ORDER : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. In all these three Writ Petitions, selection to the post of Principal (Model School) pursuant to notification No. 768/TRC-1/2018-1, dated 26.10.2018, is in question. 2. The petitioners in W.P. No. 15486 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18035 of 2019 are the candidates who have not been selected and whereas the petitioners in W.P. No. 15992 of 2020 are the selected candidates in the test conducted for selection to these posts. The petitioners in W.P. No. 15992 of 2020 got themselves impleaded as respondents 4 to 11 in W.P. No. 15486 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18035 of 2019. 3. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereinafter as 'petitioners' and 'respondents' as arrayed in W.P. Nos. 15486 and 18035 of 2019. 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 68, School Education (Exams) Department, dated 26.10.2018, prescribing Rules known as 'Teacher Recruitment Test (TRT)' for the posts of Principals, Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs), Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs), Physical Education Teachers (PETs), Craft, Art and Music Teachers Scheme of Selection Rules, 2018. Basing on these rules, a notification was issued for the examination vide Notification No. 768/TRC-1/2018-1, dated 26.10.2018 for the above posts in different numbers. Totally 77 posts were notified for selection of Principals. Relevant for the present purpose is the post of 'Principal' to be appointed for the purpose of A.P. Model Schools etc. It is a state level post. Inasmuch as the matter concerned to these three writ petitions is only this post of Principal, it is not necessary to consider in respect of other posts. 5. Along with this notification 'Information Bulletin' is also issued, which provides for various features relating to conduct of this Examination like Qualifications, Eligibility Criteria, Rule of Reservation, Syllabus for each category of post as per Para-12 of the afore-stated notification. G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 26.10.2018 is the basis for this purpose along with Government Memo No. 14846/Exams/2014, dated 02.12.2014, in terms of Para-18 of this notification. After selection, the candidates can opt any of the managements like A.P. Model Schools, A.P. Residential Schools and APBC Welfare Residential Schools as per para 16 of this notification. G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 26.10.2018, itself provides for structure of examination/test which is predominantly a computer based test. After selection, the candidates can opt any of the managements like A.P. Model Schools, A.P. Residential Schools and APBC Welfare Residential Schools as per para 16 of this notification. G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 26.10.2018, itself provides for structure of examination/test which is predominantly a computer based test. It also provided for preparation of provisional list as per clause-17 and Clause-18 provides for preparation of final selection list. 6. All the petitioners in these writ petitions applied for the post of 'Principal' as is required, on-line and they were all provisionally selected. All of them were called for, for certificate verification, pursuant to general merit list prepared for this purpose. Thereafter, after getting these certificates verified through District Educational Officers and others, it appears vide U.O. Note No. 1060/APMS/2017, dated 05.08.2019 giving details of the provisionally eligible Principals of A.P. Model School etc., for DSC-2018 was issued and the Joint Director, Teachers Recruitment Cell, O/o Commissioner of School Education, Andhara Pradesh, Amaravati was requested to take necessary further action in the matter. The following are the details. "Eligible Candidates - 25 Not Eligible Candidates - 34 Absentees - 08 Pending due to clarification sought regarding pay scale -10" 7. Thus, out of 77 notified, only 25 figured out as eligible candidates. The Writ Petitioners in W.P. No. 15992 of 2020 are among them. 8. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondents 1 to 3 raised doubt in respect of pay scales and thus placed selection of 10 candidates in abeyance, while seeking clarification from the authorities concerned. It is also the contention of the petitioners that when they approached the authorities, they were orally informed that though all of them have prescribed academic qualifications for the post and as per G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 26.10.2018, they did not meet the professional qualification holding such position drawing pay scale of Rs. 31,460-84,970. It is also the contention of the petitions that inasmuch as their academic qualification and professional qualification as per G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 26.10.2018 are not in question, consideration of pay scales or salary drawn by them was subject matter of improper interpretation by these authorities, since the notification did not specifically state that the candidates should be working in such position of pay scale referred to above. No. 68, dated 26.10.2018 are not in question, consideration of pay scales or salary drawn by them was subject matter of improper interpretation by these authorities, since the notification did not specifically state that the candidates should be working in such position of pay scale referred to above. Reference to these pay scales, according to the petitioners, is only for the purpose of identification of the cadre attached to the post and that it cannot be equated to the salary actually drawn by any candidate. 