IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 437 OF 2025 Between: 1. K. Srinivas, S/o. Perayya, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Home Guard (731), R/o.D.No. 1-41, Bandru Palem, Kothalanka, Mummidivaram, East Godavari District - 533216 Reg.No. 4381669, Hal! Ticket No. 5562110091. 2. Y. Seshukumar, S/o. Arjuna Rao, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Home Guard (1298), R/o. D.No. 1-108, Dhanalakshmipeta, Gollapalem, Kajuluru, East Godavari District - 533468, Reg.No. 4283247, Hall Ticket No. 5562450730. 3. P. Sambasiva, S/o. P. Venkatramana, Aged about 36 years, Occ; Home Guard (1639), R/o. Musalikunta, Peddamandyam, Chittoor District, Reg.No. 4420573, Hall Ticket No. 5579370145. 4. V. Manjunath, S/o. V. Hanumanthappa, Aged about 40 years, Occ; Home Guard (751), R/o. Garladinne, Anantapuram District- 515731 Reg.No. 4150254, Hall Ticket No. 5586080620. 5. Balipogu Mallesh, S/o. B. Paraiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Home Guard (198), R/o. D.No. 10/50, Nalagutapalti, Harijanawada, Nallaguttapalli, YSR Kadapa District - 516504 Reg.No. 4324997. 6. M. Jayanaik, S/o. M. Navalaknaik, Aged 39 years, Occ: Home Guard (269), R/o. D.No. 9-12, Sugalithanda, Kasireddygaripalli, Ramapuram, YSR Kadapa District.- 516504, Reg No. 4261240. 7. G. Sivakeshavulu, S/o. G. Madavaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ; Home Guard (875), R/o. Flat NO. 1576, Indira Nagar, Mamillapalli CK Dinne, YSR Kadapa District - 516003, Reg No. 4424119. 8. R. Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. R. Ramudu, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Home Guard (882), R/o. D.No. 5-72, SC Colony, Peddavadugu, Ananthapur District - 515405, Reg.No. 4361698, u 9. A. Radhakrishna, S/o. A. Kristaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ; Home Guard (808), R/o. D.No. 1-101-1, Dosaledu, Putlur Ananthapuram District - v515414, Reg.No. 4361538, Hall Ticket No. 5583150054. 10. S. Narasimhulu, S/o. S. Narasimhulu, Aged about 39 years, Occ; Home Guard (1036), R/o. D.No. 4-403-2, Maleela, Peddathippasamudram, Thambailapalli, Chittoor District - 517391 Reg.No. 4007588, Hall Ticket No. 5579050258. 11. S. Anjaneyulu, S/o.S. Chandraiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Home Guard (16), R/o. D.No.16/821, Uma Nagar, Ananthapur District-515001, Reg.No. 4005928, Hall Ticket No 5586030219. 12. A. Jagadeesh, S/o. A. chandrayudu. Aged about 29 years Occ: Home Guard (41), R/o 11-2-138B, Nai Nagar, Ananthap District - 515001, Reg.No. 4220092. 13. Oh. Parameshwarao, S/o. Nageshwarrao, Aged about 39 years, Occ; Home Guard (692), R/o. D.No. Jemmi Chettu Center, Pothavaram, West Godavari District - 534176, Reg.No. 4466924 Hall Ticket No. 5565030514. 14. MD.Kalesha Masthan, S/o. MD Fize, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Home Guard (155), R/o. D.No. 4/113, Sri Lakshmi, Venkateshwara Niiyam, Eluru, West Godavari District - 534007, Reg.No. 4081392. 15. P. Posibabu, S/o. P. Durga Rao, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Home Guard (531), R/o. D.No. 9-176, Koyyalgudem,’ West Godavari District - 534312, Reg.No. 4343319, Hall Ticket No. 5566200382. 16. K. Yuvaraju, S/o. K. Raghunanda, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Home Guard (46), R/o. D.No. 2-85, Moravameeda palli village Booragamanda Post, Sodam Mandal, Chittoor District •-517123, Reg.No. 4211284, Hall Ticket No. 5579010378. 17. B. Prathapu, S/o. B.C. Obulapathi, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Home Guard (465), R/o. D.No. 1-120, Thodendlapalle Village, Chagalmarri Mandal, Kurnool District-518553, Reg.No. 4019978, Hall Ticket No. 5589330269.’ uramu ...Petitioners 1. THg Ststs of AP Q , . PfI- Secretary, Home Secretarial Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravalhi. Department 2. The State Level Police Recruitment of AP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. Board, Rep by it's Chairman, State 3. The Director General Mangalagiri, Guntur District. of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, At ...Respondents Constitution of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court appropriate Petition under Article 226 of the the circumstances stated i be pleased may to issue an writ order or direction more the action of the for not particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamu.<;, declaring Guards the preliminaiy test on par with the respondents in disqualifying the petitioners/Home securing the qualifying marks in direct recruit candidates by applying social 80 marks for OC, 70 marks for BC or communal reservations like i and 60 marks for SC/ST and i.e. ex-service men and in applying horizontal reservation in the special category of Home Guards pursuant to the notifioahon issued in Re No.l61/SLPRB/Rect.2/2022 dt 28-11-2022 by the 2"i respondent is illegal, arbitrao^, unjust and to Rule 3(C) (D) of the rules i Department dated 13-10-1999 and 05-2006 and further direct the among the Home Guards contrary issued in G.O.Ms.No.315 Home (Police C) -- as amended by G.O.Ms.No.97 dated; 01- respondents to prepare a separate merit list against the Vacancies/percentage of quota meant for Home Guards by treating them the social/communal as special category without reference reservations and then consider their to cases by allowing test and final test for them for further process of selection like Physical appointment as Police constable(Civil/APSP pursuant to the notification issued in Re.No.l6]/SLPRJ3/Rect 2/2022 dt;28-U-2022, m W.P.No. 6631 of202.8& batch on par with the other candidates i dated 18.12.2024 < lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear for further process of selection ie., to attend the physical measurement test and final written test treating them as separate category for the vacancies meant for Home Guards pursuant to the notification issued in Rc,No.161/SLPRB/Rect.2/2022 dt;28-11- 2022 by the 2nd respondent for appointment as police constables against the quota meant for Home Guards pending disposal of the above writ petition in view of his clear acquittal in criminal case. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the followingorder: r [3331] APHC010007112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 437/2025 Between: occ K SRINIVAS, S/0. PERAYYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS HOME GUARD (731), R/O.D.NO. KOTHALANKA, MUMMIDIVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 533216 REG.NO. 4381669, HALL TICKET NO. 5562110091. 1. 1-41, BANDRU PALEM, 2 Y SESHUKUMAR,, S/0. ARJUNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 1-108, EAST GUARD (1298), R/0. D.NO. GOLLAPALEM, KAJULURU HOME DHANALAKSHMIPETA. GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533468, REG.NO. 4283247, HALL TICKET OCC NO. 5562450730. S/0. P. VENKATRAMANA, AGED ABOUT 36 OCC HOME GUARD (1639), R/0. MUSALIKUNTA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REG.NO. 4420573, 3. P. SAMBASIVA YEARS PEDDAMANDYAM HALL TICKET NO. 5579370145. ) 1 S/0. V. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 OCC HOME GUARD (751), R/0. GARLADINNE, REG.NO. 4150254, HALL 4. V. MANJUNATH YEARS, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT- 515731 TICKET NO. 5586080620. 5. BALIPOGU MALLESH., S/0. B. PARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD (198), R/0. D.NO. 10/50, NALAGUTAPALLI, HARIJANAWADA, NALLAGUTTAPALLI, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 2 516504 REG.NO. 4324997. 6. M. JAYANAIK, , S/0. M. NAVALAKNAIK, AGED 39 YEARS HOME GUARD (269), R/0. D.NO. 9-12, SUGALITHANDA KASIREDDYGARIPALLI, RAMAPURAM, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT- 516504 REG NO. 4261240. OCC 7. G. SIVAKESHAVULU S/0. G. MADAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD (875), R/0. FLAT NO. 1576 INDIRA NAGAR, MAMILLAPALLI CK DINNE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516003, REG NO. 4424119. 40 8. R. RAMANJANEYULU,, S/0. R. RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC HOME GUARD (882), R/0. D.NO. 5-72, SC COLONy’ PEDDAVADUGU, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515405 REG No’ 4361698, ’ 9. A. RADHAKRISHNA,, S/0. A. KRISTAIAH OCC HOME GUARD (808) PUTLUR, 4361538, HALL TICKET NO. 5583150054. 10.S. NARASIMHULU YEARS, MALEELA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517391, NO. 5579050258. ITS. ANJANEYULU,, S/O.S. CHANDRAIAH OCC HOME GUARD (16) ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT TICKET NO. 5586030219. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DOSALEDU, 515414, REG.NO. R/0. D.NO. 1-101-1, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT S/O. S. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT OCC HOME GUARD (1036), R/0. D.NO. 4-403-2 PEDDATHIPPASAMUDRAM 39 THAMBALLAPALLI, REG.NO. 4007588, HALL TICKET AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, UMA NAGAR, REG.NO. 4005928, HALL R/0. D.NO.16/821 -515001, 12.A. JAGADEESH YEARS S/O. A. CHANDRAYUDU. AGED OCC HOME GUARD (41), R/0 11-2-138B ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT-515001, REG.NO. ABOUT 29 NAI NAGAR, 4220092. 