Rampogu Abhishek Kumar Vs the State of Ap

Mr. Rampogu Abhishek Kumar, S/o. Rampogu John Aharon Sastry, Aged 25 years, Occ Police Constable, R/o. H.No. 84/36, Shareen Nagar, KNL-CampB, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh-518002.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur Dist.

¶16

The Chairman, AP State Level Recruitment Board, AP-DGP office, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522503.

¶17

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Government^Offices Building 2^^ Floor, Bandar Road, MG Road, Vijayawada^-520010.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order of direction declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in not considering the Applicant for the unfilled BC-C category vacancy reserved for Women in the Zone-IV for the post of SCT Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) in police Department and consequently issuing a

¶20

recruitment notification for the said post vide Rc.No.216/R^{andT/Rect.1/2018} dated 01-11-2018 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Notification issued by State Level. Police Recruitment^{Board,AndhraPradesh} vide Rc.No. 208/R andT/Rect.1/2016 dated 17.09.2016 and is also violative of Articles 14, 16(4) and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue the consequential direction to appoint the case of the Applicant to the post of SCT SI (Civil) against the stated vacancy.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES-I

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI V.VENKATA NAGA RAJU (SC

¶24

FOR APPSC)

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

r'

0

APHC010604432024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶30

[3311]

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

Wednesday, the eighteenth day of June, two thousand and twenty five

¶33

Present

¶34

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi

¶35

Writ Petition (A.T.) No.779 of 2022

¶36

(O.A.No.876 of 2019)

¶37

Between:

¶38

Mr. Rampogu Abhishek Kumar S/o. Rampogu John Aharon Sastry R/o. Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh

¶39

...Petitioner

¶40

and

¶41

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur^Districtand others

¶42

...Respondents

¶43

Counsel for the petitioner:

¶44

Kavitha Gottipati

¶45

Counsel for the respondents:

¶46

G.P. for Services

¶47

The Court made the following:

¶48

2

¶49

BSBJ W.P (AT.) No.779 of 2022

¶50

ORDER:

¶51

The writ petition is originally filed before the Andhra^Pradesh Administrative Tribunal wde O.A.No.876 of 2019. After^{transferofthe} case to this Court, it was re-numbered as W.P. (A.T.)^{No.779of2022.} The writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate order or direction declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not^considering the petitioner for the unfilled BC-C category vacancy reserved^forwomenin the Zone-IV for the post of SCT Sub Inspector of Police^{(Civil)inpolice} department and consequently issuing a recruitment notification^forthe said post vide Rc.No.216/R & T/Rect. 1/2018 dated 01.11.2018 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of^{thenotificationissued} by State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh vide RC.NO.208/R&T/ Rect.1/2016, dated 17.09.2016 and is^{alsoviolativeof} Articles 14, 16(4) and 21 of the Constitution of India^andissuethe consequential direction to appoint the petitioner to^{thepostofSCTS.l.} (Civil) against the said vacancy.

¶52

The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows; a. The petitioner filed the present petition against^the action of respondent no.2 in not considering him for the unfilled^BC-Ccategory vacancy reserved for women in Zone-IV for the post of SCT Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) in Police Department and^{instead,issuinga} recruitment notification for the said post vide Rc.No.216/R&T/Re^ct.1/ 2018 dated 01.11.2018 contrary to the provisions of^the Notification issued by the State Level Police Recruitment Board,^{AndhraPradesh} vide Rc.No.208/R&T/ReCt.l/2016, dated 17.09.2016.

¶53

b. The State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, issued a recruitment notification in the year 2016^{forvariouspostsinthe}

¶54

3

¶55

BSB, J W.P (A.T.) No.779 of 2022

¶56

police department vide Rc.No.208/R&T/Rect.1/2016 dated 17.09.2016. Amongst the various posts, a total of 355 vacancies were indicated for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Sub-Inspector^ofPolice (Civil) (Men and Women) under the Post Code No.11.

¶57

c. The 2016 notification prescribed a five-stage selection process i.e., preliminary written test, physical measurement test, physical efficiency test, final written examination, and selection. The candidates qualified in the preliminary written test would be called for the physical measurement test and thereafter the candidates qualified^intheabove two tests should undergo and qualify for physical efficiency^testtobe eligible for appearing in the final written examination. The final written examination consists of four papers, viz., paper I and II are qualifying papers, marks obtained in papers III and IV to be considered for determining the merit and final selection shall be made based on the merit of the candidate in the final written examination. The notification explicitly prohibited carrying forward of posts reserved for women to subsequent years.

