Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.

1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing analogously in order to dispose of the same by a common order as the issues on fact and law are identical therein.

2. Bereft of unnecessary and irrelevant facts mentioned in the writ petitions, the fact which is relevant for our purpose is stated hereunder:

3. The petitioners and each of them were successful in the test conducted for ad hoc appointment of District & Sessions Judge (Entry Level) to preside over the Fast Track Courts (hereinafter referred to as, ‘FTC’) on 14.10.2003, in terms of Rules of Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad hoc Appointments, 2001, and since then they have been working in the said posts. According to them, they were entitled to be absorbed permanently as District & Sessions Judge (Entry Level) in view of the length of service. They demanded absorption unsuccessfully both in and outside Court before the appropriate authorities. However, ultimately, the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India [(2012) 6 SCC 502] laid down the procedure for the absorption that had hitherto been claimed by the petitioners. In the said judgment, automatic absorption has not been provided for by virtue of length of service alone. In that case, Supreme Court laid down the modalities viz., further test, both written and viva voce, and such test must be preceded by advertisement inviting applications for taking tests for absorption from the eligible candidates. Accordingly, all the four petitioners, in response to the notification dated 13.8.2012, along with other candidates applied for taking the test in order to be absorbed. In the advertisement, it was mentioned as follows:

Viva Voce (Interview): 100 marks

Minimum qualifying

marks to be secured: Qualifying marks in the written examination shall be 40% aggregate for general candidates and 35% for SC/ST/BC candidates.

Each of the appointees shall be entitled to one mark per year of service in the FTCs, which shall form part of the interview marks.

4. The petitioner in W.P.No.38687 of 2013 belongs to BC-A category, as such she was required to secure 35% qualifying marks in the written examination going by the above stipulation. However, the writ petitioners in the other writ petition (W.P.No.38252 of 2014) belong to other categories and were required to secure 40% qualifying marks. All the writ petitioners duly secured the minimum qualifying marks in the written test, as such they were invited to take viva voce test. According to them, in spite of securing qualifying marks in the written test, and taking viva voce test they were not selected for appointment. No reason has been disclosed as to why they were not selected. All the writ petitioners say that, going by the norms in the advertisement published in the newspaper and read with the relevant Rule, they were entitled to be absorbed the moment they qualified in the written test followed by attending viva voce test. The writ petitioners and each of them state that refusal to absorb them has no basis and the same is discriminatory, and also not in accordance with the rules.

5. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents 3 & 4 in W.P. No.38252 of 2014 (respondents 1 & 2 in W.P. No.38687 of 2013) who were responsible for holding the selection test. The major factual aspect has not been denied and disputed by these respondents in their counter-affidavits. In order to justify the exclusion of the petitioners from the consideration zone for absorption, it is stated as follows:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court specified the mode and manner in which the Fast Track Court Judges ought to be absorbed in the State Judicial Service and the relevant directions are as follows:

(i) Written examination is to be conducted for 150 marks.

(ii) Interview is to be conducted for 100 marks.

(iii) Qualifying marks in the written examination shall be aggregate 40% for General Candidates and 35% for SC/ST/OC candidates.

(iv)