13.CH. PARAMESHWARAO,, S/O. NAGESHWARRAO, AGED ABOUT guard (692), R/0. D.NO. JEMMI CHETTU CENTER, POTHAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534176 3 r REG.NO. 4466924, HALL TICKET NO. 5565030514. 14.MD.KALESHA MASTHAN,, S/0. MD FIZE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD (155), R/0. D.NO. 4/113, SRI LAKSHMi,’ VENKATESHWARA NILYAM, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534007, REG.NO. 4081392. 15.P. POSIBABU,, S/0. P. DURGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD (531), R/0. D.NO. 9-176, KOYYALGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534312, REG.NO. 4343319 TICKET NO. 5566200382. HALL 16.K. YUVARAJU,, S/0. K. RAGHUNANDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD (46), R/0. D.NO. 2-85, MORAVAMEEDA PALLI VILLAGE BOORAGAMANDA POST, SODAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 5579010378. 517123 REG.NO. 4211284, HALL TICKET NO. 17.B. PRATHAPU,, S/0. B.C. OBULAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD (465), R/0. D.NO. 1-120, THODENDLAPALLE VILLAGE, CHAGALMARRI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518553, REG.NO. 4019978, HALL TICKET NO. 5589330269. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. HOME VELAGAPUDI, 2.THE STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, REP BY IT'S CHAIRMAN, STATE OF AP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the .action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioners/Home Guards for not securing the qualifying marks in the preliminary test on par with the candidates by applying social or communal reservations like i.e. 80 marks for OC, 70 marks for BC and 60 marks for SC/ST and ex-service men and in applying horizontal reservation in the special category of Home Guards pursuant to the notification issued in Re No.161/SLPRB/Rect.2/2022 dt 28- 11-2022 by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Rule 3(C) (D) of the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.315 Home (Police C) Department dated 13-10-1999 and as amended by G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 01- 05-2006 and further direct the respondents to prepare a separate merit list among the Home Guards against the Vacancies/percentage of quota meant for Home Guards by treating them as special category without reference to the social/communal reservations and then consider their cases by allowing them for further process of selection like Physical test and final test for appointment as Police constable(Civil/APSP pursuant to the notification Re.No.161/SLPRB/Rect 2/2022 dt 28-11-2022, on par with the candidates in W.P.No. 6631 of 2023 and batch dated 18.12.2024 and lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear for further process of selection i.e., to attend the physical measurement test and final written test treating them as separate category for the vacancies meant for Home Guards pursuant to the notification issued in 11- 2022 by the 2nd respondent for appointment as police constables against the quota meant for Home Guards pending disposal of the above writ petition in view of his clear acquittal in criminal case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES The Court made the following: z direct recruit issued in other pass Rc.No.161/SLPRB/Rect.2/2022 dt:28- 5 \' • ::ORDER:r Heard Sri K.Srinivas Prasad, learned S.Raju, learned Assistant Government respondents. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Services writ petition is squarely covered by the W.P.NOS.6631 Of 2023 and batch. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also would submit that respondent No.2 is preparing a separate merit list, in terms of, the common order dated 3. W.P.Nos.6631 of 2023 and batch directions: counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pleader for Services-I appeared for the 2. counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant would submit that the issue involved in this common order dated 18.12.2024 iin 18.12.2024. were disposed of with the following a) The 2'^^ respondent shall prepare a separate inter-se merit list im respect of Home Guards being a special category, b) Amendment to Rule 3(C) of A. P. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, by G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 15.07,2016, will not come in the way of the 2 respondent in preparing a separate inler-se merit list among the Home Guards. c) After preparation of the compartmentalized horizontal as per the notification, d) Regarding the local candidate i said list, the 2'’'^ respondent shall apply reservation in respect of each category issue, the 2 nd respondent shall follow the 15.11.2017. as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the of the order. ratio in W.P.No.21715 of 2017 and batch dated e) The 2'’'^ respondent shall complete the exercise copy f) The petitioners in the above writ petitions shall right because of interim directions not claim any vested granted pending the writ petitions. 6 Those interim directions or protections are granted enabling the level examination only, of course, nd petitioners to participate in the 2 subject to the preparation of a separate inter-se merit list. Since the issue involved in the case at hand is covered by the common order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.Nos.6631 of 2023 and batch, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of W.P.Nos.6631 of 2023 and batch. The Registry is directed to annex a copy of the common order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.Nos.6631 of 2023 and batch. No order as to costs. 4. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER To 1. The Prl. Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhdra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, State of AP Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, At Mangalagiri, Guntur District. One CC to Sri. K Srinivasa Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 4. 5. Two CCs to GP For Services I , High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT 6. Three CD Copies (Along with a Copy of the common order dated 18.12.2024 in WP Nos. 6631 of 2023 and Batch) GSC HIGH COURT DATED:08/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.437 of 2025 16 IAN 2025 I ^ . CurrMi Section S’ 'X DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS APHC010130952023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH ^ DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI W^.Nos.6631,5184, 5292, 5760, 5911. 594:^ 6060, 6318. fiflfid 10286 of 2023 & W.P.Nos.17955, 244«n^ 26 325, 26371, 26372. 26389, 25097. 25913. 2621fi, ^6616. 26617. 26641, .26762, 26782. 267«.-^, 9K«9q^ 26929. 27028, 27050. 27055, 77nRn, 26650, 26655, 26660. 26716. 26727, 7R7'iR 26886. 26905, 26913. 26920. 269?fi, 2L156, 27164, 27198. 27202. 27206. ?77nQ 2/346, 27347. 27354. 27359. 27485, 27488 27521, 27528, 27574, 27621. 27649. 27652, 27^815, 27827, 27847. 28145. 28305, 28313. 28.347, 28448, 28449. 28455. 28467. 2Rd7n^ _27213. 27216, 27265. 27.T‘^Q, 27489, 27505. 27511. 27fi1.?, 27666. 27691.27797 28326, 28327. 28340. 28.^47, 28473, 28477, 28482. 28641 28659. 28660 and 28692 of 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 6631/2023 Between: Dabbada Gopi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.G SEENA KUMAR ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I ALONG WITH W.P.Nos.5184, 5292, 5760, 5911, 5943, 6060, 6318, 6964, 8914 and 10286 of 2023 & W.P.Nos.17955, 24480, 25097, 25913, 26215, 26226, 26325, 26371,26372, 26389, 26547, 26553, 26616, 26617, 26641, 26648, 26650, 26655, 26660, 26716, 26727, 26736, 26762, 26782, 26783, 26829, 26886, 26905, 26913, 26920, 26926, 26929, 27028, 27050, 27055, 27060, 27156, 27164, 27198, 27202, 27206, 27209, 27213, 27216, 27265, 27339, 27346, 27347, 27354, 27359, 27485, 27488, 27489, 27505, 27511, 27513, 27521, 27528, 27574, 27621, 27649, 27652, 27653, 27666, 27691, 27797, 27815, 27827, 27847, 28145, 28305, 28313, 28326, 28327, 28340, 28342, 28347, 28448, 28449, 28455, 28467, 28470, 28473, 28477, 28482, 28641, 28659, 28660 and 28692 of 2024 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is the same, all the writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order. Heard Sri G.Seena Kumar and Sri N.Pramod, Sri Mojjada Hari Krishna, Srinivasa Rao, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for 2. Sri Narra petitioners and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General for respondents. 3. The batch of writ petitions was filed to declare the action of respondents in disqualifying the petitioners/Home Guards for not securing the qualifying marks in the Preliminary Written Test on par with the direct recruit candidates by applying social or communal reservations i.e., 80 marks for OC (40%), 70 marks for BC(35%) and 60 marks for SC/ST and ex-servicemen (30%) and in applying horizontal reservation to the special category of Home Guards in pursuance of the notification issued in Rc.No.161/SLPRB/Rect.2/2 022 dated 28.11.2022 by the 2 respondent and also not extending the benefit of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.21715 of 2017 and batch dated 15.11.2017 illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule (C) (D) of the Rules issued i G.O.Ms.No.315 HOME (Police.C) Department dated 13.11.1999 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 01.05.2006. , as in The averments in the W.P.No. 10286 of 2023 and counter affidavit lead to the entire batch of writ petitions. 