JUDGMENT :

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

1. Heard Sri V.K. Naidu, learned Government Pleader for Services-III for the appellants and Sri Thota S.V.L. Narasimhaswamy, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners.

2. Since the issues and contentions in these two Writ Appeals are the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two Writ Appeals by way of a common judgment.

3. In W.A.No.118 of 2023, challenge is to the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24270 of 2020. W.A.No.157 of 2023 calls in question the order dated 08.07.2020 in W.P.No.23855 of 2020. The order impugned in these two Writ Appeals is a common order passed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents in the present Writ Appeals, by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instituted the above referred Writ Petitions, assailing the action on the part of the appellant-authorities in not considering their candidature for appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu) notified vide Notification No.768/TRC-1/2018, dated 26.10.2018 on the ground of non-submission of Nativity (Agency Area) Certificates. After receipt of notices, the respondents in the Writ Petitions, who are the appellants herein, filed counter affidavits, denying the averments and allegations made in the affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions and in the direction of justifying the impugned action. The learned Single Judge, by way of a common order dated 08.07.2022, allowed the Writ Petitions, directing the respondents-appellants herein to consider the candidature of the writ petitioners-respondents herein for appointment as Secondary Grade Teachers (Telugu) as per the Notification referred to supra, without insisting on production of Nativity (Agency Area) Certificates. Challenging the validity and legal sustainability of the aforesaid order, the present Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred.

4. It is strenuously contended by Sri V.K. Naidu, learned Government Pleader for Services-III for the appellants that the common order passed by the learned Single Judge is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the cardinal principles of service jurisprudence. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the Rules called “the Andhra Pradesh Teacher Recruitment Test (TRT) for the posts of School Assistants (SAs), Language Pandits (LPs), Physical Education Teachers (PETs), Music Teachers, Craft Teachers and Art & Drawing Teachers and Teacher Eligibility Test cum Teacher Recruitment Test (TET-cum-TRT) for the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs)-Scheme of Selection Rules, 2018” notified vide G.O.Ms.No.67, School Education (Exams) Department, dated 26.10.2018 in general and Rule 19 (v) & (vi) of the Rules in particular. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the action impugned in the Writ Petitions is in consonance with the constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 342 of the Constitution of India.

5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents herein contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the present Writ Appeals, does not warrant any interference of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel that having regard to the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and the order of the Division Bench of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred to in the impugned order, the present Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed.

6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that neither the provision of Act 16 of 1993 nor the Rules framed there under enables the appellants herein to insist upon the Nativity (Agency Area) Certificates.

7. There is absolutely no controversy with