JUDGMENT:- (C. Praveen Kumar, J.) 1. The present Writ Appeal came to be filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Appeals assailing the Order, dated 19.02.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13592 of 2016, wherein the writ petition was allowed directing the respondents therein to approve the appointment of the 2nd petitioner therein as Junior Lecturer in English in the 1st petitioner therein/College on par with one Smt. K. Kamala. 2. The facts in Writ Petition No.13592 of 2016 are as under:- i. The first Petitioner College was admitted into grant-in-aid with effect from 16.04.1990. One Sri P.Seshagiri Rao, Aided Junior Lecturer in English, working in 1st petitioner College, absconded from duty since 15.11.1993 and as such, his services were terminated. As such, the said post fell vacant. Thereupon, the first Petitioner College decided to appoint temporary staff in regular process and accordingly, one Ms. C. Srikiran, was appointed as Part Time Junior Lecturer in English, whose term was extended by one year and later extended for another year. At that time, the said Part Time Lecturer approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of filing W.P.No.13116 of 1999 seeking a direction to the Respondents to regularize her services in the said post. ii. By an Interim Order, dated 29.06.1999, in W.P.M.P.No.16045 of 1999, the High Court directed the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education, not to fill up the vacancy of Junior Lecturer in English until further orders. iii. Thereafter, a ban on recruitment was imposed in private aided management institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. At that point of time, a policy decision was taken by the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education to fill up S.C. and S.T. backlog vacancies in the private aided management institutions in the State. Accordingly, permission was given to the first Petitioner College earmarking the post of Junior Lecturer in English for SC ‘A’ (W) at roster point No.2 and one post of Aided Attender earmarking for SC ‘A’ (W). The management called for applications from eligible candidates by way of publication. iv. In response, the second Petitioner, by name G.Elizabeth, applied for the said post along with others. A written examination and, thereafter, interview was conducted by the Staff Selection Committee. The management called for applications from eligible candidates by way of publication. iv. In response, the second Petitioner, by name G.Elizabeth, applied for the said post along with others. A written examination and, thereafter, interview was conducted by the Staff Selection Committee. As the second Petitioner was found eligible for appointment as Junior Lecturer in English, the first Petitioner College issued appointment orders in her favour on 30.03.2003, subject to the outcome of the approval by the competent authority. v. At that point of time, Ms. C. Srikiran filed W.P.M.P.No.32264 of 2002 in W.P.No.16045 of 2002 seeking a direction to the Respondents to continue her in the post of Junior Lecturer (English) against aided vacancy available in the first Petitioner College and accordingly, a direction was given. Later on, the said order was modified on 08.04.2003, directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioners therein if they are in service as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition, by paying the same emoluments. As such, the second Petitioner joined duty on 03.04.2003 and has been discharging her duties. vi. It is averred that the second Respondent approved the appointment of SC/ST backlog posts under limited recruitment, but, however, for admission of grant-in-aid, orders were issued on 25.03.2003 including the first Petitioner College in grant-in-aid at serial No.3 only in respect of one K. Kamala, Attender and ignored the approval of appointment of 2nd Petitioner. This came to be challenged in the Writ Petition in the year 2016. The Writ Petition was allowed and the relief, as stated earlier, came to be granted. Challenging the same, the State preferred the present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. The Government Pleader for Higher Education mainly submits that, the first Petitioner has advertised in the Andhra Bhoomi and Deccan Chronicle Newspapers on 27.12.2022 for filling up backlog vacancy of Junior Lecturer English to be filled by SC ‘A’(W) candidates. But, as no suitable candidate for SC ‘A’(W) appeared for the interview, the second Petitioner who is a SC ‘C’(W) candidate was called for the interview held on 31.12.2002. Though, backlog post is to be filled up in the first Petitioner College, earmarked for SC ‘A’(W), but as no SC ‘A’(W) or SC ‘B’(W) has applied in response to the paper advertisement, the second Petitioner, who belongs to SC ‘C’ community, was selected. 4. Though, backlog post is to be filled up in the first Petitioner College, earmarked for SC ‘A’(W), but as no SC ‘A’(W) or SC ‘B’(W) has applied in response to the paper advertisement, the second Petitioner, who belongs to SC ‘C’ community, was selected. 4. The irregularity, found are that, as per G.O.Ms. No.12, dated 10.01.1992, one has to wait for sponsoring of candidates by the Employment Exchange for a period of 15 days, before giving notification for filling up vacancies, in two daily newspapers, but the same was not adhered to by the management. The Notification in Newspapers was given on 27.12.2002 and a letter was addressed to Employment Exchange on 23.12.2002, and without waiting for the period of 15 days, selection was made on 31.12.2002 within a period of eight [08] days, which is bad in law. 5. The second ground raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the District Vocational Education Officer, Eluru, was nominated as Government representative to the Selection Committee, but the said District Vocational Education Officer, Eluru, did not attend the selection and instead Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Rajahmundry, attended the Selection Committee, which again is not as per instructions issued by the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education. 