4. 5. W.P.No.10286 of 2023 was filed to declare the action of respondents in not allowing the petitioners 1 to 3 herein to appear for the Physical Measurement Test / Physical Efficiency Test by treating them as non-local candidates and in not extending the benefit in terms of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.21715 of 2017 and batch dated 15.11.2017; not fixing a separate merit list for home guards being a special category, disqualifying the home guards on the ground of not securing marks prescribed in the notification i.e. 40%, 35% and 30% without fixing a separate cut off mark to them etc., as illegal, irrational and arbitrary. 6. a) A notification vide Rc.No.161/SLPRB/Rect.2/2022 dated 28.11.2022. was issued by the 2"^ respondent inviting applications online for Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constables (Civil) and Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constables (APSP) in the police department. Clause 2 of the notification prescribes that a preliminary written test will be held 22.01.2023. The total number of vacancies notified for SCT Police Constables (Civil) for Post Code No.21 is 3580 and for SCT Police Constables (APSP) for Post Code No.23 is 2520. on b) Clause-7 prescribes Reservation for Special Categories i.e. Meritorious Sports Personnel (MSP); National Cadet Corps (NCC); Children of Police Personnel (CPP); Children of deceased and Incapacitated Police Personnel (CDI) and Home Guard (HG). It was further prescribed that the vacancies be adjusted horizontally on a compartmentalised basis i.e., the reservation of Special Category candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective communal category to which the candidate belongs. Vacancies that remain unfilled in any of the special categories for want of eligible candidates shall be added to the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment. c) Clause 13 of the notification prescribes eligibility conditions. Clause 13-B(a)(i) prescribes an age limit, in respect of Home Guards, one should attain 18 years and must not have attained the age of 32 years as of 01.07.2022 i.e., must have been born not earlier than 02.07.1990 and not later than 01.07.2004. Clause 13-B (a)(ii) prescribes an age limit in respect of all other candidates. Age relaxations are also indicated in the respective communal categories. d) Clause 20 prescribes a selection procedure/scheme. As per Note-1, the minimum marks to be secured by the candidates to qualify in the Preliminary Written Test is 40% for OCs (including those claiming EWS Note-3 reservation); 35% for BCs; and 30% for SCs/STs/Ex-Servicemen. makes it clear that marks obtained in the Preliminary Written Test will have no relevance in the final selection. The candidates who qualified in the Preliminary Written Test are eligible for the Physical Measurement Test. The candidate, who qualified in the Physical Measurement Test will be required to Thereafter, a final written undergo the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), examination will be conducted. The final selection of the candidates would be made strictly on relative merit, as per marks obtained by them based on their score in the Final Written Examination for 200 marks, for the candidates who qualified in Physical Efficiency Test and as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 and G.O. (P) No.763, General Administration (SPF.A) Department dated 15.11.1975, as amended from time to time. Clause 21 prescribes reservation to local candidates. e) Clause-22 prescribes Special Representation for Special Categories, wherein it was mentioned that as per G.O.Ms.No.87 HOME (Legal-ll) dated 15.07.2016, the vacancies reserved for special categories referred to in rule 3(D) shall be adjusted horizontally on compartmental basis i.e., the reservation of special category candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective communal category to which the candidate belongs, (emphasis is mine) f) Clause-22 (A) speaks about the Percentage of Quota in the Special Categories. 15% for Home Guards (HG) in Post Code No.21 and 25% for Home Guards (HG) (APSP) in Post Code No.23. Clause-22 (B) (iii) makes it clear that to claim benefit under Home Guard category, the persons, who, as the date of notification, have been on duty as Home Guard in the State of Andhra Pradesh for a minimum duration of 360 days within two years and who continuing their service as Home Guards come under the category. on are g) Clause 33 of the notification prescribes general instructions. Clause- 33 (x) prescribes that the Board reserves the right to issue corrigendum/supplementary notifications from time to time in case there is any modification in rules or in the recruitment process. Page 6 of 31 7. All the petitioners, working as Home Guards, applied for the posts. Except for the petitioners 1 to 3 in W.P.No. 10286 of 2023 and some other candidates, all the other petitioners were not qualified in the Preliminary Written Test i.e. failed to secure a minimum 40% for OCs (including those claiming EWS reservation); 35% for BCs; and 30% for SCs/STs/Ex- Servicemen. When the 2"^^ respondent Board intended to proceed further with the recruitment process i.e. Physical Measurement Test, all these writ petitions were filed. Interim protection was granted. 8. The main grounds on which these writ petitions were filed are as follows; 8 (a). Home Guards are to be treated as a special category and the minimum marks prescribed as per Clause-20 do not apply to that category. The 2 respondent should have prescribed separate cut-off marks for Home Guards being a special category by itself. No cut-off/minimum marks nd are prescribed to the Home Guards in the notification. After the results were declared, the petitioners came to know that they were equated with direct recruitees’. Since the Home Guards are treated as a special category and posts were reserved, taking away that privilege without indicating the cutoff marks is arbitrary. Even if Rule 22 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rule is made applicable, as per the notification, the Rule of Reservation needs to be followed horizontally a compartmental basis by adjusting the selected candidates in the respective category from out of the Home Guards separately, respondent failed to extend the ratio in W.P.No.21715 of 2017 and batch dated 15.11.2017 regarding local candidates. The ratio in judgments earlier to the notification, to prepare a separate merit list treating the Home Guards special category, was not adhered to. Even after the declaration Preliminary Written Test, the State now can change or relax the Rules. on nd The 2 as a of the 9. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 2"^ respondent. Learned Advocate General made the following submission while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit. 9 (a). In respect of special representation for special categories amendment was brought in by G.O.Ms.No.87 HOME (Legal-ll) Department dated 15.07.2016. The vacancies reserved for special categories referred to in Rule 3 (D) of G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal-ll) Department dated 01.05.2006, shall be adjusted horizontally on a compartmental basis i.e. the reservation of Special Category candidates shall be adjusted proportionately respective communal category to which the candidate belongs. The reservations for special categories, as per the notification are not vertical, but it is horizontal on a compartmental basis. If a separate merit list, among the Home Guards against the vacancies/percentage of quota, is prepared, the overall reservation will cross 50% and hence, the same will be hit by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India'. , an in the b) The Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules provide for 50% reservation to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes i.e. 15% for SCs, 6% for STs and 29% for BCs. Thus, the reservation for Special Category in Clause-7 of the notification must be applied horizontally on a compartmentalised basis, as any vertical reservation in addition to the reservation provided for in Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, would be in violation of the ruling in Indra Sawhney’s case. c) A separate inter se merit list among the Home Guards against the vacancies/percentage of quota meant for Home Guards without reference to 1992 Supp (3) see 217 their category of rule of reservation comes under the vertical reservation. After amendment to G.O.Ms.No.315 dated 13.10.1999 by