¶58

d. The petitioner applied for the post of SCT S.l. (Civil) (Men and Women) under Post Code No.11, with Zone-IV as his first priority and claiming reservation under the BC-C category. He was qualified in the first four stages of the selection process and scored 180 marks out of 400 in the final written examination, meeting the cut-off^marks for Zone-IV, BC-C category. However, another candidate with the same marks was selected based on clause (18) of the 2016 notification, which gives preference to the candidate born earlier.

¶59

e. Out of the total 40 vacancies in Zone-IV, only 39 posts^werefilled. No woman candidate from the BC-C category was selected^forthePost

¶60

4

¶61

BSB,J W.P (AT.) No.779 of 2022

¶62

kl .-. . U

¶63

Code No. 11 in Zone-lV. The petitioner came to know^{aboutthecarrying} in Zone-IV under BC-C forward of the post reserved for women notification vide Rc.No.216/R&T/Rect. category under recruitment 1/2018 dated 01.11.2018 declaring one backlog vacancy^forwomen in wherein clause (4) of the 2016 notification Zone-lV BC-C category, states: 33 1/3 % of vacancies in each category are reserved for women for the Post Code No.11 and 20% of vacancies in reserved for women for the Post Code each category are No.12 under direct recruitment. In the event of nonavailability of eligible and suitable women candidates in a reserved for them shall not particular year, the vacancies be carried forward to the subsequent year and shall be candidates of respective category. The filled up by men horizontal reservation following reservation will be a principle of sufficiency i.e., the reservation of women candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the to which the women candidate respective category belongs, in relaxation of relevant rules relating to Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules- 1996."

¶64

contends that the respondent No.2 violated clause f. The petitioner eligible male candidate to the unfilled post (4) by not appointing an in 2016 and instead carrying it forward as a reserved for woman in backlog vacancy in 2018. The 2018 notification listed^{145vacanciesfor} backlog vacancy (under Limited Post Code No.11 including one Recruitment) for women in Zone-lV under BC-C category.

¶65

¥

¶66

5 BSBJ W.P (AT.) No.779 of 2022

¶67

g- The petitioner did not apply for the 2018 notification^butasserts his eligibility for the unfilled post reserved for women according to clause (4) of 2016 notification based on his qualifications. He contends that the action of the respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the 2016 notification.

¶68

h. The petitioner seeks appointment to the unfilled post and contends that the 2018 recruitment process would create unnecessary third-party interests. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶69

The respondents filed counter affidavit contending^asfollows: a. The respondents deny the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition as factually incorrect, legally unsustainable, and invented for the purpose of the case. They further^{submitthatthereare} no valid grounds to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.

¶70

b. The petitioner participated in the 2016 recruitment notification (Rc.No.208/R&T/Rect.1/2016, dated 17.09.2016) for the post of SCT S.l. (Civil) (Men & Women) with registration No.5005581. The distribution of total vacancies is as follows:

¶71

SI.No.	Name of the Zone	Number of posts for direct recruitment
1	Zone -1	85
2	Zone - II	113
3	Zone-III	117
4	Zone - IV	40
	Total	355

¶72

c. The selection process consisted of three stages i.e.. Preliminary Written Test (PWT), Physical Measurement Test (PMT) / Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Final Written Test (FWT). As per para 18(E) of the notification, the final selection was based on the relative merit of

¶73

6

¶74

BSB, J W.P (A.T.) No.779 of 2022

¶75

candidates in each category, determined by their scores in papers III and IV of the written examination (maximum 400 marks).^Theselection also followed the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (organization of local cadres and regulation of direct recruitment) Order, 1975, and G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 07.03.2002, which mandated that first 30% of posts should be filled from a combined merit list of locals and non locals, and the remaining 70% be filled by locals only.

¶76

d. An amendment to the 2016 notification (Rc.No.208/R&T/Rect. 1/2016-1 dated 06.03.2017) indicated backlog vacancies from the 2011 notification. The Zone-IV backlog^vacancies were as follows;

¶77

Category	OC	BC-A	BC-B	BC-C	BC-D	BC-E	SC	ST
Men				1
Women	12	02	01	01	01	01	03	02

¶78

e. These limited recruitment (L.R.) posts were to be filled only by local candidates of the respective zone. The 2016 notification^reserved 33 1/3% of vacancies for women in each category for^{PostCodeNo.11.} Clause (4) of the notification states thus:

¶79

"....in the event of non-availability of eligible and^suitable women candidates in a particular year, the vacancies reserved for them shall not be carried forward to the subsequent year and shall be filled up by men candidates of the respective category...."

