Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gavara Janardhana Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 October, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WP/6286/2023, WP/1545/2020, WP/1917/2020, WP/2035/2022,
WP/2872/2021, WP/3826/2023, WP/3917/2023, WP/4772/2023
WP/5208/2022, WP/6114/2023, WP/6880/2022, WP/9230/2022
WP/11282/2023,WP/14143/2021,WP/15000/2021,WP/15606/2021
WP/15631/2021,WP/16052/2021,WP/16159/2020,WP/16366/2020
WP/16520/2021,WP/16607/2023,WP/17049/2020,WP/17373/2020
WP/17468/2021,WP/17784/2021,WP/17909/2021,WP/18069/2021
WP/18515/2021,WP/18910/2021,WP/18966/2021,WP/19379/2021
WP/19469/2021,WP/19631/2021,WP/19966/2020,WP/19970/2020
WP/20037/2020,WP/20142/2020,WP/20187/2020,WP/20838/2020
WP/20914/2021,WP/21683/2021,WP/22571/2020,WP/22588/2021
WP/22704/2020,WP/23278/2022,WP/23893/2021,WP/23959/2021
WP/27344/2021, WP/27907/2021, WP/29560/2022
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, Sri Y. Mallikarjuna Reddy and Sri Harish Kumar
Rasineni, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri Kalyan
Chakravarthi, learned Government Pleader for Village and Ward Secretariats.
Factual Background:
2. The present batch of Writ Petitions raise multiple issues. The factual
background is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued
G.O.Ms.No.110, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department dated
19.07.2019 for the purpose of implementation of certain Governmental
Schemes; that in the process of the implementation of these schemes, the
Government of Andhra Pradesh has introduced 'Village Secretariats' in the
place of erstwhile Gram Panchayats and had also assigned additional tasks in
addition to the usual business undertaken by the erstwhile Gram Panchayats;
that the said Village Secretariats would have number of functional assistants;
that para No.14 of the said G.O.Ms.No.110 contemplates that the existing staff
of the concerned 'line departments' would be properly accommodated to the
extent possible; that proper 'Guidelines' would be issued for the appointment
of Secretariat Functionaries; and that one group of such Secretariat
2
Functionaries would be named as the 'Village Horticulture Assistants'. This
cadre of 'Village Horticulture Assistants' was created for the first time and
therefore such posts were not governed by the existing Rules which are called
the A.P Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules, 2005. Therefore, the
recruitment was sought to be done only on the basis of Executive Instructions.
The present controversy revolves around the 'qualifications/prescription of
criteria by the Government' for the posts of 'Village Horticulture Assistants'
due to the absence of the statutory Rules for this newly created cadre.
3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the
Government of Andhra Pradesh have initiated a Recruitment Drive for filling
up the posts of Village Horticulture Assistants, who would work in the Village
Secretariats; that about 4000 posts were created for the first time and notified
on 26.07.2019 bearing Notification No. 1/Horti/2019; that after completion of
the Recruitment Drive under the Notification No.1/Horti/2019 based on the
criteria formulate by Executive Instructions, dated 26.07.2019 (Ex.P1), about
1783 posts of Village Horticulture Assistants were left-over unfilled due to
unavailability of candidates possessing such qualification/ experience as
prescribed by the Government; that for the purpose of filling up of the left-over
1783 posts, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued Notification
No.1/Horti/2020, dated 10.01.2020; that the eligibility criteria for this
recruitment was also formulated by the Executive (due to absence of statutory
Rules); that the mode of examination would be objective type questions which
are to be answered 'offline-mode' using OMR Sheets by following the
instructions given in Annexure-III of the Notification; and that Para No.3 of the
said Notification No.1/Horti/2020 dated 10.01.2020 relating to the educational
qualifications had prescribed conditions (for the posts of Village Horticulture
Assistants) which are as under:
PARA-3: EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:
A candidate shall possess the academic qualifications for the
post on the date of the notification.
3
The candidates having either of the following qualifications are
eligible for the post of Village Horticulture Assistant.
1) Must possess 4 years B.Sc Horticulture/ B.Sc (Hons.)
Horticulture/ B.Tech. Horticulture from any University
accredited by the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare, Govt., of India. New Delhi (or) any University
recognized in the State
2) Must Possess 2 years Diploma in Horticulture (from
Dr. YSRHU ANGRAU recognized)
WEIGHTAGE OF MARKS (10%):
Candidates with any of the above educational qualification and
have rendered or are working in any of the Government
Department on contract / outsourcing basis in the field of
Horticulture (i.e., Horticulture Extension, Technical advisory
services etc.) will be given a weightage of 1.5 marks for every
completed (6) months of continuous service up to a maximum of
15 marks. The Service certificate should be issued by the
competent authority. No weightage will be given for service
rendered for less than Six (6) months.
4. It is further submitted that under the 2019 Notification, the candidates
who are in the service of Department of Horticulture, Government of Andhra
Pradesh with B.Sc (BZC)/B.Sc or M.Sc with 'Horticulture' as one of the
optional subjects and those having the qualification of Two Years Diploma in
Horticulture who would get eligibility for promotion to the next cadre were also
permitted to participate by relaxation of conditions; that such of the
relaxations given under the 2019 Notification were not provided under the
2020 Notification; that because of this reason several Representations were
given by the employees, who would fall under the category of being in
Government service with B.Sc (BZC) Degree/ B.Sc or M.Sc with
'Horticulture', expressing their grievance to the effect that the posts which
were sought to be filled up were only the balance of vacancies from the 2019
Notification and therefore, the conditions for eligibility ought not to have been
varied.
5. It is further submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, after
having considered the Representations favourably, has issued a
4
Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 to Notification No.01/Horti/2020; that vide
Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020, insofar as the in-service candidates are
concerned, the relaxations as contained in the 2019 Notification were also
permitted and the gist of the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 is extracted
hereunder:
Educational Qualifications:
Name of the Educational qualification as Educational qualifications now
post per Notification read as
No.01/Horti/2020. Dt.10-01-
2020
Village A candidate shall possess A candidate shall possess the
Horticulture the academic qualifications academic qualifications for the
Assistant for the post on the date of post on the date of the
the notification. notification.
The candidates having The candidates having either
either of the following of the following qualifications are
qualifications are eligible for eligible for the post of Village
the post of Village Horticulture Assistant.
Horticulture Assistant.
1) Must possess 4 years B.Sc
1) Must possess 4 Horticulture/B.Sc (Hons)
years B.Sc Horticulture/B.Tech,
Horticulture/B.Sc (Hons) Horticulture from any
Horticulture/ B.Tech. University accredited by the
Horticulture from any Indian Council of Agricultural
University accredited by Research (ICAR), Ministry of
the Indian Council of Agriculture and Farmers
Agricultural Research Welfare, Govt., of India,
(ICAR). Ministry of NewDelhi (or) any University
Agriculture and Farmers recognized in the State.
Welfare, Govt., of India. 2) Must possess 2 years
New Delhi (or) any Diploma in Horticulture (from
University recognized in Dr. YSRHU/ANGRAU
the State recognized).