G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 15.07.2016, two notifications were issued and the process was completed None challenged the notifications. The petitioners having successfully, consciously participated in the notification, after the declaration of Preliminary Written Test results on 05.03.2023, filed the writ petitions. The petitioners. having known the conditions in the notification, attended the written test having unsuccessful, cannot turn around and challenge the notification. d) The petitioners, who participated in the selection process are estopped and acquiesced from questioning the process. The Home Guards should get qualifying marks as per their category under the rule of reservation and there is no necessity to prescribe separate qualifying marks in the Written Test exclusively under the Special Category including Home Guards. Under the special category, the Home Guards have provisions such as relaxation of age as well as social reservation. Many Home Guards became eligible for participating in this recruitment claiming the age relaxation under social reservation. e) There cannot be two types of cut-off marks for a single selection i.e. one for social reservations and another for special categories. The special category of Home Guards was increased from 8% to 15% in PC (Civil) and from 10% to 25% in PC (APSP) from the year 2022 onwards. f) The Home Guard is a voluntary post and it cannot be compared with the ex-servicemen on providing qualifying marks as the quota for ex- servicemen is found in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short “Rules 1996”). g) The judgments relating to special categories rendered by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court were related to notifications issued prior to amendment i.e. G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 15.07.2016 (Horizontal reservation on the compartmental basis for special categories) and hence, those judgment have no application and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. CONSIDERATION: There is no dispute about the notification issued by the 2^^ respondent vide Rc.No.161/SLPRB/Rect.2/2022 dated 28.11.2022 inviting applications for the posts of (SCT) Police Constables (Civil) and (SCT) Police Constables (APSP) in the police department. As noted supra, the total number of posts notified is 6,100. The Home Guards come under a special category as per Rule 3 (D)(v) of A.P. Police (Stipendary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999. Posts reserved in Civil is 15% for Post Code No.21 and in APSP is 25% for Post Code No.23. Out of total posts, 1167 vacancies are meant for Home Guards. In the notification, no separate cut-off marks were prescribed. Clause 20 prescribes a selection procedure. Clause 20 (A) speaks about the Preliminary Written Test. As per the notification, the minimum marks to be secured by the candidate to qualify in the Preliminary Written Test is 40% for OCs (including those claiming EWS reservation); 35% for BCs; and 30% for SCs/STs/Ex- Servicemen. Thus, a person belonging to the respective social communal category should secure minimum marks of 80, 70 and 60 respectively. 10. Some of the aspirants approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in the year 2012 to direct the respondents to prepare a separate inter-se merit list for home guards in each unit of appointment etc.. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7802 of 2012 and Batch dated 11. Page 10 of 31 24.01.2013 held that a separate quota was reserved for Home Guards in the selection and hence, the Home Guards can compete both for general vacancies and exclusive vacancies reserved for them under the Home Guard quota. If the Home Guards want to get selected under the general quota, then they have to fulfill the norms mentioned in the notification. However, when they compete among themselves for the posts reserved for Home Guards, they have to be considered as a separate class or category. In the absence of a condition indicating that the Home Guards shall also secure minimum marks prescribed for various communities under general vacancies, the authorities are not justified in insisting the Home Guards, to get qualified marks in the written examination. The Home Guards must be treated as a separate class and a separate inter-se seniority list must be prepared under that quota. Against the said orders, W.P.No.19566 of 2013 and the batch were filed. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 02.03.2023, dismissed the writ petitions. The order became final. The Division Bench observed that a certain percentage of posts are reserved for special categories including home guards. The direction given by the Tribunal to create a merit list in the examination without linking it to the specified marks prescribed to different communities and categories was approved. The Home Guards are a special class. The minimum qualification marks are not prescribed in the notification and hence, the relief granted by the tribunal, they are entitled to. Since Home Guards are a separate class and no minimum marks are prescribed for this class, they are entitled to a separate merit list. The Division Bench relied the order passed by another Division Bench in W.P.No.21604 of 2016. After the order by the A.P Administrative Tribunal and before the Division Bench order, the present notification was issued by the 2"'^ respondent. on 12. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.315 Home (Police-C) Department dated 13.10.1999 framing the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999. These rules were issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of all the relevant Rules came into provisions in various ad-hoc Rules and Special Rules. These effect from 03.12.1997. Later, G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal-ll) Department dated 01.05.2006 was issued amending certain the Rules in G.O.Ms.No.315 dated 13.10.1999. Rule 3 in G.O.Ms.No.315 dated 13.10.1999 substituted. Clauses 3 (A) to (G) were added. Clauses 3 (C) and (D) of G.O.Ms.N.97 dated 01.05.2006, which are relevant are extracted below; was Clause 3(C) states that special representation (reservation) provided in Rule-22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 shall be applicable except in case of Special Categories referred to in Rule 3 (D). Clause 3(D); Special Categories; The various special categories and the eligibility criteria to be included in each of them are as follows: (i) (ii) ... (iii) ... (iv) ... (V) Home Guard, the persons, who, as on the date of notification, have been on duty as Home Guard in the State of Andhra Pradesh for a minimum duration of 360 days within a period of two years and who are still continuing their service as Home Guards 13. The minimum marks, to be secured by the candidates to qualify in the written examination were also prescribed as 40% for OCs (including those claiming EWS reservation); 35% for BCs' and 30% for SCs/STs/Ex- Servicemen. Later, G.O.Ms.No.87 Home (Legal-ll) Department 15.07.2016 was issued making an amendment to G.O.Ms.No.315 dated 13.10.1999. dated Rule 3 (C) was substituted as indicated below; (b) for Rule 3 (C), the following shall be substituted namely: - (C) (i) (a) The Rule of Special Representation (Reservation) provided in Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 shall be applicable to all the classes and categories constituted in Rule -2. 14. (b) The vacancies reserved for special categories referred to in Rule - 3 (D) shall be adjusted in a horizontal manner on compartmental basis i.e., the Reservation of Special Category candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective communal category to which the candidate belongs. (ii) The rule of Special Representation (Reservation) provided in Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 shall not be applicable for 75% vacancies in the Scheduled Areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh for Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil). (iii) The vacancies which remain unfiled in any of the above special categories for want of eligible candidates shall be added to the vacancies to be filled by the Director Recruitment.” The present notification was issued strictly in consonance with the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 as amended from time to time. However, the minimum marks to be secured by the candidate to qualify for the Preliminary Written Test were not modified as per the Ratio in the order in O.A. later confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 15. Thus, by amending G.O.Ms.No.315 dated 13.10.1999 by G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 15.07.2016, the Rule of special representation (reservation) provided under Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 made applicable to the special categories also. 16. Page 13 of 31 17. For better clarification and differentiation, Rule 3, Rule 3 (C) & (D) G.O.Ms.No.315 dated 13.10.1999, G.O.Ms.No.97 dated G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 