IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5395 of 2009 Between: G. Jalander Reddy S/o. G. Ganga REddy Koti Women's College, Hyderabad R/o. Flat No.G4, Prasanth Nagar, Snehapuri Colony, Nacharam, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education (UE.I-1) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Open University, rep. by its Registrar, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar University, Road No.46, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 033. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent No.1:AGP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. M.RATNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash employment notification No.1 of 2009, dated 17.02.2009. At the admission stage, respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit. Heard Sri Ch.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ratna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. The short point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the method and manner followed by respondent No.2 in arranging the subjects and working out the reservation in the impugned employment notification are in accordance with the Government Orders governing the subject. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.927, Education (C) Department, dated 20.11.1982, extending rule of reservation in recruitment to teaching staff in the Universities. In G.O.Ms.No.995, Education (C) Department, dated 16.12.1982, orders were issued clarifying that for the purpose of reservation in the teaching posts, the faculties shall be grouped as under: Group – I : Arts, Commerce, Business Management, Law, Social Sciences and Education including all languages Group – II : Sciences. Group – III : Engineering and Technology and that each group should be treated as a single unit and roster system prescribed under Rule 22 of the General Rules shall be followed. It was further clarified in G.O.Ms.No.420, Education (UE.I-1) Department, dated 18.11.1995, that the vacancies shall be notified within the group subject-wise after arranging the subjects in alphabetical order. This was further reiterated in G.O.Ms.No.456, Education (UE.I-1) Department, dated 21.12.1995, wherein it is inter alia directed as under: “3. The Government after careful consideration, hereby order that sub-rule 2 of rule 22-A of the State and Subordinate Service Rules shall be adopted by all the Universities for the purpose of recruitment to the teaching and non-teaching posts in the Universities, subject to the following guidelines:- (i) In each of the 3 groups, roster shall be maintained arranging the subjects in alphabetical order within that particular group. The vacancies computed in a particular group will be distributed among different categories i.e., OC, SC, ST, BC-A, BC-B, BC- C and BC-D, as per the 100 point roster.” In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that while arranging the subjects, respondent No.2 has made a further division within Group-I comprising Arts, Commerce, Business Management, Law, Social Sciences and Education. According to the petitioner, when once different subjects within the group are notified, respondent No.2 is bound to follow the strict alphabetical order subject-wise and there cannot be division department-wise. I have carefully considered the averments contained in the counter-affidavit. Though the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon G.O.Ms.No.420 to buttress the plea of respondent No.2 that notifying the subject “history” at item No.5 of Group-I and reserving the post of Assistant Professor for S.C. Community is correct, I am unable to agree with this contention. As referred to above, G.O.Ms.Nos.420 and 456, dated 18.11.1995 and 21.12.1995 respectively, clearly envisage that when once the vacancies are computed in a particular group, they should be arranged in alphabetical order within that particular group. In other words, all the subjects falling within Group-I should be arranged in alphabetical order and there cannot be further division on the basis of alphabetical order within various departments within that particular group. If this procedure is followed, Group-I subjects will fall in the following order: “Economics, Education, English, History, Sociology and Telugu.” Thus, the subject “history” should go to OC in accordance with the roster. Since respondent No.2 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed in the above-mentioned G.Os, the action of respondent No.2 in reserving “history” for OCs cannot be sustained. Since the interference with one subject will have chain reaction, the entire employment notification to the extent of Group-I subjects is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification is quashed with liberty to respondent No.2 to issue a fresh notification in the light of the findings contained in this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st MARCH, 2009. kvni