*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25896 of 2006 WRIT PETITION No.425 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.1585 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.1933 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.2019 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.2209 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.3302 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.14520 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.22085 of 2007 AND WRIT PETITION.(SR).No.4882 of 2008 %Date: 01-02-2008 #Between: W.P.No.25896 of 2006 : Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And K. Gayathri, Unemployee, R/o. Shivalayam street, Karvete Nagar, Chittoor District and 4 others. …Respondent/s ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri J. Sudheer, Special Government Pleader ^Counsel for Respondents : Sri M.Surender Rao, Advocate, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, Advocate. W.P.No.425 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Petitioner/s And S.Gopal Reddy, s/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged 29 years, r/o. Devagiripatnam, Mulug Mandal, Warangal District and 7 others. …Respondent/s ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri J. Sudheer, Special Government Pleader ^Counsel for Respondents : Sri M.Surender Rao, Advocate, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, Advocate. W.P.No.1585 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And V. Vijay Kumar, s/o. V.Ch. Ramulu, Aged 33 years, Unemployee, Shaktinagar, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District and 2 others. …Respondent/s ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri J. Sudheer, Special Government Pleader ^Counsel for Respondents : Sri M.Surender Rao, Advocate, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, Advocate. W.P.No.1933 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And B. Francis Babu, s/o. Venkat Rathnam, Aged 30 years, Unemployee, Laxminagar, Quarter No.160, Vuyyuru, Krishna District and 2 others. …Respondent/s ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri J. Sudheer, Special Government Pleader ^Counsel for Respondents : None appeared. W.P.No.2019 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And P. Chandrasekhar, s/o. P.Jayachandra Reddy, Aged 29 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o. 2-23, Bound Street, Knvet Nagar, Village & Post, Chittoor District & another. …Respondent/s ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri J. Sudheer, Special Government Pleader ^Counsel for Respondents : Sri M.Surender Rao, Advocate, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, Advocate. W.P.No.2209 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And N. Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. N.Bhogeeswaraiah, Aged 27 years, Unemployee, H.No.4-25, Vinayaka Nagar, Avilala, Tirupati, Chittoor District. …Respondent/s ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri J. Sudheer, Special Government Pleader ^Counsel for Respondents : None appeared. W.P.No.3302 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And Sundupalli Indrasena Reddy, S/o. S.Srinivasulu Reddy, Aged 24 years, r/o. Pulicherla, Post & Mandal, Chittoor District and 12 others. …Respondent/s ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri J. Sudheer, Special Government Pleader ^Counsel for Respondents : Sri M.Surender Rao, Advocate, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, Advocate. W.P.No.14520 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And B. Ramesh, R/o. Telkapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and 3 others. …Respondent/s ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri J. Sudheer, Special Government Pleader ^Counsel for Respondents : None appeared. W.P.No.22085 of 2007 Between: K. Siva Prasad, s/o. K.Chengal Rayan, Aged 28 years, r/o. H.No.14/620, Panchali Nagar, Renigunta, Chittoor District and 2 others. … Petitioner/s And The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad and 14 others. …Respondent/s ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate ^Counsel for Respondents : Sri J. Sudheer, Special Government Pleader W.P.(SR) No.4882 of 2008 Between: K.C. Ranga Reddy, s/o. Sri K.Golla Reddy, Aged 29 years, Occ: Agricultural Officer, Garledinne, R/o. H.No.3-371, Tapovanam, Anantapur District and 9 others. … Petitioner/s And The Commissioner & Director of Food and Agriculture, Nampally, Opp: L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad and 33 others. …Respondent/s ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, Advocate ^Counsel for Respondents : Sri J. Sudheer, Special Government Pleader <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. (2006) 8 SCC 399 = AIR 2006 SC 2945 2. (2004) 1 SCC 712 = AIR 2004 SC 1295 3. (2004) 4 SCC 646 = AIR 2004 SC 646 4. (2005) 3 SCC 551 = AIR 2005 SC 2731 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25896 of 2006 WRIT PETITION No.425 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.1585 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.1933 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.2019 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.2209 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.3302 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.14520 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.22085 of 2007 AND WRIT PETITION.