Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Prakash Mamillapalli vs K.Gayathri And Others1. In That Case on 28 April, 2026
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Reserved on 12.03.2026
Pronounced on 28.04.2026
Uploaded on 29.04.2026
APHC010760732012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3558]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION Nos: 40418 & 23096/2012
W.P.No.40418 of 2012:
Between:
1. PRAKASH MAMILLAPALLI, PRAKASAM DIST., & 5 OTRS., OCC:
UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. DUDDUKUR POST, INKOLLU MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
2. KOMMALAPATI VENKATA RAO, S/O. RADHAIAH,, OCC:
UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. AKKACHERUVUPALEM VILLAGE, PAIDIPADU
(P), JARUGUMALLI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
3. GULLAPANENI KRISHNA, S/O. NARAYANA,, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE,
R/O. PONDURU POST, TANGUTURU MANDAL. PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
4. NELAM VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. N. LALAIAH,, OCC:
UNEMPLOYEE, O R/O. D. NO. 29-2041, MAIN ROAD,
SRINIVASANAGAR, VINUKONDA, GUNTUR - 522 647.
5. V. GOVARDHAN REDDY, S/O. V. RAMA CHANDRA REDDY,, OCC:
UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. D. NO. 8-3-202-4, SURENDRANAGAR,
MYDUKUR ROAD, BODVEL, KADAPA DISTRICT.
6. Y. SUDHAKAR, S/O. THIRUPATHAIAH,, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/O.
OGURUVANDLAPALLI (V), BODASIDDAYAPALLI (P), S.R. PURAM
(M), S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE GOVT OF A P REP BY PRL SECRETARY AGRE HYD AND ANR,
AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD - 500 022.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, AP,
BASHEERABAGH, HYDERABAD - 500 029.
...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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction(s) more particularly, one in the
nature of Writ of Certiorari: (a) Call for the records relating to orders passed
in OA. No. 2506/2012 dated 06.07.2012 by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash or set aside the same as unjust, without any
2
basis and contrary to law; (b) Consequently direct the Resporidents to fill up
the post of Agriculture Officer in pursuance of Notification No. A7(1)614/2011,
dated 03.02.2012 issued by the 1st Respondent for awarding marks by
following the earlier system under equating formula of Overall Grade Point
Average (OGPA) and make selection and issue appointment orders to the
Petitioners by holding the action of the Respondents in changing the earlier
well defined procedure / formula without any basis, reasons and material and
without any exercise in that regard by setting aside G.O. Ms. No. 173
Agriculture and Cooperation (FP.I) Department, dated 07-07-2009 issued by
the 1st Respondent as bad, illegal, arbitrary
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 51269 OF 2012
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 keep posts vacant for the Petitioners making the
selections subject to the results of the Writ Petition.
IA NO: 2 OF 2012(WPMP 51270 OF 2012
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
expedite the WP by fixing an early date for final disposal.
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 set-aside the Order of the Hon'ble Court dated 28.06.2023 in
dismissing the W.P.No.40418 of 2012 for default and restore the same on to
file to decide the matter on merits in the interest of justice and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. J SUDHEER
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
3
APHC010150592012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3558]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION NO: 23096/2012
Between:
1. A. NARESH KUMAR, KURNOOL DIST & 4 OTHERS, S/O. A.
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC:
UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. 80/11-117-9, ABBASNAGAR, KURNOOL
DISTRICT.
2. T. REDDY SEKHAR REDDY, S/O. T. CHENNAKRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/O.
VENKATAREDDYGARIPALLI (POST), RAMAPURAM (M), KADAPA
DISTRICT
3. D. SUDHEER KUMAR REDDY, S/O. D. RAMA SUBBA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. H. NO. 4/222, SILPA
SINGAPORE TOWNSHIP, NEAR DD PADU VILLAGE, KURNOOL.
4. C. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S/O. C. RAJAGOPAL REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. H. NO. 79/50A, 2ND
LINE, KRISHNANAGAR, KURNOOL.
5. D. SUNIL BABU, S/O. D. GEORGE BHUSHANAM, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. H. NO. 59, ILTD COLONY,
PERALA (POST), CHIRALA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. PRL SECY AGRICULTURE COOP DEPT HYD ANO, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, AP,
BASHEERABAGH, HYDERABAD.
