1. Memo dated 30.12.2017 was addressed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) to the first respondent herein stating that though she was called for interview for selection to the post of Lecturer in Hindi pursuant to the Notification No. 26 of 2016, detailed verification had revealed that she was 42 years 1 month and 18 days of age as on 01.07.2016, while the age limit for open category candidates was only 42 years. She was therefore informed that she was not eligible and that her candidature was rejected.

2. Assailing this Memo and seeking a consequential direction to consider her candidature for selection to the post of Lecturer in Hindi and to appoint her as per merit, the first respondent herein filed O.A. No. 64 of 2018 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. By order dated 09.03.2018 passed therein, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and directed the APPSC to consider her case for selection to the post of Lecturer in Hindi as per her merit in the vacancies meant for open category candidates and to finalize her selection based on her merit/rank. Aggrieved thereby, the APPSC filed this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the APPSC, and Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel on caveat for the first respondent-applicant.

4. Notification No. 26 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016 was issued by the APPSC for direct recruitment to various posts of Lecturers in Government Degree Colleges, including the posts of Lecturers in Hindi in Zones II, III and IV. None of the notified posts of Lecturers in Hindi were reserved for BC-D candidates. As per the Notification, the maximum age prescribed was 42 years as on 01.07.2016. However, in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, relaxation of five years was permitted, whereby such candidates could be considered up to the age of 47 years.

5. The first respondent-applicant belongs to BC-D community. She was one of the candidates who applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. The APPSC conducted a computer-based test on 06.06.2017 and basing on her performance therein, the first respondent-applicant was called for interview under open category. She topped the merit list with a total of 355.67 marks (311.67 in the computer test + 44 marks in the interview). The next meritorious candidate secured only 297 marks. However, the APPSC was of the opinion that as the first respondent-applicant was being considered for a post in open category, she was not eligible to avail age relaxation and accordingly disqualified her on that ground, constraining her to approach the Tribunal leading to the order under challenge.

6. Therein, the Tribunal rightly found that reliance placed by the APPSC upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepa E.V. vs. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680 was misplaced as that was a case where specific instructions had been issued stipulating that reservation category candidates who claimed age relaxation could be considered only for reserved vacancies and the said instructions were not even subjected to challenge. However, there was no such bar stipulated either by the State or by the APPSC in relation to Notification No. 26 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016. The Tribunal relied upon Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 119 wherein the Supreme Court held that when the statute does not bar reservation category candidates from being considered against general category vacancies, there could be no legitimate dispute with reserved category candidates being considered against open category posts. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the impugned Memo was contrary to the settled principles of law and accordingly set it aside. In consequence, the APPSC was directed to consider the case of the first respondent-applicant on her own merit.

7. Notably, reservation category candidates, be they within the prescribed age limit or beyond, form a homogeneous class in th