(SR).No.4882 of 2008 Dated : 01-02-2008 W.P.No.25896 of 2006 : Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And K. Gayathri, Unemployee, R/o. Shivalayam street, Karvete Nagar, Chittoor District and 4 others. …Respondent/s W.P.No.425 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Petitioner/s And S.Gopal Reddy, s/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged 29 years, r/o. Devagiripatnam, Mulug Mandal, Warangal District and 7 others. …Respondent/s W.P.No.1585 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And V. Vijay Kumar, s/o. V.Ch. Ramulu, Aged 33 years, Unemployee, Shaktinagar, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District and 2 others. …Respondent/s W.P.No.1933 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And B. Francis Babu, s/o. Venkat Rathnam, Aged 30 years, Unemployee, Laxminagar, Quarter No.160, Vuyyuru, Krishna District and 2 others. …Respondent/s W.P.No.2019 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And P. Chandrasekhar, s/o. P.Jayachandra Reddy, Aged 29 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o. 2-23, Bound Street, Knvet Nagar, Village & Post, Chittoor District & another. …Respondent/s W.P.No.2209 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And N. Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. N.Bhogeeswaraiah, Aged 27 years, Unemployee, H.No.4-25, Vinayaka Nagar, Avilala, Tirupati, Chittoor District. …Respondent/s W.P.No.3302 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And Sundupalli Indrasena Reddy, S/o. S.Srinivasulu Reddy, Aged 24 years, r/o. Pulicherla, Post & Mandal, Chittoor District and 12 others. …Respondent/s W.P.No.14520 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And B. Ramesh, R/o. Telkapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and 3 others. …Respondent/s W.P.No.22085 of 2007 Between: K. Siva Prasad, s/o. K.Chengal Rayan, Aged 28 years, r/o. H.No.14/620, Panchali Nagar, Renigunta, Chittoor District and 2 others. … Petitioner/s And The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad and 14 others. …Respondent/s W.P.(SR) No.4882 of 2008 Between: K.C. Ranga Reddy, s/o. Sri K.Golla Reddy, Aged 29 years, Occ: Agricultural Officer, Garledinne, R/o. H.No.3-371, Tapovanam, Anantapur District and 9 others. … Petitioner/s And The Commissioner & Director of Food and Agriculture, Nampally, Opp: L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad and 33 others. …Respondent/s THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25896 of 2006 WRIT PETITION No.425 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.1585 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.1933 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.2019 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.2209 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.3302 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.14520 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.22085 of 2007 AND WRIT PETITION (SR) No.4882 of 2008 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Since the issue involved in all the abovementioned writ petitions is one and the same, though the writ petitions are at interlocutory stage and listed under the caption “For orders”, with the consent of both the parties, they are taken up for hearing and being disposed of finally by this common order. 2. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, the learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the petitioners (Government), in all the writ petitions, Sri M.Surender Rao, the learned counsel, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.Nos.25896 of 2006 and 425, 1585, 2019 and 3302 of 2007, and Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (selectees) in W.P.No.22085 of 2007, and Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (selectees) in W.P.(SR).No.4882 of 2008 only, since none appears for the respondents in W.P.Nos.1933, 2209 and 14520 of 2007. 3. W.P.Nos.25896 of 2006, 425, 1933, 2209, 3302, 14520 and 22085 of 2007, and W.P.(SR).No.4882 of 2008, are directed against the common order, dated 13.11.2006, in O.A.Nos.6424, 2530, 1895, 1661, 1659, 723, 1659 and 1659 of 2006, respectively; and W.P.Nos.1585 and 2019 of 2007 are directed against the common order, dated 29.11.2006, in O.A.Nos.1922 and 1200 of 2006, respectively, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), allowing the said O.As., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to declare that a uniform procedure shall be adopted for selection of the candidates for the posts of Agricultural Extension Officer, Grade-II (for brevity “AEO-II”) and that different yardsticks cannot be applied to the candidates with B.Sc., in Agriculture and the candidates with Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and to declare further that the applicants and similarly situated persons are entitled to the benefit of Overall Grade Point Average (for brevity “OGPA”), as given to the candidates with B.Sc., in Agriculture; while W.P.