9. The petitioners also referred to a letter addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent for amendment of Rule-4(2)(i)(B) of G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 26.10.2018, bringing to its notice the plight of the candidates, who were provisionally selected and who were otherwise meritorious for this post, requesting substitution by deleting the prescription of the above pay scale. 10. The petitioners also contended that candidature of some of them was rejected on the ground that they were working in B.Ed., colleges as lecturers and that their experience in B.Ed., colleges being equivalent to lecturer working in a recognised Senior Secondary School or equivalent institution, was not considered. Possessing higher qualification than required, according to the petitioners, cannot be a reason for their rejection. 11. The petitioners also contended that when their applications were uploaded, they were all accepted leading to issuance of hall tickers, whereupon they appeared for the examination. At this juncture, after their provisional selection, according to the petitioners, failing to select them in the final list, is absolutely improper. 12. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, the incumbent in office of the 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioners. The predominant objection of the respondents 1 to 3 is that the pay scales of the petitioners were one of the eligibility criteria and when a proposal was forwarded to the 1st respondent by the office of the 2nd respondent requesting amendment to G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 26.10.2018 to delete this prescription of pay scale, it was rejected by Memo No. ESE01-SEDN0CS-(RECT0/6/2018-EXAMS, dated 24.09.2019 while directing to complete the recruitment process as per existing Rules. 13. Thus, the respondents contended that the petitioners did not have required experience nor were working on the prescribed pay scale. No. 68 dated 26.10.2018 to delete this prescription of pay scale, it was rejected by Memo No. ESE01-SEDN0CS-(RECT0/6/2018-EXAMS, dated 24.09.2019 while directing to complete the recruitment process as per existing Rules. 13. Thus, the respondents contended that the petitioners did not have required experience nor were working on the prescribed pay scale. It is further contended for the respondents that clear and specific instructions were issued to the candidates by the examination notification dated 26.10.2018 to the effect that only eligible candidates could make applications on-line for recruitment while requesting them to go through the information bulletin carefully and should satisfy themselves about their eligibility for this recruitment. It is also the contention of these respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioners have suppressed the actual facts while applying for this post. 14. Further contention of the respondents 1 to 3 is that when experience certificates and salary certificates submitted by the petitioners and other provisionally selected candidates were sent to the concerned District Educational Officers, issuing clear instructions for verification through District Level Verification Committees, reports were received suggesting nature of these certificates, basing on which their candidature was rejected. 15. Thus opposing that there is no reason to interfere with the selection process, the respondents 1 to 3 questioned these writ petitions. 16. In reply, the petitioners have challenged the method of verification of their professional certificates as well as pay particulars while reiterating their stand as to this aspect being secondary, with reference to qualifications prescribed. They further asserted that working in B.Ed. colleges or otherwise, in fact makes out that they were more qualified than the lecturers working in Senior Secondary Schools or equivalent institutions and possessing higher qualification than prescribed, according to the petitioners, cannot be a ground for rejection. The petitioners also objected raising various grounds questioning the reasons assigned for rejection of their candidature. 