15.07.2016 are extracted below: in 01.05.2006 and Rule 3 (C) (D) amended G.O.Ms.No.97 01.05.2006 Rule 3 (C) (D) amended G.O.Ms.No.87 15.07.2016 as Rule 3 as in m G.O.Ms.No.315 dated 13.10.1999 in dated dated 3. Qualifications: (C) The rule of special representation (reservation) provided in Rule 22 of A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 shall be applicable except in case of special categories referred to in rule 3 (D) of these rules:- (b) for Rule 3 (C), the following shall be substituted namely: - (C) (i) (a) The Rule of Special Representation (Reservation) provided in Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State & Subordinate Rules, 1996 shall be applicable to all the classes and categories constituted in Rule -2. The qualifications (Academic, age and Physical Standards) for various categories included in these rules shall be as specified in Annexure appended to these rules. the Service (D) Special Categories: The various special categories and the eligibility criteria to be included in each of them are as below: (b) The vacancies reserved for special categories referred to in Rule - 3 (D) shall be adjusted in a horizontal manner on compartmental basis i.e., the Reservation of Special Category candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective communal category to which the candidate belongs. (i)... (iii)... (iv)... (v) Home Guards:- Persons who, as on the date of notification, have been on duty as Home Guards for a minimum duration of 360 days within a period of two years and who are still continuing their service as Home Guards. (ii) The rule of Special Representation (Reservation) provided in Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Rules, 1996 shall not be applicable vacancies Scheduled Areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh for Stipendiary Cadet State & Service for 75% the in Trainee Police Constable (Civil). (iii) The vacancies which remain unfilled in any of above categories for want of eligible candidates shall be added to the vacancies to be filled by the Direct Recruitment.” the special Whether substitution of Rule 3(C) of the Rules by G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 15.07.2016 takes away the ratio in the order passed in O.A.No.7799 of 2012, 7901 of 2012 and batch and the order in W.P.No.19566 of 2013 and batch etc? 18. Earlier, the rule of special representation (reservation) provided in Rule 22 of the Rules 1996 was not made applicable to special categories, however, by amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 15.07.2016 the rule of special representation (reservation) provided in Rule 22 of the Rules shall be made applicable to all classes contained in Rule 2. The vacancies reserved for special categories referred to in Rule 3 (D) shall be adjusted horizontally on a compartmentalized basis. 19. 20. To understand the concept of horizontal reservation, it is profitable to refer to the judgments in Indra Sawhney’s case and Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission ^ In Para-812 of Indra Swahney’s case, it was observed thus: “812. We are also of the opinion that this rule of 50% applies only to reservations in favour of backward classes made under Article 16(4). A little clarification is in order at this juncture: all reservations are not of the same ^ (2007) 8 see 785 nature. There are two types of convenience, be referred to reservations, which may, for the sake of ‘vertical reservations’ as and ‘horizontal reservations’. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, and other backward classes [under Article reservations whereas reservations in clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred Scheduled Tribes 16(4)] may be called vertical favour of physically handicapped [under to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations — what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed be placed in that that category by making reservations, remains — are worked out in in necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens and should remain - the same. This is how these reservations several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure. 21. In Rajesh Kumar Daria’s case, the Apex Court observed i Paragraphs 8 to 11 thus: in 8. We may also refer to two related aspects before considering the facts of this case. The first is about the description of horizontal reservation. For example, if there are 200 vacancies and 15% is the vertical reservation for SC and 30% is the horizontal reservation for women, the proper description of the number of posts reserved for SC, should be: “For SC: 30 posts, of which 9 women. We find that many a time this is wrongly described thus: “For SC: 21 posts for men and 9 posts for women, in all 30 posts.” Obviously, there is, and there can be, no reservation category of “male” or “men”. posts are for 9. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are “vertical reservations”. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped women, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are "horizontal reservations”. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Back\A/ard Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non- reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class, Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 1992 see (L&S) Supp 1 (1992) 22 ATC 385] R.K, Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 ; (1995) 29 ATC 481] , Union of India V. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684 ; 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813] and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul [(1996) 3 SCC 253].) But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of “Scheduled Caste women”. If the number of women in such list is equal to or than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example; more If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC woman candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC woman candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four woman SC candidates. (But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four woman candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess woman candidates on the ground that “SC women” have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.) (emphasis is mine) 10. In this case, the number of candidates to be selected under general category (open competition), were 59, out of which 11 were earmarked for women. When the first 59 from among the 261 successful candidates were taken and listed as per merit, it contained 11 woman candidates, which was equal to the quota for “general category women”. There was thus no need for any further selection of woman candidates under the special reservation for women. But what RPSC did was to take only the first 48 candidates in the order of merit (which contained 11 women) and thereafter, fill the next 11 posts under the general category with woman candidates. As a result, we find that among 59 general category candidates in all 22 women have been selected consisting of eleven woman candidates selected on their own merit (candidates at SI. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 19, 21, 25, 31, 35 and 41 of the selection list) and another eleven (candidates at SI. Nos. 54, 61, 62, 63, 66, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79 and 80 of the selection list) included under reservation quota for "general category women”. This is clearly impermissible. The process of selections made by RPSC amounts to treating the 20% reservation for women as a vertical reservation, instead of being a horizontal reservation within the vertical reservation. 11. Similarly, we find that in regard to 24 posts for OBC, 19 candidates were selected by RPSC in accordance with merit from among OBC candidates which included three woman candidates. Thereafter, another five women were selected under the category of “OBC women”, instead of adding only two which was the shortfall. Thus there were in all 8 women candidates among the 24 OBC candidates found in the selection list. The proper course was to list 24 OBC candidates as per the merit and then find out number of woman candidates among them, and only fill the shortfall to make up the quota of five for women.” 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court explained the compartmentalised horizontal reservation concept in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.