancies for filling up the roster table and not as a permanent system of using the roster table on the basis of vacancies. The roster table set out under Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules is not a vacancy based roster point system and is a post based roster point system.”

52. The above judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.214 of 2021 and batch. In the SLPs filed thereon, the same was confirmed. It is, therefore, not open to the Petitioners to contend that the roster, followed by the State is not in consonance with the dicta in R.K.Sabharwal’s case (1 supra). 75

53. As regards the model roster issued by the Union Government, it is to be noted that the purpose of fixing roster points is to ensure that the reservation points are evenly distributed and also to ensure full representation in the posts reserved. The manner of fixing roster points is a prerogative of the employer and as long as the roster ensures even representation to the members of the reserved class, it is not for this Court to substitute its opinion or the aspirant for that matter to contend that a particular roster fixation is better than the existing roster points. The roster points fixed under Rule 22 (2) of the 1996 Rules is in vogue for nearly 30 years vis-à-vis Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and there was no alteration of their roster points to the said classes, even as per the amended roster points as per G.O.Ms.No.77, dated

02.08.2023. It is well settled that to quash a long standing Rule, substantial grounds have to be established and the same cannot be struck down on a mere difference of opinion as regards the ideal roster.

54. Generally, the challenge to the vires of the statute can be following grounds i.e. lack of legislative competence, arbitrariness or contrary to constitutional provisions. In the 76 present case, it is not the case of the Petitioners that the roster is not within legislative competence nor is their case that any constitutional provision is vitiated. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the model roster.

55. A plea was raised in the course of arguments that a fresh roster has to be prepared after bifurcation of the State. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, there were recruitments on two occasions with regard to Group-II cadre in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh vide notification No.18 of 2016, dated 08.11.2016 and the APPSC notified 982 vacancies i.e. 442 Executive Posts and 540 Non-Executive posts.

56. Again on 31.12.2018, the APPSC issued notification vide notification No.26 of 2018 for recruitment of 292 vacancies of Group-II cadre i.e. 94 Executive posts and 198 Non-Executive posts. The recruitment to various cadres in the impugned notification is similar to the earlier notifications. After recruitment under the earlier notifications, now calling for preparation of a fresh roster is wholly unwarranted.

57. It is not the case of the Petitioners that the vacancies in the rosters which arose after the persons have opted to the State of 77 Telangana were not filled up from the persons belonging to respective categories. The roster is a continuous cycle and the vacancies are filled up as provided in the roster, however, the State of Telangana, on formation, had no roster in certain categories to start with as candidates were borne in cadre of Telangana for the first time on allotment. It was in that context, a fresh roster was prepared. Unlike the State of Telangana, all the erstwhile employees were borne in the State of Andhra Pradesh and it would suffice, if the vacancies created on account of persons allotted to Telangana were filled up from respective categories. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the plea of the Petitioners regarding validity of the roster framed under Rule 22(e) of the Rules. The issue No.3 is accordingly answered.

58. Issue No.4: In these writ petitions, there is hardly any plea as to how the Petitioners are individually prejudiced and how their rights are affected even assuming for the sake of argument that the impugned notification is flawed.

59. It is necessary to note here that the assumed flaws in the notification are grievances which can be urged only by the 78 candidates who are shortlisted for selection/appointment and lost out of employment on account of the stated earmarked horizontal reservation. The tabular statement given below indicates the dates as to when these writ petitions are filed and at what stage just to understand the design. Sl. Date Details

