Selection criteria for candidates with equal marks must prioritize higher performance in relevant subject areas, overriding age considerations, as established in Supreme Court directives.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Petitioner initially prayed to declare the action of the official respondents in appointing the private respondents as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) by taking into consideration marks obtained in Part-A when the marks secured are equal, instead of taking the age as criteria, as illegal and arbitrary. Subsequently, petitioner had taken out I.A.No. 1 of 2024 seeking to implead the 6^th respondent, I.A.No. 2 of 2024 to permit him to add grounds 3 and 4 mentioned therein as grounds 4.5 and 4.6 in Writ Petition and I.A.No. 3 of 2024 seeking amendment of prayer to declare the action of official respondents in appointing the 6th respondent as Assistant Engineer, as illegal and contrary to law and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 511-517 of 2024, dated 22.02.2024 and quash the same and consequently, declare that petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from the date the 6^th respondent was appointed/from the date similarly-placed candidates were appointed earlier with all consequential benefits like seniority, arrears of pay, etcetera and also to direct the official respondents to appoint him as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under BC-A local category.

2. The case of petitioner is that appointment of the 6^th respondent as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is illegal and contrary to law, particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 511-517/2024 dated 22-02-2024. Petitioner references several writ petitions ie. Writ Petition Nos. 18291 of 2018 and others that have been filed on similar grounds, with the matter reserved for judgment. The present case is said to be identical in nature.

3. Petitioner, who claims to be belonging to ‘BC-A’ category, applied for the post of Assistant Engineer as per Notification dated 11-01-2018, according to which, selection process was based entirely on written examination. He is stated to have secured 61 marks and ranked 428. The grievance arises from the second and the third list published by respondents. The second list includes candidates such as Rank No. 133 (Sri K Saiteja, BC-B Local) and Rank No. 141 (Chittluri Akhil, BC-B Local), who secured 61 marks, just as petitioner did. The third list also includes a candidate (Bombay Dinesh Chandra, BC-A, Rank No. 398), who also secured 61 marks. According to petitioner, when candidates secured same marks, the one, who is older, should be selected, however, the official respondents, through notification dated 05-05-2018, ignored petitioner’s case, instead, called other candidates for verification of certificates which took place on 16-05-2018 and 17-05-2018, excluding petitioner from the list. Appointment orders were later issued to private respondents.

Petitioner argues that the action of respondents in not selecting him is unlawful and violation of principles of natural justice. He further emphasizes that notification did not contain any specific instruction regarding how marks should be treated in the event of a tie and also there was no provision stating that marks secured in Part A or Part B alone would be considered for tie-breaking. In the absence of such a provision, official respondents’ decision to introduce this new method of tie-breaking is described as unauthorized and contrary to law. Petitioner refers to Writ Petition No. 18527 of 2018 and batch which challenged selections, wherein the official respondents filed counter affidavit detailing the full information about candidates who scored 61 marks and their likelihood of being adversely affected. The name of petitioner found place in Table- A, at Serial No. 8, stating that if petitioner were appointe