ORDER:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela)

Heard,

Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, for the petitioners/State and Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for respondent No.1/applicant.

1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the State, being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short called as “the Tribunal”), in O.A.No.9136 of 2010, dated 08.04.2013, allowing the Original Application in favour of the applicant/1^st respondent herein.

2. The parties are arrayed as arrayed before the Tribunal.The conspectus of facts which are germane are capsuled hereunder:

3. The applicant is the 1^st respondent in the present Writ Petition.Pursuant to the notification issued by the Commissioner and Director of School Education, notifying four (4) posts of Urdu Pandit (Munshi) Grade-II in DSC-2003, the applicant applied as a non-local candidate, which is admitted. The applicant was successful in the written examination, securing 69.5 marks and that as per Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Presidential Order, 1975”) and also as per G.O.Ms.No.8, General Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 08.01.2022, 20% of the posts shall be filled up with the non-local candidates and 80% of the posts are reserved for local candidates. The applicant’s version before the Tribunal is that 20% of the posts which are meant for non-locals comes to 0.8 and shall be treated as 01 as per the instructions of the Government, which provides that any fraction more than 0.5 shall be treated as 01. This principle engrafted under G.O.Ms.No.8, dated 08.01.2022.

4. The principal contention which is legally engulfed by the applicant is that he is entitled to be considered to the post of Urdu Pandit (Munshi) Grade-II, as he secured highest marks and since he was denied with the appointment arbitrarily, he filed O.A.No.891 of 2005 before the Tribunal and inter alia the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. on 26.09.2006, directing the respondents to examine the representation filed by the applicant and to pass orders as per rules within a period of four weeks.

5. It is further submitted by the applicant that, in consonance with the Order passed by the Tribunal, dated 26.09.2006, the applicant submitted representation to the 2^nd respondent – the District Educational Officer, who is also the Member Secretary, DSC-2003, ventilating his grievance and bringing to his notice the essential characters of Presidential Order, 1975 and G.O.Ms.No.8, dated 08.01.2002. The applicant further in the Original Application asserts that the Government issued U.O.Note No.237/SPF-A/83-2, dated 20.05.1985, referring to paragraph No.2 that “where there is only one post meant for direct recruitment, it has to be treated as unreserved, which can be filled by local or non-local candidate with reference to the merit”. In view of this assertive terms in the said U.O.Note, the applicant confines his argument that he should have been appointed under open category in view of the above U.O.Note, dated 20.05.1985, and without considering the said application in proper manner, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings which were challenged before the Tribunal, dated 08.05.2007, rejecting the case on the ground that one vacancy among three vacancies, as per the communal roster, were intended for OC(W) and even if it is one vacancy as unreserved cannot be considered.

6. In the said Original Application, the applicant further pleads that, among all the non-local candidates applied for the posts of Urdu Pandit (Munshi) Grade-II, he stands first by securing highest number of marks and as per the Government U.O.Note, dated 20.05.1985, which provides for direct recruitment, in the event there is only one post which has to be treated as unreserved and which can be filled by either local or non-local candidate with refer