THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.2193 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes. She called in question the action of the respondent in filling up the post of Pharmacist at the Project Hospital, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, V.V. Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, by a Scheduled Caste male candidate, instead of filling it up with a Scheduled Caste candidate belonging to woman category. The writ petitioner has proceeded on the basis that the State Government has already provided for the reservation in favour of women candidates to the extent of 33 1/3rd percentage of vacancies and in Rule-22 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, the cyclic order or rotation of vacancies in favour of various categories, such as, Open Category, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (A, B, C and D), has also been indicated and this 33 1/3rd % of the vacancies reserved in favour of women should go in every category referred to supra and consequently, the second vacancy in a cyclic order, is liable to be filled in by a Scheduled Caste (Women) Category candidate and contrary thereto, the respondents have filled up the vacancy with a Scheduled Caste (Male) candidate and, hence, their action is liable to be faulted. The basis for this writ petition was the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Rules, which were published through G.O.Ms.No.47, Social Welfare, dated 31-05-2000, by the State Government. According to the writ petitioner, these Rules will be applicable to recruitment to any public service and the expression ‘public service’, as defined in Rule-2(d) of the said Rules, makes it clear that service in a Corporation or Undertaking, wholly owned or controlled by the Government, also amounts to public service and since, the A.P.TRANSCO, is one such Undertaking of the State Government, which is wholly owned and regulated by the State Government, reservation for women to the extent of 33 1/3% of vacancies in all categories should be adopted and followed. The facts, which are relevant for deciding this controversy, are in a narrow compass: The A.P.GENCO has issued a notification on 24-06- 2000, inviting applications from qualified candidates for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist to be filled in by the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes. The last date for receipt of the applications from the candidates was set as 4-00 pm on 10-07-2000. The writ petitioner was one such candidate, who responded to the said notification. Therefore, by communication dated 16-01-2001, she has been directed to appear for the interview to be conducted at 11-00 am on 09-01-2001, in the office of the Junior Engineer (O & M), Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project. Accordingly, the writ petitioner appeared, but however, five candidates, all belonging to Scheduled Caste category appeared for the said interview. Of whom, the writ petitioner is the only female candidate. Since, she was not selected, she has preferred this writ petition alleging improper methods of selection on the part of the respondents. According to the writ petitioner, it is the female candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, who ought to have been selected, but not a male candidate. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been specifically asserted that A.P.GENCO has adopted the policy decision of the State Government published through G.O.Ms.No.116, SW (CV.I) Department, dated 10-12-1999, excluding Item 4 thereof. Item No.4 is relating to the issue of reservation of vacancies in favour of women category candidates. Accordingly, the notification that was published on 24-06-2000, did not specify that the vacancy is liable to be filled up by women candidates. Instead, it was thrown open to all candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category, i.e., both men and women, to compete. Hence, the writ petitioner was also subjected to the process of selection and she competed along with others and the most meritorious Scheduled Caste candidate, who happened to be a male candidate, was selected and appointed as such. It is further pointed out in the counter-affidavit that only on 28-04-2001, through G.O.O.103/GM (A) (2000), dated 15-03-2000, the Corporation has taken a policy decision of reserving 33 1/3 % of vacancies in favour of the women candidates in all categories, such as Open Category, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (A, B, C and D). It is, therefore, pleaded that in all direct recruitments resorted to post 28-04-2001 period only, the vacancies are required to be filled in exclusively with 33 1/3 % of women candidates, but not otherwise. In the instant case, the notification was issued on 24-06-2000, which is prior to the policy decision taken by the respondent Corporation, to reserve 33 1/3% of vacancies in favour of women. The selection process is also preceded such a policy decision. Hence, both the men and women candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes are equally entitled to compete, therefore, selection of the best meritorious Scheduled Caste category candidate, who happened to be a male candidate, cannot be faulted. 33 1/3% of vacancies reserved in favour of women candidates is not in addition to the reservation provided by the State and the public-sector undertakings in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. This reservation of 33 1/3% in favour of female candidates is by way of a horizontal reservation amongst all these groups. Consequently, 1/3rd of the vacancies amongst Open Category, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (A, B, C and D), are liable to be filled in with women candidates. Until such time such a policy decision is taken and implemented, no female candidate can make a claim for exclusive selection or appointment in that regard. The reservation provided in favour of women candidates is by virtue of the Provision contained in Article 15(3) of the Constitution. Hence, it is a special Provision. Until and unless such a special Provision is provided for by the employer, the employees will not have any right for such exclusive treatment. As was already noticed supra, the policy relating to reservation of women candidates to the extent of 33 1/3%, has come to be notified only w.e.f. 28-04-2001 by the respondent Corporation. The notification, pursuant to which the selections were now finalized, was issued on 24-06-2000 and the selection process has been completed in the month of January 2001. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 16th November 2009