V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The petitioner, who appeared for selection to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), in response to a notification issued on 16.08.2016 has come up with the above writ petition challenging the selection of the 7th respondent herein under the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes, on the ground that he does not belong to the Scheduled Castes.`

2. We have heard Mr. G. Vidya Sagar learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Law, for the State of Andhra Pradesh, learned Government Pleader for Law, for the State of Telangana, Mr. S. Sri Ram, learned Standing Counsel for the Registry of the High Court and Mr. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.

3. By a notification issued on 16.08.2016, applications were invited for recruitment of 53 Civil Judges (Junior Division). After a written test held on 19.02.2017 and interviews conducted on 12.04.2017, a provisional list of selected candidates was published on 29.04.2017 and it was communicated to the State Government on 16.05.2017. The name of the petitioner found a place in the said list.

4. However, by a notification dated 16.08.2017, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the provisional list and the name of the 7th respondent herein was included in the said place, on the ground that the 7th respondent herein belongs to the Scheduled Castes and that he had secured more marks than the petitioner, who also belongs to the Scheduled Castes. Challenging the said notification dated 16.08.2017, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29812 of 2017. The writ petition is still pending.

5. After filling the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner started making enquiries about the social status of the 7th respondent. The enquiries indicated that the 7th respondent was a native of Tamil Nadu and that the community certificate obtained by him was not correct and valid. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the High Court seeking a clarification as to the social status of the 7th respondent. But by the proceedings dated 21.10.2017, the Registry of the High Court rejected the representation. Therefore, the petitioner came up with the above writ petition challenging not only the proceedings dated 21.10.2017, but also seeking to set aside the selection of the 7th respondent on the ground that he did not belong to the Scheduled Castes.

6. The 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The facts pleaded by the 7th respondent in his counter affidavit proceed on the basis – (1) that the parents of the 7th respondent migrated to Tirupati from Tamil Nadu way-back in the year 1975; (2) that the 7th respondent was born on 30.06.1980 at Tirupati; (3) that his maternal grandparents belonged to Adi Dravida community classified as Scheduled Caste; (4) that after completion of SSLC, he joined the higher secondary course in a school in Chennai and later shifted to a school in Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu for the second year; (5) that thereafter he joined a school in Arakonam in Tamil Nadu and completed the higher secondary course; (6) that while studying in Arakonam in Tamil Nadu, he used to go everyday by Garudagiri Passenger Train from Titupati to Arakonam; (7) that his mother belonged to Adi Dravida community; (8) that Adi Dravida community is notified as a Scheduled Caste in Andhra Pradesh as also in Tamil Nadu; (9) that his father belongs to Godda community, which is one of the species of Adi Dravida community and it is notified as a Scheduled Caste in Tamil Nadu; (10) that his father migrated from Tamil Nadu to Tirupati in 1975 and married his mother in Tirumala in March 1979; (11) that he studied up to 12th standard in Tamil Nadu, but his permanent residence was at Tirupati; (12) that even the school certificates of his sister discloses that they belong to Adi Dravida community; (13) that after enrolling himself with the Bar Council of A.P., the 7th respondent received a training, offere