IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the principles of reservation must be applied as per the existing regulations, distinguishing between horizontal and vertical reservations.

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard Sri Ch.Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Senior Designate Counsel Sri G.Vidya Sagar, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, and learned Senior Designate Counsel Sri K.Laxmi Narasimha, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

PRAYER:

2. The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue a writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in non-appointing the petitioner as Junior Personnel Officer by following the Quantum of law of an Apex Court and the Division Bench Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in not including the name of the petitioner in the selection list, who secured 80 marks and stood Rank at 30th Rank by deleting the 4th respondent from selection list, who secured 80 marks and stood at 29th Rank is an illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, non-application of mind, in equity and in violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also against to the Principles of Natural Justice and against to the catena of Judgments of an Apex Court and this Hon’ble Court and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to delete the name of the 4th respondent from the selection list and include the petitioner’s name in the selection list and issue appointment orders to the petitioner as Junior Personnel Officer in pursuance of the Notification No.2/2019, dated 28.09.2019 by applying the horizontal reservation, which has stated by an Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785 and the same was followed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of K.Venkatesh and another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, which was reported in 2009 Law Suit (AP) 371 and also the Apex Court upheld the view in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht and Others which was reported in (2010) 12 SCC 204 and to pass…”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD.

A) The operative portion of the interim orders dated 03.03.2020 are extracted hereunder:

“However, prima facie, as seen from the Regulation 22-A, there is no absolute reservation and it only prescribes preference to the extent of 30%. It is subject to the merit secured by the Women as same, and subject to availability of Women in overall merit list to the extent of 30%. Thus, prima facie, selecting the candidate, who secured 79 marks, ignoring petitioner, may not be valid. Balance of convenience is in favour of petitioner. The respondents-company is directed not to fill up one post of Junior Personnel Officer meant for Schedule Tribe Women.”

The said orders are in force as on date.

B) The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, in particular, para 5, reads as under:

"5. It is submitted that the Writ Petitioner secured 80 marks and he belongs to ST General category. As per the Annexure to the Notification No. 2/2019, one ST General vacancy and one ST (W) vacancy is available. The ST to candidates are also eligible to compete with the OC vacancy and there are 7 OC General Vacancies and 4 OC-W vacancies. As per the marks secured by the candidates, the last cut of marks for OC vacancies is 82 marks. Ms. Banavath Rangamma H.T.NO. 210821 belonging to ST category secured 83 marks and stood at Rank No. 5. She was selected against OC General vacancy. Ms. Kemsaram Revathi, H.T. ??. 228127 belonging to ST category secured 81 marks and stood at Rank No. 22. She was selected against ST-General vacancy. Since the Petitioner secured less than 81 marks, he could not be accommodated within the vacancies. The ST-W vacancy was filled up with Ms. Ketavath Padma, H.T. ??. 219590, where she secured 79 marks and stood at Rank No. 34. Thus, there are no vacancies available in the Petitioner's category.”

C) The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in W.P.no.3674 of 2020, in particular, p