17. The respondents 4 to 11 in Writ Petition No. 15992 of 2020 and in the counter-affidavits filed in both the Writ Petition Nos. 15486 and 18035 of 2019 raised the same stand detailing the circumstances under which they were selected for the post of Principal and pointing out that the interim stay orders granted in these two writ petitions have disabled them from joining the post. In this process, they also relied on the fact that G.O.Ms. 15486 and 18035 of 2019 raised the same stand detailing the circumstances under which they were selected for the post of Principal and pointing out that the interim stay orders granted in these two writ petitions have disabled them from joining the post. In this process, they also relied on the fact that G.O.Ms. No. 86, School Education (Exams) Department dated 27.11.2019 was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 19627 of 2019 by order dated 28.01.2020. They also relied on an order in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 12577 of 2020, dated 30.07.2020, where the respondents 1 to 3 were directed to complete the selection process for this post. 18. Thus, they supported the respondents 1 to 3 with reference to the manner of selection and prescriptions given out for such purpose while further supporting rejection of certain candidates for this purpose. Ultimately, they requested dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and allow their petition directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pursue their selection process. 19. Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar and Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Government Pleader in office of Additional Advocate General, for respondents 1 to 3. Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, for Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 11 and the petitioners in W.P. No. 15992 of 2020, is also heard. 20. Since all these writ petitions have been heard together where common arguments are addressed, having regard to the nature of the issues involved in all of them being same and identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. 21. Now, the point for determination is-"Whether rejection of the petitioners for the post of Principal is proper and if the respondents 1 to 3 are justified in not pursuing the selection process favouring the respondents 4 to 11?" POINT: 22. The basis for selection for the post of Principal with which these writ petitions are concerned is G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 26.10.2018, by which Rules are prescribed. Clause-4 of this G.O., as is applicable to the case of the Principals prescribes the following qualifications and eligibility: "4. The basis for selection for the post of Principal with which these writ petitions are concerned is G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 26.10.2018, by which Rules are prescribed. Clause-4 of this G.O., as is applicable to the case of the Principals prescribes the following qualifications and eligibility: "4. QUALIFICATIONS AND ELIGIBILITY: (1) A candidate for selection to the posts of Teachers shall possess the academic and professional/training qualifications as follows:- (a) Must be fully qualified for the post applied for and in possession of all Certificates as on the last date prescribed in the notification for submission of applications. (b) (I) Must possess Intermediate Certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh (pr) other equivalent certificates recognized by Board of Intermediate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh. (ii) Must possess Academic degrees of Universities recognized by University Grans Commission (UGC). (iii) Teacher Education Courses recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). (iv) Distance Mode courses offered by Universities and Deemed Universities recognized by Joint Committee comprising University Grans Commission (UGC), Distance Education Council (DEC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and with jurisdiction to operates such courses in the State of Andhra Pradesh. (2) Post wise qualifications: (i) Principal A. Academic & Professional Qualifications: (a) Academic Qualifications: Must possess any two year integrated Post Graduate Course from Regional Institute of Education of NCERT (or) any Master's Degree from UGC recognized University with at least 50% marks in aggregate. (b) Professional Qualifications: Must possess B.Ed recognized by NCTE (or) equivalent degree from UGC recognized University. B. Experience: The candidates shall possess the following experience and have to submit the experience certificate obtained from the competent authority at the time of certificate verification. At the time of certificate verification, genuineness of the experience Certificates shall got verified and cross checked with the records of the concerned school by the respective District Educational Officers/Authority appointed by the CSE. The experience certificates shall be considered after submitting the genuineness by the District Educational Officers/Authority appointed by the CSE. If the experience certificates are found not genuine, the candidature of such candidates shall summarily be rejected and such candidates shall forfeit the right for the selection: a. Persons holding the post of Principals or Vice-Principals in the recognized senior secondary schools/equivalent institutions dealing with English Medium in the pay scale of Rs. If the experience certificates are found not genuine, the candidature of such candidates shall summarily be rejected and such candidates shall forfeit the right for the selection: a. Persons holding the post of Principals or Vice-Principals in the recognized senior secondary schools/equivalent institutions dealing with English Medium in the pay scale of Rs. 40,270-93,780 and with a minimum service of 3 years from the date of notification issued. (OR) B. Persons holding Group 'B' posts/the post of PGTs (or) Lecturers in the recognized senior secondary schools/equivalent institutions dealing with English Medium in the pay scale Rs. 31,460-84,970 and with a minimum service of 5 years from the date of notification issued. (OR) c. Headmasters in the recognized secondary schools/equivalent institutions dealing with English Medium in the pay scale of Rs. 35,120-87,130 and with a minimum service of 5 years from the date of notification issued." 23. These qualifications are reiterated in the 'Information Bulletin' appended to the notification dated 26.10.2018 issued for this purpose while separately setting out post wise qualification in its Para 14(2)(i) relating to Principals. They are as under: "(2) Post wise qualifications: (i) Principal A. Academic & Professional Qualifications: (a) Academic Qualifications: Must possess any two year integrated Post Graduate Course from Regional Institute of Education of NCERT (or) any Master's Degree from UGC recognized University with at least 50% marks in aggregate. (b) Professional Qualifications: Must possess B.Ed. Recognized by NCTE (or) equivalent degree from UGC recognized University. B. Experience: The candidates shall possess the following experience and have to submit the experience certificate obtained from the competent authority at the time of certificate verification. At the time of certificate verification, genuineness of the experience Certificates shall got verified and cross checked with the records of the concerned schools by the respective District Educational Officers/Authority appointed by the CSE. The experience certificates shall be considered after submitting the genuineness by the District Educational Officers/Authority appointed by the CSE. If the experience certificates are found not genuine, the candidature of such candidates shall summarily be rejected and such candidates shall forfeit the right for the selection: a. Persons holding the post of Principals or Vice-Principals in the recognized senior secondary schools/equivalent institutions dealing with English Medium in the pay scale of Rs. If the experience certificates are found not genuine, the candidature of such candidates shall summarily be rejected and such candidates shall forfeit the right for the selection: a. Persons holding the post of Principals or Vice-Principals in the recognized senior secondary schools/equivalent institutions dealing with English Medium in the pay scale of Rs. 40,270-93,780 and with a minimum service of 3 years from the date of notification issued, (or) b. Persons holding Group 'B' posts/the post of PGTs (or) Lecturers I the recognized senior secondary schools/equivalent institutions dealing with English Medium in the pay scale Rs. 31,460-84,970 and with a minimum service of 5 years from the date of notification issued, (or) c. Headmasters in the recognized secondary schools/equivalent institutions dealing with English Medium in the pay scale Rs. 35,120-87,130 and with a minimum service of 5 years from the date of notification issued." 24. These prescriptions set out the professional experience of different categories with various terms of experience within specified pay scales. Either with reference to the post of Principals or vice Principals or Group 'B' posts/PGTs (Post Graduate Teachers) or lecturers or Headmasters in recognised senior secondary schools or equivalent institutions, the requirement from these Rules is quite discernable. The candidates meeting all these requirements alone were required to apply, as per the notification issued for the purpose. Another prescription as per this notification is that the candidates who have applied should fully meet these requirements. The criteria or categorization detailed or rather insisted for this purpose by means of academic and professional qualification, should be read together and conjunctively. They cannot be dissected nor can be read disjunctively in isolation of one another. That is to say, by the date prescribed in the notification the candidates applied for this post of Principal should be holding (1) such post detailed in three categories referred to above (2) within a particular and specified pay scale and (3) having minimum service or experience. 25. In the light of this situation and context, the contention of the petitioners that the pay scales so referred as a part of professional qualification, is not of primary concern or requirement and is secondary, when the candidates are meeting other qualifications, cannot stand. 26. 25. In the light of this situation and context, the contention of the petitioners that the pay scales so referred as a part of professional qualification, is not of primary concern or requirement and is secondary, when the candidates are meeting other qualifications, cannot stand. 