^ and observed thus: On a careful consideration of the revised notification of 17.12.1994 and the aforementioned corrigendum issued by the Lucknow University, we are of the opinion that in view of the ambiguous language employed therein, it is not possible to give a definite answer to the question whether the horizontal reservations are overall reservations or compartmentalised reservations. We may explain these two expressions. Where the seats reserved for horizontal reservations are proportionately divided among the vertical (social) reservations and are not intertransferable, it would be a case of 15. compartmentalised reservations. We may illustrate what we say: Take this very case; out of the total 746 seats, 112 seats (representing fifteen per cent) should be filled by special reservation candidates; at the same time, the social reservation in favour of Other Backward Classes is 27% which means 201 seats for OBCs; if the 112 special reservation seats are also divided proportionately as between PC, OBC, SC and ST, 30 seats would be allocated to the OBC category; in other words, thirty special category students can be accommodated in the OBC category; but say only ten special reservation candidates belonging to OBC are available, then these ten candidates will, of course, be allocated among OBC quota but the remaining twenty seats cannot be transferred to OC category (they will be available for OBC candidates only) or for that matter, to any other category; this would be so whether reguisite number of special reservation candidates (56 out of 373) are available in OC category or not: the special reservation would be a watertight compartment in each of the vertical reservation classes (OC, OBC, SC and ST). As against this, what happens in the overall reservation is that while allocating the special reservation students to their respective social reservation category, the overall reservation in favour of 3 (1995) 5 see 173 special reservation categories has yet to be honoured. This means that in the above illustration, the twenty remaining seats would category which means that the number of special reservation candidates in OC category would be 56+20=76. Further, if belonging to SC and ST is available then the proportionate number of seats meant for special reservation candidates in SC and ST also get transferred to OC category. The result would be that 102 special reservation candidates have to be accommodated in the OC category to complete their quota of 112. The may also happen, which will prejudice the candidates in the reserved categories. It is, of course, obvious that the inter se quota between OC, OBC, SC and ST will not be altered. be transferred to OC no special reservation candidate converse 16. Now coming to the revised notification of 17-12-1994, it says that “horizontal reservation be granted in all medical colleges on total seats of all the courses...”. These words are being interpreted in two different ways by the parties it is overall reservation while the other says it is compartmentalised. Para 2 says that the candidates selected under the aforesaid special categories kept under the categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Backward Classes/General to which they belong. For example, if a candidate dependent on a freedom fighter selected on the basis of reservation belongs to a Scheduled Caste, he will be adjusted against the seat reserved for Scheduled Castes . This is sought to be read by the petitioners as affirming that it is a case of compartmentalised reservation. May be or may not be. It appears that while issuing the said notification, the Government was not conscious of the distinction between overall horizontal reservation and ; one says 'would be Tribes/Other compartmentalised horizontal reservation. At any rate, it may not have had in its contemplation the situation like the one which has arisen now. This is probably the reason that this aspect has not been stated in clear terms. 17. It would have been better — and the respondents may note this for their future guidance — that while providing horizontal reservations, they should specify whether the horizontal reservation is a compartmental one or an overall one. As a matter of fact, it may not be totally correct to presume that the Uttar Pradesh Government was not aware of this distinction between horizontal reservation” and “compartmentalised horizontal overall reservation”, since it appears from the judgment in Swati Gupta [(1995) 2 SCC 560] that in the first notification issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 17-5-1994, the thirty per cent reservation for ladies was split up into each of the other reservations. For example, it was stated against backward classes that the percentage of reservation in their favour was twenty-seven per cent but at the same time it was stated that thirty per cent of those seats were reserved for ladies. Against every vertical reservation, a similar provision was made, which meant that the said horizontal reservation in favour of ladies was to be a “compartmentalised horizontal reservation”. We are of the opinion that in the interest of avoiding any complications and intractable problems, it would be better that in future the horizontal reservations are compartmentalised in the sense explained above. In other words, the notification inviting applications should itself state not only the percentage of horizontal reservation(s) but should also specify the number of seats reserved for them in each of the social reservation categories, viz., ST, SC, OBC and OC. If this is not done there is always a possibility of one or the other vertical reservation category suffering prejudice as has happened in this case. As pointed out hereinabove, 110 seats out of 112 seats meant for special reservations have been taken away from the OC category alone — and none from the OBC or for that matter, from SC or ST. It can well happen the other way also in a given year, (emphasis is mine) 18. Now, coming to the correctness of the procedure prescribed by the revised notification for filling up the seats, it was wrong to direct the fifteen per cent special reservation seats to be filled up first and then take up the OC (merit) quota (followed by filling of OBC, SC and ST quotas). The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied — in case it is an overall horizontal reservation — no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalised horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adiustment/accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. !n such a case, the reservation of fifteen per cent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) Because the revised notification provided for a different method of filling the seats, it has contributed partly to the unfortunate situation where the entire special reservation quota has been allocated and adjusted almost exclusively against the OC quota.” (emphasis added) A compartmentalized horizontal reservation refers to a type of reservation policy, where a specific percentage of seats or positions, allocated to a particular group or category within each category or group. A fixed percentage of seats or positions is allocated to reserved groups within each category. For example, in an institution that has a horizontal reservation for women with 30% of seats reserved for women in each category (General, OBC, SC, ST etc.,) within each category 30% of seats would be reserved for women, ensuring representation of women across all categories. In fact, compartmentalized horizontal reservation ensures the representation of the reserved group within each category. It also ensures fairness by providing equal opportunity to the reserved groups within each category. 23. IS Out of 1167 posts reserved for Home Guards in Civil and APSP, at the hearing it was brought to the Court’s notice that only 150 or 160 candidates are qualified in Preliminary Written Test based upon the qualifying marks prescribed. This court presumes that the substitution of Rule 3 C by incorporating the words horizontally compartmentalized is a result of the order in O.As batch. The Tribunal directed the authorities to prepare a separate inter-se seniority among Home Guards. To meet such a contingency, the legislature thought it fit to amend the Rule and accordingly amended the Rule. Having amended the Rule, the authorities should have prepared a separate 24. Page 22 of 31 inter-se merit list among the Home Guards it being a special category. In all fairness, the 2"^^ respondent should have prepared a separate merit list for Home Guards keeping in view the ratio in aforementioned orders. It is apt to extract the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. K.M. Shankarappa/, which reads thus. 25. “7. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Government has chosen to establish the powers, inter alia, to decide the effect of the film counsel. The a quasi-judicial body which has been given on the public. Once a quasi- judicial body like the Appellate Tribunal, consisting of a retired Judge of a High Court or a person qualified to be a Judge of a High Court and other experts in the so far as the executive to review exercise of field, gives its decision that decision would be final and binding executive and the Government is concerned. To permit the and/or revise that decision would amount to interference with the judicial functions by a quasi-judicial Board. It would amount to subjecting the decision of a quasi-judicial body to the scrutiny of the executive. Under our Constitution the position is reverse. The executive has to obey judicial orders. Thus, Section 6(1) is a travesty of the rule of law which is one of the basic structures of the Constitution. The legislature may, in certain cases, overrule or nullify a judicial or executive decision by enacting an appropriate legislation. However, without enacting an appropriate legislation, the executive or the cannot sit in an legislature cannot set at naught a judicial order. The executive appeal or review or revise a judicial order. The Appellate Tribunal consisting of experts decides matters quasi-judicially. A Secretary and/or Minister appeal or revision over those decisions. At the highest, the Government apply to the Tribunal itself for a review, if circumstances so warrant. But the Government would be bound by the ultimate decision of the Tribunal.” cannot sit in may 26. In the case at hand, in the notification the cut-off marks for the Home Guards category are not prescribed. The petitioners having noticed proceeded ^2001) 1 see 582 with the examination, without challenging the notification, whether participation in the process would amount to acquiescence? 27. Learned Advocate General would contend that having participated and was unsuccessful in the selection process, the petitioner cannot turn around and complain about the infringement, if any. placed reliance upon the judgments in State of U.P. Vs. Karunesh Kumar'. Learned Advocate General 28. The Apex Court held that a candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted under the 2015 Rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning thereafter. For the same proposition, Sadanda Halo Vs. Mompadz All Sheik‘, was also relied upon, wherein the Apex Court held that it is a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. 29. 30. Learned Advocate General would also submit that the remained unfilled in any of the special categories for want of eligible candidates shall be added to the vacancies to be filled by the direct recruitment and thus, the rules of the game now cannot be changed by relaxing the Rules and relied upon Anupal Singh Vs State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and others’. In Para-56 of the Judgment, the Apex Court observed as follows: vacancies Unfilled vacancies of horizontal reservation filled by candidates of vertical reservation 62. The contention of the private respondents is that as per the statutory requirement, the horizontal reserved vacancies were unfilled and those unfilled vacancies of horizontal category were filled by vertical reservation 'air 2023 SC 52 ^(2008) 4 see 619 ’(2020) 2 sec 173 candidates/other category candidates, which is in violation of the statutory provisions vitiating the selection process. On behalf of the U.P. Public Service Commission, Mr Shrish Kumar Misra, learned counsel has furnished the details as to the number of vacancies reserved for horizontal category and the number of candidates found suitable and placed in the respective categories. The said details are as under: of selected No. of vacancies No. Category candidates 156 1325 Women of 132 45 Dependents Freedom Fighters NIL Ex-Servicemen 330 84 Partially blind 84 57 Partially deaf One-arm 84 42 42 42 42 One-leg On behalf of the U.P. Public Service Commission, it was submitted that one of the policies of the State Government regarding horizontal reservation is that, if the suitable candidates for filling the vacancies reserved for such posts of horizontal reservation are not available and the same are not carried forward; they are filled up by other suitable candidates from amongst the candidates belonging to vertically reserved categories according to their merit. It was submitted that unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies were thus filled up by suitable candidates of respective vertical categories according to their merit which is as per the policy of the Government. The Fligh Court was not right in finding fault with the filling up of vacancies reserved for horizontal reservation with other candidates of respective vertical reservation.” However, in the above judgment if a suitable candidate for filling up the vacancy reserved for such post of horizontal reservation, is not available, the same will not be carried forward and the same will be filled up by another suitable candidate amongst the candidates belonging to vertically reserved categories according to their merit. 31. In the case at hand, in the absence of any suitable candidate in a special category, it will be filled up by direct recruitment as per notification. As 32. Page 25 of 31 discussed supra, out of 1167 posts reserved for special category, only 110 or 120 candidates from Home Guards are qualified in Preliminary Written Test, hand and taking away their right on the other Thus, by creating a right on one hand, the Government has taken a calculated risk. In Rajesh Kumar Varma Vs. State of M.P.^ the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the relaxation of minimum qualifying marks for the persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories, when the posts reserved were not filled up and observed as follows; 33. “6. The question at issue in the present case in our opinion is concluded by three decisions of this Court, viz., (1) Stale of M.P y.Kuman Nivedila Ja/n[(1981) 4 SCC 296 ; (1982) 1 SCR 759) , (2) Aartt Gupta v. State of ' 1988 SCC (L&S) 322 (1988) 2 SCR 244] and of U.P. [1993 Supp (2) SCC 64 : AIR 1993 SC 975] [(1981) 4 SCC 296 (1982) 1 SCR 759] the factual situation was more or less similar. In that case Punjab[(^9SS) 1 SCC 258 (3) Ombir Singh v. State In Nivedita case 9400 candidates sought admission to the Medical Colleges for the academic year 1980-81. Out of these, 623 candidates belonged to the Scheduled Castes and 145 belonged to the Scheduled Tribes. On the result of the pre-medical examination, only 18 seats in the category of Scheduled Castes and 2 seats in the category of Scheduled Tribes could be filled these categories having failed to secure the minimum exercise of up; others belonging to marks prescribed by Rule 20. The Selection Board, in relaxation of 5 per cent, whereupon 7 qualifying power under note (I) to that rule, gave candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, one secured admission, still leaving a balance of more candidate more belonging to the Scheduled Tribes 83 seats under SC quota and 9. But the State Government removed the condition relating to minimum qualifying marks in favour of candidates from SC/ST categories. Those belonging to the general category who qualifying marks but had failed to secure admission challenged the Government order inter alia on the grounds that it contravened 105 seats under ST quota to be filled as per Rule intervened and by its order dated 9-9-1980 had secured the minimum 1995 (2) SCC 129 Regulation 2 o, the Medical Council of India and was therefore, hit by Section 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 thereby exposing the Medical Colleges to the risk of being de-recognised and that the oi'der of the Government lowered the standard of education, in that, less qualified and less deserving fill up the vacancies thereby violating the the Constitution and that candidates would equality clause in Articles 14 and 15 of even otherwise the order contravened Ordinance the University of Jabalpur, Repelling of these 94 of contentions this Court held that the completely relaxing the condition executive order of 9-9-1980 relating to minimum qualifying marks for entry into Medical Colleges in ,he State with respect to SC/ST candidates did net vioiate either Articie 14 or Article 15 of the Constitution, That is because of the since the relaxation could not be said to be unreasonable, constitutional philosophy for the upliftment people belonging to the SC/ST/OBC of the category. It was pointed out that in the contrary it was open to the State Government relax the rule prescribing the minimum qualifying marks to interests of these category of students absence of any law to the to ensure that the was protected and they received was necessary for their upliftment State protection to the extent it 7. In the case of Aarti Gupta [{1988) (1988) 2 SCR 244] 100 admission to the MBBS/BDS preserved by its Regulaticn 2 a minimum of 40 per cent marks for admission eligibility. Government of Punjab lowered the 1 see 258 1988 SCC (L&S) 322 : seats were reserved for the SC/ST candidates for courses for whom the Indian Medical Council had percentage of pass marks to 35 per cent as against the minimum of 50 On the basis of the selection per cent for the general category candidates. ^®st, only 32 candidates qualified for admission under the reserved category. Ordinarily, the remaining seats would have reverted to the general category but the State Government mte^ened by an order dated 48-7-1987 whereby the minimum qualifying marks for SC/ST lowered to 25 per cent. This order of the candidates was State Government was put in issue in a writ petition filed by Aarti Gupta [(1988) 1 SCC 258 (1988) 2 SCR 244]. This Court reiterated that Council was merely recommendatory in nature In taking this view reliance was placed on the decision in Nivedita Jain case [(1981) 4 SCC 296 ; 1988 SCC (L&S) 322 Regulation 2 of the Indian Medical ; (1982) 1 SCR 759] While upholding the order of the State Government this Court observed under: as The standard of medical profession should not be compromised in the national interest. There has been a perceptible fall in the national standards and general efficiency of the professional men. While it is not necessary for us to say anything against reservation, we approve of the concern shown by the Indian Medical Council that high standards of efficiency should be maintained, and that can only be possible if the State and the Council cooperate to maintain a high standard. This aspect should be kept in view when the guidelines are prescribed for the selection of the students for the medical courses.” 