6. The third ground raised is, though the advertisement is to fill up SC ‘A’(W) but candidate belonging to SC ‘C’(W) has been selected, which is contrary to the notification issued. 7. In view of the above, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Single Judge is bad in law. 8. Sri. N. Ashwin Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Writ Petitioners would submit that the objection, namely, with regard to G.O.Ms. No. 12, i.e., waiting for candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, for a period of 15 days after giving Notification of vacancies in two daily newspapers, was overruled by a Division Bench of the composite High Court in W.A. No.1129 of 2014, stating that, though Employment Exchange used to be the only source for sponsoring candidatures sometime ago, but now the said process has become redundant. Once a Notification is issued, not only the candidates who got themselves registered with the Employment Exchange, but others can also apply. 9. Once a Notification is issued, not only the candidates who got themselves registered with the Employment Exchange, but others can also apply. 9. Coming to the second issue, namely, that though the District Vocational Education Officer, Eluru, was nominated as Government Representative to the Selection Committee, but instead Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Rajahmundry, attended the Selection Committee, it is said that, though the Government Pleader took time to get instructions on this aspect, but failed to get any instructions supporting their plea. Hence, the Order of the learned Single Judge, on this aspect, cannot be found fault with. 10. Coming to the third issue, namely, filling of vacancy with SC ‘C’(W) candidate, though it is categorically reserved for SC ‘A’(W) candidate; the learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah V. State of A.P. and Others, [(2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 394], to the effect that the State has no legislative competence to bring sub-clauses into Scheduled Caste. 11. The learned Counsel for the Respondents also submits that, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court will always be retrospective in effect, if not otherwise so stated specifically. That being so, he would contend that, the judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah [cited 1st supra], has to be given retrospective effect and, as such, selecting candidate belonging to SC ‘C’(W) cannot be found fault with. 12. In reply, Government Pleader would contend that in view of the Proceedings, dated 14.10.2004, issued by the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, wherein, the appointment of Respondent/second Petitioner as Junior Lecturer English in SC ‘A’(W) was rejected, as proper procedure was not followed and when the said proceedings have become final, filing of Writ Petition, in the year 2016, nearly after 12 years, is bad in law. He further submits that, though the firstPetitioner College was directed to comply the proceeding, dated 30.12.2002, the same was not done as per the time fixed and instead interviews were conducted on 31.12.2002, which is again contrary to the proceedings. 13. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference? 14. As stated earlier, the grievance of the Writ Appellants is that, without waiting for 15 days after intimating to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring of a candidate, selections came to be made on 31.12.2022. 13. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference? 14. As stated earlier, the grievance of the Writ Appellants is that, without waiting for 15 days after intimating to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring of a candidate, selections came to be made on 31.12.2022. Though, the permission granted by the Respondents to the 1st Petitioner College was to fill up the post with SC ‘A’(W) candidate, but the paper Notification issued appears to be something different, which stated that, if eligible SC ‘A’(W) candidates are not available, other SC (W) candidates shall be considered. But, this was not the purport of the permission granted by the Respondents to the 1st Petitioner College. Having regard to the above, candidate other than SC ‘A’(W) came to be selected. 15. That being so, the question is, whether the said selection is bad-in-law? 16. Before proceeding to decide the Appeal, it would be appropriate to refer to G.O.Ms. No. 12, which reads as under: “Order ….. NOTIFICATION OF VACANCIES: The managements of Private Colleges will notify the vacancies to the Employment Exchange (Professional and Executive Officers) Hyderabad. Without having to wait for sponsoring of candidates by the Employment Exchange, after a lapse of 15 days, the Managements of the Private Colleges shall notify the vacancies in two dailies (Local and National) indicating the roster point calling for applications from the eligible candidates.” 17. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that, though the selection of the candidate was made on 31.12.2022, but the same was not approved by the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, which is evident from the proceedings, dated 14.10.2004. The Secretary and Correspondent of the first Petitioner College were further directed to take necessary further action and inform the candidate accordingly. The letter, dated 14.10.2004, was addressed to The Secretary & Correspondent of 1st Petitioner College on 17.11.2004. 