1 *HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI +WRIT PETITION No.26347 of 2023 Between: #Guntupalli H G K Murthy ...PETITIONER AND $The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 10.04.2025 THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? - Yes - 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals - Yes - 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? - Yes - ___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 2 * THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO +WRIT PETITION No.26347 of 2023 % 10.04.2025 # Between: #Guntupalli H G K Murthy ...PETITIONER AND $The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary ! Counsel for Respondents: G.P for Services-I Sri G. Seena Kumar, Standing Counsel <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2019) 20 SCC 17 3 APHC010511282023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26347/2023 Between: Guntupalli H G K Murthy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….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 trying to consider the candidature of the petitioner as per clause X of G.O.Ms.No.74 YAT&C (Sports) Department dated 09.08.2012 for recruitment to Group I Services Notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentially: (1)direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner without reference to clause X of G.O.Ms.No.74 YAT&C (Sports) Department dated 4 09.08.2012 for recruitment to Group I Services Notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018; or in the alternative (2)to consider the candidature of the petitioner by implementing Memo No.SAAP(MISC)/133/Sps.,&YS/2022 dated 13.06.2022 issued by the Government and Memo No.536/GROUP-I/2018, dated 28.05.2022 issued by the 2ndrespondent and to pass orders...… 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Engineering (Mechanical) graduate from R.V.R & J.C. Engineering College, Guntur and when the notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018 was released by the APPSC for Group-1 services, to fill up 125 fresh vacancies and 44 carried forward vacancies, he applied for the same. He appeared in the exam and qualified in it and he is among the 48 candidates who were shortlisted under Sports Quota for verification of eligibility and priority (Register No.270708340). In the tentative priority list, his name was included at serial No.11 as he was given priority of 87 under Annexure II of G.O.Ms.No.74, instead of priority of 27. It is further stated that ever since he was in school, he had great interest in sports and accordingly, he participated in several competitions, especially in Basketball. More particularly, he participated in A.P.Inter District Basketball Championship in 2010, got selected and subsequently participated in National Basketball Championship in 2011. As per (Guideline) item No.X of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, participation at higher level would be considered only when it is supported by winning medals at the lower level. Therefore, participation in National Championship – National Games – Inter State – Inter Zonal – Open Nationals for Seniors – Federation Cup will have priority 27 and if no medal is won in corresponding Inter – District Championship, the 5 candidate will be considered for participation in State/Inter District Championship for seniors which has priority 87. As the said condition was unfair for persons playing in team events, several representations were submitted by several individuals as well as several associations seeking amendment of the Rule. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.8747 of 2020 before this Court seeking for a direction to consider his case under Group-II (Sports quota) without referring to guideline No.X. While the matter stood thus, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.8 YAT&C(Sports) Department, dated 23.11.2020, which amended item No.X of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.74. The amendment read as: “participation at a higher level shall be considered only when it is supported by winning medals at the lower level for individual events only. For team games, participation at a higher level shall be considered at least when it is supported by participation (not winning medal) at a lower level”. Therefore, participation in the lower level is now sufficient for the purpose of considering the participation at the higher level. Winning in the lower level is no more mandatory for consideration of participation at the higher level for team events.It is further stated that this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.8747 of 2020 finally directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with amended guidelines within a period of four weeks from the date of copy of that order and further held that this order is restricted only in the case of the petitioner alone and accordingly, the 2nd respondent has issued a selection notification dated 09.09.2022, in which, the 6 petitioner was selected for the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The petitioner qualified in Group-I exam, but the respondents have not given effect to G.O.Ms.No.8 during the recruitment process. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. This Court, vide order dated 07.10.2023, has granted interim as under : “…. In view of the reasons stated above, there shall be an interim direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per the Memo No.SAAP(MISC)/133/SPs.,&YS/2022, dated 13.06.2022…..” 