07.12.2023 Grade-II notification

20.02.2024 W.P.No.4633 of 2024 filed

25.02.2024 Screening Test conducted

10.04.2024 Screening Test Results

10.07.2024 W.P.No.15202 of 2024

06.02.2025 W.P.No.3306 of 2025

23.02.2025 Main Examination conducted

23.02.2025 Preliminary Key issued

10.03.2025 W.P.No.6148 of 2025 filed

10. 10.03.2025 W.P.No.6294 of 2025

11. 13.03.2025 W.P.No.6675 of 2025

12. 19.03.2025 W.P.No.7618 of 2025

13. 25.03.2025 W.P.No.7985 of 2025

14. 25.03.2025 W.P.No.7999 of 2025

15. 25.03.2025 W.P.No.8001 of 2025 79

16. 04.04.2025 Results announced

17. 08.04.2025 W.P.No.9373 of 2025

60. As mentioned above, barring Writ Petitions i.e W.P.Nos.4633, 15202 of 2024 and W.P.No.3306 of 2025, all other writ petitions are filed after the main examination and after release of preliminary key. There is a delay of more than one year from the date of notification and in none of the writ affidavits, there is a plea explaining the delay. In the opinion of this Court, none of the writ petitions filed after the main examination and release of preliminary key on 23.02.2025 could be maintained nor can they be said to be bona fide.

61. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Vs State of Bihar (2017 (4) SCC 357), upheld the Division Bench judgment of High Court of Patna holding that the Petitioners were stopped from questioning the selection process after participating in the same. The paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 are extracted below:

13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that 80 when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, this Court held that : (SCC p. 107, para 18) ―18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission.)‖

14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah wherein it was held to be well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to to be it upon being declared question unsuccessful.

15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations : (SCC p. 584, para 16) ―16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of the selection. The petitioner challenging invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the 81 merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttarancha, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines.‖

16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, candidates who had participated the selection process were aware that they were required to possess in computer certain specific qualifications operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible. participated

17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, candidates who were competing for the the State of post of Physiotherapist Uttarakhand a written in pursuance of an examination held advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that : (SCC p. 318, para 18) to challenge their right ―18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.‖ 82

18. In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur, it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, this Court held that : (SCC p. 500, para 17) ―17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately interviews were conducted.‖ This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan.

21. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench cannot held to be in error in coming to the conclusion that it was not open to the appellants after participating in the selection process to question the result, once they were declared to be unsuccessful. During the course of the hearing, this Court is informed that four out of six candidates, who were ultimately selected, figured both in the first process of the subsequent selection as well as selection. One candidate is stated to have retired. 83

62. A similar view was taken in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir7.

63. Coming to Petitioners in W.P.Nos.4633, 15202 of 2024 and 3306 of 2025, as stated above, nothing is brought on record whether any of them had qualified to appear in the main examination and whether they were shortlisted for selection. As the Petitioners could not establish individual grievance, the writ petitions could not be maintained. The issue No.4 is accordingly answered.

64. Issue No.5: One of the grounds urged was that the minimum marks were not fixed by the APPSC and the main examination was conducted in the ratio of 1:100 contrary to G.O.Ms.No.5, GAD (Ser.A) Department, dated 05.01.2018. The G.O.Ms.No.5, enables the APPSC to pick up candidates who obtained minimum qualifying marks in screening test/preliminary examination as may be fixed by the APPSC at its discretion and to admit them to the main examination. The G.O. further states that the Commission is at liberty to relax standards in the screening test in the event the Commission is of the opinion that 7 2023 (17) SCC 147 84 sufficient candidates are not available for main examination on the basis of general standard fixed in preliminary/screening test. The paragraph 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.5 is extracted below:

3. After careful examination of the matter and in partial modification of the orders Issued in the G.O 2nd read above, Government hereby permit the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to pick up candidates who obtained such minimum qualifying marks in Screening Test/ Preliminary Examination as may be fixed by the Commission at its discretion shall be admitted to the Main Examination in all direct recruitment Examinations. The APPSC is further permitted to select candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward classes or Physically challenged candidates for Main Examination by applying test/ Preliminary Examination, if the Commission is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from these communities are not likely to be eligible for Main Examination on the basis / Preliminary of general standard Examination in order to fill up the vacancies reserved for them. in Screening Test relaxed standards the Screening

65. The G.O. gives discretion to the Commission to fix minimum marks in the screening test/preliminary examination and accordingly, the Commission permitted those candidates to the main examination who secured 18.28 marks in the screening test/preliminary examination in the ratio of 1:100. In the ratio adopted, 92,250 candidates who secured 18.28 marks were permitted to the main examination. This Court does not find any 85 error in the procedure followed and this issue No.5 is accordingly answered.

66. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petitions are devoid of merit and are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 30.12.2025 KLP __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J