26. Even otherwise, upon verification of the certificates relating to professional qualifications and experience when many candidates who were then working in private institutions or colleges, in the considered opinion of the incumbent then in office of the 2nd respondent were equally meritorious and eligible for the post of Principal, except the pay scales, an amendment was sought to Rule-4(2)(i)(b) of G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 26.10.2018. The amendment was, to delete the pay scales so found in the original notification. This request was rejected by the 1st respondent by Memo No. ESE01-SEDN)CS-(RECT)/6/2018-EXAMS, dated 24.09.2019. 27. Nonetheless, G.O.Ms. No. 86, School Education (Exams) Department, dated 27.11.2019 was issued for the same purpose, apparently accepting such recommendation of the office of the 2nd respondent. It was subjected to challenge in W.P. No. 19627 of 2019. G.O.Ms. No. 86 dated 27.11.2019, by an order dated 28.01.2020 in the above writ petition, was set aside. This order was taken into consideration while granting an interim order in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 12577 of 2020 on 30.07.2020 by this Court. 28. On behalf of the respondents 4 to 11, the above circumstances were pressed into service to substantiate their stand that the professional qualifications and eligibility criteria should be in accordance with prescriptions in G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 26.10.2018. This stand is also supported by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 29. Therefore, in the above circumstances, inasmuch as the professional qualifications also included holding such post in the pay scale by the date prescribed in the notification while applying for the post in question, the contentions of the petitioners now, cannot stand. Apparently, the order in W.P. No. 19627 of 2019 has become final. 30. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that W.P. No. 19627 of 2019 relating to a different aspect than the present instance. Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioners, also contended that since the petitioners being not parties to W.P. No. 19627 of 2019, the order therein is not binding on them. 30. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that W.P. No. 19627 of 2019 relating to a different aspect than the present instance. Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioners, also contended that since the petitioners being not parties to W.P. No. 19627 of 2019, the order therein is not binding on them. However, in view of the circumstances referred to supra and the reasons assigned, these contentions on behalf of the petitioners should be rejected. The pay scales in relation to pay apparently have been specifically detailed and fixed, consciously. Possibly to attract the best and meritorious candidates, who have been holding such position, this prescription is brought out in the notification and not otherwise. It should also be noted that in the notification issued for this post the pay scales prescribed as per para-21 is Rs. 40,270-Rs. 93,780. 31. In view of emoluments they were drawing in their positions on the date of notification, the petitioners did not meet such criteria. When verification was undertaken, relating to their educational and professional qualification by the concerned District Educational Officers and verification committees, this discrepancy surfaced. 32. In the counter-affidavit of the respondents 1 to 3 and in reply affidavit filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 15486 of 2019, tabulated statements are given with reference to nature of verification of these qualifications by the DEOs/committees concerned and reasons for rejection, while the petitioners have offered their version raising objections to these reasons for rejection petitioner-wise. Instances are set out relating to the petitioners in both the W.P.15486 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18035 of 2019 in the counter-affidavits as outcome of verification by District Level Committee. In W.P. No. 15486 of 2019 reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioners questioning these observations recorded by the District Level Committee by a tabulated statement. However, similar reply affidavit is not filed in W.P. No. 18035 of 2019. 33. One of the contentions of the petitioners is that these petitioners are far better qualified than necessary and possessing higher qualification cannot be a reason for rejection of their candidature. In this respect Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, also relied on G.O.Ms. No. 282, General Administration (Ser-A) Department, dated 20.09.2003, whereby in case of direct recruitment, the candidate possessing higher qualification than prescribed, shall also be considered for selection along with the candidates, who have prescribed qualification. In this respect Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, also relied on G.O.Ms. No. 282, General Administration (Ser-A) Department, dated 20.09.2003, whereby in case of direct recruitment, the candidate possessing higher qualification than prescribed, shall also be considered for selection along with the candidates, who have prescribed qualification. 