4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 1strespondent. While denying the allegations made in the writ petition, inter alia, stated that,as per (Guideline) ItemNo.X of G.O.Ms.No.74, YAT&C (Sports) Department, dated 9.8.2012, participation at higher level would be considered only when it is support by winning medals at the lower level and that the Government have amended the Item No.X of said G.O., stating that “participation at a higher level shall be considered only when it is supported by winning medals at the lower level for individual events only. For team games, participation at a higher level shall be considered at least when it is supported by participation (not winning medal) at a lower level”. However, direct selection trials shall to be considered as a backup for both individual and team events. And released G.O.Ms.No.8, YAT&C (Sports) Department, dated 23.11.2020 which is prospective and not applicable for the said Group-I post notified in the year 2018 by APPSC. ”. As per the above said High Court orders, the Government 7 Level Committee after careful examination has stated that “in this case as Hon’ble High Court has left vacancy reserved, the case may be left on merits. This case shall not act as example for future case. It is further stated that Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (SAAP) after careful examination has implemented the Hon’ble High Court orders and considered all the candidates Sports certificates without Forms mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.74, YAT&C (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012. Similarly, if the Hon’ble High Court have ordered to consider the candidature without reference to clause (X) of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.212 it could be considered as the Government itself amended clause (X) exempting team event from its ambit by issuing G.O.Ms.No.8, YAT&C (Sports) Department, dated 23.11.2020. Accordingly, SAAP has not considered the Government Memo No.SAAP(MISC)/100/2020, YAT&C (Sports & YS) Department, dated 01.09.2021 and the final list was prepared duly considering only G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012 but not its amendments.It is further stated that the amendment G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 23.11.2020 is not applicable to the Group-I notification issued in 2018 as the GO is not retrospective but only prospective. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition, as devoid of merits. 5. Heard Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Iappearing for the 1strespondent and Sri G.Seena Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2ndrespondent. 8 6. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, inspite of directions from the Government and the 2ndrespondent themselves, the 2nd respondent failed to implement G.O.Ms.No.8 while preparing the tentative priority list. Had the 2nd respondent implemented the same, the petitioner herein has got priority 27 instead of 87. He further submits that, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed WP No.16804 of 2022 before this Court and this Court has granted interim order directing the respondents to stay the recruitment of Two(2) posts reserved under Sports Quota and also to dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with G.O. and Memo. Learned counsel further submits that the APPSC subsequently released a web note calling the shortlisted candidates in the ratio of 1:2 for certificate verification and personality test i.e., interview. In the certificate verification one candidate was disqualified on the ground of not attaining minimum age limit of 21 years as on date of notification. The other candidate was given the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He further submits that, even the petitioner made a representation to APPSC dated 11.9.2023 to consider his case, the respondents have not considered the case where certain irregularities found in the sports certificates of a selected candidate. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also filed Memo along with additional material papers which includes APPSC Notification for cancellation of provisional selection of KumDhanurbhaDasyam, G.O.Ms.No.94 Home (Services-I) Department, dated 9.8.2024 issued rolling back the candidature of 9 KumDhanurbhaDasyam; Enquiry report on ingenuineness of certificates of KumDhanurbhaDasyam and also recommendations of SAAP leading to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.8 YAT&C (Sports) Department dated 23.11.2020.Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent opposed for grant of any relief in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the contents made in the counter, argued that, the SAAP after careful examination has implemented the Hon’ble High Court orders and considered all the candidates Sports Certificates without Forms mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 9.8.2012. Similarly if the Hon’ble High Court have ordered to consider the candidate without reference to Clause(X) of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 9.8.2012 it could be considered as the Government itself amended clause (X) exempting team event from its ambit by issuing G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 23.11.2020. Accordingly, SAAP has not considered the Government Memo dated 1.9.2021 and the Final list was prepared duly considering only G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 9.8.2012 but not its amendments. Learned Standing counsel further submits that the Government has issued Memo No.YTC01-SPRTOSAAP (MISC)/57/2023, dated 18.03.2023 to SAAP and requested to examine the plea raised by one Dr.A.Bhaskar Naidu i.e., 10 entry form of D.Dhanurbha and submit report to the Government for taking further necessary action in the matter. Accordingly, SAAP has addressed letters to the Cycling Federation of India and Andhra Pradesh Cycling Association with a request to submit detailed report to that office for onward submission to Government and the reply is still awaited till date to take further necessary action. He further submits that the National Basketball certificate without medal in State certificate submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered as per G.O.Ms.No.74, YAT&C (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012 for the recruitment of Group-I post. The amendment G.O.Ms.No.8, YAT&C (Sports) Department, dated 23.11.2020 is not applicable to the Group-I notification issued in 2018 as the G.O. is not retrospective but only prospective. Therefore, learned Standing counsel prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 10. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 2ndrespondent APPSC has issued a notification No.27 of 2018 dated 31.12.2018for Group-I services, to fill up 125 fresh vacancies and 44 carried forward vacancies, the petitioner has applied for the same. Further, the petitioner appeared for the said exam and qualified in it and the petitioner herein is among the 48 candidates who were shortlisted under Sports Quota for verification of eligibility and priority. It is further observed that, in the Tentative Priority List, the petitioner’s name was included at Sl.No.11 as he was given priority of 87 under Annexure-II of G.O.Ms.No.74 instead of priority 27. 11 11. As seen from G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 9.8.2012, wherein at item No.X, it was mentioned that : “X. Participation at higher level shall be considered only when it is supported by winning medals at the lower level.” 12. As stated by petitioner’s counsel that, in view of the above guideline, the petitioner was given priority of 87 instead of priority of 27. 13. Thereafter, in pursuance of the orders of this Court passed in WP No.8747 of 2020 the 2nd respondent has issued a selection notification dated 9.9.2022 in which the petitioner was selected for the post of Deputy Tahsildar. It is further observed that, though the petitioner qualified in Group-I exam, the respondents have not given effect to G.O.Ms.No.8 during the recruitment process and that the intention of the 2nd respondent was that allthe amendments to G.O.Ms.No.74 were to be given effect to, while considering and scrutinizing the certificates of the qualified candidates. Accordingly, the petitioner has made an application/representation dated 9.6.2022 requesting to implement the G.O.Ms.No.8 during recruitment for all Sports Quota candidates. In turn, the Government issued Memo No.SAAP(MISC)/133/Sps. & YS/2022, dated 13.06.2022. 14. As seen from the Memo No.SAAP(MISC)/133/Sps. & YS/2022, dated 13.06.2022, wherein it is observed that: 12 Copies of the references cited are sent herewith to the Vice Chairman and Managing Director Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (SAAP) and he is directed to implement all the amendments of G.O.Ms. No.74 YAT&C Dept., Dt: 09-08-2012 till date including G.O.Ms.No.8, YAT&C (Sps. & YS) Dept., Dt:23-11-2020 to Group 1 services notification (27/2018) as per the directions of APPSC along with the orders of Hon'ble High Court of AP in WP 11057 of 2021. 2. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh shall take necessary action accordingly. 15. On a reading of the above, it is observed that the Government has directed SAAP to implement all the amendments of G.O.Ms.No.74 till date including G.O.Ms.No.8 to Group-I Services notification No.27/2018 as per the directions of APPSC along with the orders of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in WP No.11057 of 2021. Therefore, non-implementation of the amended G.O. on the ground of retrospectivity also does not arise in this case. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs State of Bihar & Ors.1, wherein it was held that : It is well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging the selection process after having failed in it as iterated by this Court in a plethora of judgements including Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar4, observing as follows: “16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the appellant is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the appellant's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The appellant invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the appellant clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.”5 The underlying objective of this principle is to prevent candidates from trying another shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse wherein every disgruntled candidate, having failed the selection, challenges it in the 4 (2010) 12 SCC 576 5 See also: Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC], MarripatiNagaraja v. State of A.P.