JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. Y. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel for High Court, appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 7965 of 2019, by name K. Shravan Raju, is a practicing Advocate belonging to Yadava (Golla) Community, which comes under Category BC-D in reservation classification in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, had issued a Notification, vide Notification No. 5/2019-RC dated 17.06.2019, for filling up 38 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service, out of which 31 posts are to be filled up under Direct Recruitment and 7 posts are to be filled up under Recruitment by Transfer. The Notification stated that the recruitment process shall be governed by Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, 'Rules of 2007').

3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 7965 of 2019 has assailed Rule 6(f) of the Rules of 2007 as arbitrary and ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution and has also challenged Clause VIII of the aforesaid Notification dated 17.06.2019, which stipulates that OC/BC category candidates must secure at least 60% marks in aggregate in written examination and viva voce while SC/ST category candidates must secure at least 50% marks in aggregate in written examination and viva voce to become eligible for selection.

4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 24371 of 2020, by name Shaik Nishad Naaz, is also an Advocate and she professes Muslim religion. She comes under BC-E (Shaik-BC-E) category as per the reservation classification in the State of Andhra Pradesh. When the Notification dated 17.06.2019 was issued, she was not eligible to apply as she had not put in three years of practice as an Advocate as on 01.06.2019 as stipulated in Clause III(a) of the Notification meant for the candidates under Direct Recruitment. She had filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 9166 of 2019, and an interim order was passed directing the authorities to accept the application of the petitioner if it was otherwise found to be in order and to permit her to sit for the examination, if she was eligible and fulfilled all other requirements. On the strength of the said interim order, she had appeared in the preliminary examination with Hall Ticket No. 1255 and having passed the said preliminary examination, she had qualified for the written examination. She had also qualified for the oral interview/viva voce along with four other candidates with Hall Ticket Nos. 1184, 1263, 1274 and 1284.

5. After the interview process was over, results were declared on 23.11.2020. While only one candidate was declared selected, the result of three candidates was withheld because they had not completed three years of practice, providing that their result would be declared subject to the outcome of W.P. Nos. 9140 and 9166 of 2019 or other connected writ petitions, if any. The name of the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 24371 of 2020 did not appear in the final select list and it was informed to her orally that she had not achieved 60% aggregate marks as per Clause VIII of the Notification. It is at that stage, she had filed W.P. No. 24371 of 2020 challenging the validity of Rule 6(f) of the Rules of 2007 and Clause VIII of the Notification dated 17.06.2019 and seeking a direction to respondent No. 2-Registrar (Recruitment) to select her for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) without reference to the stipulation of 60% aggregate marks in written examination and viva voce. It is pleaded that out of 31 posts to be filled up under Direct Recruitment, one post is meant for BC-E (Women) category and the petitioner in W.P. No. 24371 of 2020 is the only candidate from the said category to have been selected for viva voce.

6. Mr. Y. Balaji, learned counsel for th