2) Must possess 2 years 3) Working as
Diploma in Horticulture MPEOs/MIAOs/MIDCS in the
from Dr.YSRHU Department of Horticulture
ANGRAU recognized) with B.Sc. (BZC) Degree (or)
B.Sc (or) M.Sc with
Horticulture as one of the
subjects (or) 4 years B.Sc
(Horticulture) Degree from
any University recognized by
UGC (or) 10+2 with one year
Diploma with Horticulture in
ANGRU. On selection, these
candidates should acquire 2
years Diploma in Horticulture
5
to get eligibility for promotion
to the next cadre.
4) Working as Horticulture Field
Consultants/Horticulture
Technical
Assistants/Horticulture
Officers/Horticulture
Assistant Programme
Officers in ITDA areas with
B.Sc. (BZC) Degree/B.Sc
(or) M.Sc with Horticulture as
one of the subjects. On
selection these candidates
should acquire 2 years
Diploma in Horticulture to get
eligibility for promotion to the
next cadre.
6. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the
Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 has only included the qualifications of B.Sc
(BZC), or, B.Sc/M.Sc with 'Horticulture' as one of the subjects, or, 4 years
B.Sc, Horticulture Degree or 10+2 with one year Diploma in Horticulture in
respect of those working as MPEOs/MIAOs/MIDCs in the Horticulture
Department with the condition that if anyone is selected, such selected
candidates under these categories should acquire two years Diploma in
Horticulture to get eligibility for promotion to the next cadre; that in pursuance
of this Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020, in-service candidates working as
MPEOs/MIAOs/MIDCs have submitted their applications for recruitment; that
at this stage, there were, in fact, some candidates working as MPEOs in the
Horticulture Department possessing B.Sc 'Agriculture' instead of B.Sc
Horticulture and that they have felt that they have been deprived/left out, and
therefore, such candidates have approached the Government by submitting a
Representation for allowing candidates possessing B.Sc 'Agriculture' and
working in Horticulture Department as MPEOs also to appear in the
examination and participate in the selection process.
7. It is further submitted that having considered the said representation
made by the MPEOs possessing B.Sc, Agriculture instead of B.Sc
6
Horticulture, the Government issued Memo No. AGCO-1-Hort/63/2020-HS-I
dated 01.05.2020 thereby permitting the MPEOs (about 37 in number) also to
appear in the examination;
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AGRICULTURE & COOPERATION (H&S) DEPARTMENT
Memo.No.AGCO01-HORT/63/2020-HS-1 Dated 01.05.2020.
Sub:- Horticulture - Request of the MPEO's who are working in
Horticulture department, with B.Sc. [Agriculture] qualification, for
writing the examination for VHA Post - Reg.
Ref:-Repn., of M. Sowjnya and others, Horticulture MPEO's. dt:
11.02.2020, through Hon'ble Min (PR, RD, Mines & Geology). Endt.
No. 1814, dt: 11.02.2020.
--: 000:--
The Commissioner of Horticulture, A.P., Guntur, is informed that in
the reference cited (copy enclosed), wherein the MPEOs, who are
working in Horticulture Department with B.Sc. [Agriculture]
qualification, have requested for writing the examination for VHA post.
2. Government, after careful examination of the matter, hereby
request the Commissioner of Horticulture, Guntur to permit the
MPEOs[37 numbers], who are working in Horticulture Department
with B.Sc.[Agriculture] qualification, for writing the examination for
VHA post, if they have already applied for, with B.Sc Agriculture
qualification, since the submission of application in online was closed
on 07.02.2020.
3. The Commissioner of Horticulture, A.P., Guntur, is requested to
take further necessary accordingly, action in the matter.
(emphasis supplied)
POONAM MALAKONDAIΑΗ
SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To
The Commissioner of Horticulture, AP, Guntur (w.e).
SF/SC.
// FORWARDED BY ORDER //
SECTION OFFICER
Sd/- xxxxx
Administrative Officer
O/o Commissioner of Horticulture
Andhra Pradesh:: Guntur-522 001
7
8 (a). It is further submitted that after the Memo dated 01.05.2020 came to be
issued by the Government, some candidates working as MPEOs in
Horticulture Department in other areas and also some of them working in
Agriculture Department have approached this Hon'ble Court by filing
W.P.No.19970 of 2021 and batch. It is further submitted that while the date of
examination for Recruitment for the post of Village Horticulture Assistant was
scheduled on 25.09.2020, such of those candidates who were made eligible to
apply under the corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and Memo dated 01.05.2020
were also issued the Hall Tickets. Eight months after the Corrigendum was
issued (on 30.01.2020), the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued a
Notification on 20.09.2020 withdrawing the earlier Corrigendum dated
30.01.2020, thereby reverting to its earlier stand as contained in its
Notification dated 10.01.2020; that the Exams commenced from 25.09.2020,
whereas, the withdrawal of the Corrigendum and Memo were done on
20.09.2020 i.e., 5 days before the conduct of the Examinations and published
in the newspaper on the same day; that having been aggrieved of this sudden
change of eligibility criteria to the detriment of the candidates, such of those
candidates who are in service and aspiring to avail relaxation benefit as
contained in Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 have approached this Court in
the present batch of Writ Petitions.
8(b). The Memo dated 01.05.2020 meant to allow 37 MPEOs working in the
Horticulture Department was also cancelled on 06.10.2020 vide Memo
No.AGO 01-HORT/63/2020-HS, but this Memo dated 06.10.2020 was never
published in the newspapers. Therefore, the cancellation of the Memo dated
01.05.2020 was never made known to the public.
9. It is further submitted that several candidates, having been aggrieved
on several counts have also approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the
present batch of Writ Petitions. The present batch of Writ Petitions, therefore,
would consist of the following categories:
8
i. The candidates possessing B.Sc/M.Sc
(Horticulture/Agriculture) who have never been in service
either in the Horticulture Department or Agriculture
Department;
ii. The candidates possessing B.Sc/M.Sc (Agriculture) who
are currently in service as on 10.01.2020 Notification;
iii. The candidates possessing B.Sc/M.Sc (Agriculture) who
are currently not in service but have worked in either the
Horticulture Department or Agriculture Department during
the earlier periods;
iv. The candidates possessing B.Sc/M.Sc (Agriculture) who
are seeking absorption in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.110
dated 19.07.2019.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT:
10. Counter-Affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner of Horticulture. It
is stated in the Counter-Affidavit that in the Notification No.1/Horti/2019 dated
26.07.2019 the educational qualifications for being eligible to participate in the
selection process for the post of 'Village Horticulture Assistant' are that a
candidate must possess 4 years B.Sc (Horticulture/B.Sc (Hons.) Horticulture
from a recognized university (or) any other University accredited by the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi and that a candidate must also possess
two years Diploma in Horticulture (recognized by Dr. YSRHU/ANGRAU),
2019. The Notification had also provided for relaxation in educational
qualifications insofar as the candidates having B.Sc. (or) M.Sc with
Horticulture as one of the optional subjects from any recognized University in
Andhra Pradesh and B.Sc (BZC) from any recognized University in Andhra
Pradesh. It was indicated that the relaxation in educational qualifications are
also applicable for Multi-Purpose Extension Officer (MPEOs), Micro Irrigation
Assistant Officer (MIAOs), MIDCs, Field consultants in working departments of
9
Horticulture, Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is also stated in the Counter-
Affidavit that 4000 posts were sought to be filled-up under 2019 Notification,
whereas, only 2217 candidates were appointed with the above qualifications
which includes the qualifications prescribed for relaxation in educational
qualifications in Para-3 (a) of the 2019 notification. It is stated that in view of
the inadequacy of Village Horticulture Assistants, the Government had
decided to fill-up the residual 1783 posts, for which, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh had again issued Notification No.1/Horti/2020 dated
10.01.2020. The educational qualifications prescribed under the 2020
Notification are exactly the same as prescribed in Para-3 of the 2019
notification.
