( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions, the procedure adopted by the A. P. Forest Development corporation Limited, the respondent herein, in the matter of selection, to the post of assistant Personnel Officer (APO), is in challenge. ( 2 ) THE respondent is a Government company, incorporated with an object of developing Forest in the State of Andhra pradesh. It has various categories of employees, ranging from General Manager to Watchman-cum-Sweeper (26 categories), on the administrative side, and Group manager, to Fieldman, on technical side. The post of Personnel Officer occurs at si. No. 5, in the administrative side. The post of Manager in the Head office, was upgraded to that of A. P. O. , through Standing Order no. 190 of 1982, dated 6-10-1982. Through the same Standing Order, the method of appointment to that post was also indicated. It was to be filled, by deputation of candidates from Government or other organization, or by internal promotion, from the categories of p. S. to Managing Director, Personal assistant, Senior Accountant and Senior assistant, in the descending order of preference. ( 3 ) THROUGH Standing Order No. 765/93, dated 8-11 -1993, the Corporation amended the procedure for appointment to the post of a. P. O. , from promotion, to that of selection. Certain additional posts were also created in that category. ( 4 ) AS regards the procedure to be followed in the selection, to this post, it was directed that the zone of consideration shall be four times the number of estimated vacancies from the feeder categories, and candidates, twice the number of vacancies, shall be included in the approved panel. ( 5 ) ONE vacancy of A. P. O. , had arisen in the recent past, and the respondent has initiated the steps for filling up the same. Petitioner in W. P. No. 24345 of 2005 is working as Personal Assistant, and the petitioner in w. P. No. 25518 of 2005 is working as Personal secretary to Vice-Chairman and Managing director. The posts held by them, are within the feeder categories. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent is proceeding as though, he can prepare a panel, by including the names of four persons from each category, to fill the lone vacancy. The posts held by them, are within the feeder categories. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent is proceeding as though, he can prepare a panel, by including the names of four persons from each category, to fill the lone vacancy. ( 6 ) PETITIONERS contend that the respondent must have considered the names of one individual from each of the feeder categories, and that there does not exist any justification, in including the names of four eligible candidates, from each of the categories. They submit that such procedure would be contrary to the various Standing Orders issued by the respondent, from time to time. ( 7 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that since there are four feeder categories to the post of a. P. O. , four candidates are required to be considered from each category. It is urged that the names of the petitioners were included in the panel, and they cannot have any plausible objection. Reliance is placed upon certain clauses in the Standing Orders, to support their view. ( 8 ) SRI A. Rajendra Babu, and Sri P. Kishore rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that the zone of consideration for the post of A. P. O. , is four times the number of available vacancies, and having regard to the fact that there are four feeder categories of such posts, one candidate from each of the categories, must have been considered for this purpose. They contend that the action of the respondent cannot be justified, under any circumstances. ( 9 ) SRI P. Sreeramulu Naidu, learned standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that, having regard to the peculiar nature of the post, in the context of there being four feeder categories, the respondent has prepared the list for consideration, with a view to provide chance to all the eligible candidates. ( 10 ) THE undisputed facts are that, the appointment, to the post of A. P. O. , was initially through promotion alone, and subsequently, it was amended to the effect that, it shall be by way of selection. When it was by promotion alone, deputation was also permissible from any government department or other agencies. ( 10 ) THE undisputed facts are that, the appointment, to the post of A. P. O. , was initially through promotion alone, and subsequently, it was amended to the effect that, it shall be by way of selection. When it was by promotion alone, deputation was also permissible from any government department or other agencies. Consequent upon the amendment through Standing Order No. 765/93, dated 8-11-1993, deputation is done away with, and appointment is through selection, from the four feeder categories. Clause 3. 1 of the said Standing Order, which is the bone of contention for both the parties, reads as under:"clause 3. 1: Number of eligible candidates to be considered from feeder category shall be four times the number of estimated vacancies which are required to be filled up by promotion during the validity of the panel (i. e. from 1st July to 30th June) and number of persons to be kept in the panel approved for promotion by IPCs shall be twice the number of estimated vacancies. " clause 4 has some bearing upon this, and in fact, it is heavily relied upon by the respondent. It is to the following effect: clause 4: Whereas in case of "non-Selection" categories, individual cases shall be considered serially arranged in order of their seniority and process will stop at the point twice the number of estimated vacancies are found fit for promotion, in case of selection categories all the candidates required to be considered (i. e. 4 times the number of estimated vacancies in the panel year) shall have to be necessarily considered and graded into the following categories in the manner described in succeeding paras- category 1: Outstanding/excellent/very good category 2 : Good/above average category 3 : Satisfactory/average/fair category 4 : Unsatisfactory/below average/poor/bad all the candidates graded as outstanding/excellent/very good shall enbloc be placed first in the approved panel serially in order of their Inter se seniority. Similarly all those graded good/above Average shall be placed below the 1st Category and those graded satisfactory/average/fair shall be placed below Category 2. All those graded Unsatisfactory/below Average/ poor/bad shall be excluded and not considered for promotion. Required numberof twice the estimated vacancies to be kept in the panel approved for promotion shall be made up from the list so made by above method. All those graded Unsatisfactory/below Average/ poor/bad shall be excluded and not considered for promotion. Required numberof twice the estimated vacancies to be kept in the panel approved for promotion shall be made up from the list so made by above method. " ( 11 ) WHETHER it was by promotion or by selection, the consideration was confined to the candidates in four feeder categories, in the descending order. If it is purely by way of promotion, as and how the vacancies arise, the posts were to be filled, with the candidates from the four categories, one after the other. Adherence to the descending order, in the context of selection, has to result in, empanelment of candidates for consideration. If there is one vacancy, one candidate from each of the four feeder categories, has to be included. Similarly, if there are two vacancies, two candidates from each of the feeder categories, have to be considered. It is impermissible to draw all the four names from only one feeder post, if there exists only one vacancy. ( 12 ) WHAT in fact, the respondent has done is, that it decided to considerfournamesfrom each of the four categories, for the category of A. P. O. In such an event, the number of candidates to be considered for one vacancy would be 16, and not 4. Such a course would clearly violate Clause 3. 1 of the Standing order. ( 13 ) THE respondent seeks to support this action by making a reference to Clause 4, which is extracted above. Basically, that clause applies to "non-Selection Categories", and not to selection posts. Even assuming that the principle underlying that Clause is to be applied for selection post also, it requires the respondent, to stop at the point, where the names of four times the vacancies are included, and it mandates that their names shall be arranged in the order of their seniority. In the context of selection, to the post of a. P. O. , it means that the respondent must prepare a list of four candidates, for each vacancy, from the feeder categories, in the descending order. The question of arranging the names in accordance with seniority does not arise, in the case of selection posts. Therefore, viewed from any angle, for procedure adopted by the respondent cannot be sustained. The question of arranging the names in accordance with seniority does not arise, in the case of selection posts. Therefore, viewed from any angle, for procedure adopted by the respondent cannot be sustained. ( 14 ) HENCE, the writ petitions are accordingly allowed, and it is directed that, (a) the respondent shall consider the names of one eligible candidate, from the feeder categories, and prepare a list of four candidates, for each post of Assistant Personnel officer. (b) In case, the eligible candidates are not available, in any of the feeder categories, it must go further down, in the descending order, and include the names of the available candidates from the other categories, and (c) At the conclusion of the selections, it shall empanel the candidates, twice the number of vacancies, in the order of merit. (d) There shall be no order as to costs.