Recruitment notification not illegal for indicating horizontal reservation vacancies; horizontal reservation is applied after merit selection, not as separate vertical reservation, and post-based roster under state rules is valid. Candidates participating in selection are estopped from later challenging it.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16, and 226 - Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rules 22, 22-A, 22-B - Writs - Mandamus - Challenge to recruitment notification - The High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, dismissed challenges to a notification for direct recruitment to Group-II Services, rejecting claims that the reservation roster and allocation of horizontal reservation slots were illegal and violative of constitutional guarantees. (Paras 1, 4, 29)

(B) Service Law - Reservation - Horizontal Reservation - The court held that the notification's clauses explicitly stating that horizontal reservation would be provided for women, persons with benchmark disabilities, ex-servicemen, and meritorious sportspersons, and that no roster points are assigned for horizontal reservation, align with the amended Rules. The 'Notes' in the annexure indicating vacancies for these categories are to be construed only as an indicator of the shortfall in the cadre, not as vertical reservation slots. (Paras 32-37)

(C) Service Law - Roster - Post-based vs. Vacancy-based - The roster framed under Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 is a post-based roster and is consistent with the judgment in R.K. Sabharwal. The roster has been in vogue for nearly 30 years and has been upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court. In the absence of a challenge to the statutory rules, the petitioner cannot question adherence to the statutory roster by relying on a model roster from the Union Government. (Paras 44-54)

(D) Constitutional Law - Locus Standi - Estoppel - Candidates who participated in a selection process without objection are estopped from challenging the process after being declared unsuccessful. The court found that most petitioners filed writ petitions after the main examination and results, demonstrating a lack of bona fides. Petitioners who could not establish individual prejudice or how their rights were affected were not entitled to maintain the writ petitions. (Paras 58-63)

Facts of the case:
A batch of writ petitions challenged Notification No. 11 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to Group-II Services. Petitioners argued that the notification was illegal for fixing an irregular roster for vertical reservations, contrary to the law in R.K. Sabharwal's case, and for earmarking roster slots for horizontal reservations (women, PBD, ex-servicemen, sportspersons) which, they contended, was contrary to the judgment in Rajesh Kumar Daria's case. The petitioners sought a fresh notification with a roster aligned with the Union Government's model roster. The respondents (State and APPSC) defended the notification, stating it was based on the statutory rules and that the earmarked vacancies were indicative of shortfall, not a violation of principles governing horizontal reservation. Many writ petitions were filed after the main examination was conducted.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed all writ petitions, holding that the notification was not illegal or arbitrary. It found that the notification was consistent with the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, as amended, and the judgments in R.K. Sabharwal and Rajesh Kumar Daria.

Issues: The main issues were (1) whether the impugned notification was bad for earmarking horizontal reservation; (2) whether applicants were prejudiced by such earmarking; (3) whether the notification was contrary to the dicta in R.K. Sabharwal's case; (4) whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the notification; and (5) whether the Public Service Commission erred in fixing the ratio for the main examination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the horizontal reservation in the notification is correctly applied as per the statutory rules and precedent, where it is considered only after merit-based selection to fill a shortfall, not as a separate vertical reservation. The State's roster, being a continuous, post-based cycle, was not required to be reset after the bifurcation of the State. The court also held that candidates who participate in a selection process without timely objection are estopped from challenging it, especially when they cannot demonstrate specific prejudice. Result : All writ petitions dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. (Paras 66, 67)

Table of Content
1. all writ petitions challenge the same recruitment notification. (Para 1)
2. all writ petitions disposed of jointly due to common issue. (Para 2)
3. interim stay was refused by a single judge and upheld on appeal. (Para 3)
4. petitioner argues notification violates equality due to irrational roster points. (Para 4)
5. petitioner argues reservation should be post-based, not vacancy-based. (Para 5)
6. state outlines history and basis of the service rules. (Para 6)
7. state explains its reservation policy and roster points system. (Para 7)
8. appsc argues notification follows state rules and is not mala fide. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
9. impleaded respondents argue petitioners lack bona fides and are estopped. (Para 12 , 13)
10. petitioners' counsel argue horizontal reservation is improperly converted to vertical reservation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
11. respondents argue notification follows law and defects are curable. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
12. court identifies five issues for consideration. (Para 27)
13. court notes legal counsel representation. (Para 28 , 29)
14. notification provides for horizontal reservation; earmarking is a curable indicator of shortfall. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
15. roster is post-based and not contrary to r.k. sabharwal; no fresh roster needed after bifurcation. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
16. petitioners lack locus standi; participating in selection bars later challenge. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
17. appsc has discretion to fix minimum qualifying marks in screening test. (Para 64 , 65)
18. writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 66)

COMMON ORDER:

The batch of writ petitions is filed seeking to declare the Notification No.11 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023, issued by Respondent No.2/APPSC, notified for direct recruitment to the posts of Group-II Services as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. As the issue in these writ petitions is common, with the consent of learned counsel, the matters were taken up for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.

3. Before going into the narration of facts, it is necessary to note that interim order seeking stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notification was sought and a learned single Judge of this Court passed a detailed order on 20.02.2025 refusing interim order in W.P.No.4633 of 2024 and W.P.No.15202 of 2024. Questioning the same, W.A.Nos.160 of 2025 and 217 of 2025 were filed. W.A.No.160 of 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn and no interim orders were passed in W.A.No.217 of 2025.

4. W.P.No.4633 of 2024 is taken up as the lead case and the facts are as under:

Facts of the Case : Petitioner is a graduate in B.Com., and is eligible for consideration for all the posts enumerated in the impugned notification except certain posts that require additional technical qualification. It is pleaded that the impugned notification does not provide equal opportunities to all the applicants in compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of irrational fixation of roster points in respect of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, B.Cs., Women and EWS. It is pleaded that the fixation of the roster in vertical reservation is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 SCC 745 and the roster points fixed by APPSC for horizontal reservation do not align with the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, (2007) 8 SCC 785 It is pleaded that on account of the incorrect roster points, there would be over-representation of certain categories and under-representation of certain categories, affecting the right to be treated equally.

5. It is also pleaded that as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16749

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHNYAPATHY VIJAYKALAM PARAMESWARA RAO – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – RespondentWP 3306/2025

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY
KALAM PARAMESWARA RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 3306/2025