APHC010676392022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NOS: 40149 & 35167 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO: 40149 OF 2022 Between: 1. G PUSHPAVATHI, D/O. GAJULA RAMANJINEYULU, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1/377, OC COLONY, KURAKULAPALLI VILLAGE, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522 237. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE YOUTH ADVANCEMENT, TOURISM AND CULTURE, 2ND BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522 237. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH - 521 456 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANSET/DISTRICT SPORTS AUTHORITY, ZILLA PARISHAD, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPURAMU 2 DISTRICT. 7. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 8. THE HEAD MASTER, ZPHS, PULAKUNTA VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 9. SRI EDIGA MAHESH, S/O. LATE E. RAMANJINEYULU, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.10-169, RODDAM MAIN BAZAR, RODDAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU 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 topleased to issue a direction or order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned proceedings vide RC No 8057/DSC-2018/A2-2/2019 dated 21.10.2022 issued by the 5th respondent/The District Educational Officer appointing the 9th Respondent in the post of Physical Education Teacher (Telugu) against the post of School Assistant (Physical Education) at ZPHS, Pulakunta (V), Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapur Dist., A.P., keeping the Petitioners posting orders vide Rc.No.8057/DSC-2018/A2-1/2019 dated 14.10.2022 as PET in DSC-2018 under sports quota in abeyance through R.No.8057/DSC-2018/A2-2/2019 dt. 18.10.2022 without giving any prior notice and without considering the guidelines for selection process for DSC vide G.O.Ms.No.91, School Education (PE.Ser.ll) Department dated 03.11.2012 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against principles of natural Justice, unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same and consequentially direct the respondents a)to reinstatement the Petitioner in the post of Physical Education Teacher (Telugu) School Assistant at ZPHS, Pulakunta (V), Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapur District, A.P. b)to pay the salary from the date of the Petitioner appointment and regularize her services from the date of her appointment i.e. on 14.10.2018 in the interest of justice and to pass such order and further orders as this Honbe Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 19.02.2026 vide IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.40149 of 2022 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings vide RC.No.8057/DSC-2018/ A2¬2/2019, dated 21.10.2022 issued by the 5th respondent/The District Educational Officer appointing the 9th Respondent in the post of Physical Education Teacher (Telugu) against the post of School Assistant (Physical 3 Education) at ZPHS, Pulakunta (V), Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapur Dist., A.P. and reinstate the petitioner herein in the same pending disposal of the main writ petition and to pass IA 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 may be pleased to declare the impugned proceedings vide Rc. No. 8057/DSC-2018-A2-1/2019 dated 21.10.2022 and the proceedings in Rc. No. 8057/DSC-2018-A2-2/2019 issued by the 5*^ Respondent and thereby appointing the 9"^ Respondent in the post of PET against the post of School Assistant (Physical Education) of ZPHS Pulakunta (V), Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapur Dist., A.P., by cancelling the petitioner's appointment as PET under sports quota, contrary to the Annexure-1 to the G.O.Ms. No. 91, School Education (PE Services-ll) Department, dated 03.11.2012, as high handed, arbitrary, illegal, malafide violation of principles of Natural Justice contrary to the settled principles of law by setting aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioner's appointment andposting order vide 8057/DSC-2018-A2-1/2019 dated 14.10.2022 and continue the petitioner in the post of PET against the post of School Assistant (Physical Education) of ZPHS Pulakunta (V), Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapur Dist., A.P., with all consequential benefits attached to the said post i.e., arrears of salary, Seniority etc., in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to amend the prayer in W.P.No.40149 of 2022 by replacing the following prayer in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, otherwise the petitioner will be put to much hardship and irreparable loss. “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a direction or order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned proceedings vide RC No 8057/DSC-2018/A2-2/2019 dated 21.10.2022 issued by the respondent/The District Educational Officer appointing the 9^'^ Respondent in the post of Physical Education Teacher (Telugu) against the post of School Assistant (Physical Education) at ZPHS, Pulakunta (V), Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapur Dist., A.P.. keeping the Petitioner’s posting orders vide Rc.No.8057/DSC-2018/A2-1/2019 dated 14.10.2022 as PET in DSC-2018 under 5th sports quota in abeyance through R.No,8057/DSC-2018/A2- 2/2019 dt. 18.10.2022 without giving any prior notice and without considering the guidelines for selection process for DSC vide G.O.Ms.No.91, School Education (PE.Ser.ll) Department dated 03.11.2012 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against naturalof justice,principles unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same and consequentially direct the respondents (a) to 4 reinstatement the Petitioner in the post of Physical Education Teacher (Telugu) School Assistant at ZPHS, Pulakunta (V), Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapur District, A.P.: (b) to pay the salary from the date of the Petitioner appointment and regularize her services from the date of her appointment i.e. on 14.10.2018 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 3 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 may be pleased to grant me leave to file my reply affidavit in W.P. No. 40149 of 2022, and to pass WRIT PETITION NO: 35167 OF 2022 Between: 1. G PUSHPAVATHI, D/O. GAJULA RAMANJANEYULU, AGED 31 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.1/377, OC COLONY, KURAKULAPALLI VILLAGE,KAMBADUR MANDAL ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - - 522 237. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, YOUTH ADVANCEMENT, TOURISM AND CULTURE, 2ND BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - - 522 237. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH - 521 456 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANSET/DISTRICT SPORTS AUTHORITY, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 7. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, GUMMAGATTA 5 MANDAL,ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 8. THE HEAD MASTER, PULAKUNTA VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 9. E MAHESH, S/O. LATE E. RARNANJINEYULU, AGED 29 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.10-169, RODDAM MAIN BAZAR, RODDAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU 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 topleased to issue a direction or order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned proceedings vide RC.No.8057/DSC-2018/A2-2/2019 dated 18.10.2022 issued by the 5th Respondent/The District Educational Officer keeping the Petitioners posting orders as PET in DSC-2018 under sports quota in abeyance without giving the Petitioner any prior notice and without considering the guidelines for selection process for DSC vide G.O.Ms.No.91, School Education (PE.Ser.II) Department dated 03.11.2012 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against the principles of natural justice, unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings vide RC.No.8057/DSC- 2018/A2-2/2019 dated 18.10.2022 issued by the 5th Respondent/The District Educational Officer the Petitioner keeping in abeyance without giving me any prior notice and without considering the guidelines for selection process for DSC vide G.O.Ms.No.91, School Education (PE.Ser.II) Department dated 03.11.2012 pending disposal of the main writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to vacate the interim order dated 01.11.2022 in WP.No.35167 of 2022 and dismiss the Writ Petition with costs and pass IA 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 may be pleased to grant me leave to file my reply affidavit in W.P. No. 35167 of 2022, and to pass 6 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU The Court made the following common order: Heard Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Hanumantha Rao Bachina, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III and Sri Ganta Ediga Rakesh Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for respondent No.9. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the case as culled from the respective pleadings of the parties are: (a) The 1st respondent issued notification inviting applications for Teacher Recruitment Test and Teachers Eligibility Test - DSC, - 2018, (APESS). The petitioner is a graduate and applied for the said test for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Telugu). And was selected under sports quota for being appointed as Physical Education Teacher (Telugu), and was accordingly appointed as a School Assistant (Physical Education) at ZPHS, Pulakunta Village, Gummagutta Mandal in the time scale of PET vide proceedings dated 14.10.2022. (b) The respondent No.9 herein is a graduate in Arts and has also obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Physical Education (B.P.Ed) degree. He is a 7 champion in the sport of soft ball and has played in a national-level game. The 9th respondent belongs to the BC-B community, and the petitioner belongs to the OC category. Both the petitioner and the 9th respondent had applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher under DSC, 2018, and appeared in the written examination and physical efficiency test. (c). In the said examination, in the general merit list, the writ petitioner got 1129 rank with 15 marks, whereas the 9th respondent got 725 rank with 28.3 marks. The tentative and final priority list shows both the petitioner and the 9th respondent with equal marks/points of 25. In the said lists, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1 and at Sl.No.2, the 9th respondent, was placed. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was appointed as a PET to a School Assistant post at the ZPH School. 3. Being aggrieved by the said list, the 9th respondent submitted a representation dated 24.06.2022, contending that he would be the more meritorious person than the writ petitioner herein, given the marks in the written examination. Thus, he requested the respondents to consider his case and appoint him to the post of School Assistant (Physical Education). 4. In pursuance of the said representation, the respondents have passed the impugned proceedings, keeping the order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner in abeyance and appointing the 9th respondent as School Assistant PET. 8 5. W.P.No.35167 of 2022 is filed challenging the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, keeping the appointment orders of the petitioner in abeyance without notice to the petitioner. W.P.No.40149 of 2022 is filed challenging the proceedings of the District Educational Officer appointing the 9th respondent as PET (Telugu) against the post of School Assistant Physical Education at ZPHS Pulakunta Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Ananthapuramu District by keeping the appointment order of the petitioner in abeyance. 6. The facts of the case in both the cases are one and the same. The relief sought by the petitioner in both the writ petition is also interconnected. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the same by way of common order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, under the guidelines framed under G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 03.11.2012, for the purpose of deciding the inter-se merit of candidates with equal marks, the procedure is, that, if the date of birth is also same the candidate belonging to different gender, female candidate would be given, preference over a male candidate. Therefore in terms of the said Rule 7, the petitioner being a female candidate and having regard to the points in the sports evaluation being same to both the petitioner and unofficial respondent No.9, the respondents have taken into consideration gender of the petitioner being a female, to consider her candidacy for appointment to the post of School Assistant (PET). The impugned proceedings’ keeping the same in abeyance without issuing any notice to the 9 petitioner is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but is also contrary to the recruitment notification. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recruitment notification provides for a specific procedure and further specifies the applicable regulations to the recruitment under sports quota. 9. Having regard to the same, when the notification specifies particular procedure for selection process, the same ought to have been followed. However, the respondents placing reliance on the subsequent GO i.e., G.O.Ms.8 dated 23.11.2020, issued after issuance of recruitment notification appointed unofficial respondent No.9 as School Assistant. The said GO provides that in case of tie among candidates for the same post for sports quota recruitment, Rank at qualifying examination or test shall prevail. 10. Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said GO would not apply to the facts of the case since after issuance of the notification, after commencement of the selection process, and at the stage where the selection process was about to culminate in issuance of appointment orders, the G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 23.11.2020 was issued, which does not have any application to the present set of circumstances; it can only have a prospective effect for future appointments. 11. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Manjusree vs. State of A.P.1 1 [2008] 2 SCR 1025 10 and the decision of this Court in the case of Sanagani Revathi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2 contends that after the game has started the respondents cannot change the rule of the game such actions have been earlier found fault with Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urges that the G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 23.11.2020 is not applicable to the present case of the petitioner. 12. Sri Ganta Ediga Rakesh Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.9 argued that the respondent No.9 was considered more meritorious than the petitioner as she secured highest marks than the petitioner. While preparing the final merit list both the marks obtained in the sports evaluation and in the written examination would be considered for awarding marks and ranking which is the criteria for selection and appointment. 13. It is further argued by the learned counsel that in the tentative priority list prepared by SAAP both the petitioner & the unofficial respondent No.9 got the equal points. Whereas, in the final merit list, respondent No.9 was placed much above the petitioner. Thus, the respondents have rightly appointed respondent No.9 as School Assistant PET, since as on the date of selection of the petitioner, the relevant G.O. that would be applicable was G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 23.11.2020. 2 W.P.No.19405 of 2019 11 14. In this regard, learned counsel places reliance on G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 23.11.2020 under which existing regulation was modified, the same is as follows: Existing Guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.74 AMENDMENT (ITEM NO.IX) In the quota of two percent (2%) set apart for sports reservation for meritorious sports persons, individual events have to be given preference over team events within a priority. In the quota of two percent (2%) set apart for sports reservation for meritorious sports persons, individual events have to be given preference over team events within a priority. In the event of a tie among candidates for the same post for sports quota recruitment, Rank at qualifying examination or test shall prevail. 15. Considered the rival submissions. The issue that would arise for consideration is as to which of the Government Order(s) that would apply in the present set of circumstances. Whether it is G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 03.11.2012 or G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 23.11.2020 to the facts of the present case. 16. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the Government Order governing the grant of two percent reservation for sports persons. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.84 dated 04.05.2000 formulated a sports policy wherein orders were issued granting 2% sports reservation in future direct recruitment in the Government Sector at all levels. In pursuance thereof, vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012, certain guidelines were issued governing such appointments. As per the said guidelines, the reservation for recruitment under sports quota shall apply to all the government undertakings/grant in aid institutions and other government institutions. It specifies that the individual performance/participation in getting the medals would be the criteria for 12 deciding meritorious sports persons against 2% quota. The said guidelines inter alia, provides, particularly, Clause (iii) of the said guidelines, that one should have requisite academic and technical qualifications if any as prescribed in the rules governing the posts. Clause (iv) of the guidelines provides that candidates possessing the requisite educational qualification will have to pass the eligibility test for appointment. The said guidelines, particularly guideline No.(v) specifies that the recruiting agencies will notify the minimum pass mark for such exams under sports quota. Clause (xii) of the guidelines provide that the appointing authority shall call for applications from meritorious sports persons in prescribed formats. After receipt of the same, the recruiting agency would forward the same to the Sport Authority of Andhra Pradesh (SAAP). After scrutiny by the SAAP such as genuineness of the certificates, verification of medals, the applications would further be forwarded to committee at government level in the department of Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture. The said committee shall finalize the proposals. The committee issues eligibility certificate for appointment under sports quota. As per Clause (xiii) of the guidelines the recommendation of the Committee for issuing eligibility certificate shall be final. The eligibility certificate thus issued by the committee shall be forwarded to the recruiting agency for appointment under sports quota in various categories of posts in different departments on the basis of Merit-cum-Sports Eligibility Certificate against the notifications issued by the appointing authorities. 13 17. From the above it is discernible that in furtherance of the sports policy issued in 2000, for better implementation of the policy guidelines have been framed in 2012 vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012 carving out a specific procedure for making appointments to different categories of posts under sports quota. The said guidelines clarifies that once the Committee issues the eligibility certificate after evaluating the candidates participation in the sports discipline, the same shall be final and the same would be forwarded to the appointing authority for making appointment on the basis of merit in the said sport discipline. The only eligibility criteria is pass in the eligibility test. As per the regulation No.(v). 18. The respondent No.5 in the counter affidavit has stated that objections raised by the unofficial respondent No.9 were rejected in the first instance. Having rejected the same, the he has once again considered another representation by keeping the appointment orders issued in favour of the writ petitions in abeyance and issued appointment order in favour of the unofficial respondent No.9. 19. The recruitment notification also further specifies that for selection of meritorious sports persons guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012 should be followed. In the present case both the petitioner and unofficial respondent No.9 secured the same points/marks of 25. However, respondents have prepared a final merit list pursuant to the recruitment examination. The general merit list is prepared basing on the marks secured in the written examination, the rank thus obtained in the final general merit list 14 was taken into consideration while appointing the unofficial respondent No.9. In other words merit in the qualifying examination became the criteria which however is not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.74. 20. Clause 17 of G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 26.10.2018 provides that for selection of candidates under sports quota, guidelines specified under G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012 shall be followed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the Information Bulletin issued by the Commissioner of School Education dated 20-10-2020, for Teachers Recruitment Test (TRT) specifically provides that for selection of meritorious sports persons, guidelines as prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012 should be followed. 21. As noted from the counter affidavit of the respondents, it would reflect that basing on the objections raised by the 9th respondent, the appointment orders issued in favour of the petitioner were kept under abeyance, which the respondents lack jurisdiction as provided under the guideline No.11 and 12 of G.O.Ms.No.91 dt. 03.11.2012. Clause 12 of G.O.Ms.No.91 further provides that the list of candidates who have been given posting orders shall also be displayed on the notice board on the day of counseling. If any changes or modifications in postings are made after display of the list, the member- Secretary shall be personally held responsible and it further contemplates a serious disciplinary action against him. 15 22. Further G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 26.10.2018 where under Rules have been framed for Teacher Recruitment Test (TRT) provides that for selection of the candidates under sports quota, the guidelines as prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.72 shall be followed. Having regard to the same, the petitioner was appointed on the basis of selection process adopted for sports category under G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012. 23. The counter affidavit of the respondents does not throw any light on either the basis for keeping the proceedings issued in favour of the petitioner in abeyance, nor does it show any legal sanctity for the issuance of the appointment order in favour of the 9th respondent, in the light of clauses Nos.11 and 12 of G.O.Ms.No.91 dt. 03.11.2012. The respondent try to justify their actions by taking support from G.O.Ms.No.8 dt23-11-2020, which in my considered view is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner was neither put on notice, nor the proceedings issued in favour of the petitioner were stated to have been set aside. The tentative and final priority list approved by state level committee was communicated to the 5th respondent for appointment to the post of PET under sports quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74 Dated 09.08.2012, by rejecting the objections of the 9th respondent. Surprisingly, after appointing the petitioner as School Assistant (PET), the 5th respondent has considered the very same objection of the 9th respondent for the second time, which was earlier rejected by the State Level Committee, without having any jurisdiction, without any reasons kept the proceedings in favour of the petitioner in abeyance and issued appointment 16 orders in favour of the 9th respondent. Taking shelter under G.O.Ms.No.8, which in the facts of the case would not apply as the recruitment notification was issued much earlier to the said G.O. and the rules in force as on the date of issuance of recruitment notification would be relevant. I’m of the view that the proceedings of the 5th respondent are not sustainable. 24. In view of the foregoing, the proceedings dated 18.10.2022 impugned in W.P.No.35167 of 2022 and the proceedings dated 21.10.2022 impugned in W.P.NO.40149 of 2022 are set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, without backwages and the petitioner is entitled for all such notional consequential benefits. 25. With the above observation, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 10.03.2026 BSK 17 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NOS: 40149 & 35167 OF 2022 Date: 10.03.2026 BSK