Point of law: if a candidate who secured more marks than the last selected candidate, if a candidate from OBC/BC has secured more marks than the last selected candidate from open category, such candidate is liable to be considered for interview, though she availed concessions provided under the Rules.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“declaring the action of the Respondent in illegally not calling the petitioner for the interview to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments vide Notification No.15/2018 dated 21.12.2018 despite the merit of the petitioner and illegally denying the merit of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner belongs to reserved category which is illegal arbitrary unfair and showing the class discrimination and illegally declared the results vide dated 19.12.2019 is highly arbitrary unconstitutional and violation of Principles of Natural Justice also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondent to call the petitioner for interview to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments as per merit irrespective of reserved category and declare the fresh results”

2. The petitioner who is a Law Graduate, enrolled as an Advocate and practicing at Visakhapatnam. In response to the notification inviting applications for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Service vide Notification No.15/2018 dated 21.12.2018, she applied to the said post. As per the said notification, Respondent No.1 proposed to recruit to fill vacancies of five posts in both Multi Zone-I and II. Out of the five posts, two posts were reserved for Women in the open category. Both zones are having each one vacancy for unreserved women category. The petitioner belongs to BC-D category, but no such post was earmarked in unreserved women category. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the above post and appeared for the examination.

3. The petitioner contends that, as per Clause No.13.5 of Notification No.15/2018 dated 21.12.2018, the minimum qualifying marks for consideration to the selection process is 40% for OCs, 35% for BCs and 30% for SCs, STs and PHs.

4. The method of selection for the post of Assistant Commissioner is objective written test and interview. Objective written test consists of three papers for 150 marks each, totalling to 450 marks and 50 marks are allotted for interview. In the written examination, the petitioner secured 158 marks out of 444 questions i.e. 37%, thus she claims to have crossed the minimum qualified 35% marks as per Clause 13.5 of the Notification in the written test, but the respondents denied benefit to this petitioner to compete with the General Category (Women) for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, it is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Notification No.15/2018 dated 21.12.2018 and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is specifically contended that the first respondent/APPSC followed the illegal reservation method, contrary to the notification and violated the constitutional mandate and against the settled judicial precedent that in recruitment process, once game is started, the rules of the game cannot be changed. It is contended that, in the present case, the respondents violated the conditions of notification to select their own candidates by adopting illegal methods, while denying the merit of this petitioner and failed to call this petitioner for interview, being a meritorious candidate among BC-D category and that, she cannot be put to disadvantageous position on account of such procedure followed by the respondents. Once a reserved category candidate competes for selection by availing a relaxation or otherwise, it would have been treated on par with open category candidates on the strength of merit. The petitioner has been placed in third position in women candidates who appeared for examination. But, the respondents chose their own method and acted against the reserved category people by sh