(SR).No.4882 of 2008 is filed by the affected persons, who were selected pursuant to the issuance of notification and selection process for filling up of the post of AEO-II, and the remaining writ petitions are filed by the Government. 4. Petitioner-Government in all the writ petitions except W.P. (S.R).No.4882 of 2008 is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the respective O.As., before the Tribunal; while the petitioners in W.P.No.22085 of 2007 and W.P.(S.R).No.4882 of 2008 are the third parties, who are affected persons, by virtue of the impugned orders of the Tribunal. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this common order, the petitioner and the respondents in all the writ petitions except W.P.(S.R).No.4882 of 2008 will be referred to as “the Government”, and “the applicants”, respectively, and the petitioners in W.P.No.22085 of 2007 and W.P. (S.R).No.4882 of 2008 will be referred to as “the affected persons”. 6. Applicants are Diploma Holders in Agricultural Polytechnic. Through G.O.Ms.No.311, Agriculture and Cooperation (Agri.IV) Department, dated 25.07.2005, an amendment was brought to Andhra Pradesh Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1997, by the Government, by which the applicants are governed. As per the said amendment, the posts of AEO-II can be filled up by direct recruitment. Prior to the amendment, the posts of AEO-II were to be filled up by way of promotion from the lower category i.e., AEO-III. It is clear from the said amendment that the present posts of AEO-II can be filled up by direct recruitment alone. The Joint Directors of Agriculture, different Zones, issued notifications on different dates, commencing from November, 2005, calling for applications for appointment to the post of AEO-II on regular basis. As per the said notifications, the qualifications prescribed are – (1) A Degree in Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (2) Diploma in Agriculture Polytechnic, and (3) B.Sc. Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational), on merit basis. MARKS : OGPA 75 marks (OGPA 2.00 will be awarded with 55 marks and one mark for every 0.1 increase over 2.00 Overall Grade Point Average. (as in the case of B.Sc.(Ag.) Degree). Seniority 10 marks @ One mark per year from the year of passing (for completed year) Experience 15 marks @ 4 marks per year for satisfactory service rendered as A.O./Agricultural Consultant (ANTWA), Multy Purpose Extension Officer (M.P.E.O.) on contract basis in the Department of Agriculture subject to a maximum of 15 marks. The service certificate should be issued by the J.D.A. of the concerned District. The service rendered on contract basis in the Agriculture Department in different spells shall be COMPUTED for arriving total period of experience in yeas and there after any part of the year shall be treated as nil. 7. Consequent upon the said notifications, several candidates, who were eligible, have made applications, seeking appointment to the posts of AEO-II. 8. While so, the Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.133, Agriculture & Cooperation (Agri.IV) Department, dated 10.02.2005, indicating the method to equate the marks in the qualifying examination by providing a ready reckoner as per OGPA method. Thereafter, the Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, issued Memo.No.A5(5)846/04, dated 16.12.2005, indicating therein that the OGPA calculation was to be applied to the candidates of B.Sc. (Ag.) only and that the calculation of marks in respect of the candidates of Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and B.Sc. Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational) is to be taken into account based on the percentage of marks obtained in their examination, duly calculating and limiting to 75 per cent marks and the remaining marks i.e., 25 per cent are earmarked for ‘seniority’ and ‘experience’, as provided under G.O.Rt.No.133, dated 10.02.2005, and to award marks to B.Sc. (Ag.) candidates as per the ready reckoner since there are different methods of awarding of qualifying marks in B.Sc., (Ag.) course by different Universities, such as (1) Traditional system of awarding marks; (2) 10 point OGPA system; and (3) 4 point OGPA system. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants, who are Diploma holders in Agriculture Polytechnic, have approached the Tribunal by filing the above mentioned O.As., contending that though the notifications and G.O.Rt.No.133, dated 10.02.2005, appear to adopt OGPA method both for Degree holders and Diploma holders in Polytechnic, OGPA method is being adopted only to the Degree holders and thereby the Diploma holders are kept at a disadvantageous position and, therefore, sought a direction to adopt a uniform selection process for both B.Sc., (Ag.) candidates and Diploma holders in Agricultural Polytechnic and not to adopt different yardsticks. On the other hand, the respondents have opposed the same, contending that uniform procedure is being followed in the selection process and that OGPA method is only to be made applicable to B.Sc., (Ag.) candidates and not to Diploma holders. 10. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, by a common order, dated 13.11.2006 in O.A.No.1659 of 2006 and batch, allowed the O.As., setting aside the selections made pursuant to the notifications for the posts of AEO-II. Aggrieved by the same, the Government as well as the affected persons have preferred the present writ petitions. 11. Sri M.Surender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, contends that dual standards are not permissible on three grounds; firstly, under law; secondly, the notifications specifically envisage that the OGPA is to be applied to all the candidates, as in the case of Degree holders in B.Sc., (Ag.); and thirdly, because of the application of different standards for all the eligible candidates with different qualifications, it resulted in jacking up of Degree holders in B.Sc., (Ag.) lowering the Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic. It is his specific contention that when all are equal for the purpose of eligibility criteria, there cannot be different standards. When OGPA system was applied to some of the candidates, the same ought to have been applied to the applicants also. 12. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader contends that earlier there was no eligibility for the Diploma holders or the other Graduates to compete with the Graduates in Agriculture for the post of AEO-II. However, having regard to the representations made by the other two categories of candidates i.e., Diploma holders in Agricultural Polytechnic and Degree holders in Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational), the Government had arrived at a conclusion to permit those two categories of candidates also, to apply for the post of AEO-II, though they possess the lesser qualification than the Graduates in Agriculture. 13. The learned Government Pleader further submits that even in B.Sc., (Ag.), there are three kinds of Graduates, who obtained Degrees from different Universities. From a perusal of the Degrees obtained from different Universities, it was noticed that those candidates were declared ‘pass’ on the basis of grades awarded to them. Some Universities appear to have awarded marks in 4-point scale and 10-point scale and some Universities have awarded marks on traditional basis. So far as the first two categories i.e., 4-point scale and 10-point scale are concerned, their efficiency could not be estimated basing on the marks obtained by them. The marks in those two categories are something in abstract form, inasmuch as, they were given grades either on 4-point scale or 10-point scale basis. Therefore, it is submitted that while integrating these three categories of candidates with the same qualification i.e., Graduates in Agriculture, the concept of OGPA was resorted to be applied. It is the further contention of the learned Government Pleader that otherwise it is impossible to select the candidates from these three categories of Graduates, basing on their merit. Precisely that is the reason why the system of OGPA, which has been in force for the purpose of appointments to some other posts also, has been applied in the present selections and accordingly, the notifications were issued. Even if there is any anomaly in the notifications issued by the competent authority, as regards the application of OGPA for awarding 75 per cent marks for the candidates, in order to remove any such anomaly, the same has to be understood in the context of the present situation. 14. It is the further contention of the learned Government Pleader that insofar as the Diploma holders and the Degree holders in other branch, there is no such difficult situation, as had arisen in the case of Graduates in Agriculture. In other words, all the candidates, who applied for selection to the post of AEO-II from the other two categories, were awarded the marks on traditional basis. Therefore, it is contended that there is no need for the application of OGPA system to those candidates, since the situation in Graduates in Agriculture and the other two categories of candidates do stand on two different circumstances and standards. 15. As regards the reasonable classification, the learned Government Pleader relied on the decisions in CONFEDERATION OF EX- SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATION AND ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.[1], DHARAM DUTT AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[2] and M.P. RURAL AGRICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER[3]. 16. In support of his contention that any interpretation of the Court shall be to make the provision workable and such interpretation shall not leave, the learned Government Pleader relied on a decision in PRATAP SINGH vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER[4]. 17. Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the affected persons, also submitted on the same lines as was submitted by the learned Government Pleader, for all purposes. However, he brought to the notice of this Court that the affected persons were selected pursuant to the District-wise notifications and selection process was made ranging from February, 2006, to November, 2006. He asserts that they were also promoted to the higher categories by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.414, dated 12.04.2007. This is the ground reality as on today. It is his specific contention that none of the affected persons i.e., the selectees in the selection process, were impleaded as parties either in the O.As., or in the writ petitions. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that out of the total number of 461 posts of AEO-II, about 59 candidates were selected from among the Diploma holders only. Therefore, he contended that having got selection, it is not proper for the Diploma holders to contend that their chance of selection had been taken away. 18. The learned Government Pleader contends that the selections were made even as on the date of passing of final orders by the Tribunal, which are impugned in these writ petitions, and thereafter promotions were effected, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the affected persons. 19. In the light of the above rival contentions, the main question that falls for consideration before this Court is – as to whether the applicants can be equated with the Graduates in Agriculture and the concept of OGPA can be made applicable to them also? 20. In this context, first it is to be seen that the maximum marks prescribed for selection to the post of AEO-II are 75 from OGPA, but not 75 per cent. 10 marks and 15 marks were earmarked for seniority and experience, respectively. Since almost all the candidates, who made applications for direct recruitment to the post of AEO-II, are not employed anywhere, the question of considering the seniority or experience does not arise. Therefore, it is only the marks that are to be taken into consideration. 21. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is apposite to reproduce the prayer sought for in the O.As., which is as under: “In the above circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that a uniform procedure shall be adopted for selection of the candidates for the posts of A.E.O., Grade-II and that different yardsticks cannot be applied to candidates with B.Sc., in Agriculture and candidates with Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and further declare that applicants and similarly situated persons are entitled to the benefit of O.G.P.A., as given to B.Sc. in Agriculture and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deemed it and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 22. From the above, it is obvious that the applicants are aggrieved by the non-application of uniform procedure for selection and application of different standards to the candidates, who were Graduates in B.Sc., (Ag.) and the candidates with Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and the Graduates in Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational). 23. It is further clear that the applicants, who were Diploma holders, are similarly situated with that of Graduates in Agriculture B.Sc., and were entitled to the benefit of application of OGPA system as was applied to the Graduates in Agriculture. 24. The concept of OGPA, which was evolved by the Expert Committee, has been in force since many years for the purpose of selection to other posts to which the Graduates in Agriculture are eligible for appointment. 25. It is also to be seen that the selections are District level selections. It is not in dispute that prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.311, Agriculture and Cooperation (Agri.IV) Department, dated 25.07.2005, through which an amendment was brought to Andhra Pradesh Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1997, the posts of AEO-II are to be filled up by way of promotion from the lower category i.e., AEO-III only. By way of amendment through the said G.O., direct recruitment has been prescribed for the first time. Subsequently, in view of the representations made by the candidates of Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and the Graduates in Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational), they were also made eligible to compete with the Graduates in Agriculture for selection to the post of AEO-II by direct recruitment. 26. Admittedly, several applications had flown in, seeking appointment to the post of AEO-II, and among them, there were candidates who passed B.Sc., (Ag.) from different Universities and also Diploma holders. But, it appears, from the third category i.e., B.Sc., Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational), no candidates applied for the said post. 27. However, in the process of selection, it was noticed by the competent authority that the candidates who applied for the post of AEO-II are from different Universities. Some Universities have awarded the Degrees, not precisely basing on the marks, but by adopting a different method on the basis of 4-point scale and 10-point scale. In other words, marks will not be indicated to those candidates from those Universities, but basing on