IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2207 of 2009 Between: Md. Aslam Aamir, S/o. Md. Sarwar Hussain, H.NO. 19-5-32/A12, Asadbaba nagar, Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Commissioner & Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector & Chariman of DSC 2003, Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, Hyderabad. 4 The State Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department , Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for all the connected records including judgment in O.A.No.5196 of 2008 dated 22-07-2008 and quash the same as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and further declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the applicant who belongs to BC-B category from the vacancies meant for BC-A, C and D categories by operating Rule 22(2)(h)(ii) proviso 2 and 3 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the respondents herein to appoint the applicant herein as Language Pandit Gr.II(Urdu) in DSC 2003 from the vacancies meant for BC-A,C and D Categories. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMAMOHAN-MAHADEVA Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash order, dated 22.07.2008 passed in O.A.No.5196 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioner sought to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing him in the vacancies meant for BC-A, C and D categories by operating Rule 22(2)(h)(II) proviso 2 and 3 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short ‘the Rules’), as illegal and arbitrary. He further sought to direct the respondents to appoint him as Language Pandit Grade II (Urdu) in District Selection Committee (DSC)-2003 in the vacancies meant for the said categories. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner passed B.A.L. and Urdu Pandit Training. He belongs to BC-B category. The first respondent issued a notification on 12.02.2004 for filling up seven posts of Language Pandit Grade II (Urdu) in DSC-2003. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner, applied for the said post, appeared for the written examination held on 04.04.2004, was selected and got IV rank as per the selection list. It is further stated that out of seven vacancies, 3 posts were earmarked for BC-A, C and D Groups each. As per Rule 22(2)(h)(II) proviso 2 and 3 of the Rules, if a qualified candidate belonging to a particular group of Backward Classes (Groups-A, C & D) is not available for appointment, the vacancy reserved to that group shall accrue to the next group. Even after three successive recruitments, if no candidate is available from the above groups, such vacancy will be treated as deserved, and the said vacancy should be forwarded to the next recruitment year. It is further stated that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 19.02.2005, which says that if no candidates are available to fill up the vacancies meant for SC/ST/BC and women, then the said posts may be treated as open category. It is also stated that on the representation made by the petitioner and others, the third respondent wrote a letter dated 18.12.2005 for clarification to the first respondent, who, in turn, sent a letter dated 07.02.2006 to the Secretary to Government, Education (Ser.VII) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requesting to issue necessary clarification orders in Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) (U) for DSC-2003 to fill up the vacancies reserved for BC-A, C & D Groups with BC-B Group candidates, who applied for SGT (U) during the year 2003, but no action has been taken thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5196 of 2008 before the Tribunal, but the same was dismissed on 22.07.2008. Challenging the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as no candidates are available in BC-A, C and D groups for filling up the vacancies of Language Pandit Grade II (U), the case of the petitioner, who belongs to BC-B Group may be considered as per Rule 22(2)(h)(II) proviso 2 and 3 of the Rules. He further submitted that in the selection list, the first selected candidate, by name Salma Humaira, is not reported to duty, and therefore, the case of the petitioner, who stands very next to the selected candidates, may be considered. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I has fairly stated that out of three selected candidates, who belong to BC-B Group, one candidate, by name Salma Humaira, has not joined duty and the next selected candidate is the petitioner, who secured 66 marks. 5. In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and as per Rule 22(2)(h)(ii) proviso 2 and 3 of the Rules, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Language Pandit Grade II (Urdu) under BC-B category in DSC-2008 in the vacancy that arose due to non-reporting to duty by Salma Humaira in DSC- 2003, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:20.03.2009 sj