A Supreme Court judgment is generally applied prospectively and not retrospectively unless it is specifically stated otherwise.

JUDGMENT

Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

'...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondents in not filling up the 39 notified/vacant posts in DSC 2018 for the Subject Posts in East Godavari District under GPA and Tribal Schedule category, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and contrary to the settled principles of law and consequently direct the Respondent to fill the 39 notified/vacant posts in DSC 2018 for the Subject Posts in the East Godavari District and pass such other order or orders.......'

Brief facts of the case are that a few of the petitioners have provisionally been selected for the notified 39 posts in DSC 2008 which were reserved in the East Godavari District for the subject Posts under the GPA and Tribal Schedule category. Other petitioners are next in line and potential candidates who would be selected if the recruitment process is started. The Government of Andhra Pradesh through the School Education Department issued a notification for teacher recruitment for the posts of school assistants, language pundits, secondary grade teachers, physical education teachers, music teachers, craft teachers, art and drawing teachers vide Notification No. 768/TRC-1/2018, dated 26.10.2018. It is further stated that the petitioners being eligible candidates for the notified posts, applied for the subject Posts in pursuance of the DSC 2018 issued by the respondents.

The petitioners have participated in the written test as scheduled by the Government of A.P. for the subject posts. But the results were not declared due to non-related litigation. On 17.12.2021 the Government of AP instructed all the District Educational Officers in the State vide Memo dated 17.12.2021 directing to fill up all the categories of unfilled vacancies under DSC 2018. A few of the petitioners have got SMS from the respondents requesting them to appear before the concerned officials for the certificate verifications. However, the petitioners were orally informed at the concerned location for verification that the vacancies would not be filled up in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2002 and 7049 of 2002 dated 22.4.2020, wherein it was held that the appointments made pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 10.01.2000 issued by the State of A.P providing 100% reservation of the ST candidates would be saved. But the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above is not applicable in the present case and the posts which were notified in the year 2018 and to which examination was already conducted shall be regulated by the laws applicable at that point in time. Questioning the action of the respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

2. Counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent while denying all the allegations made in the petition contended that as per the Supreme Court judgment on G.O. Ms. No. 3 Social Welfare (TW.SER.II) department, dated 10.01.2000 in Civil Appeal No. 3609/2002 and 7040/2002, dated 22.04.2020 all those appointments made in excess of 50% from 1986 upto the date of judgment are saved. Any appointment made in excess of 50% rule after 22.4.2020 is violation of the Supreme Court judgment and as such not sustainable and in view of the condition imposed by the Supreme Court while saving the appointment made in excess of 50%, directed not to make any future appointments from the said list of DSC 2018 if it is not already done. It is further stated that the Director, Tribal Welfare, A.P. has addressed a letter vide Lr.Rc. No. (1144267)SOWO3-14021(32)/12/2020-K SEC, dated 22.06.2021 to the Director of School Education, A.P. requested to follow the said Govt. Memo for further appointments in DSC 2018 in respect of Scheduled area without fail. In view of the clarification issued by t