THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2875 of 2002 Dated 20th January, 2011 ORDER: The 4th respondent is S.B.S.S.Oriental Degree College admitted to grant-in-aid. The Government of Andhra Pradesh initiated steps for filling up of backlog vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (for short ‘S.Cs and S.Ts’). Since the response to earlier notification was not encouraging, it issued G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 08.05.2001, relaxing all the service rules and paving the way for selection of the candidates, purely on the basis of marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination. 2. A notification was issued on 06.05.2001 by the 4th respondent to fill the backlog vacancies. The petitioner and 5th respondent applied for the post. Appointing authority had selected the 5th respondent and appointed her. The petitioner challenges the appointment of the 5th respondent as Lecturer in Telugu. She contends that though herself and the 5th respondent secured the same marks in the qualifying examination, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have selected her only on the ground that the 5th respondent is older in age. She contends that there is absolutely no basis for the respondents to adopt such criteria. 3. No Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. 5. The recruitment undertaken by respondent Nos.1 to 4 was to fill the backlog vacancies of S.Cs and S.Ts. Since the earlier efforts to fill the vacancies by following the relevant service rules did not yield results, the Government has chosen to relax all the norms that stipulated the conducting of written test and interview. The marks secured in the qualifying examination were to be taken as the sole criterion. 6. It is rather incidental that the petitioner and the 5th respondent have secured the same percentage of marks viz., 61.8% in the Post Graduate Course. The G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 08.05.2001, is silent as to what criterion should be taken into account, in the event of the candidates securing the same marks in the qualifying examination. Therefore, the appointing authority has chosen to select the 5th respondent on the ground that she is older in age. Though that criterion is not recognized under the G.O, it cannot be said to be totally irrelevant. 7. The petitioner contends that she secured higher marks in the graduation and holds further qualifications. However, there is no rule or G.O, which confers any precedence on account of those factors. In the given set of facts, it would have been competent for the appointing authority to select the petitioner or the 5th respondent and still be right. At the same time, the selection of the 5th respondent cannot be found fault with. At any rate 9 years have elapsed and it is not in the interest of anyone to unsettle the dispute. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 20th January, 2011 VJL/KTL