ORDER :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

Heard Sri J Sudheer, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor learned standing counsel for High Court for the State of Telangana.

2. On 15.4.2017, Government of Telangana and Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a joint notification calling for applications for recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). Four posts were notified. Two posts for Open Competition out of which one is reserved for women; one post for BC (B); and one post for ST. Petitioner applied and participated in the recruitment process. Based on the performance in the written examination, six candidates were called for interview including the petitioner. On 11.12.2017 oral interview was held. Vide letter dated 6.2.2018 petitioner was asked to submit proof of list of cases that have been handled by her.

3. In response, vide letter dated 17.2.2018 petitioner submitted details of cases handled by her. On 7.6.2018 final results were announced and uploaded on the website. Three candidates were declared as provisionally included in the select list, namely Anil Kiran Kumar Gadela (OC), Vasanthi Anaparthy (C-W), Murali Mohan kannoju (BC-B). Selection of Murali Mohan was made subject to result of SLP (C ) NO. 14156 of 2016 pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as he was working as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and was permitted to participate in the recruitment process pursuant to orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P (Civil) No. 316 of 2017.

4. Having come to know that Murali Mohan Kannoju was not qualified and participated in the recruitment because of interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner filed intervention application and modification application in W.P. (C) No. 316 of 2017. He also filed application dated 11.6.2018 under Right to Information Act, requesting to furnish marks list of the petitioner. Petitioner contends that she is more meritorious than Murali Mohan and Murali Mohan was wrongly selected. Petitioner also comes to know that she was not selected on the ground that she submitted false information on cases handled by her.

5. Petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 933 of 2018 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the provisional selection of Murali Mohan and to appoint her. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.8.2019 disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach Registrar (Administration) for verification of alleged false information and if not satisfied with information to pursue grievance before the High court.

6. After securing the information under the Right to Information Act, petitioner filed detailed representation dated 12.2.2019 addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court for the State of Telangana. The Registrar (Administration) cum Registrar (Recruitment) rejected the application.

7. To complete the narration, Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 2020 and batch holding that a person has to be in continuous practice for seven years by the time recruitment notification is issued to acquire eligibility and a serving Judge in lower cadre is not eligible to participate in direct recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). Consequently, the appointment of Murali Mohan as District Judge (Entry Level) was cancelled and he was posted back to Senior civil Judge cadre.

8. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the appointment of second respondent as District Judge (Entry Level) and seeks consequential direction to appoint her as District Judge (Entry Level).

9. To revert to recruitment notification stage, it is a combined notification for posts of District Judge (Entry Level) in both states. By the time notification was issued, separate High court for State of Andhra Pradesh was not established. The High Court at Hyderabad was made a combined High Court for both states w.e.f. 2.6.2014 and continued as such till 31.12.2018. Pursuant to the combined notification, the then High Court for the State of Tela