18. The learned Counsel for the Respondents in Writ Appeal mainly submits that, as they have not received the said letter, delay has occurred in challenging the same. But, learned Government Pleader would contend that, when the proceedings were issued in the year 2004, rejecting the selection of the 2nd Petitioner, filing of Writ Petition in the year 2016, is clearly bad in law and the same has to be dismissed on the ground of latches. 19. But, learned Government Pleader would contend that, when the proceedings were issued in the year 2004, rejecting the selection of the 2nd Petitioner, filing of Writ Petition in the year 2016, is clearly bad in law and the same has to be dismissed on the ground of latches. 19. In W.A. No. 1129 of 2014, a Division Bench of the composite High Court, dealt with the issue relating to sponsoring of names by the Employment Exchange. The said W.A., came to be filed against an Order passed in W.P. No. 2042 of 2007, wherein, the learned Single Judge vide Order, dated 01.11.2013, and relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Excise Supdt., Malkapatnam V. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao, [ (1996) 6 SCC 216 ], allowed the Writ Petition, which was confirmed in Writ Appeal. 20. In-fact, in the said case, the Respondents also relied upon G.O.Ms. No. 12, dated 10.01.1992, to contend that, the management of the college is required to follow the procedure by informing the Employment Exchange of the vacancies and after 15 days of notifying the same in daily two newspapers. Dealing with the same, the Division Bench of the composite High Court held as under: “It is only on being accorded permission by the appellant that the 4th respondent issued notification on 04.06.2004.Though employment exchange used to the only source for sponsoring candidates few years ago, for all practical purposes, the registration with the employment exchange has become redundant, wherever the procedure provides for issuance of notification. Once a notification is issued, not only those who get themselves registered with the employment exchange, but also others can apply. No distinction exists in law on the basis of mere registration in the employment exchange. There are several precedents handed out by the Supreme Court, which are to the effect that the employment exchanges are no longer the exclusive sources for drawing the candidates for employment. The paragraph, which deals with the giving of intimation to the employment exchange, has been extracted by the learned Single Judge in the order. It is couched in permissive terms and hardly there exists any element of compulsion in it. At any rate, not a single candidate let alone the employment exchange or any organization has complained that on account of failure to furnish information to the employment exchange, the eligible candidates did not have any opportunity to apply. It is couched in permissive terms and hardly there exists any element of compulsion in it. At any rate, not a single candidate let alone the employment exchange or any organization has complained that on account of failure to furnish information to the employment exchange, the eligible candidates did not have any opportunity to apply. In fact, it is the other way. The publication of notifications enables the eligible candidates to apply. Assuming that there was any lapse in the process of inviting applications, the representative of the appellant who is very much on the selection committee ought to have raised the objection. It is only when the selection was made and order of appointment was issued that the appellant raised the objection at the stage of according approval. If one takes into account the typical red-tapism or lopsided functioning of the Board, which has only encouraged the handful of private educational institutions to establish their monopoly, the conduct of the appellant in refusing to accord approval does not astonish anyone. We do not find any merits in the writ petition.” 21. Though the learned Counsel for the Appellants tried to contend that, calling for names from Employment Exchange was dispensed with long thereafter, but at the time when the recruitment was made, the said practice was in vogue and having regard to the G.O.Ms. No. 12, the first Petitioner College ought to have waited for 15 days. But, having regard to the findings in the Order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1129 of 2014 coupled with the findings given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao (cited 2nd supra), which clearly indicate that the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. 22. A reading of the paragraph would make it clear that, if this procedure is adopted, fair play would stand sub-served. Therefore, non-calling of the names from the Employment Exchange in the fact situation, in our view, cannot be found fault with. 23. 22. A reading of the paragraph would make it clear that, if this procedure is adopted, fair play would stand sub-served. Therefore, non-calling of the names from the Employment Exchange in the fact situation, in our view, cannot be found fault with. 23. Coming to the next issue, namely, filling of vacancy with SC ‘C’ (W) though reserved for SC ‘A’ (W), it would be appropriate to refer to E.V. Chinnaiah case [cited 1st supra]. In the said case, the validity of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, was challenged before the High Court, which came to be dismissed by Five-Judge by a majority of 4:1. Challenging the said Judgment, an Appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Various issues came to be framed. While dealing with the constitutionality of the said Act, the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 113 and 114 of the said judgment held as under: “113. The power of State Legislature to decide as regard grant of benefit of reservation in jobs or in educational institutions to the backward classes is not in dispute. It is furthermore not in dispute that if such a decision is made the State can also lay down a legislative policy as regard extent of reservation to be made for different members of the backward classes including Scheduled Caste. But it cannot take away the said benefit on the premise that one or the other group amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes has advanced and, thus, is not entitled to the entire benefit of reservation. The impugned legislation, thus, must be held to be unconstitutional. WHAT IS THE REMEDY? 