...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 toIssue a Writ, Order or Direction(s) more particularly, one in the
nature of Writ of Certiorari: a) Call for the records relating to orders passed in
OA. No. 2182/2012 dated 06.07.2012 by the Hon ble A. P. Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash or set aside the Same as unjust, without any
basis and contrary to law; b) Consequently direct the Respondents to fill up
the post of Agriculture Officer in pursuance of Notification No. A7(1)614/2011,
4
dated 03.02.2012 issued by the 1st Respondent for awarding marks by
following the earlier system under equating formula of Overall Grade Point
Average (OGPA) and make selection and issue appointment orders to the
Petitioners by holding the action of the Respondents in changing the earlier
well defined procedure / formula without any basis, reasons and material and
without any exercise in that regard by setting aside G.O. Ms. No. 173
Agriculture and Cooperation (FP.I) Department, dated 07-07-2009 issued by
the 1st Respondent as bad, illegal, arbitrary and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 29490 OF 2012
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
stay the selection process to the post of Agriculture Officers in pursuance of
Notification No. A7(1)614/2011, dated 03.02.2012 issued by the 1st
Respondent and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2012(WPMP 47167 OF 2012
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
expedite the WP. No. 23096/2012 by fixing an early date for final disposal and
be pleased 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 set-aside the Order of the Honourable Court dated 28.06.2023 in
dismissing the W.P.No.23096 of 2012 for default and restore the same on to
file to decide the matter on merits in the interest of justice and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. J SUDHEER
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. .
2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Court made the following:
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION Nos.40418 and 23096 of 2012
COMMON ORDER:
(Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela)
Heard,
Sri J.Sudheer, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, and the learned
Additional Advocate General for the State.
2. Embittered with the Orders, dated 06.07.2012, in O.A.No.2506 of
2012 and O.A.No.2182 of 2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal (hereinafter called as „Tribunal‟), Writs of Certiorari are filed to call for
the records and inter alia to direct the respondents to fill up the post of
Agriculture Officer in pursuance of the Notification No.A7 (1) 614/2011, dated
03.02.2012, issued by first respondent, for awarding marks by following the
earlier system under equating formula of Overall Grade Point Average
(OGPA) and make selection and issue appointment orders to the petitioners
by holding the action of the respondents, in changing the earlier well-defined
procedure/formula without any basis, reasons and material and without any
exercise in that regard by setting aside G.O.Ms.No.173 Agriculture and
Cooperation (FP.I) Department, dated 07.07.2019, issued by the first
respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. The facts being, concomitant in both the Writ Petitions, a
Common Order is being passed.
The facts, which are germane, are capsuled hereunder:
4. These Writ Petitions are filed by the unsuccessful petitioners,
who are the applicants before the Tribunal. The principal contention of the
petitioners before the Tribunal is that they have completed Agricultural B.Sc.,
from Dr.Bhim Rao Ambedkar University (formerly known as Agra University),
6
Uttar Pradesh and that the certificates obtained by them are recognized by
U.G.C. and the Indian Council of Agriculture Research.
5. Mr.J.Sudheer, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners,
would submit that the Degree of Agricultural B.Sc., is offered from various
Institutions/Universities across the Country, however, while awarding the
marks, the pattern is different. One is Traditional system, wherein the subjects
are allotted with 100 marks and pass mark is 35. The percentage of
candidates would be decided based on the overall marks obtained for the
maximum marks. The other is 4.00 Grade Scale and the third one is 10.00
point Grade Scale. For the 4.00 point system, if the student gets 50% of
marks, he will get 2.00 points and in the 10.00 point system the above 50%
marks out of 4.00 point grade they would get 6.5 points in the 10.00 scale.
6. Mr.J.Sudheer, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners,
would further contend that the Agricultural Officers in the State of A.P. are
governed under A.P.Agriculture Service Rules and the post is covered under
G.O.Ms.No.16 Agriculture and Cooperation (FP.I) Department, dated
21.01.2000. The qualification for the post is Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
and the maximum age is „30‟, which was subsequently increased to „35‟.
