THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16046 OF 2010 28TH JULY 2010. BETWEEN: D.SK.JANIBASHA AND ANOTHER .. PETITIONERS AND THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT., SECRETARIAT, A.P., HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16046 OF 2010 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM) This Writ Petition is misconceived. The petitioners applied to the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (the Tribunal), for a declaration that the order in G.O.Ms.No.72 Education (Services VI) Department, dated 2.6.2008 and the amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 Education (Services VI) Department, dated 5.6.2008 by the Secretary to the Government, Education Department reserving all unfilled posts in favour of BC (B) category candidates beyond their quota, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; of Rule 22(2)(h) (ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996; and for a consequent direction to the respondents to consider the merit list of DSC 2006 while filling up the unfilled posts reserved for SC, ST and BC categories. The grievance of the petitioners/applicants was in respect of the posts of Secondary Grade teachers (Urdu) notified in DSC 2006. It would appear that there were no eligible candidates belonging to the reserved categories to fill the roster points reserved for SC, ST and BC(A), BC(C) and BC(D). Initially, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.72 Education (Services VI) Department, dated 2.6.2008 directing filling up of all the Secondary Grade teachers (Urdu) posts reserved for SC and ST categories (lying vacant due to non-availability of eligible qualifying candidates belonging to these reserved categories) by candidates belonging to BC(B) category. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.74 Education (Services VI) Department, dated 5.6.2008 throwing open unfilled roster point vacancies earmarked for BC(A), BC(C) and BC(D) groups in favour of BC(B) candidates. It was also decided herein that after all eligible BC (B) candidates are exhausted the balance vacancies should be filled up by eligible OC candidates in accordance with merit. The Tribunal, on an analysis of the relevant provisions of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in particular Rules 22(h) and 22(g) concluded rightly that without conducting a limited departmental examination to fill up the unfilled reserved vacancies as per the roster maintained under Rule 22 of these Rules, vacancies cannot be thrown open for general (unreserved category) candidates and quashed the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.48 Education Department, dated 27.3.2008, G.O.Ms.No.72 Education (Services VI) Department, dated 2.6.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.74 Education (Services VI) Department, dated 5.6.2008 and left it open to the Government to ascertain whether the circumstances contemplated by Rule 22(2)(h) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 existed as on the date of issue of DSC 2006 notification and thereafter on the basis of such ascertainment of facts directed the Government to take appropriate steps in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Rule 22(2)(g) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that recruitment to other categories of School Assistants, P.E.Ts and Language Pandits have also taken place under the orders of the Government under G.O.Ms.No.72 Education (Services VI) Department, dated 2.6.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.74 Education (Services VI) Department, dated 5.6.2008 and therefore the Government cannot discriminate. This is a contention that merits no acceptance. The Government did not discriminate, it uniformly violated the law in issuing the impugned orders. The learned Tribunal, invalidated the Government Order at the instance of the petitioners. Clearly and in view of the analysis by the Tribunal with which we concur, the orders of the Government are invalid and inoperative being in violation of Rules 22 (h) and 22 (g) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The Government orders issued in exercise of the executive power of the State were inconsistent with the statutory Rules, must perish and were accordingly quashed by the Tribunal, rightly. On the aforesaid analysis, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.3993 of 2008 dated 9.1.2009, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. Dt:28-07-2010. ( GODA RAGHURAM, J ) ( R.KANTHA RAO, J ) TNB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16046 OF 2010 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM) Dt: 28-07-2010.