[(2007) 11 SCC 522], Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [(2008) 4 SCC 171] and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [(2009) 5 SCC 515] Page | 11 hope of getting a second chance. 18. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its 1(2019) 20 SCC 17 13 violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process. 17. In the present case, the SAAP vide its letter addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government (SAAP/Associations/G.O.Ms.No.74/2020, dated 8.6.2020) stated that “Point No.(x) in page 2 of G.O.Ms.no.74 dated 9.8.2012 states that “Participation at higher level shall be considered only when it is supported by winning medals at lower level.” 18. It is the contention of the petitioner that, as a result of the above guidelines, most of the athletes who are participating/winning at higher level are losing their opportunity under Sports Quota as they are being selected for higher level competitions based on the performance and not on winning medals at lower level competitions. Also, most of the universities and sports associations are not conducting lower level competitions and directly selecting the teams through selection trails to participate in Inter university events and National events. 19. This Court further observed that, as per call letter for verification for original certificates of the petitioner vide Memo No.536/GROUP-I/2016 dated 28.5.2022, wherein at condition No.2, reads as under: II. Sports certificate issued by the Secretary, National Federation/ National Associations/State Association/ Inter University Board/ Certificate issued by DEO as per G.O.Ms.No.74 YAT&C Department, dated 9.8.2012 an its amendments from time to time. 14 20. As stated by petitioner’s counsel that the entry Form shows that the selected candidate has given entry only in Under-13 and Under-15 age categories in the inter-district tournaments which shall not be considered as backup for senior level participation at national level. If the entry form submitted by MrA.Bhaskar Naidu is found to be correct and that the priority list is going to be revised, in the event of such revision, the petitioner will be the very next candidate in the list for selection, if he is given priority of 27 instead of 87. 21. Furthermore, on a perusal of the Memo filed by the petitioner, which shows that, during pendency of the writ petition, the provisional selection of one KumDhanurbhaDasyam was rolled back and consequently, the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-II reserved for meritorious sportspersons under Group-I Recruitment Notification No.27/2018 become vacant. 22. As seen from the G.O.Ms.No.94 Home (Services-I) Department, dated 9.8.2024, wherein it is observed that: “5. Government have examined the entire matter in detailed as per the available records furnished by the Director General of Police, A.P., Mangalagiri vide letter 3rd read above and also recommendations of the A.P.Public Service Commission vide letter 2nd read above and decided to accept the recommendation of the A.P. Public Service Commission to roll back the candidature of Kum. DhanurbaDasyam, D/o D.Madhusudhan Rao, from the selection of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-II in A.P. Police Service under Meritorious Sports person category, as she is not eligible to the said post. 6. Accordingly, Government hereby roll back the candidature of Kum. DhanurbaDasyam, D/o D.Madhusudhan Rao, from the selection of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-II in A.P.Police Service under Meritorious Sports person category, as she is not eligible to the said post.” 23. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is 15 inclined to dispose of the present writ petition while declaring action of the respondents in trying to consider the candidature of the petitioner as per clause X of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 9.8.2012, as illegal and arbitrary. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed ofwith the following directions: i) directing the respondents consider the candidature of the petitioner without reference to clause X of G.O.Ms.No.74 YAT&C (Sports) Department, dated 9.8.2012 for recruitment to Group-I services in pursuance of the Notification 27/2018 dated 31.12.2018. ii) Further, as the candidature of the KumDhanurbaDasyam was rolled back from the selection of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-II in A/.P. Police Service under Meritorious Sports person category, as she is not eligible to the said post, directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner herein in the said post in pursuant to the notification No.27/2018 (Group-I) with consequent benefit of seniority; iii) In case, no vacancy is available in the Sports Quota, the respondents are directed to create one supernumerary post. It is needless to mention here that this order is restricted only in the case of the petitioner alone. Further, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any monetary benefits. 25. The entire exercise shall be completed within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 26. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. __________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 10 -04-2025 Gvl 16 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO:26347/2023 Date :10-04-2025 Gvl