11. When the process had begun from 10.01.2020 onwards, various
candidates who have either worked earlier or presently working as Multi-
Purpose Extension Officers (MPEOs)/Micro Irrigation Assistant Officers
(MIAOs)/MIDCs in the department of Horticulture have requested the
Government to consider their cases and confer eligibility for selection for post
of Village Horticulture Assistant based on the experiences they have acquired
in the department of Horticulture and extension services.
12. It is submitted that having considered the request of the MPEOs/
MIAOs/MIDCs, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued a Corrigendum
on 30.01.2020 bearing Lr.No.Estt-II(1)01/2020 by including with the following
qualifications:
"3) Working as MPEOs/ MIAOs/ MIDCs in the Department of
Horticulture with B.Sc. (BZC) Degree (or) B.Sc. (or) M.Sc. with
Horticulture as one of the subjects (or) 4 years B.Sc. (Horticulture)
Degree from any University recognized by UGC (or) 10+2 with one
year Diploma with Horticulture in ANGRU. On selection, these
candidates should acquire 2 years Diploma in Horticulture to get
eligibility for promotion to the next cadre.
4) Working as Horticulture Field Consultants/ Horticulture
Technical Assistants/Horticulture Officers/ Horticulture Assistant
Programme Officers in ITDA areas with B.Sc (BZC) Degree/ B.Sc (or)
M.Sc with Horticulture as one of the subjects. On selection, these
candidates should acquire 2 years Diploma in Horticulture to get
eligibility for promotion to the next cadre."
10
13. It is further submitted that about this time, some MPEOs with the
qualification of B.Sc (Agriculture) Degree who are working in Horticulture
Department have also requested the Commissioner of Horticulture to permit
such persons for appearing in the examination for Village Horticulture
Assistant Post. The Government, vide Memo No.AGC01-Hort/63/2020-HS-1,
dated 01.05.2020 (extracted supra), had permitted such candidates having
Degree with B.Sc (Agriculture) to appear in the examination if such persons
have already submitted an Application to that effect.
14. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.64 Agriculture & Cooperation
(H&S) Department, dated 19.06.2020 by which the service rules have been
framed under the Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules and have prescribed
educational qualifications for the post of Village Horticulture Assistants. These
Subordinate Service Rules relating to Village Horticulture Assistants were also
published in the Gazette. The Rules that were enacted vide G.O.Ms. No.64
Agriculture & Cooperation (H&S) Department, dated 19.06.2020 did not
prescribe B.Sc (Agriculture) as a required qualification for the post of Village
Horticulture Assistant. In fact, while the rules were being framed, the
Commissioner of Horticulture had in fact requested the Government on
28.02.2020 to recall/cancel the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 by which the
educational qualification before the processing of online applications were
noticed as being opposed to the Subordinate Service Rules of Horticulture
dated 19.06.2020.
15. In pursuance of the request of the Commissioner of Horticulture made
on 28.02.2020 to recall/cancel the Corrigendum and also keeping in mind the
fact that the Government had already issued State and Subordinate Service
Rules relating to the posts of Village Horticulture Assistants bearing G.O.Ms.
No.64Agriculture & Cooperation (H&S) Department, dated 19.06.2020 vide
the impugned Memo No.AGC01-Hort/62/2020-HS-1, impugned order dated
15.09.2020 came to be passed and the same was posted in the Web Portal
on 17.09.2020.
11
16. It is perceived that the Corrigendum issued on 30.01.2020 is against the
service rules (vide G.O.Ms. No.64Agriculture & Cooperation (H&S)
Department, dated 19.06.2020) and had requested the Government to fill-up
the posts for Village Horticulture Assistants of the candidates who possess
educational qualifications as prescribed in the service rules in order to avoid
legal complications and also to maintain integrity of extension services in the
field of Horticulture.
17. It is submitted that on the said date i.e., on 17.09.2020 the written
examination was not conducted. It is therefore contended that the
Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 was withdrawn only after the conducting of
written examination wherein all the candidates had appeared by virtue of the
relaxations (vide Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and Memo dated
01.05.2020) is factually incorrect, and therefore, submitted that the Writ
Petitioners herein are ineligible to the post of Village Horticulture Assistants;
that the Writ Petitioners did not place any material or any rule to establish that
the B.Sc(BZC) is alone the eligible educational qualification for the post of
Village Horticulture Assistant. It is also submitted that the B.Sc (Horticulture)
course is a four year professional course whereas, the B.Sc (BZC) is a regular
three years degree course and not equivalent to a technical qualification of
B.Sc (Horticulture). It is also submitted that the objective of the Government is
to provide Technical Extension Services to the farmers and that can be
achieved when there are technically qualified candidates who are having
professional degree i.e., B.Sc (Horticulture) four years course.
18. It is specifically contended that the request made by the Commissioner
to the Government on 28.02.2020 to recall/cancel the Corrigendum keeping in
mind the draft rules relating to the Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules
could not be processed expeditiously due to pandemic period, and on account
of the lock down from 15.03.2020 onwards. It is also contended that finally
G.O.Ms. No.64 Agriculture & Cooperation (H&S) Department could be issued
on 19.06.2020 only after the Union of India had relaxed the Covid conditions
12
to some extent. It is also submitted that there was also man power shortage
due to Covid conditions, which is also the reason for issuing notification on
15.09.2020 withdrawing the corrigendum dated 30.01.2020.
19. It is also contended that due to improper software, the candidates
whose educational qualifications were not in compliance with the educational
qualifications prescribed in the Notification could also upload their Applications
with such documents which are not in compliance with the Notification of
2020. Such of those candidates who did not have the necessary qualifications
but had the chance to upload their applications, have approached this Court
seeking permission to appear in the written examination. Therefore, it is
contended that the permission granted by this Court to appear in the
examination, per se, does not confer any vested right for their candidature to
be considered despite the fact that such candidates may have been qualified
in the written examination.
Submissions by the Government:
20. The Official Respondents have also stated that the issues raised by the
Writ Petitioners herein are no more res integra inasmuch as two learned Single Judges of this Hon'ble Court have already dismissed the similar Writ Petitions bearing W.P.No.16670 of 2019 and batch and in W.P.No.1908 of 2020 and batch by a Common Order on dated 22.12.2020 and in W.P.No.15900 of 2020 dated 02.03.2023. In this regard, this Court has perused the Orders rendered by the learned Single Judges dated 22.12.2020 and 02.03.2023. This Court has noticed that the issues raised by the Writ Petitioners herein were not the issues that fell for consideration in the above mentioned Writ Petitions. Although the learned Single Judges have noted in their Orders dated 22.12.2020 and 02.03.2023 about the issuance of the Notification dated 10.01.2020 and the issuance of Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and Memo dated 01.05.2020 and the subsequent withdrawal of both but they were not the issues that were legally considered and decided in the said Judgments. Therefore, the contentions raised by the Official 13 Respondents that the legal issues in this batch of Writ Petitions are no more res integra is not correct. This distinction is discussed in detail elsewhere in this Order under Issue No.3.
21. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Common Order passed in W.P.No.16670 of 2019 and batch and W.P.No.1908 of 2020 and batch dated 22.12.2020 was assailed by the Writ Petitioners by filing Review Petitions (in W.P.Nos.16670, 19565, 19628, 20548, 21596 of 2019, 1908, 2065, 2827, 3966, 4190, 13461, 14983, 16407 & 17338 of 2020. The Learned Single Judge vide Order dated 13.07.2021 was pleased to dismiss all the Review Petitions. However, the dismissal of the Review Petitions shall not have any bearing on the issues which are involved in the present Writ Petitions, inasmuch as the issues raised by the Writ Petitioners in the W.P.No.16670 of 2019 and batch and W.P.No.1908 of 2020 and batch were in fact not related to the issues which are raised in the present batch of Writ Petitions.
Analysis:
22. For the purpose of having clarity on facts, chronological sequence of events are required to be noted as under:
i. Vide G.O.Ms.No.110, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 19.07.2019, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had sought implementation of several Governmental schemes. One such scheme relates to establishment of Village Secretariats (Grama Sachivalayams) in place of erstwhile Gram Panchayats. It is contemplated that the Village Secretariats would undertake multiple assignments; wherein, one such assignment relates to assisting of farmers by appointing Village Horticulture Assistants.
ii. In this process, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, through the Department of Horticulture, has issued Notification No.1 on 26.07.2019 for filling-up of 4000 posts of Horticulture Assistants.14
It is pertinent to mention herein that when this Notification was issued on 26.07.2019, there was no cadre of 'Village Horticulture Assistants' contemplated under the then existing Rules called Andhra Pradesh State Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2005'), and therefore, the particular qualifications are not prescribed at that point of time. The qualifications prescribed during this recruitment in the year 2019 were prescribed as a one time measure with a view that the education qualifications and experience will be governed by the future Rules which were likely to be brought into existence subsequently. However, out of 4000 posts contemplated to be filled-up, the Government of Andhra Pradesh could only fill-up 2217 posts of Village Horticulture Assistants as per Executive Instructions. Due to inability of the Government in filling-up of 4000 posts, there was acute shortage of Village Horticulture Assistants. Therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has immediately initiated steps for filling-up of balance 1783 unfilled posts as per the eligibility criteria which evolved under the Executive Instructions.
iii. Vide Notification No.1 dated 10.01.2020, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has notified for filling-up of left-over 1783 posts. However, the educational qualifications and experience under this Notification is different from the Notification that was issued by the Government on 26.07.2019, in which 2217 posts were filled-up out of 4000 notified posts. Several Representations were given by the affected candidates requesting the Government to maintain similar educational qualifications and experience criteria that was followed in the earlier Notification, inasmuch as the current Notification is only an extension of the earlier Notification for filling-up of the left over posts of about 1783 in number.
15iv. The Government, after considering several Representations had issued a Corrigendum on 30.01.2020 (extracted supra in Para No.6 above) v. Submission of online Applications was closed on 07.02.2020.
Several candidates working in other Departments as MPEOs, MIAOs, MIDCs and Field Assistants working in Departments of Horticulture have also submitted the Applications by this date.
vi. On 11.02.2020, one Smt. M. Sowjanya and others have also submitted a Representation to the Hon'ble Minister of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development requesting to permit the MPEOs (37 in number) who are working in Horticulture Department with B.Sc., (Agriculture) qualification for appearing in the examination.
vii. The Commissioner of Horticulture has addressed a letter to the Special Chief Secretary to Government on 28.02.2020 requesting the Government to give clarity as regards the qualifications and experience of the candidates who have submitted their Applications for filling-up of posts of Village Horticulture Assistants. This clarification was sought in the light of the fact that the educational qualifications were fixed under the Notification No.1 dated 10.01.2020 without framing the Rules.
viii. Having considered the letter addressed by the Commissioner of Horticulture Department dated 28.02.2020 and several Representations submitted by the candidates to the Hon'ble Minister of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development on 11.02.2020, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued a Memo on 01.05.2020 for the sake of including MPEOs who are 16 37 in number for being considered for the posts of Village Horticulture Assistants.
ix. On 19.06.2020, the Government has issued the G.O.Ms.No.64 amending the Andhra Pradesh Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules, 2005 by incorporating the newly created posts called Village Horticulture Assistant as an independent cadre and has prescribed qualifications, thereby amending the earlier Rules 2005 (vide Gazette Publication on 20.06.2020 bearing No.G-
105).
x. On 25.09.2020, the Government has conducted the examination for filling-up of left over and vacant posts of Village Horticulture Assistants of 1783 in number.
xi. On 20.09.2020, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has withdrawn the earlier Corrigendum issued on 30.01.2020 through paper publication.
xii. The Memo dated 01.05.2020 was withdrawn by the Government vide Memo AGC 01-HORT/63/2020-HS dated 06.10.2020, but this withdrawal Memo dated 06.10.2020 was never published in the Newspapers.
xiii. Having been aggrieved of the withdrawal of earlier Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and Memo dated 01.05.2020 through Proceeding dated 20.09.2020 and 06.10.2020 respectively, the present batch of Writ Petitions are filed.
23. Sri G.V. Shivaji, Sri Y. Mallikarjuna Reddy and Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners have submitted that the Notification No.1 dated 10.01.2020 is only an extension of the earlier Notification No.1 dated 26.07.2019, inasmuch as in the first Notification dated 26.07.2019, the Government has contemplated for filling-up of 4000 posts of 17 Village Horticulture Assistants. It is an admitted fact that the attempt made by the Government to fill-up 4000 posts could not fructify because the Government could fill-up only 2217 posts under the Notification dated 26.07.2019. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that there was acute shortage of Village Horticulture Assistants, since 1783 posts have remained vacant, and therefore the Government of Andhra Pradesh was rather compelled to immediately issue a fresh Notification No.1 on 10.01.2020 only to fill-up left over posts of 1783 in number.
24. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that when the left over 1783 vacancies were sought to be filled-up, the Government ought to have maintained the same educational qualifications and experience as eligibility criteria without varying or without differing in any manner. However, since the Government varied with the educational qualifications and experience as eligibility criteria in second recruitment process, the Writ Petitioners have submitted Representations to the Hon'ble Minister of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (on 11.02.2020) and the Government, after having considered the requests of the Writ Petitioners, had issued Corrigendum on 30.01.2020, which is perfectly legal and valid. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners have also submitted that vide Proceeding dated 28.02.2020, the Commissioner has never recommended for withdrawal of the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020. Rather the Commissioner for Horticulture has only requested the Government to give clarification with regard to eligibility criteria that is to be followed for filling-up left over 1783 posts. They would also submit that after considering the Representations on 11.02.2020, the Hon'ble Minister of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development had requested the Government to consider the requests made by the Writ Petitioners vide Representation dated 11.02.2020.
25. It is further contended that after having considered the Representations, the Government has issued the Memo on 01.05.2020, thereby enabling about 18 37 persons who were working as MPEOs to participate in the recruitment process for the posts of Village Horticulture Assistants.
26. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that as on the date when the Memo dated 01.05.2020 came to be issued, the Rules that governed the conditions of service of Village Horticulture Assistant have not been brought into effect, inasmuch as the said amendments have been brought into effect only on 19.06.2020 vide G.O.Ms.No.64, thereby amending the erstwhile Rules namely the Rules, 2005.
27. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the examination was conducted on 25.09.2020 with regard to the Notification that was issued initially on 19.07.2019, and thereafter to fill-up the left over posts on 26.07.2019, and therefore, the changes which were brought about by making amendment to the earlier existing Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.06.2020 cannot be applied to the recruitment process that has already begun way back in the year 2019 and the same was further carried to fill-up the left over posts under Notification in the year 2020.
28. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners have placed reliance on the following Judgments on the proposition that rules of the game cannot be changed:
i. Gurunanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another : 2009 (1) SCC 610, Para No.15.
ii. Rakhi Ray and Others Vs. The High Court of Delhi :
2010 (2) SCR 239, Para No.22.
iii. State of Bihar and Others Vs. Mithlesh Kumar : 2010 (13) SCC 467, Para Nos.16, 18, 19, 20 & 23.
iv. P Brahma Sai and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others : W.P.No.45816 of 2018, dated 18.07.2019 of Hon'ble High Court of AP, Para No.10 19 v. Mohammad Nafeeza Sultana Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others : W.P.No.9222 of 2020, dated 04.05.2023 of Hon'ble High Court of AP, Para Nos. 7, 8, 9 & 10.
29. The Respondents have placed reliance on the following Judgments on the proposition of principle of equivalence:
i. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs T.Rajendra Reddy and Others : W.A.No.640 of 2022, dated, 20.02.2024 of Hon'ble High Court of AP.
ii. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs Keasava Kumar Madika : W.A.No.242 of 2024, dated, 15.03.2024 of Hon'ble High Court of AP.
iii. Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others; (2019) 6 SCC 362.
30. As indicated herein above, a learned Single Judge had dismissed the bearing W.P.No.16670 of 2019 and batch. This batch of Writ petitions contained challenges in regard to the Notification No.1 dated 26.07.2019 and the subsequent notification bearing Notification No.1 dated 10.01.2020. After dismissal of the batch of the Writ Petitions bearing W.P.No.16670 of 2019 and W.P.No.1908 of 2020 and batch by a common order on 22.12.2020, another learned Single Judge, by following the order rendered by the learned Single Judge in the batch of W.P.No.16670 of 2019, was pleased to dismiss W.P.No.15900 of 2020 on 02.03.2023. This court has perused both the orders. Review Petitions filed against the Common Order dated 22.12.2020 in W.P.No.16670 of 2019 and batch were also dismissed by Common Order dated 13.07.2021.
2031. In the light of the facts involved in the present case, this court deems it appropriate to frame the following issues based of the facts borne out from the record.
Issues: -
1. Whether the Government can initiate recruitment process on the basis of Executive Instructions for a new cadre (Village Horticulture Assistants) of employees in the absence of Statutory Rules?
2. Whether the statutory amendment, introducing the new cadre (Village Horticulture Assistants) after issuance of the Notification could be applied prospectively or retrospectively?
3. Whether the issues decided by the common order rendered in W.P.No.16670 of 2019 and W.P.No.1908 of 2020 and batch dated 22.12.2020 (and the Common Order dated 13.07.2021 in the Review Petitions) are one and the same in the present batch of Writ Petitions? and, whether the said Common Orders have any bearing on the legal issues involved in the present case?
Issue No.1
32. In order to deal with this issue, the basic facts which are required to be noted by this Court are that for the first time, the Government has created a new cadre in the Department of Horticulture called the 'Village Horticulture Assistants'; that vide Notification No.1 dated 26.07.2019, the State Government had contemplated to fill up 4,000 posts of 'Village Horticulture Assistants'; whereas, the Government could fill up only 2,217 posts. Thereby, 1,783 posts of Village Horticulture Assistants were left-over unfilled due to 21 unavailability of candidates possessing such qualifications/ experience; that as the Government was in dire need of filling-up the left-over 1,783 posts, the Government had issued, within six months, Notification.No.1, dated 10.01.2020; that due to various requests, the Government had issued Corrigendum on 30.01.2020, with a view to bring more number of persons within the ambit of eligibility to appear in the examination; that due to subsequent representations, the Government has also issued Memo on 01.05.2020 to include some more persons in contractual service in the Departments of Horticulture and Agriculture, thereby making them eligible to appear in the examination.
33. It is also to be noted that admittedly, the Government had made amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules, 2005 on 19.06.2020 and published in the Gazette on 20.06.2020. It is also an admitted fact that all the candidates who were made eligible under the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and Memo dated 01.05.2020 were subjected to the examination on 25.09.2020; whereas, just five days before that, the Government had withdrawn the Corrigendum on 20.09.2020. The above facts would clearly indicate that as on the date of notification, there were no statutory Rules in force. On the contrary, the Government has contemplated to make recruitment to the newly created cadre of Village Horticulture Assistants only by way of Executive Instructions and in that process, by the end of the year 2019, the Government has already recruited 2,217 Village Horticulture Assistants. Having regard to these facts, it can be emphatically said that the Government had not promulgated the Statutory Rules up to June 2020, whereas, both the notifications were issued prior to the promulgation of these Rules. As indicated earlier, that the process of recruitment was already completed by following the Executive Instructions regarding the Notification No.1 of 2019, and the second recruitment (under Notification No.1 dated 10.01.2020) had also begun. In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is to the effect that it is permissible for the State to undertake recruitment process based on Executive Instructions in the absence of the 22 Statutory Rules and that the Statutory Rules which are introduced mid-way cannot be retrospectively applied to the recruitment process which already begun.
34. In Dr.Sharmad Vs State of Kerala and Others : 2025 SCC Online SC 71, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para Nos.13 and 18, had held as under:
13. Law is settled that in the absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken. Even without examining whether G.O. dated 14th December, 2009 had any application to the promotional appointment in question, it would be just and proper to focus on the requirements of G.O. dated 07th April, 2008.
