The court affirmed that reserved category candidates must be allowed to compete in open category positions without arbitrary marks restrictions, upholding principles of equality under the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring that the sub-clauses para 12(iv) and (vi) by the Respondent No. 2 in notification vide RC No. 237/Rect/Admn-2/2025 dated 15.08.2025 are arbitrary and discriminatory, and violation of the rights of reserved category candidates under Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to permit reserved category candidates to compete for open category post based on their merit, without insisting for 40% marks in each paper and to reserve category candidate to compete in OC vacancies notwithstanding their availing of reservation benefits in the interest of justice and pass…”

2. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. Mantha Anusha Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 issued a Notification bearing Rc.No.237/Rect/Admn-2/2025 dated 15.08.2025, inviting applications for (118) posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor (Category-6) through a combined process of direct and limited recruitment. As such, since the petitioner meets the educational qualifications, age and experience as prescribed in the Notification, he is an aspirant for selection to the said post. It is further submitted that as per Paragraph 12 (iv) of the impugned Notification, the candidates belonging to OC/EWS category, BC category and SC/ST/ Orthopedically categories are required to secure 40%, 35% and 30% of the marks in each paper, respectively for qualifying. However, under Paragraph 12 (iv) of the impugned Notification, only the candidates securing 40% and above marks in each paper would be considered under the unreserved category, irrespective of their aggregate marks, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is submitted that Note 3 of Paragraph No.9 of the statutory rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 21.03.2023, which amended the Telangana State Prosecution Rules, 1992, stipulates the minimum marks to be secured in each paper in order to qualify in the written examination, as 40% for OCs, 35% for BCs and 30% for SCs/STs. It is further submitted that the aforesaid G.O. merely prescribes the standards applicable to the candidates in order to qualify, but it does not create any post-wise or category-wise restrictions, and the Recruitment Board cannot modify or act contrary to the statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As such, the said Clauses 12 (iv) and (vi) are not only contrary to the statutory Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 21.03.2023, but also contrary to the law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Goutam Dabbiru v. Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P. and others , 2019 (1) ALD 132 (DB).

4. It is further submitted that Clause 12 (vi) of the impugned Notification prevents the candidates belonging to BC/SC/ST categories from being considered in the open competition posts (OC/EWS categories), unless they secure more than 40% of the marks, even if they are otherwise more seditious in the aggregate performance, and therefore, the said Clause is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted t