HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPEAL Nos.1165 & 1172 of 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Writ Appeal Nos.1165 and 1172 of 2024 are filed assailing the common order, dated 03.06.2024, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.38124 of 2022 and 2246 of 2023, respectively.

2. By the impugned common order, the learned single Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by respondent No.1 herein in both the Writ Appeals, seeking to declare the action of the appellants in treating the women reservation as vertical reservation instead of horizontal reservation, pursuant to notification No.2/2022 dated 09.05.2022, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for other consequential reliefs.

3. Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL) and Sri Goda Shiva, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt Goda Ramalakshmi, learned counsel on record for respondent No.1 in both the Writ Appeals.

4. The appellants are respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1 in both the Writ Appeals are writ petitioners in the Writ Petitions. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

5. The brief factual matrix of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued notification No.2/2022 dated 09.05.2022 calling for online applications from eligible candidates for filling up 201 posts of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) posts; that in response to the same, the writ petitioners have submitted online applications, appeared in the written test conducted on 31.07.2022; that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.38124 of 2022 got 43 marks and secured 117 rank in Hyderabad District and the writ petitioner in WP.No.2246 of 2023 has got 45 marks and secured first rank in BC-A community and his overall rank was

17 in Yadadri-Bhongir District; that there are no BC-A candidates in the merit list from ranks 1 to 6; that women candidate who got five marks less than the writ petitioner was selected in view of

application of vertical reservation for women.

5.1. It was further averred that in the notification dated 09.05.2022, out of 201 posts, 101 posts were earmarked for women category and the balance 100 posts are earmarked open for general category, which is, in fact, against the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions including in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, AIR 2007 SC 3127 and Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht³ wherein it is held that women reservation is horizontal reservation, however, the appellants have applied both horizontal and vertical reservation in favour of women candidates which is causing injustice to the other candidates.

3 2010 (12) SCC 204

5.2. According to the writ petitioners, in respect of Hyderabad District, five posts were notified for BC-A, out of which only two (40%) posts were notified for general category, whereas three posts (60%) were earmarked for women category.

5.3. In respect of Yadadri-Bhongir District, out of ten posts notified for BC-A category, only four posts (40%) were notified for general category, whereas six posts (60%) were earmarked for women category.

6. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that only 33.33% of women reservation has to be given to women, that too, it has to be applied horizontally, however, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have notified 101 posts out of 201 posts i.e., 50.24% to women category, which is contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts.

7. The writ petitioners also averred that reservation followed by respondent Nos.1 and 2-TSSPDCL