18. Thus, without „Recruitment Rules‟ being defined, it can take colour from Rule 10(a)(i) and be understood to mean and include executive orders of the Government in a case where Special Rules are absent.
35. In State of Assam and Others Vs Arabinda Rabha and Others :
2025 SCC Online SC 523, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para No.35 had held as under:
35. It cannot be gainsaid that the factors of "when", "which", "what", "who" associated with recruitment/selection process is the prerogative of the recruiting "how" and that are authority and the selectors;
however, at the same time, the process has to be conducted consistent with statutory provisions governing the same, if any, as well as principles of absolute fairness and complete non-arbitrariness. Though it is true that the law does not postulate a fetter on the authority of the employer-State and it is within the domain of the Government when to initiate a process of recruitment for public employment, either according to recruitment rules or even in the absence thereof, it is for the Government of the day to decide in which manner it proposes to conduct selection, what would be the various stages the candidates aspiring for appointment have to pass through in order to be placed in the select list, who would be the selectors, and how weightage is to be given to each of the testing methods, a great deal of credence is lent to a process if it is fairly and transparently conducted in accordance with rules, whatever be its source, without the slightest hint of any bias or favouritism or nepotism.
23Normally, it is not for the courts to interfere unless the process smacks of mala fides. However, the right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe and prudent to have recruitment rules to govern the process of selection so that the best possible talent is appointed in public service. Obviously, assessing the merit of the candidates aspiring for public employment on the basis of a prescribed standard would not only provide a level playing field for each of them, the excellence of any institution to which the appointment is to be made would depend directly on the proficiency of its members/staff and that would, in turn, depend on the quality and merit of those who offer themselves for selection and ultimately get selected, necessitating the selection to be conducted without any hidden taint or masked mala fides. Last but not the least, having regard to present times when corruption has been held to be a walk of life by certain responsible citizens of the country, it would have been desirable if the process of recruitment of 104 Constables were conducted after framing of recruitment rules and also prescribing a written examination to keep the process absolutely above board.
36. Finally, in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others Vs Rajasthan High Court and Others : (2025) 2 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para Nos.51 to 55 and 65, had held as under:
51. What is clear from above is that the object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to ensure that a person most suitable for the post is selected.
What is suitable for one post may not be for the other. Thus, a degree of discretion is necessary to be left to the employer to devise its method/ procedure to select a candidate most suitable for the post albeit subject to the overarching principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as also the rules/statute governing service and reservation.
52. Thus, in our view, the appointing authority/recruiting authority/ competent authority, in absence of rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while doing so it may also set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process including written examination and interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. But if the extant Rules or the advertisement inviting applications empower the competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages 24 of the recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set any time before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate nor the evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken by surprise.
53. The decision in K. Manjusree does not proscribe setting of benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process but mandates that it should not be set after the stage is over, in other words after the game has already been played. This view is in consonance with the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and meets the legitimate expectation of the candidates as also the requirement of transparency in recruitment to public services and thereby obviates malpractices in preparation of select list.
(D) Rule does not apply with equal strictness to steps for selection
54. As already noticed in Section (A), a recruitment process inter alia comprises of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. Subject to the rule against arbitrariness, how tests or viva voce are to be conducted, what questions are to be put, in what manner evaluation is to be done. whether a shortlisting exercise is needed are all matters of procedure which, in absence of rules to the contrary, may be devised by the competent authority. Often advertisement(s) inviting applications are open-ended in terms of these steps and leave it to the discretion of the competent authority to adopt such steps as may be considered necessary in the circumstances albeit subject to the overarching principle of rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
55. To elucidate the above proposition we shall notice a few instances where the procedure devised by the recruiting body has been approved by this Court. In Santosh Kumar Tripathi v. U.P. Power Corpn., this Court was required to consider whether the Rules enabling Service Commission to examine, interview, select and recommend suitable candidates would include power to hold written examination. This Court accepted the High Court's view38 that power to "examine" would include holding of written examination.
65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:
2565.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;
65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness:
65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha³. Subash Chander Marwaha³ deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues:
65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules. may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-
discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved:
65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the rules are non- existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.
Issue No.2: -
37. The following facts are required to be noticed by this Court: -
It is to be noticed that in the Counter Affidavit filed by the Government, it has been stated that the Commissioner of Horticulture vide proceeding dated 26 28.02.2020 addressed to the Special Chief Secretary to Government to recall/ cancel the corrigendum which has relaxed the educational qualifications before the processing of online application. When this court has noticed this averment in Para No.10 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 on behalf of the other official respondents, this Court had directed the learned Government Pleader vide order dated 17.07.2025 to place on record the said letter addressed by the Commissioner of Horticulture dated 28.02.2020 to the Special Chief Secretary to Government and also G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.06.2020, by which the Government has made amendments in Andhra Pradesh Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules for introducing a new cadre called the 'Village Horticulture Assistants' and had made the said cadre of Village Horticulture Assistants as feeder category for the promotion to the post of Horticulture Extension Officer. The said documents were filed on 24.07.2025 by way of Memo. On perusal of the letter addressed by the Commissioner of Horticulture to the Special Chief Secretary to Government dated 28.02.2020, it is noticed by this Court that the said letter does not disclose anywhere that the Commissioner had ever requested the Special Chief Secretary to recall/ cancel the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 or Memo dated 01.05.2020. The said Letter indicates that the Commissioner had merely requested the Government to issue appropriate orders after considering the situation for whatever the reasons that may be. The Government had, for the first time, issued G.O.Ms.No.64 Agriculture & Cooperation (H&S) Department only on 19.06.2020, by which time, the applications were received from all the candidates who would become eligible as per Notification No.1 dated 10.01.2020, the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and the Memo dated 01.05.2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically held in a catena of decisions that the rules of the game cannot be changed and that the recruitment process begins from the date of the issuance of the Notification. In this case, the date of issuance of Notification is 10.01.2020. This finding is fortified by various dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court.27
38. In P.Mahendran and Others Vs State of Karnataka and Others :
(1990) 1 SCC 411, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para Nos.5 to 7, had held as under:
5. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If a rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only.
In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rules of 1987 do not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rules were not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force, the amended Rules could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter.
