APHC010603232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 31712 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-12 [3584] Konkyana Sravan Kumar ...Petitioner Vs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 21st September 2026 Present: Advocate for Petitioner: P NAGENDRA REDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR SERVICES I, N V SUMANTH ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing the Impugned Proceedings in ROC No.247/2024-RC, dated 05.02.2025 declaring that the Petitioner is not selected to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) (25% Quota) under direct Recruitment in pursuant to the Notification in 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31712 of 2025 ROC.No.247/2024, dated 10.05.2024 and consequently not considering the Amendment to Rule 6 of the AP State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2007 issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.3, Law (L.A. & J – SC.F.), dated 28.01.2025 with retrospective effect and select the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to select the Petitioner as District Judge (Entry Level) (Open Category) under direct recruitment in pursuant to the Notification No.247/2024 dated 10.05.2024 issued by the 1st Respondent and consequential amendment to Rule 6 of the AP State Judicial (Service & Cadre) Rules, 2007 issued by the 2nd Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.3, Law (L.A. & J – SC.F), dated 28.01.2025, in the interest of justice.” 2. (a) 1st respondent issued Notification No.247/2024, dated 10.05.2024, for recruitment to seven posts of District Judge (Entry Level) under direct recruitment, in terms of Andhra Pradesh State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2007. Petitioner belongs to BC-A category, as no posts were reserved for such category, he applied under OC category, under which three posts were notified. In terms of the said notification, the scheme of examination envisages that there shall be a written examination for three subjects, namely, I) Constitutional and Civil Law, II) Criminal Law, 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31712 of 2025 and III) English (Translation and Essay Writing) Test, which will carry 100 marks each. (b) Further, for a candidate to be eligible for viva voce, he or she should secure not less than 50% of marks in each paper and not less than 60% of marks in aggregate, if they belong to OC/EWS category. Viva voce test will carry 50 marks. Only those candidates who secure at least 60% marks in aggregate in written examination and viva voce shall be eligible for selection to the post of District Judge in that particular category. The written test was conducted in the month of October, 2024 and Viva Voce was held on 13.12.2024, in which, petitioner secured following marks: Name of the paper Marks Secured I. Constitution and Civil Law 63.25 II. Criminal Law 75 III. English (Translation and Essay Writing) 55 Total secured 193.25 Aggregate 64.42 Viva Voce 13 Total 206.25 Aggregate of Written Test + Viva Voce 58.92 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31712 of 2025 (c) In the interregnum, before the merit list was published on 05.02.2025, amendment was brought into Rule 6 of the Rules, vide G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 28.01.2025, whereby, by virtue of proviso to Rule 6(e), it was envisaged that the marks secured in Paper III shall not be taken into account for eligibility for viva voce or selection, and that marks secured in Paper I, Paper II and viva voce shall alone be taken into account for selection. (d) Petitioner secured aggregate of 58.92% marks (aggregate of written examination and viva voce), falling short of the eligibility of 60%, however, it is stated that on account of amendment to Rule 6, if marks secured in Paper III are excluded, the aggregate of Paper I, Paper II and viva voce (which would be 60.5%) would make the petitioner eligible for selection. (e) Petitioner made a representation dated 10.02.2025 requesting to apply the amended rule by giving retrospective application for the purpose of considering his candidature to the post of District Judge. The request of petitioner was eventually rejected vide communication dated 24.03.2025, thus, aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is preferred. 3. (a) 1st respondent filed counter, inter alia, stating that as notification for recruitment was issued on 10.05.2024, written examination was conducted in October 2024, and viva voce was 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31712 of 2025 held on 13.12.2024, thus amendment to Rule 6 issued on 28.01.2025 would only have prospective application and definitely, the said amendment would not operate retrospectively. (b) Further, it is stated that as petitioner could not secure minimum aggregate marks of 60% in terms of notification, his candidature was not considered for selection, therefore, sought dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the amended rule, since was issued in midst of selection process, should have been made applicable and, giving benefit of the same, petitioner ought to be selected. It is further stated that as against seven vacancies notified, merely two candidates were qualified for interview and even amongst them, only one candidate was finally appointed. Therefore, considering the marks secured by petitioner and having regard to the number of unfilled vacancies, 1st respondent ought to have reduced minimum qualifying marks rather than rejecting the representation of the petitioner. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel for petitioner relies on judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31712 of 2025 1 (2015) 1 SCC 1 2 SLP(C) No.18274/2026, dated 26.05.2026 3 (1983) 3 SCC 33 4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 20 Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited1 and Ajaykumar Shyamkishor Tripathi & Ors. V. Registrar General and another2. 6. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent, while maintaining the stand as pleaded in the counter, contended that the amendment brought to Rule 6 would have only prospective application and will not apply to notifications already issued. It is further contended that any amendment to procedural law can be construed retrospectively, but not the one which affects substantive rights. The exclusion of Paper III for the purpose of arriving at aggregate marks in both written examination as well as viva voce for selecting a candidate would definitely be substantive in nature, thus, the same cannot be applied retrospectively. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in A.A.Calton v. Director of Education and another3 and Abhay Kumar Patel and others v. State of Bihar and others4. 7. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether the amendment issued to Rule 6 of the Rules would have retrospective application and whether the criteria of minimum 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31712 of 2025 marks specified in notification dated 10.05.2024 issued prior to the amendment would continue to apply for selection of subject posts. 8. 1st respondent issued notification for recruitment to the post of District Judges on 10.05.2024. The said notification set out the qualifications, reservation and the scheme of examination a candidate to possess and undergo. Clause IV(b) dealing with written examination reads as under: “IV (b): Written Examination consist of the following three (3) papers. Each paper will carry 100 marks. The duration of each paper is three (3) hours. The question/s in the examination shall be answered only in English (except Translation) I) Constitution and Civil Law II) Criminal Law III) English (Translation and Essay writing). Translation test has to be made from English to Telugu and Telugu to English. The Translation test is conducted for 25 marks and Essay Writing test for 75 marks on Legal Subjects.” 9. Minimum marks criteria specified under Clauses 5, 6, and 8, read as under: “V. MINIMUM MARKS TO BE SECURED IN THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR VIVA VOCE: 8 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31712 of 2025 The candidates who are eligible and claim under OC/Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category must secure not less than 55% of marks in each paper and not less than 60% of marks in aggregate in the written examination. VI. VIVA VOCE: The Viva Voce test will carry fifty (50) marks. Any candidate who remain absent for the Viva Voce will be deemed to have been disqualified for the selection. VIII. MINIMUM AGGREGATE MARKS TO BE SECURED IN THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND VIVA VOCE FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF DISTRICT JUDGE. For the selection to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) under Direct Recruitment, the candidate claims under OC/EWS category must secure at least 60% marks in aggregate in the Written Examination and Viva Voce, the candidate of BC category and intend to avail reservation under B.C. category must secure at least 55% marks in aggregate in the written examination and Viva-Voce (in view of orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos. 7965 of 2019 and another), and the candidate of SC/ST category and intend to avail reservation under SC/ST must secure at least 50% marks in aggregate in written examination and Viva Voce. The candidates who secure less than the above such percentage of marks will be ineligible for selection to the post.” 10. The amended Rule 6, which was issued on 28.01.2025, reads as under: 9 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31712 of 2025 “Provided that the candidates shall secure 40% of marks in Paper-III English (Translation and Essay writing test) and the marks secured in Paper-III shall not be taken into account for eligibility for viva voce or selection. The marks secured in Paper-I, Paper-ll and viva voce shall be taken into account for selection." 11. The law regarding the sanctity of recruitment process and changes in eligibility criteria and procedure after initiation of the recruitment process is well-settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a series of judgments, held that "rules of game", meaning thereby, i.e., criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities in middle or after process of selection has commenced. 12. Recently, in Abhay Kumar Patel and Others4, while reviewing the law on the aforesaid aspect, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “34. In the present case, the "game" had not only commenced but was at its fag end. The written examinations were held in March 2022. The results were declared in June/July 2022. The candidates were called for document verification. At this stage, the selection process had proceeded significantly, and would have concluded with the filling up of vacancies. 35. The issuance of the 2022 Amendment Rules, introducing Rule 8(5) with retrospective effect from 06.03.2019, attempts to rewrite the rules of the game which has already begun. 10 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31712 of 2025 By reducing the weightage of the written examination to 75 marks and introducing 25 marks for contractual experience, the State has fundamentally altered the basis of selection and changed the 'eligibility criteria for being placed in the merit list' which is not permissible. 36. While the State undoubtedly has the power to amend rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, this power is not unbridled. The power of retrospective legislation cannot be exercised to take away vested rights or to arbitrarily disrupt a selection process that has already resulted in the identification of successful candidates by publication of a provisional merit list.” 13. Learned counsel for petitioner sought to place reliance on the judgment in Vatika Township Private Limited1, even in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court, dealing with legislation conferring benefit on some persons without inflicting corresponding detriment to some other person, in said context, held that procedural provisions would have to be treated as applying retrospectively. In the present case, change of criteria of marks would definitely not be procedural in nature, but rather is substantive. There could be other candidates who also might benefit in case rule was to be applied retrospectively. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that above judgment sought to be relied has no application. Insofar as the 11 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31712 of 2025 judgment in Ajay Kumar Shyam Kishore Tripathi2 is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, being conscious of the fact that a substantial part of vacancies remain unfilled, that in all only 13 candidates against 42 vacancies were filled, cases of petitioners therein were directed to be considered sympathetically by High Court having regard to vacancies available and unfilled, which ultimately was left to the discretion of the High Court therein, which, in our respectful view, cannot be applied to the facts in the present case. 14. Thus, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS