IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court cannot entertain a challenge to the implementation of reservation policies without a challenge to the relevant rules and notifications.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondents 1 to 3 in treating the woman reservation as the vertical reservation instead of treating it as horizontal reservation and selecting and appointing 4th respondent, who is less meritorious candidate than the petitioner, for the post of Programmer Trainee, E-1 Grade (Internal) (for short ‘Programmer Trainee’), pursuant to the notification issued in Circular Ref. No.CRP/PER/R/2023/240, dated 01.03.2023, for selection of the posts through Internal Candidates, insofar as the Programmer Trainee, is concerned, under the guise of implementing the 33.33% of Women Reservation, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajastan Public Service Commission and others, AIR 2007 SC 3127, Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht and others, 2010 (12) SCC 204, K. Venkatesh and another v. Government of AP and others, 2009 (6) ALT 483 and consequently to read down the Notification dated 01.03.2023 insofar as 33.33% of women reservation is concerned, set aside the 100 point roster insofar as women reservation roster points are concerned and consequently to direct respondents 1 to 3 to follow the principle of Horizontal Reservation for the women reservation, without earmarking any roster points for them duly following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria and Mamta Bisht (referred supra), by counting the meritorious Women Candidates also against the 33.33% of Women Reservation quota posts and set aside the selection and appointment of 4th respondent for the post of Programmer Trainee and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment, based on his higher merit, against the notified posts of Programmer Trainee pursuant to notification dated 01.03.2023 for selection of posts through internal candidates insofar as Programmer Trainee is concerned.

2. Facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the case, are that the petitioner belongs to BC-B Community, passed B.Tech. (CSE), and a local and internal candidate. He was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 04.05.2016 and thereafter promoted as Senior Assistant and has been working as such in the Corporate Office, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, and eligible for the post of Programmer Trainee (IT), E1 Grade, as an Internal Candidate, based on his qualification and experience. While so, the third respondent has issued the notification dated 01.03.2023 for filling up the vacancies of (6) Executive cadre and (4) Non-Executive cadre posts through Internal candidates. Among the 6 Executive Cadre posts, Programmer Trainee (IT), E-1 Grade (Internal)-4 posts under local category were notified at Sl.No.4, out of which OC-2, OC-1 and ST-1 were earmarked. In response to the said notification, the petitioner has applied for the post of Programmer Trainee. Petitioner, 4th respondent and others have appeared for the written test held on 27.08.2023, results were published on the same day i.e. on 27.08.2023, provisional merit list was published on 27.08.2023, final merit list and selection list was published on 09.09.2023 wherein the petitioner got 66.83 marks, stood at 3rd place and the 4th respondent got 65.28 marks and stood at 4th place. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he stood at 3rd place, the respondents have not selected him and selected the 4th respondent contrary to the Rules. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for The Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL), appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Ms. B. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior counsel, appearing for Sri Basid Riaz, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third par