|
Senior counsel L. Nageswara Rao, appearing for the Commission, submitted that the relevant rule was in force for nearly 20 years and it could not be changed all of a sudden. However, senior counsel P.P. Rao, appearing for the candidates, said if the rule of reservation was not followed at the stage of screening of applications, the very purpose of reservation would be defeated.
High Court ruling
The Commission by a notification invited applications for Group-I services stating that the number of candidates to be admitted to the written examination would be 50 times to the total number of vacancies available irrespective of communities. The State Administrative Tribunal rejected an application to quash the relevant clause as illegal.
On a writ petition, the High Court held as illegal the notification to the extent "as it says irrespective of communities." However, the court said, "If the petitioners fall within the ratio of 1:50 against each vacancy in each group/category, as the case may be, they alone shall be allowed to appear for the main examination to be held on August 7 or on any other date."
The APPSC in its appeal said "if rule of reservation was made applicable at the stage of shortlisting of candidates, it would lead to an anomalous situation and deprive many meritorious reserve category candidates and allow consideration of less meritorious candidates for such open category posts and the same would be contrary to the principle of merit and equality of opportunity."
|