34. A specific instance of Sri Rachakonda Sivaiah is also pointed out by Sri M. Vijaya Kumar in this respect contending that though the certificate dated 21.06.2019 issued by Viswabharathi Junior College, Jaggayyapet by its principal disclosed his professional qualification and also the fact that he was drawing a consolidated pay of Rs. 40,000/- per month by then, the verification committee stated that the records in proof of experience of this candidate were not available in the college. It is also contended that the management had attempted to furnish such details to this committee. Thus, it is stated that such version of the verification committee is untrue. 35. It is also contended that in case of Sri Jagannadha Konda Babu, a false report was given by the committee on the ground that Correspondent of the institution where he was working, did not furnish the required records. The contention of Sri M. Vijaya Kumar in this respect is that Sri Jagannadha Konda Babu worked in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Junior College, Narsipatnam in two different spells and if both are considered, the total service he had put in in that Junior College is 7 years 6 months, which is certified by the Principal of this college. Thus, Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, tried to point out that every endorsement or observation of the District Level Verification Committee in respect of everyone of the petitioners, could not have been accepted by the 2nd respondent. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, also requested this Court to appoint a fresh committee for the purpose of verification of these certificates. 36. This verification was undertaken by District Level Verification Committees basing on the instructions issued in the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc. No. ESE02-20021/6/2018-RECTMT-CSE, dated 18.06.2019. These instructions are as under: "The District Educational Officers should verify the Experience certificates as per Rule 4(2)(i) in G.O.Ms. No. 68 SE Dept. dt. 26.10.2018 scrupulously. 36. This verification was undertaken by District Level Verification Committees basing on the instructions issued in the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc. No. ESE02-20021/6/2018-RECTMT-CSE, dated 18.06.2019. These instructions are as under: "The District Educational Officers should verify the Experience certificates as per Rule 4(2)(i) in G.O.Ms. No. 68 SE Dept. dt. 26.10.2018 scrupulously. Three Men Committee comprised of District Educational Officer as Chairman and one Deputy Educational Officer and one Mandal Education Officer as Committee Members should verify the genuine nature of the Experience Certificate submitted by the candidates after checking with the concerned institutional records such as Attendance Register, Pay Roll, Pay Slip, Bank Statement and other relevant documents. The verification certificate confirming the genuine nature of the certificate is to be submitted to this office on the next day without fail. If the candidates uploaded the Out of State Experience Certificates, the adjacent District Educational Officer is requested to depute one Deputy Educational Officer and one Mandal Educational Officer and instruct to verify the Experience Certificates with concerned institutional records such as Attendance Register, Pay Roll, Pay Slip, Bank Statement and other relevant documents an confirm the genuinity of the certificate to this office on the next day without fail. The District Educational Officer and Committee members are instructed to maintain confidentiality while verifying the genuine nature of the Experience Certificates at the time of visits and does not disclose the information to anyone." 37. Having regard to nature of these instructions and the duration within which the reports were directed to be furnished to the office of the 2nd respondent viz., the next day maintaining confidentiality, did indicate that required attention was directed to be bestowed to this process of verification. In a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there cannot be such a detailed exercise relating to truth or otherwise of these facts, in dispute. This Court, for the same reason, need not go to the extent of appointing a committee for this process of verification. unwarranted activism is highly undesirable and that too, to interfere with selection process for this post. 38. When the petitioners are required to meet all the eligibility criteria relating to their professional qualifications, when they are found to be deficient by the District Level Committee, they cannot now question the nature of these reports. 39. unwarranted activism is highly undesirable and that too, to interfere with selection process for this post. 38. When the petitioners are required to meet all the eligibility criteria relating to their professional qualifications, when they are found to be deficient by the District Level Committee, they cannot now question the nature of these reports. 39. Another contention of the petitioners is that when their candidature was accepted by the provisional selection, since their names appear in general merit-list, it is not open for the 2nd respondent to reject. The basis for this contention is acceptance of their applications along with enclosures submitted by them, permitting to appear for the examination and later, declaring their provisional selection through the general merit list. 40. In this context, it has to be noted that while prescribing the academic and professional qualifications, G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 26.10.2018 and information bulletin appended to the notification dated 26.10.2018 clearly stated that those certificates or testimonials, whatever produced by the candidates at the time of verification, would be subjected to cross-verification or checking at the ground level through the concerned DEOs constituting a committee. Memo referred to above not only indicated that such committees were constituted and instructions were also issued with reference to the nature of their activity. 41. Therefore, the entire exercise undertaken till then, including declaration of provisional results, is dependent on the outcome of such verification of the academic as well as professional qualification certificates. When these certificates were not meeting the required eligibility criteria, when some of them were found to be false or fake even, these contentions of the petitioners, cannot be accepted. 42. Questions of possessing higher qualifications is relegated to background in these circumstances and rejection of some of the candidates on the ground that they were working in B.Ed., colleges, also cannot stand. 43. Therefore, in these circumstances, this process of selection of candidates and exclusion of others like the petitioners did not attract infraction or violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. This is not an instance where equals are treated differently drawing distinction, amounting to discrimination in treatment. The selection is based on intelligible criteria that are discernable and distinct. 44. It is further to be noted that the entire attempt of the petitioners in these writ petitions is to challenge the action of the 2nd respondent in not selecting them for this post. The selection is based on intelligible criteria that are discernable and distinct. 44. It is further to be noted that the entire attempt of the petitioners in these writ petitions is to challenge the action of the 2nd respondent in not selecting them for this post. Their challenge in fact is not in respect of qualifications prescribed in Para-14 of information bulletin including clause 4(2)(i)(A) & (B) of G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 26.10.2018. 45. Learned Government Pleader strenuously contended that since the petitioners took part in the selection process, they are precluded from raising any questions relating to qualifications so prescribed either in the G.O. or in the notification. Learned Government Pleader relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Saroja Kumari v. R. Helen Thilakom, 2017 (9) SCC 478 while also stating that this ruling was followed by one of the learned Judges of this Court in Jairuddin Shaik vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Velagapudi and others 2020 (5) ALT 506. This contention is right, when it is considered in conjunction with the fact that there is no challenge by the petitioners in relation to the eligibility criteria fixed for the purposes of academic and professional qualifications as stated supra, in these writ petitions. 46. On account of the interim orders granted in these writ petitions, it is the contention of respondents 4 to 11 that their hard work which had led to their success in this examination, did not reap necessary benefit of getting appointed as Principals of the concerned schools. Their stand not only in their writ petition but also in other two writ petitions is justified. As successful candidates, they are entitled for being appointed in this post as rightly held in W.P. No. 19627 of 2019, dated 28.01.2020, and I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 12577 of 2020, dated 30.07.2020. 47. Therefore, rejecting the contention of the petitioners that failure to select them or rejection of their candidature by respondents 1 to 3 for being appointed as Principals (Model Schools) being arbitrary and illegal as well as unjust, these two writ petitions (W.P. No. 15486 and 18035 of 2019) have to be dismissed. W.P. No. 15992 of 2020 consequently has to be allowed. 48. In the result, W.P. No. 15486 of 2019 and W.P. No. and 18035 of 2019 stand dismissed. No costs. W.P. No. 15992 of 2020 consequently has to be allowed. 48. In the result, W.P. No. 15486 of 2019 and W.P. No. and 18035 of 2019 stand dismissed. No costs. Interim Orders granted stand vacated. 49. W.P. No. 15992 of 2020 is allowed directing the respondents 1 to 3 to proceed with selection process for the post of Principal (Model School) pursuant to the notification No. 768/TRC-1/2018-1, dated 26.10.2018 based on the selection list published in June and November, 2019. It is further directed that the petitioners be appointed for the post of Principals (Model Schools) following the above selection list within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, following all applicable Rules. No costs. As sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.