6. In A.A. Calton v. Director of Education this Court considered the validity of appointment of Principal by the Director of Education made under Section 16-F of the U.P. İntermediate Education Act, 1921. The High Court quashed the selection of Principal on the ground that the appointment had been made by the Selection Committee and not by the Director of Education as required by Section 16-F(4) of the Act. The High Court directed the Director of Education to make selection and appointment. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Director made appointment to the post of Principal by his order dated March 8, 1977, but before that date, Section 16-F(4) of the Act was amended on August 18, 1975 taking away the power of the Director to make appointment under Section 16-F(4) of the Act. In view of the amendment of Section 16-F of the Act, validity of the order of the Director of Education dated March 8, 1977 making appointment to 28 the post of Principal was again questioned. The High Court dismissed the writ petition there- upon the unsuccessful party preferred appeal. This Court held as under: (SCC pp. 36-37, para 5) "It is no doubt true that the Act was amended by U.P. Act 26 of 1975 which came into force on August 18, 1975 taking away the of the Director to make an appointment under Section 16- F(4) of the Act in the case of minority institutions. The amending Act did not, however, provide expressly that the amendment in question would apply to pending proceedings under Section 16-F of the Act. Nor do we find any words in it which by necessary intendment would affect such pending proceedings. The process of selection under Section 16-F of the Act commencing from the stage of calling for applications for a post up to the date on which the Director becomes entitled to make a selection under Section 16-F(4) (as it stood then) is an integrated one. At every stage in that process certain rights are created in favour of one or the other of the candidates. Section 16-F of the Act cannot, therefore, be construed as merely a procedural provision. It is true that the legislature may pass laws with retrospective effect subject to the recognised constitutional limitations. But it is equally well settled that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right, unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect. In the instant case admittedly the proceedings for the selection had commenced in the year 1973 and after the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommendations made by the Selection Committee twice the Director acquired the jurisdiction to make an appointment from amongst the qualified candidates who had applied for the vacancy in question. At the instance of the appellant himself in the earlier writ petition filed by him the High Court had directed the Director to exercise that power. Although the Director in the present case exercised that power subsequent to August 18, 1975 on which date the amendment came into force, it cannot be said that the selection made by him was illegal since the amending law had no retrospective effect. It did not have any effect on the proceedings which had commenced prior to August 18, 1975. Such proceedings had to be continued in accordance with the law as it stood at 29 the commencement of the said proceedings. We do not, therefore, find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the law as amended by the U.P. Act 26 of 1975 should have been followed in the present case."
7. In view of the above the appellants' selection and appointment could not be held as illegal as the process of selection had commenced in 1983 which had to be completed in accordance with law as it stood at the commencement of the selection. The amended Rule could not be applied to invalidate the selection made by the Commission. Strangely the Tribunal did not follow the latest authority of this Court as laid down in Calton case, on the ground that the view taken in that case was contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Ramakrishna Rao. We have carefully considered the decision but we do not find anything therein contrary to the view taken in Calton case.
39. In Secretary, A.P.Public Service Commission Vs B.Swapna and Others : (2005) 4 SCC 154, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para No.14, had held as under:
14. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended 9 rule was operative. As has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for Respondent 1 applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criterion e.g. minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect.
Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only. (See P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka and Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig.) 30
40. In High Court of Delhi and Others Vs A.K.Mahajan and Others :
(2009) 12 SCC 62, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para NO.45, had held as under:
45. In short, law regarding the retrospectivity or retroactive operation regarding the rules of selection is that where such amended rules affect the benefit already given, then alone such rules would not be permissible to the extent of retrospectivity.
41. In State of Bihar and Others Vs Mithilesh Kumar : (2010) 13 SCC 467, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para No.20, had held as under :
20. The decisions which have been cited on behalf of the respondent have clearly explained the law with regard to the applicability of the rules which are amended and/or altered during the selection process. They all say in one voice that the norms or rules as existing on the date when the process of selection begins will control such selection and any alteration to such norms would not affect the continuing process, unless specifically the same were given retrospective effect.
42. In Union of India Vs. Uzair Imran and Others : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para - 15 as under:
"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 being 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 31 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."
(emphasis supplied)
43. In Anil Kishore Pandit Vs State of Bihar and Others : 2024 SCC Online SC 332, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para Nos.8 to 11 had reiterated the same principle.
44. The above principles were also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following Judgments rendered in the year 2025: -
a. Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A. Baig (Dead) By Lrs., and others :
(1999) 1 SCC 544 - Para Nos. 5 and 6.
b. Assam Public Service Commission and others Vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma and others : (2020) 20 SCC 680 - Para Nos. 15 and 16.
c. Tej Prakash Pathak and Others Vs Rajasthan High Court and Others : (2025) 2 SCC 1 - Para Nos.13 to 16, 24 to 28 ( As regards the legitimate expectation) d. R.Ranjith Singh and Others Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others :
2025 SCC Online SC 1009 - Para No.23.
Issue No.3: -
45. The learned Government Pleader has contended that the issues raised in the present batch of Writ Petitions are no more res-integra because the learned Single Judge of this Court had already decided the issues arising in the present batch of Writ Petitions in an order rendered on 22.12.2020 in batch of Writ Petitions bearing W.P.Nos.16670 of 2019 and W.P.No.1908 of 32 2020 and batch, and the same findings were confirmed in the Order dated 13.07.2021 in Review Petition. This Court has perused the common order passed by a learned Single Judge on 22.12.2020. In Para No.9 of the said order, the learned Single Judge has extracted the operative portion of an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15504 of 2019. It is noticed from the common order dated 22.12.2020 that the Notification No.1 dated 19.07.2019 and subsequent notification, Notification No.1 dated 10.01.2020 were challenged by various parties in various Writ Petitions of the years 2019 and 2020 respectively at various points of time. This Court has gone through the Common Orders passed by the Ld. Single Judge in the batch of Writ Petitions as well as in the batch of Review Petitions dated 22.12.2020 and 13.07.2021 respectively. Having considered the issues which are decided in the said Common Orders, this Court is of the view that the issues that arise in the present batch of Writ Petitions are completely different and therefore, the issue of res judicata does not arise.
46. In Jayant Verma and Others Vs Union of India and Others : (2018) 4 SCC 743, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para Nos.55, had held as under:
55. In Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, a dissenting judgment of A.P. Sen, J. sets out what is the ratio decidendi of a judgment: (SCC p. 755, para SCR pp. 1073-74) "22.... According to the well-settled theory of precedents every decision contains three basic ingredients:
„(i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts:
(ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and
(iii) judgment based on the combined effect of (i) and
(ii) above.
For the purposes of the parties themselves and their privies, ingredient (iii) is the material element in the decision for it determines finally their rights and 33 liabilities in relation to the subject-matter of the action. It is the judgment that estops the parties from reopening the dispute. However, for the purpose of the doctrine of precedents, ingredient (ii) is the vital element in the decision. This indeed is the ratio decidendi. [R.J. Walker & M.G. Walker: The English Legal System. Butterworths, 1972, 3rd Edn., pp. 123-
24.] It is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. In the leading case of Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd. v. Haynes it was laid down that the ratio decidendi may be defined as a statement of law applied to the legal problems raised by the facts as found, upon which the decision is based. The other two elements in the decision are not precedents. The judgment is not binding (except directly on the parties themselves), nor are the findings of facts. This means that even where the direct facts of an earlier case appear to be identical to those of the case before the court, the Judge is not bound to draw the same inference as drawn in the earlier case."
47. In Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs Mahadeva Shetty and Another :
(2003) 7 SCC 197, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para No.23, had held as under:
23........Therefore, while applying the decision to a later case, the court dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous decision.