Learned Counsel would further argue that the Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.173 A & C (FP.I) Department, dated 07.07.2009, by following a
new procedure for OGPA (Overall Grade Point Average), stating that 10.00
scale of OGPA is denoted directly and the corresponding percentage of marks
would be taken into account directly considered for ranking and, earlier, the
OGPA was determined based on the formula evolved by experts and the
OGPA marks are for 75 and now it is converted to 100 marks. Learned
Counsel would submit that now, in view of this, change was made applicable
only for ten point scale and there is no mention about how 10.00 point OGPA
will be calculated for 4.00 point scale of system. There is also no mention
regarding the Traditional system, which was offered earlier.
7
7. In continuation of his submissions, learned Counsel would state
that the State Government issued Notification on 03.12.2012, calling for
applications from eligible candidates for filling up the post of Agriculture
Officers and the petitioner/applicant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 belong to Zone-III and
5th petitioner/applicant belongs to Zone-IV and they all belong to OC category.
The applicants applied for the said post as they are eligible and, since there is
no written test and interview, the selection will be made on the aggregate
marks computed for 125 marks i.e., 100 marks are for OGPA, 10 marks for
seniority and 15 marks for experience. He would sternly impress upon the
Court that there is no mention as to how the OGPA system will be operated
and as to why the earlier system of OGPA, which was in force for almost two
decades and followed for several recruitments, was changed. He would
categorize that if a candidate gets 6.5 out of 10.00 point scale he would be
awarded 65% out of 100 marks and earlier as per the formula 65% in
10.00 point scale is equated with 35 of Traditional system. Due to the change
of Traditional system, petitioners would never get selection.
8. Mr.J.Sudheer, learned Counsel for the petitioners/applicants,
would proceed to state that the Government/Employer may change the policy
of selection procedure but the reasons should be entailed and that a well set
procedure/formula being followed for several years cannot be changed to
benefit a few. Learned Counsel would argue that merely because the
Government has powers to change the earlier system/policy, the same shall
not be exercised arbitrarily and every Government action shall be fair and
rational and the purpose behind evolving the evaluation system of equating
35% of Traditional system to that of 6.5 of 10.00 point scale was because the
experts in the subject have realized the pattern of examination and standard
of evaluation, etc. He emphasized that the respondents committed illegality in
a clandestine manner and based on a faulty system. Similarly situated
employees filed O.A.No.2182 of 2012 before the Tribunal, wherein, interim
8
directions were issued, directing the respondents not to finalize the selection
to the post of Agriculture Officers in pursuance of Notification, dated
03.02.2012.
9. Learned Counsel, refuting the averments made in the Counter-
affidavit, filed by the official respondents, would contend that the pleadings in
the Counter are without basis, reasons and inter alia there is no reason as to
why the procedure was changed and there is nothing spelt out as to why the
earlier procedure is changed. He would further argue that the very same
respondents have opposed the claim of N.G.Ranga Agricultural University
students and on the very same issue, a U-turn has been taken and therefore
he would submit that the abuse of discretionary power is clearly established.
10. Basing on the arguments advanced by the respondents, the
Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the N.G.Ranga Agricultural
University students and within two days from the date of dismissal of the
Original Application, the issue was taken and, without any expert opinion,
unilaterally a decision was taken in favour of the N.G.Ranga Agricultural
University students. He further lamented that the Government commented on
the conduct of the Vice Chancellor in projecting the claim of the students and
it was done under pressure by the Government.
11. Learned Counsel, while adverting to the order passed by the
Tribunal, would submit that the judgments relied upon by the
petitioners/applicants were not discussed and simply brushed aside. The
Tribunal has incorporated certain issues, which are neither pleaded nor raised
by the respondents and, on the basis of the material, which was not part of the
pleadings, the Original Applications were dismissed. He also contended that
the Tribunal grossly failed to appreciate that as per the Traditional system, the
candidates like the petitioners are put to irreparable loss and in pursuance of
the same, the petitioners are becoming age-barred.
9
12. Learned Counsel, while reiterating his stance on the
Government‟s power to change the procedure, relied on the judgment of this
Court reported in Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad and another vs. K.Gayathri and others1. In that case,
this Court has merely granted liberty to the Government to change the
procedure which does not mean that the procedure has to be changed without
any respect for the rights of others, without any basis and without any
rationality.
13. In oppugnation to the contentions and arguments of the learned
Counsel, Mr.J.Sudheer, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the State vehemently contended that there is no infirmity or any procedural
lapse on part of the Government in changing the procedure and the same was
done in consonance with the order of this Court reported in (2008) 3 ALT 504.
