The case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in not starting the roster point afresh and fixing the roster point for women and persons with disabilities (PwD) for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. The petitioner contends that the respondents' decision to continue the existing roster points from a previous cycle, rather than starting anew after the bifurcation of the state, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and illegal, violating principles of equality and reservation laws (!) (!) .

The core issues in the case include whether the respondents correctly applied the reservation and roster principles following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, specifically whether the roster points should have been reset from point one after the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, and whether the fixation of roster points for horizontal reservations (such as for women and PwD) was legally valid (!) (!) .

The law relating to this matter primarily concerns the principles of reservation and roster systems as laid down in the relevant state and subordinate service rules, along with constitutional provisions on equality and affirmative action. It distinguishes between vertical reservations (for categories like SC, ST, BC) and horizontal reservations (for women, PwD), emphasizing that horizontal reservations are to be implemented without reserving specific roster points, and instead, through a different procedure that ensures minimum representation without disrupting the merit-based system (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The court examined whether the existing roster system, which continued from a previous cycle, was appropriate after the state's bifurcation. It considered legal opinions, statutory rules, and judicial precedents, concluding that, due to the change in the unit of the state following bifurcation, the roster points should have been reset from the beginning, rather than continued from the previous cycle. The court found that the fixation of roster points for horizontal reservations (for women and PwD) by continuing the old roster points was unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of horizontal reservation, which cannot be implemented through fixed roster points (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The final order of the court was to set aside the impugned notification and direct the respondents to issue a fresh notification, starting the roster points afresh from the first point, in accordance with the applicable rules and principles. The court emphasized that the fixation of roster points for horizontal reservations in the manner done was illegal and that the process must be compliant with the constitutional and statutory framework governing reservations (!) (!) .

In conclusion, the court held that the respondents' action was unlawful and directed them to reissue the recruitment notification following the correct legal principles, starting the roster from point one, within a specified period. The writ petition was thus allowed, and the impugned notification was set aside (!) (!) .