( 1 ) THE petitioners two in number who are working as Superintendent in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal and deputy Tahsildar in the Office of the d. P. A. P. , Ranga Reddy District, filed this writ Petition questioning the orders passed by the 2nd respondent i. e. , District Collector in Proceedings C2/9800/97, dated 27-1-2000 as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G. O. Rt. Nos. 154 and 155, b. C. Welfare (C-1) Department, dt. 18-9-2000 wherein the Caste Certificates obtained by the petitioners to the effect that they belong to Vada Balija community which is included in the Group-A of listed-Backward classes, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

( 2 ) BY the order dated 18-01-2000 while admitting the Writ Petition, posted the same for orders on 15-11-2000 duly directing the respondents to file their counters in the meantime. In the suspension petition i. e. , W. P. M. P. No. 24832/2000 while refusing to suspend the impugned proceedings, I directed the authorities concerned to keep any disciplinary proceedings proposed against the petitioners in abeyance till disposal of the writ Petition. Subsequently, the complainant and the President and the general Secretary of A. P. Backward Classes group-A Protection Cell filed WPMP. Nos. 27645 and 29174 of 2000 under Rule 16-A of the Writ Rules seeking permission of the Court to get themselves impleaded as respondents 4,5, and 6 respectively in the writ Petition.

( 3 ) ARGUMENTS were heard on different dates during December, 2000 and the orders were reserved.

( 4 ) BOTH the petitioners herein claimed their social status as Vada Balija, which is included in Group-A of the listed Backward classes and they seemed to have been appointed as Assistants following their selection in the Special Qualifying Test in the Revenue Department of Ranga Reddy district. While it is the case of the petitioners that though they claimed social status as BC-A, they were appointed in the open Category following the Special qualifying Test held in 1973 and their names stand at Sl. Nos. 178 and 170 respectively as per the Roaster the case of the implead petitioners is that they were selected by the District Selection Committee in the year 1976 and were appointed under bc-A Category. However, the counter filed by the official respondents did not throw any light on this aspect.

( 5 ) THE Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that as the petitioners did not claim any benefit under bc-A Category, even if the respondents come to the conclusion that the Certificates produced by the petitioners are not true, the respondents cannot take any action against them and they have to treat them as O. C. candidates.

( 6 ) I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention for the simple reason that if the petitioners do not want to claim any privilege extended to the Backward Class people, there is no need for them to obtain false Certificates. Even assuming, without admitting, that the petitioners were appointed under open category, when the seniority List was published by the District collector in 1982, both the petitioners were shown as O. Cs. and immediately the petitioners filed representations stating that they belong to BC-A community and necessary corrections may be made in the provisional Seniority List published by the 2nd respondent. Acting upon their representations, the 2nd respondent corrected the entries in the Seniority List and in the Final Seniority List published the petitioners were shown as BC-A candidates and they were accordingly fit in the Roaster points. Further, under Rule 22-A of the A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, the reservations in favour of Constitutionally permissible Classes are over and above the persons selected in the Open Category. Hence, even if the petitioners were selected in the open competition on the basis of the marks obtained in the Special Qualifying test, the fact that they claimed social s