S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) WHEN this writ petition was presented on 18. 11. 1996, the petitioner was serving as District Munsif. In the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the provisional inter se seniority list of the District Munsif of 1985-86 batch communicated through the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh -2nd respondent herein in its proceedings Rc no. 88/94-b2, dated 17. 1. 1994. ( 2 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of this writ petition be noted briefly as under: The petitioner while working as assistant Public Prosecutor-Gr. II, applied for the post of District Munsif in pursuance of the Notification No. 29/85 issued by the andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, the 3rd respondent herein, and he was selected and appointed as District Munsif in the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Services under the limited recruitment by way of transfer. The Government of Andhra Pradesh -the 1st respondent herein published the list of candidates selected for appointment to the post of District Munsif by direct recruitment (General) and recruitment by transfer (General), and under limited recruitment in annexure ABC respectively appended to g. O. Ms. No. 96, Home (Courts-C), dated 10. 3. 1987. The petitioner belongs to scheduled Caste. The petitioner claims that since he was selected and appointed as district Munsif under the limited recruitment by way of transfer, he should have been assigned rank 5 instead of rank 95 in the inter se seniority list of District Munsifs of the 1985-86 batch. At this stage itself, in order to reduce the sphere of controversy to the minimum, we may straightaway point out that if the petitioner is found to have been appointed as District Munsif under the limited recruitment by way of transfer, the claim of the petitioner has to be granted, and the assignment of rank 95 to the petitioner in the inter se seniority list of district Munsifs should be held to be irregular and illegal. Therefore, the 1st question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner was appointed as district Munsif, in pursuance of Notification no. 29/85, by way of limited recruitment by transfer or not. In Para (12) of the counter affidavit filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public service Commission (for short "appsc"), it is stated :"12. Therefore, the 1st question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner was appointed as district Munsif, in pursuance of Notification no. 29/85, by way of limited recruitment by transfer or not. In Para (12) of the counter affidavit filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public service Commission (for short "appsc"), it is stated :"12. It is respectfully submitted in this connection that the one SC vacancy notified for recruitment by transfer under limited recruitment was in fact filled in by the commission in 1983. This aspect could not be noticed earlier and the vacancy was inadvertently carried forward as if it is an unfilled vacancy and notified under limited recruitment. The petitioner being the lone eligible candidate who responded to the recruitment was evidently selected as per his rank, without reference to the marks secured by him. "thus, it is clear that though there was no carried forward vacancy for SC candidate, according to the Commission, out of mistake and inadvertence, it wrongly advertised one post of District Munsif calling for applications to fill up that post by way of recruitment by transfer. This writ petition has undergone large number of hearings and adjournments as we could see from the proceedings sheet. In order to satisfy ourselves about the veracity of the statement made by the APPSC in Para (12) of the counter-affidavit, on an earlier occasion, we directed the learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC to file a better comprehensive affidavit setting out necessary facts on the basis of which the statement made by the Commission in para (12) of the counter- affidavit could be supported. In pursuance of that direction, the Public Service commission through the learned Standing counsel has filed additional counter-affidavit sworn to by the Secretary of the Commission tracing the vacancy position vis-a-vis sc candidates as regards recruitment by transfer, commencing from the year 1979-80. It is stated in the counter thus: "3. It is submitted that during 1979-80 a notification was issued on 1. 11. 1979 wherein 59 vacancies were notified. The break up of these vacancies was as follows: 49 by direct recruitment 10 by recruitment by transfer. It is submitted that as per the amendment issued in G. O. Ms. No. 148, Home (Courts) dated 24. 2. It is submitted that during 1979-80 a notification was issued on 1. 11. 1979 wherein 59 vacancies were notified. The break up of these vacancies was as follows: 49 by direct recruitment 10 by recruitment by transfer. It is submitted that as per the amendment issued in G. O. Ms. No. 148, Home (Courts) dated 24. 2. 1979, rule of reservation of appointments shall apply separately to the appointments to be made by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer w. e. f. , 1. 4. 1978 and rotation should start afresh from 1. 4. 1978 both in the case of direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer and the candidates already selected had to be fitted in the turns in the respective rosters. After this is done the vacancy position for the recruitment pursuant to the notification issued on 1. 11. 1979 was as follows: direct recruitment recruitment by transfer