1. A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur, AIR 1986 SC 1440

2. B. Narayana v. Government of A.P., 1997 (5) ALD 625 = 1997 (5) ALT 292 (FB)

3. E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., 2005 (1) ALD 102 (SC) = (2005) 1 SCC 394

4. M/s. Shenuy and Company v. Commercial Tax officer, Bangalore, AIR 1985 SC 621 5. Mallela Venkata Rao v. State of A.P., 2000 (6) ALD 565 = 2000 (6) ALT 438

6. Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 167

V.V.S. RAO, J :-Petitioner statedly passed B.A., degree course. She also acquired technical qualification in Typewriting English Higher grade. She belongs to Scheduled Caste' (SC). When second respondent herein issued notification dated 23.9.2003 inviting applications inter alia for six posts of Typists, petitioner applied for the post on 20.10.2003. Written test was conducted on 10.12.2006. Interviews were held on 11.12.2006. Petitioner was also one of the candidates, who were interviewed. She alleges that she was only candidate in SC (A) category. Nonetheless she was not selected. Instead third respondent herein was selected. Petitioner contends that when employment notification was issued, one vacancy was earmarked for SC(A)(Women) and that she being the only SC(A)(Women) candidate, she cannot be denied appointment. She further contends that appointment of third respondent who belongs to SC(B) (Women) category against SC(A) vacancy is illegal and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner made application dated 18.5.2007 to first respondent under Section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005, requesting for copies of list of selectees for the post of Typists approved by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the District unit of East Godavari, office note and orders passed by Judges concerned and records pertaining to selection of candidates for the post in the District unit. She made yet another application of even date to District Judge, Rajahmundry, requesting for copies of notification, approved list, selectees list and appointment orders issued to SC(A) and SC(B) candidates for the post. On 24.8.2007 State Public Information Officer of High Court passed a detailed order rejecting application of petitioner seeking information. Thereafter petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring action of respondents in not issuing posting order to her and to set aside appointment order issued in favour of third respondent. She also seeks further direction to second respondent to issue posting orders to her for the post of Typist.

3. The District Judge, East Godavari, filed counter-affidavit opposing writ petition. Contents of the same in brief are as follows. Petitioner who belongs to SC(A) category secured 51.5 marks in aggregate in written test, skill test and interview, and third respondent who belongs t6 SC(B) secured aggregate of 59.25 marks. Notification was issued on 7.10.2003. At that time Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 2000 (Rationalisation Act, for brevity) providing classification of SC candidates into A, B, C and D categories, was in force. In compliance thereof employment notification was issued, keeping in view roster points for six Typist posts, reserving roster point Nos.2 and 7 to SC(A)(Women) and SC(B)(General) respectively. Rationalisation Act was declared ultra vires the Constitution by Supreme Court on 5.11.2004 in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., 2005 (1) ALD 102 (SC) = (2005) 1 SCC 394. Government also issued consequential orders in G.O. Ms. No.91, dated 23.11.2004, cancelling classification of SCs into A, B, C and D categories. In view of this though petitioner : being lone SC(A)(Women), in view of judgment in E. V. Chinnaiah's case (supra) and also in view of orders of Government, two vacancies reserved for SC(A)(W) and SC(B)(General) at roster point Nos.2 and 7, were fined up by appointing third respondent herein who got 59.25 marks against roster point No.2, and Dulapalli Sanyasi Rao who got 60.88 marks against ros