The said judgment has become final and also binds the petitioners herein.
14. Learned Additional Advocate General further intensified his
argument stating that G.O.Ms.No.173 has came into effect on 07.07.2009,
formulating the selection procedure i.e., merit, seniority and experience for the
recruitment of Agricultural Officers in the Agriculture Department on regular
basis. The ratio was fixed as 100:10:15. The OGPA of 100 marks, the
procedure now changed was to 10 Scale of Overall Grade Point Average is
denoted and the corresponding percentage of marks be directly considered for
ranking rather than changing with conversion formula as reflected in the
certificate. When coming to seniority, one mark per year from the year of
passing and with regard to experience, 15 marks i.e., 4 marks per year for
satisfactory service rendered as Agricultural Officer.
15. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that
G.O.Ms.No.173 was issued on 07.07.2009 and as seen from the prayer in the
O.A., the petitioners participated in the selection procedure and thereafter got
1
(2008) 3 ALT 504
10
filed the O.A. and more so, without challenging G.O.Ms.No.173, though they
are aware of introducing the said G.O. Thereafter, an amendment petition was
filed to amend the prayer, and the Tribunal allowed the same. These facts
connotes that having aware of the change in the procedure, the petitioners
duly participated without any demur and after there being not selected, the
said O.A. was filed and submits that the action of the petitioners is hit by
principles of acquiescence.
16. To amplify the arguments, the written arguments were filed. The
written arguments reflects that on 11.08.2009, a representation was received
from the Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU) Students‟
Forum requesting the Vice Chancellor of ANGRAU to review the age old
conversion. In pursuance to the said representation, the Registrar, ANGRAU,
Hyderabad, addressed a letter to the Government recommending 10 Point
Scale of OGPA may be denoted directly and the percentage of marks be
directly considered for ranking rather than changing with conversion formula.
17. On 07.02.2009, the Registrar appears to have addressed another
letter to the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, marking a copy to the
Government, to consider the representation of the B.Sc (Agriculture) students
with 10 Point Scale of OGPA in the recruitment of Agricultural Officers and
take into consideration the percentage of marks of the candidates as indicated
in the marks certificate. Considering the said recommendations, on
09.02.2009, the Commissioner of Agriculture with detailed recommendations
of Vice Chancellor, ANGRAU, sent proposals to review the conversion scale
of 10 Point OGPA into direct percentage of marks.
18. Thereafter, on 07.07.2009, upon the meeting of the Principal
Secretary (Agriculture), Commissioner of Agriculture and the Vice Chancellor
(ANGRAU), the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.173, Agriculture and
Cooperation Department, dated 07.07.2009, adopting a new procedure for
11
conversion of marks from CGPA/OGPA. This marks prominence in these
cases.
19. The Government, on 03.02.2012, after three years, issued
notification calling for applications from eligible candidates for filling up the
posts of Agricultural Officers and the last date stipulated was 02.03.2012 by
05:00 p.m. The condition marked for selection was on the merit basis on the
aggregate marks computed for 125 marks (i.e., up to a maximum of 100
marks for OGPA/Traditional, 10 marks for seniority and 15 marks for
experience).
20. The petitioners submitted representation on 07.02.2012
ventilating the grievance that the adoption of new procedure engrafted in
G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 07.07.2009 will cause prejudice and requested them to
follow the old procedure. The grievance addressed also contains the fact of
adopting the new procedure through G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 07.07.2009
basing on a meeting consisting of three members i.e., Principal Secretary,
Commissioner of Agriculture and the Vice Chancellor. They asserted that the
procedure cannot be unilaterally changed without calling for any objections by
a confined board consisting of three members and this was one of the
contention raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal and also shield and
anchor of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
21. The representation appears not to have been addressed by the
respondents against which the petitioners filed O.A.Nos.2182 and 2506 of
2012 on 19.03.2012. On 21.03.2012, the Tribunal passed interim orders
directing the respondents not to finalize the selections for the post of
Agricultural Officers.
22. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State
would contend that a holistic reading of the pleadings before the Tribunal in
the O.A. would reflect that the petitioners are well aware of the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 07.07.2009 and knowing fully well, participated in the
12
selections in pursuance to the notification issued by the Government, dated
03.02.2012. He further addresses that if really they are affected, they should
have challenge the G.O. separately as soon as the G.O. was pressed into
service and he contends that the petitioners after appearing for the interview
and not being selected, amended the prayer and then challenged
G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 07.07.2009, which is ex facie erroneous and an
afterthought, which does not need any interference by this Court. The very
conduct of the petitioners are not with clean hands and urged this Court to
dismiss the Writ Petitions as devoid of merits.
23. The learned Additional Advocate General argued that on
22.03.2012, results were published and alleging that there is willful and
wanton disobedience, a contempt application was moved in the year 2012.
The O.A., along with contempt application were came to be dismissed on
06.07.2012, against which the present Writ Petitions are filed by the
petitioners.
24. The learned Additional Advocate General sternly marks his
arguments stating that the principles of law are well settled regarding the
Doctrine of acquiescence. In the present case, being aware of the fact of
issuance of G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 07.07.2009, the petitioners have waited till
2012 and even in the Original Applications before the Tribunal, there is no
whisper of a challenge to G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 07.07.2009, which was got to
be added through amendment, which was ordered by the Tribunal. All these
conspectus of facts would clearly indicate that the petitioners were sitting on
the fence and after coming to know that they were not selected, the Original
Applications were filed. He further contends that the judgments relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioners need not be controverted, because it is a
settled principle that acquiescence will come into effect if there are
irregularities and infractions in the process of recruitment or the conditions of
notification or foul play by the authorities in not following the statutory rules.
13
He contends that in the present case, there are no such irregularities or fraud
played by the respondents and it is only in pursuance to the G.O.Ms.No.173,
the notification was issued and thereafter the selection procedure was
followed and this cannot be ventilated by the petitioners that the respondents
acted intentionally or wantonly in order to help their interested persons to gain
employment.
25. In support of his contention that a belated challenge to the
amendment after participating in the selection process is impermissible, the
learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education and
others vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth and others 2, wherein it was
held as follows:
“The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the
policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-
making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the
purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and
hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the
policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires
and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion,
it is not a wise or prudent policy.”
26. The other judgment relied upon by the learned Additional
Advocate General is, Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad and another vs. K.Gayathri and others [2008 (3) ALT
504], wherein it is held as follows:
“63. Of course, this Court can only suggest the Government or
the competent authority, as the case may be, to have a second look
at the adaptation of OGPA system and make necessary amendments
to the same, as and when felt necessary. But, this Court cannot take
up the task of carving out any specific method or make amendments
to the method adopted by the Government or competent authority, as2
(1984) 4 SCC 27
14the case may be, inasmuch as, the same is not within the
administrative domain of the Government. This Court also cannot
supplement any new scheme or make amendment to the existing
scheme that has been adopted.
64. …. In Service Law Jurisprudence, it is essential to
implead the affected persons also as parties to the lis. None of these
selected persons were made as partier either in the O.As, or in the
writ petitions. Therefore, any order passed contrary to the interest of
the said affected persons would be improper and on that score also
the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.”
27. The learned Additional Advocate General forcibly argues that it is
well settled in law that no adverse orders can be passed against persons who
were not made parties to the litigation and relied upon the judgment of
Allahabad High Court in Ranjan Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and
others3.
28. Apropos to his contention, he further places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in J.S.Yadav vs. State of U.P. 4 ,
wherein it was held as follows:
“In service jurisprudence if an unsuccessful candidate
challenges the selection process, he is bound to implead at least
some of the successful candidates in representative capacity.”
29. In reply to the arguments advanced by the learned Additional
Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.J.Sudheer, would
submit that the learned counsel for the State failed to address the Court on the
lack of transparency and discrimination attributed towards the petitioners only
to accommodate the other set of employees. He further stresses that the
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation also comes into play since the petitioners
were made to believe that the old system will be followed as the
3
(2014) 16 SCC 187
4
(2011) 6 SCC 570
15
representation made by the petitioners was not considered and the petitioners
were made to wait for the response from the respondents and when they
noticed that the representation is not considered or answered and the
Government proceeded in issuing the notification for recruitment for
Agricultural Officers, having no other option, invoked the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, wherein interim orders were passed. These interim orders are also
violated and the contempt case was filed. But the Tribunal totally misdirected
itself in considering the facts and circumstances and improper application of
the judgments relied upon by the petitioners and thereby negatived the claim.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioners further advanced his
arguments and states that by mere non-joining of parties, no prejudice will be
caused to the respondents since the claim is only against the respondents and
not against the successful candidates and pleaded to set aside the
G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 07.07.2009 to the extent of the petitioners only by
directing the respondents to consider the petitioners‟ candidature for the posts
of Agricultural Officers in pursuance to the notification dated 03.02.2012 by
following the earlier OGPA evolution formula.
31. Apropos to his stance, Mr.J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vikas
Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chattisgarh and others5, Dr. (Major)
Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar and others6, Union of India vs. Uzair Imran
and others7 and State of A.P. and others vs. Goverdhanlal Pitti8.
32. Heard both the counsels, Mr.J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
33. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners‟ counsel,
Mr.J.Sudheer, have been meticulously gone through and this Court finds that
5
(2013) 14 SCC 494
6
(2019) 20 SCC 17
7
(2024) 20 SCC 345
8
(2003) 4 SCC 739
16
they are distinguishable to the present facts and circumstances. In the present
case, it is not the recruitment which is challenged as arbitrary, illegal or fraud,
but it is only that the respondents unilaterally changed the selection process
by adopting a new procedure. This is nothing to do with the recruitment
process or method followed by the respondents after issuing notification.
34. In Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai‟s case (supra 6), the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, in paragraph Nos.15 to 19, postulates that unless the
candidate participates in the selection process, they will not be in a position to
assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the
Constitution.
35. As pointed earlier, in the present case, it is not the case that the
petitioners have come to know after the participation, it is after
G.O.Ms.No.173, which is a crucial document to be considered by this Court
and the G.O. was issued by the Government way back in the year 2009 much
earlier to the notification i.e., three years after issuance of G.O. There is no
explanation forthcoming by the petitioners to state that as to why they kept
quiet for three years and only after issuance of the notification, the G.O. was
challenged and the judgments relied upon will not be any helpful to the
petitioners.
36. The other judgment relied upon by the petitioners‟ counsel is
Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chattisgarh and others‟s case
(supra 5), where the law postulated is that during the recruitment process,
when there are irregularities found in the examination such as erroneous
evaluation, whether sympathetic view can be taken to the persons appointed
basing on such erroneous evaluation. The said judgment is also distinguished
and not applicable to the present case.
37. Mr.J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
judgment in Union of India vs. Uzair Imran and others‟s case (supra 7),
17
wherein, at paragraph Nos.14 and 15, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has
extensively discussed as to when to interfere and held as follows:
“14. Normally, it is not the function of the court to determine
equivalence of two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a particular
certificate and say, on the basis of its appreciation thereof, that the
holder thereof satisfies the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for
appointment. It is entirely the prerogative of the employer, after
applications are received from interested candidates or names of
registered candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges
for public employment, to decide whether any such candidate
intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in terms of
the statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether
he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e., to
participate in the selection process. It is only when evidence of a
sterling quality is produced before the court which, without much
argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of one party that
the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such
evidence.
15. Notwithstanding this settled legal position, the stage when
ineligibility is cited for not offering employment also assumes
importance. It is indeed indisputable that none has any legal right to
claim public employment. In terms of Article 16 of the Constitution, a
candidate has only a right to be considered therefor. Once a
candidate is declared ineligible to participate in the selection process
at the threshold and if he still wishes to participate in the process
perceiving that his candidature has been arbitrarily rejected, it is for
him to work out his remedy in accordance with law. However, if the
candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is
allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately his name
figures in the merit list – though such candidate has no indefeasible
right to claim appointment – he does have a limited right of being
accorded fair and non- discriminatory treatment. Given the stages of
the process that the candidate has successfully crossed, he may not
have a vested right of appointment but a reasonable expectation of
18being appointed having regard to his position in the merit list could
arise. The employer, if it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution, would have no authority to act in an arbitrary manner
and throw the candidate out from the range of appointment, as
distinguished from the zone of consideration, without rhyme or
reason. The employer-State being bound by Article 14 of the
Constitution, the law places an obligation, nay duty, on such an
employer to provide some justification by way of reason. If plausible
justification is provided, the courts would be loath to question the
justification but the justification must be such that it is rational and
justifiable, and not whimsical or capricious, warranting non-
interference.”
38. At paragraph No.17, it is further clarified that “it is settled law that
unfettered discretion, unaccountable approach and arbitrariness in State
action are antithesis to Article 14; and, particularly when two views could
possibly emerge looking at the certificate of educational qualification placed by
the third respondent, with both views not being wholly unworthy of
acceptance, fairness in administrative procedure demanded that the appellant
ought to have given reason, howsoever brief, as to why it preferred to
consider the third respondent to have succeeded in the relevant examination
through „vocational stream‟, thereby attracting ineligibility, without considering
the effect of the remark „Regular‟ at the foot of the certificate”.
39. As stated earlier, the facts of the case are different in the present
case, where the petitioners/participants knew that the procedure was changed
much earlier to the recruitment notification i.e., 3 years and knowing fully well,
they did not challenge. The procedure which is being adopted, the petitioners
challenged the said notification only after participation, contending that the
procedure cannot be changed. The principles laid down by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court will not attract in the present case.
19
40. In the recent judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sushil
Kumar Pandey and others vs. High Court of Jharkhand and another 9,
where the same principle was reiterated that eligibility conditions cannot be
changed during the selection process, holding that “no change in rule midway
would be impermissible”. The precedents of law are glaring against the
petitioners and this Court finds that, of their own volition, the petitioners cannot
come to the Court and challenge the procedure blatantly.
41. While adverting and responding to the judgments relied upon by
the petitioners‟ counsel, the learned Additional Advocate General oppugnated
that the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai
vs. State of Bihar and others [(2019) 20 SCC 17], is applicable to the
present facts of the case. He argues that the petitioners waited till the decision
of the Government and then later challenging the method of adoption of
G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 07.07.2009, cannot be accepted and the conduct of
the parties should invariably noted by this Court.
42. In reply to the other judgment relied upon by the petitioners‟
counsel in Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chattisgarh and
others [(2013) 14 SCC 494], the learned Additional Advocate General would
state that the recruitment process was completed on the prevailing rules
during the recruitment notification and the petitioners‟ case is not that the
recruitment process is tainted by fraud and fortifies his stance that the
judgment is not applicable to the present case on hand, reiterating his
submissions to dismiss the Writ Petitions as totally not in consonance with the
law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court.
43. In retaliation to the arguments advanced by Mr.J.Sudheer,
learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General
would assist the Court by drawing the attention to the judgment of this Court in
Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
9
(2024) 6 SCC 162
20
and another vs. K.Gayathri and others [(2008) 3 ALT 504], where the
similar issue was before this Court filed by the State, aggrieved by the orders
passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, allowed the Original
Applications filed by the applicants therein, seeking to declare that uniform
procedure shall be adopted for selection of the candidates for the posts of
Agricultural Extension Officer, Grade-II (for brevity “AEO-II”) and that different
yardsticks cannot be applied to the candidates with B.Sc., in Agriculture and
the candidates with Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and to declare further
that the applicants and similarly situated persons are entitled to the benefit of
Overall Grade Point Average (for brevity “OGPA”), as given to the candidates
with B.Sc., in Agriculture. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the Writ
Petitions were filed by the State and while allowing the Writ Petitions filed by
the State, a Division Bench of this Court at paragraph Nos.50, 54, 55, 57 to 64
considered the arguments of the learned counsel, Mr.J.Sudheer, there also.
The said paragraphs read as follows:
“50. As already noticed by us, the method of direct recruitment
has been introduced for the first time and the other two classes of
people with inferior academic qualification were also included. But,
while implementing this process in letter and spirit, merit cannot be
ignored. Merit sometimes includes the higher educational qualification
also. Here higher educational qualification is Graduation in
Agriculture, which is the original and first qualification.
54. Coming to the other aspect i.e., the irrationality in the
application of OGPA is concerned, it is the specific contention of the
learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, basing on the ready
reckoner for conversion of various scales, points and percentages to
4-point scale, the candidate who scored 35 per cent was awarded
6.50 with the candidate who obtained Decree with 10-point scale.
Similarly, the candidate who scored 35 per cent marks obtained on
traditional system was equated with 2.00 with the candidate who
obtained marks in 4-point scale. Eventually, the marks to be awarded
as per the G.O., are shown as 55.