¶80

f. This rule would not apply to backlog vacancies from previous recruitments (e.g., 2011). The zone-wise cut-off marks for the open category were as follows:

¶81

7

¶82

BSB, J W.P (A.T.) No.779 of 2022

¶83

SI. No	Zone	Cut-off marks in open category
1	Zone - I (VSP range)	285
2	Zone - II (ELR range)	230
3	Zone - III (GTR range)	225
4	Zone - IV (Kurnool range)	290 (30 % - Locals + Non-locals 213(70% -Localsonly)

¶84

g- In Zone-IV, 40 posts were notified under Post Code No. 11, viz., 16 under Direct Recruitment (D.R.) and 24 under Limited Recruitment (L.R.). Out of 16 posts, only one post arose under BC-C (General) vacancy under D.R., and two BC-C vacancies (1 Men, 1 Woman) were carried forward from 2011. The petitioner, a local BC-C candidate from Kurnool scored 180 marks (Rank-9460). The selected candidates under BC-C category were;

¶85

Reg. No	DOB	Category	Marks / Rank	Selected U/C	Posts aroused under D.R./ L.R.
5003060	11.07.1993	BC-C	221 / 2310	Local	L.R.(Men)
5000917	31.01.1993	BC-C	180 / 9443	Local	D.R.(Genl.)
		Petitione	r’s detail	s
5005581	27.06.1993	BC-C	180 / 9460	-	Nil-

¶86

h. As per para 18(E) of the 2016 notification, when two candidates scored equal marks, the elder candidate would be selected. Since the selected candidate (Reg.no.5000917) was older than the petitioner, the vacancy was rightfully filled.

¶87

8

¶88

BSB, J W.P (AT.) No.779 of 2022

¶89

Out of 40 vacancies in Zone-IV, 39 were filled in 2016.^OneBC-C (woman) backlog vacancy from 2011 remained unfilled^due to nonavailability of eligible women candidates. As per G.O.Ms.No.87,^Home (Legal-ll), department, dated 15.07.2016, unfilled^{womenreservations} in the same year could be filled by men, but this rule does not apply^to backlog vacancies. Hence, the unfilled BC-C (women)^vacancy was carried forward to the 2018 notification (Rc.No.216/R&T/Rect.1/2⁰¹⁸ dated 01.11.2018), which listed:

¶90

SI. No.	Name of the Zone	Number of posts for Direct Recruitment	Backlog vacancies
1	Zone -1	32	2- BC-C, BC-E
2	Zone - II	34	1- BC-C(W)
3	Zone - III	32	1- BC-C(W)
4	Zone - IV	52	1- BC-C(W)
	Total	150

¶91

J- Rule 22(g) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, states that if qualified candidates from reserved^{categories(SC,} ST, BC, Women) are unavailable, a limited recruitment^{confinedtosuch} candidates must be conducted after the general recruitment^to fill the reserved vacancies.

¶92

The main contention of the petitioner is that the post^meantfor ‘woman’ shall be filled up by ‘man’ in the absence^{ofaqualified‘woman’} to that post as declared in the amended notification,^{andtherefore,} carrying forward the same post to the next notification is not correct. However, the respondents contend that the said post^{hadbeencarried} forward since 2011, the amended notification does not apply^to the^said post, and moreover, the petitioner is not qualified^tothepostasa

¶93

9

¶94

BSB, J W.P (AT.) No.779of 2022

¶95

person who is elder to him who secured the same marks but higher rank due to his age and therefore, in any event, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief.

¶96

In the counter, it is specifically mentioned in the table showing registration number, date of birth, category, marks / rank, selected under the category and post arising under Direct Recruitment or Limited Recruitment. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit denying the same. As such, it is very clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the post, even if the post is to be filled by a ‘man’ and cannot be carried forward. Since the relief is an initial grievance and the petitioner is not entitled to the post by virtue of the process of recruitment, the relief cannot be granted in his favour. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the said post, which had been carried forward since the year 2011, shall be subject to the amendment or not, as it is a futile exercise in the present case.

¶97

¶98

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶99

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶100

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

To

officer SECTION

One CC to M/s. Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri V.Venkata Naga Raju (SC for APPSC) [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT] 4. Three CD Copies.

ssb

high court

DATED: 18/06/2025

ORDER WP(AT) No.779 of 2022

¶109

mil ?2iUt 2025 Co Current Secuon ^spatch’^-^

¶110

DISMISSING THE W.P.(AT) WITHOUT COSTS