114. There is one practical aspect of the matter which may not also be lost sight of. The chart produced before us clearly: shows that the members belonging to Relli and Adi-Andhra are hardly educated. What was necessary in the situation was to provide to them scholarships, hostel facilities, special coaching, etc., so that they may be brought on the same platform with the member of other Scheduled Tribes, viz., Madiga and Mala, if not with the other backward classes. It is not in dispute that members belonging to Relli are hardly educated. Only 2% of the members of the said community have studied in secondary school. No one has ever been admitted in any engineering discipline or other professional disciplines. It is not in dispute that members belonging to Relli are hardly educated. Only 2% of the members of the said community have studied in secondary school. No one has ever been admitted in any engineering discipline or other professional disciplines. The said facts clearly go to show that providing reservation for them in engineering or medical discipline or in public service would not solve their problem. Without such basic education, the members belonging to the said community would not be getting admission either in the engineering or medical colleges or other professional courses and as such the question of their joining public service may not arise at all. Now, even for the post of Class IV employees, qualification of passing matriculation examination is provided. Unless children of the said community are educated, the provision for both for education as also public service would be a myth for them and ultimately in view of the impugned legislation for all intent and purport, the benefit thereof would go to other categories. The State, in our opinion, should take positive steps in this behalf. 24. Though, the judgment of E.V. Chinnaiah was referred to the Larger Bench in State of Punjab and others vs. Davinder Singh and others, [ (2020) 8 SCC 1 ], but the ratio laid down is not suspended. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court while laying down the proposition, referred to above, did not specify that it would be only prospective in operation, the applicability of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would have to be given retrospective effect. 25. Apart from that, the note appended to the Notification indicate that if SC(A)(W) candidate are not available, other woman (SC) candidate be considered. Under those circumstances, selection of SC(C)(W) candidate came to be made. This selection did not cause any prejudice to the non-selected candidates, which is evident from the fact that none of the non-selected candidates have challenged the selection process. 26. In view of the above, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents would contend that, State has no competence to bring sub-clauses into the Scheduled Caste while appointing them in the said category and that no prejudice is caused to non-selected candidates, cannot be brushed aside. 27. 26. In view of the above, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents would contend that, State has no competence to bring sub-clauses into the Scheduled Caste while appointing them in the said category and that no prejudice is caused to non-selected candidates, cannot be brushed aside. 27. The third ground raised, namely that, District Vocational Education Officer, Eluru, who was nominated as Government Representative to the Selection Committee failed to attend and in-stead Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Rajahmundry, attended the Selection Committee, which is contrary to the instructions issued by the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education. 28. The issue as to whether, District Vocational Education Officer, Eluru, has attended the Selection Committee or not, cannot be gone into, for the reason that, no material has been placed on record by the Appellants herein before the learned Single Judge, to show as to the composition of the Selection Committee on that day. In-fact, the order of the learned Single Judge, would indicate that though Government Pleader took time to get instruction on this aspect, he failed to do so. Apart from that, the said representative is a Government nominee and he should have made it a point to be part of selection committee and cannot allow someone to represent him. These are laches on the part of the Government agency, for which the Respondents cannot be found fault with. 29. Insofar as Proceedings, dated 14.10.2004 is concerned, the counter filed by the Respondents before the learned Single Judge is silent on this aspect. The aspect of delay in filing the Writ Petition after 12 years of issuance of proceedings was never raised and for the first time, the same came to be raised in Appeal. Therefore, the delay which was not raised at the earliest point of time cannot be raised now by the Appellants, more so, when the same is silent in the counter filed by the learned Single Judge. Without a pleading at the initial stage, the Appellants cannot raise it a fresh ground in the Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act. 30. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 31. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.