21
55. From the above, it is to be understood that a person with
Graduation in Agriculture, who secured 35 marks on traditional basis,
would be treated as having secured 55 marks reckoning to 6.50 and
2.00 in cases of candidates who obtained Degree with 10-point scale
and 4-point scale, respectively.
57. Similarly, in case of the other two classes, who secured
their marks on traditional basis is on percentage basis. For Eg: A
person who secured 35 per cent marks have to be brought down to
the level of 75 marks, which is the qualifying mark, and in which
event, taking into consideration the actual scoring of marks on
percentage basis has to be necessarily scaled down to 75. In that
process, the qualifying mark naturally would get lowered.
58. It cannot be forgotten that whether it is OGPA or
condensing the marks for those who secured marks on traditional
basis to 75 is only meant for assessing their qualifying marks of 75
only.
59. Therefore, the application of OGPA to the Agricultural
Graduates on one hand, and Diploma holders and Degree holders in
other branch on the other, who passed their respective courses on
different standards, cannot be treated as equal. The reason is their
educational qualification. For Eg: A Diploma holder, who secured 50
marks cannot be treated as equal to a Graduate who also secured 50
marks or even less, for that matter. This does not mean that such
classification should lead to any apparent and unreasonable
classification.
60. But, as already pointed out, the parity, as sought for by the
applicants, along with the Graduates cannot be made in view of their
higher qualification and also the peculiar circumstances of their
obtaining the Degrees. The former obtained Degrees on two different
point scales and traditional basis, whereas the latter obtained the
Degrees or Diploma purely on traditional basis. Therefore, in order to
unify these two classes for the purpose of competition, a method,
which is logical or at least appears to be logical, is to be adopted and
if adopted, the same cannot be find fault with by this Court, unless
and until the same results in absolute discrimination and arbitrary.
22
61. As already noticed, because of the introduction of direct
recruitment, for the first time, permitting the Diploma holders and
other Graduates in the other field to compete with the Degree holders
in B.Sc. (Ag.), 59 candidates with Diploma qualification were
selected. Therefore, it is difficult for us to say that there is any
discrimination. On the other hand, because of the present method,
there is deprivation to the people with higher qualification and the
benefit had been transmitted to the people with lesser qualification.
62. Even if there are any small areas of anomalies to
understand the situation, this Court cannot interfere with the method
adopted, inasmuch as, there is no apparent action of discrimination or
that the other classes of persons were totally denied of their
employment avenues.
63. Of course, this Court can only suggest the Government or
the competent authority, as the case may be, to have a second look
at the adaptation of OGPA system and make necessary amendments
to the same, as and when felt necessary. But, this Court cannot take
up the task of carving out any specific method or make amendments
to the method adopted by the Government or competent authority, as
the case may be, inasmuch as, the same is not within the jurisdiction
of this Court and totally within the administrative domain of the
Government. This Court also cannot supplement any new scheme or
make amendment to the existing scheme that has been adopted.
64. Another incidental aspect that this Court is impelled to
consider is, the selectees, who are the affected persons, in the said
selection process have already taken charge of the post to which they
were selected and subsequently they were promoted on different
dates. That apart, even as on the date of filing of the O.As., before
the Tribunal, these selected candidates were not impleaded as
parties, either in the O.As., or in the writ petitions. In Service Law
Jurisprudence, it is essential to implead the affected persons also as
parties to the lis. None of these selected persons were made as
parties either in the O.As., or in the writ petitions. Therefore, any
order passed contrary to the interest of the said affected persons
23would be improper and on that score also the impugned orders are
liable to be set aside.”
44. A Coordinate Division Bench of this Court has passed the verdict,
allowing the arguments advanced by the State and the paragraph No.63 is
again reproduced hereunder:
“63. Of course, this Court can only suggest the Government or
the competent authority, as the case may be, to have a second look
at the adaptation of OGPA system and make necessary amendments
to the same, as and when felt necessary. But, this Court cannot take
up the task of carving out any specific method or make amendments
to the method adopted by the Government or competent authority, as
the case may be, inasmuch as, the same is not within the
administrative domain of the Government. This Court also cannot
supplement any new scheme or make amendment to the existing
scheme that has been adopted.”
The Judgment has attained finality.
45. Resultantly, the Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
46. As a sequitur, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________________
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J
___________________________
TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J
Date : 28-04-2026
Tsy/BMS