A decision often takes its colour from the question involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. The task of finding the principle is fraught with difficulty as without an investigation into the facts, it cannot be assumed whether a similar direction must or ought to be made as a measure of social justice. Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all, nor every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority.
3448. FINDINGS:
By correlating the specific facts arising in the present batch of Writ Petitions with that of the settled law, this Court had rendered findings to the issues noted hereinabove. Having considered the discussion made herein above, the following findings would emerge;
(i) The Village Horticulture Assistants was created as a special cadre and the government had undertaken the process of recruitment for 4000 of Village Horticulture Assistants posts basing on the Executive Instructions, because, admittedly there were no Statutory Rules in respect of this new cadre.
(ii) Since only 2217 out of 4000 posts were filled up under the Notification No.01 of 2019, the Government was anxious to fill-up the balance posts of 1973 for the purpose of augmenting the shortage.
(iii) Admittedly, the Government had initiated the next recruitment drive within six (06) months by issuing Notification No.01 of 2020 dated 10.01.2020.
(iv) Due to several Representations by different categories of persons, the Government had issued Corrigendum on 30.01.2020 for inclusion of more candidates who would eventually be tested by way of written examination in the open competition along with others.
(v) Persons having such educational qualifications which are slightly different from the educational qualifications prescribed under the Notification No.1 dated 10.01.2020, by virtue of their experience in the service of Horticulture 35 Department, have also made Representations seeking approval of Government for participating in the examination/selection process.
(vi) Having considered such Representations, about 37 persons working as MPEOs in the Department of Horticulture with B.Sc (Agri) Degree qualifications were also permitted to apply by the Government vide Memo.No.AGCO01-HORT/63/2020-HS-1, dated 01.05.2020.
(vii) It has now clearly emerged that the Commissioner of Horticulture has never recommended vide Letter dated 28.02.2020 to the Government to withdraw the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020. Therefore, the averment in the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 is factually incorrect.
(viii) The record would also disclose that vide G.O.Ms.No.64 Agriculture & Cooperation (H&S) Department, dated 19.06.2020, the Government had amended the Andhra Pradesh Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules 2005 and had introduced the new cadre called the Village Horticulture Assistants by creating Category 1-A for which, the said amended Rules have also prescribed qualification.
(ix) During the scrutiny process of the Applications, various candidates have approached this Court by filing present batch of Writ Petitions raising various contentions 36 including non-processing of their Applications, wherein, this Court had issued various interim directions to process all the Applications in terms of the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and the Memo dated 01.05.2020 and also to allow the Writ Petitioners to appear in the examination.
(x) That the examination was conducted as per the schedule i.e., on 25.09.2020.
(xi) Five days before the conducting of the examination, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued paper Publication on 29.09.2020 stating that such of those candidates covered under the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 will not be considered for recruitment under the Notification No.01 of 2020. This Publication is done on the basis of final proceeding between the Commissioner of Horticulture and the Commissioner of PR & RD Department dated 17.09.2020.
(xii) Despite the newspaper publication on 20.09.2020, all the Writ Petitioners herein were permitted to take the examination since the interim orders of this Court had conferred the right of various Writ Petitioners to appear in the examination.
(xiii) The publication of the results of examination of the Writ Petitioners was withheld. By virtue of several Orders passed by this Court, the result of the Writ Petitioners were also eventually published/released.
37(xiv) The Government has issued another Memo on 06.10.2020 bearing Memo No.AGC01-Hort/63/2020-HS cancelling the earlier Memo dated 01.05.2020. Admittedly, this cancellation is subsequent to the conduct of the examination on 25.09.2020. But the cancellation Memo dated 06.10.2020 was not made known to the public by publication in the newspapers.
(xv) In view of the discussion in Issue No.1, this Court had rendered a finding that in the absence of Statutory Rules and Regulations, for the purpose of meeting with exigencies in administration, the Government has the freedom to proceed with the recruitment based on the Executive Instructions so long as they are not arbitrary and discriminative.
(xvi) This Court has already rendered a finding under the Issue No.2 that the Statutory Rules that were brought into force midway during the recruitment process under Notification No.01 of 2020 cannot be applied retrospectively for the ongoing process of recruitment that was being continued as a second phase on the strength of the Executive Instructions. This finding is also fortified by the proposition that the 'Rules of the Game' cannot be altered mid-way or when once the process begins.
(xvii) While dealing with issue No.3, this Court has already rendered a finding that the common Judgments rendered by the Ld. Single Judge in the batch of Writ Petitions dated 22.12.2020 and in the Review Petitions dated 38 13.07.2021 do not constitute res judicata against the Writ Petitioners inasmuch as the issues that are formulated and being decided in the present batch of Writ Petitions have not been dealt with in the earlier Common Orders dated 22.12.2020 and 13.07.2021 and therefore, the findings rendered by the Ld. Single Judge in the Common Orders do not constitute res judicata since the issues decided in the present Writ Petitions do not form part of the ratio decidendi in the Common Orders dated 22.12.2020 and 13.07.2021.
(xviii) Admittedly, all the Writ Petitioners have already attended the examination by virtue of various interim Orders of this Court, and the result would have been declared in respect of all the Writ Petitioners. This Court is also of the view that the ultimate merit of a candidate coupled with the suitability is reflected from the result obtained by each candidate in the examination. Therefore, if the candidates have secured meritorious ranks that would entitle them to be considered for appointment for the post of Village Horticulture Assistants, this Court sees no reason to keep them out and to deprive them from availing such opportunity since their capability is reflected through the marks and the ranking obtained by the candidates in the written examination that was conducted on 25.09.2020. View of this Court is also fortified by the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Uzair Imran and Others : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308 - Para 15 (extracted supra).
39(xix) In view of the discussion emerging in Issue Nos. 1 and 2, it is held that the newspaper publication dated 20.09.2020 and the Memo dated 06.10.2020 are illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and the Memo dated 01.05.2020 are held to be legally valid. It is also held that the statutory Rules (GO Ms.No.64 dated 19.06.2020) which came into force from 20.06.2020 shall not have any bearing on the recruitment process that is undertaken by the Government under Notification No.1 of 2020 dated 10.01.2020 and also on the Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and Memo dated 01.05.2020.
49. In the light of the above findings, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions:
(i) The Respondents are directed to publish the merit list even for the Writ Petitioners, if not already published;
(ii) The Respondents are directed to process the result of the Writ Petitioners in accordance with law;.
(iii) If the rank secured by the present Writ Petitioners happens to be higher than the rank secured by the other candidates who were already selected, the seniority of the Writ Petitioners shall be reckoned based on the overall merit;
(iv) Such of those Writ Petitioners who would now be recruited shall only claim notional seniority but without any back wages for a period of 40 12 weeks from the date of uploading of this Common Order on the website of this Court; and
(v) The Government shall complete the entire process within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of uploading of this Common Order on the website of this Court.
50. This batch of Writ Petitions are allowed only to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to costs.
51. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 27.10.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.
VNS/UPS/MNR/JKS/DVS 41 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.6286 of 2023 & batch Dt: 27.10.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.
VNS/UPS/MNR/JKS/DVS