IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14124 OF 2024 Between: 1. Pati Venkata Kishore, S/o. P.Venkateswarlur Aged about 37 years,R/o. D.No.1-83, Chowdavaram, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. Seva Saroja D/o Nagendrudu Aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No.20-700-17, Viswa Brahmana Colony, Machilipatnann Krishna District. Seva Saroja, D/o Nagendrudu Aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No.20-700-17, Viswa Brahmana Colony, Machilipatnam Krishna District. 2. ...PETITIONER(S) AND The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Registrar General Amaravathi. The Registrar, (Recruitment), High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi. The Principal District Judge, Guntur District, Guntur. 1. 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ of Mandamus declaring the questing the action of the respondents in not consider my representation dated 03.06.2024 to declare the results in recruitment notification No. 6 of 2011 dated 22.10.2011 ^xfof the post of examiner and the recruitment No. 7 of 2011 dated 22.10.2011 fgf the post of field assistant in view of the order passed in Writ Petition W.P.8648 0f 2019 and batch dated 10.05.2024 by this Hon’ble Court is illegal arbitrary and unjust and contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court W.P.No. 8648 of 2019 and batch and consequently direct the respondent declare the results for the recruitment notification No. 6 of 2011 dated 22.10.2011 for the post of examiner and the recruitment No. 7 of 2011 dated 22.10.2011 for the post of field assistant and direct to initiate the further process of selection in the above said recruitment notification. passed in to lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section I5I uPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to declare results for the recruitment notification No. 6 of 2011 dated 22.10.2011 for the post of examiner and the recruitment No. 7 of 2011. dated 22.10.2011 for the post of field assistant by consider our representation dated 03.06.2024 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petltioner(s):SRI B VAMSI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s R ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondents No.1,3: -— The Court made the following: ORDER 1 RRR,J & Dr.KMR.J W.P,No.14124/2024 % APHC010281442024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION N0:14124 of 2024 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Pati Venkata Kishore and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.B VAMSI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.R ANNAPURNA The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri B. Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. R. Annapurna, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3’’^ respondent. The petitioners herein had applied for the post of Examiner, in of the Recruitment Notification No.6/2011, dated 22.10.2011, 2. pursuance 2 RRR.J & Dr.KMR.J W.P.No. 14124/2024 issued by the 2"'^ respondent and for the post of Field Assistant, under the recruitment notification No.7 of 2011, dated 22.10.2011, issued by the 2 respondent. Both these posts were in the Judicial Establishment in Guntur District. nd 3. Both the petitioners appeared for the written examinations conducted on 30.01.2016 and 31.01.2016. On the basis of their performance in the written examinations, they have been called and appeared in the interview conducted on 10.02.2016 for the post of Examiner and the interview conducted on 12.02.2016 for the post of Field Assistant. However, the results of the recruitment process were not released and on 25.04.2019, the Principal District Judge, Guntur, cancelled the notification, on the basis of a general notice, dated 18.04.2019, issued by the 1"* respondent. 4. Various other notifications, for recruitment, to the judicial establishment in Guntur District, had been issued along with the aforesaid two notifications. The candidates, who had appeared, in pursuance of the other notifications, more specifically. Notification Nos.2, 3 & 4 had approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of W.P.No.8648 of 2019 for setting aside the proceedings of cancellation and for appointment on the basis of the performance of the candidates in these examinations. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order, dated 10.05.2024, had set aside the order of cancellation, dated 18.04.2019 and 25.04.2019, and directed further action to be taken. 3 4:. RRR,J & Dr.KMR.J W.P.No. 14124/2024 The petitioners, after the disposal of W.P.No,8648 of 2019, had filed the present writ petition seeking a similar relief. 5. 6. Sri B. Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are identically situated in relation to the petitioners in W.P.No.8648 of 2019 and that they would be entitled for declaration of their results and for appointment, if found to be meritorious. 7. Smt. R. Annapurna, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioners have not explained the delay in approaching this Court and that the petitioners cannot claim to be similarly situated with the petitioners in W.P.No.8648 of 2019, in as much as, the petitioners in W.P.No.8648 of 2019 are to be declared as successful candidates, whereas the petitioners in the present case have not been declared as successful candidates, as the results had not been published in relation to these two notifications. 8. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioners in the present writ petition are not identically situated with that of the petitioners in W.P.No.8648 of 2019, can not be accepted. The Division Bench had set aside the orders of cancellation, dated 18.04.2019 and 25.04.2019. Once the said orders have been set aside, all the persons, who would be the successful candidates in the said recruitment process, would normally be entitled for appointment. 4 RRR,J & Dr.KMR.J W.P.No.14124/2024 In the present case, the petitioners have approached this Court after inordinate delay of 5 years and the question of whether the petitioners 9. would be entitled to the benefit of the order of this Court, dated 10.05.2024, in W.P.No.8648 of 2019, would arise. 10. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors.,\ had held as follows: 22, The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under. 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the (2015) 1 see 347 'I 5 RRR,J & Dr.KMR.J W.P.No. 14124/2024 reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 ; 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence. This Court, in its order, in W.P.No.8648 of 2019, had set aside the order of cancellation of the recruitment process. Such an order would have to be treated as a general order, applicable to all the persons affected by the 10. 6 RRR.J & Dr.KMR.J W.P.No.14124/2024 P order of cancellation. In the circumstances, the petitioners herein would also be entitled to the benefit of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8648 of 2019. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent authorities to issue orders of appointment to the petitioners herein, if they are found appropriate place in the merit list, and or otherwise eligible to be appointed. Needless to say, the age of the petitioners on the date of notification shall be taken into account for the purpose of verifying whether the petitioners fall within the eligible age limit. 1.1. Sd/- A.VIJAYABABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. 2. The Registrar, (Recruitment), High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi. 3. The Principal District Judge, Guntur District, Guntur. 4. One CC to SRI. B VAMSI KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI. R ANNAPURNA Advocate fOPUC] 6. Three C.D.Copies nm HIGH COURT NM DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.14124 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS HIGH COURT