8. In Ombir Singh case [1993 Supp (2) SCC 64 ; AIR 1993 SC 975] the question was concerning admission to post-graduate medical course, wherein also it was conceded that it is open to the State Government to relax the requirement of minimum marks and the Court cannot issue a mandamus or direction against it to the State Government.” In State of Orissa Vs. Mohammad Yunus’, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the posts reserved for ex-service men and fixing eligibility of securing minimum marks observed as follows; 34. The fixation of the general standard marks prescribed for the general candidates would undoubtedly be a handicap to the ex-service personnel who are made to compete with youngsters after several years of service put in the defence service. The State Government and the Public Service Commission are directed to consider the desirability to fix a lesser standard than that of the general candidates as ex- servicemen have served the nation in its defence and in the process they may not come on a par with the general candidates. Therefore, some relaxation in their behalf would be necessary to meet the exigencies of coping up with the reservation given to them. Otherwise, reservation would be illusory.” 35. In the recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 10434-10438 of 2024 dated 04.09.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered whether an individual who ’ 1994 Supp 2 SCC 55 applied against the quota reserved for ex-servicemen is entitled to the benefit of relaxation in qualifying marks in the main examination available to candidates to belonged to SC/ST and other reserved categories. The Apex Court answered the question negatively and held that there was no right vested in an applicant to claim relaxation in qualifying marks on par with the candidates who have applied against reserved categories. Thus, considering the various expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that mere participation in the preliminary written test will not amount to acquiescence, in the facts of these cases. 36. The petitioners are not asking the 2"^ respondent to relax the marks. The petitioners being a special category, in view of the order in O.A.No.7802 of 2012 and Batch dated 24.01.2013 and confirmed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.19566 of 2013 and batch dated 02.03.2023 are canvassing to prepare a separate inter se seniority merit list among themselves and thereafter apply compartmentalized horizontal reservation. 37. Given the discussion supra, substitution of Rule 3 (C) by G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 15.07.2016 will not create any restrictions on the 2"^ respondent to prepare a separate inter se seniority merit list among the special categories, respondent thoughtfully applied the compartmentalized horizontal reservation to the special representation i.e. special category. By doing so, the reservation will not exceed 50%. 38. nd The 2 Concerning the local candidate issue, the learned Advocate General would fairly concede that the ratio of Division Bench judgment of the composite High Court in W.P.No.21715 of 2017 and batch dated 15.11.2017 would squarely apply to the facts of this case. 39. Page 29 of 31 40. In W.P.No.21715of2017and batch the notification issued by State Police f Police Constable (Civil), Police Constable dated 15.11.2017, in pursuance of Recruitment Board for recruitment of (Armed Reserve), Warders (Male) .n Prisons and Warders (Female) in Prisons, some of the applicants filed the wnt petitions aggrieved by the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, when the APAT directed the Board to consider their cases under General category and not extending the benefit under the special category for Home Guards. The Division Bench of the composite High Court held thus; 15. On facts, there is no dispute about the fact that the from the composite State of Andhra Pradesh writ petitioners hailed and were enrolled as Home Guards in the composite Slate of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners have pleaded in both rounds of litigation that they hailed from the Districts which now form part of the petitioners claim to be the natives of State of Andhra Pradesh. In other words the the State of Andhra Pradesh, appointed as Home Guards in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, and who continued as Home Guards in the Districts which now form part of the State of Telangana after bifurcation on 02.06.2014. 16. In the light of the above cicircumstances, it has to be seen whether the petitioners fulfill the eligibility criteria for being considered reserved for Home Guards. For finding refer to (1) the amended Presidential under the special quota an answer to this question, we have to Order; and (2) paragraph-20 of the Order will throw light upon who notification will throw light upon the - special reservation. notification. While the amended Presidential qualifies as a local candidate, the recruitment conditions to be fulfilled for claiming the benefit of 17. We have already extracted the definition candidate” under the Presidential Order and of the expression “local we have also extracted the newly inserted sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph-7 of the Presidential Order. There is no dispute on facts that the petitioners herein satisfy the definition of the expression ■local candidate-, within the meaning of the expression, by virtue of their study Therefore, we take it that no controversy has been particularly raised by the respondents with respect to the eligibility of the candidates. petitioners to be treated as local What is focused by the respondents is only paragraph-20 (B)(iii) of the recruitment notification. We have already extracted the above paragraph. The on the date of notification, have 18. above paragraph stipulates that persons who, as been on duty as Home Guards in the State of Andhra Pradesh for a minimum duration of 360 days, within a period of two years, and who are still continuing their service as Home Guards, come under this category. As we have pointed out earlier, paragraph-20 (B) (iii) does not use the words “within a period of two years the date of notification”. Today, the respondents want to immediately preceding read something more into paragraph-20 (B) (iii) to deprive the petitioners of the benefit of this special reservation In view of the above we are of the considered view that the petitioners well as the conditions prescribed by the of the recruitment notification, dated 22.07.2016 and their 21. satisfy the criteria of local candidates as paragraph-20 (B) (iii) deserve to be considered under special reservation. cases who satisfied the ratio in W.P.No.21715 of 2017 and batch dated 15.11.2017, are to be treated as local candidates. Given the discussion supra, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions: a) The 2"'^ respondent shall prepare a separate inter-se merit list in respect of Home Guards being a special category. 41. Thus, those petitioners 42. b) Amendment to Rule 3 (C) of A.P. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, by G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 15.07.2016, will not come in the way of the 2"“ respondent in preparing a separate inter-se merit list among the Home Guards. c) After preparation of the compartmentalized horizontal per the notification. said list, the 2'"'' respondent shall apply reservation in respect of each category as d) Regarding the local candidate issue, the 2"'> respondent shall follow the ratio in W.P.No.21715 of 2017 and batch dated 15.11.2017. e) The 2""' respondent shall complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the of the order. copy f) The petitioners in the above writ petitions shall right because of interim directions Those interim directions or protections are granted enabling the petitioners to participate in the 2"- level examination only, of subject to the preparation of a separate inter-se merit list. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions not claim any vested granted pending the writ petitions. course if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD