ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “........to declare the notification dated 6.3.2017 issued by the 1st respondent to the extent of holding that the applicants appointment is cancelled as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to continue the applicant in service with all benefits for which the applicant is entitled in law by further declaring the action of the 1st respondent in creating unnecessary litigation with regard to others and disturbing/terminating the services of the applicant after 5 years of service as AMVI that too after declaration of probation as bad illegal and pass such other order or orders.....” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the erstwhile A.P. Service Commission issued Notification 45/2008 wherein it was mentioned that detailed notification will be issued and proforma application form was available at website from 13.4.2009. In pursuance of the above said notification, the petitioner is fully eligible and qualified to apply for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector as on 30.12.2008, applied for the said post. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in Zone IV as non-local under BC-B category and his probation was also declared vide proceedings dated 20.04.2015 w.e.f. 03.05.2014 commencing from 03.03.2012 and the petitioner is in the seniority list of AMVI in Zone IV and he is actually entitled and eligible to be promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector as per rules. It is further stated that some of the candidates who are not eligible with regard to certain qualifications as on 30.12.2008 have contended before the Tribunal that the detailed notification was purportedly issued on 13.4.2009 and the eligibility criteria should be taken on 13.4.2009 but not on 30.04.2009. If 13.4.2009 is taken as date of eligibility then the petitioner therein was eligible and if it is taken as 30.12.2008 they were not eligible. Basing on these grounds they have preferred OAs before the Tribunal. However, the same were dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the aspirants/candidates who are eligible as on 1st notification dated 30.12.2008 alone are eligible and that they are alone are entitled for consideration to the post of AMVIs and as the petitioners therein were not qualified as on the said date i.e. on 30.12.2008 it was declared that they were not eligible to participate in the selection process. Aggrieved by the same, batch of writ petitions were preferred before this Court. Thereafter, the batch of writ petitions were disposed of. In view of the judgments of this Court, the original petitioners/writ petitioners are entitled and they become eligible for consideration of further selection process. Being not satisfied with the same, the erstwhile APPSC preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2016 upholding the judgment of this Court referred above. To that effect, the original petitioners/writ petitions who have initiated their litigation in 2009 have finally succeeded and therefore the legal position now is that original petitioners therein are shown as eligible though they are actually eligible as on the detailed notification dated 13.04.2009. While the matter stood thus, the APPSC have issued fresh selection notification dated 6.3.2017 wherein it was mentioned that four (4) of the original petitioners litigating in the above litigation are found to be eligible after conducting fresh interview and oral test was conducted on 30.1.2017. Out of which, four(4) have become eligible. It was also mentioned in the said notification that four of the selected and appointed candidates lost their earlier selection in view of the above revision of merit list. It is to be noted that out of 4 candidates who are likely to lose their selection, only one is from the residuary state of AP and APPSC would be taking further steps in cancelling. The rest of 3 are allotted to Zone VI as per the notification dated 6.3.2017. Hence the petitioner’s selection is sought to be cancelled and his hall Ticket Number is 45010554. A candidate with Hall ticket No. 45011050 was selected in Zone II under BC-B category and therefore he would be replacing a candidate who was already selected and appointed in Zone II under BC-B category with Hall ticket No. 45020210 and he in turn would be allotted to Zone IV under non-local under BC-B category and in that view of the matter as a cascading effect the petitioner would be losing his selection. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and stated that the candidates who possessed the Physical Standards as per the terms of the Notification and whose Driving License was confirmed to be valid by Transport Department were admitted for Oral Test. It is further stated that several candidates who were disqualified after verification of physical standards filed cases on one ground or the other. Some candidates were filed batch of writ petitions and this Court vide order dated 6.7.2012 in W.P. No. 4719 of 2012 & batch allowed the writ petitions holding that the date of Notification is 13.4.2009 but not 30.12.2008. thereafter, the Commission preferred appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court was directed to keep the orders of the High Court in abeyance, vide interim order dated 17.8.2012. In view of the same, the entire selections pursuant to Notification No. 45/2008 are subject to the outcome of the appeals. After the interim orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the remaining 16 vacancies which were set apart earlier, were also filled up. It is further stated that the role of the Commission as a Constitutional Recruiting Body is limited for issuing notification as per indent furnished by Unit Officer, conducting the examination and selecting the candidates as per their merit and zonal preference. After completion of the process the Unit List was forwarded to Unit Officer for appointment of the selected candidates, but in this case the selection of the petitioner himself is conditional and it has been specified that the appointment is subject to the final outcome of the writ Petitions 30167 of 2011 and batch. The commission has forwarded the revised selection list to the Government for taking further necessary action basing upon the Supreme Court orders. Therefore the APPSC herein is a formal party, as the final decision has to be taken by Government i.e. 2nd respondent herein. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. The commission has forwarded the revised selection list to the Government for taking further necessary action basing upon the Supreme Court orders. Therefore the APPSC herein is a formal party, as the final decision has to be taken by Government i.e. 2nd respondent herein. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that this Hon’ble Court in its final orders dated 6.7.2012 in WP No. 30167 of 2011 and batch held that (a) cut of date for the purpose eligibility according to age will be as on 1.7.2008 and (b) the cut off date for meeting the qualification will be 13.4.2009. it is further stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its interim order dated 17.8.2012 in SLP preferred by the APPSC has kept in abeyance the operation of the High Court orders, the APPSC has processed the selection and usual process relating to 16 posts which were kept aside and furnished the selection lists subject to condition hat their appointment shall be subject to the result of Supreme Court cases. They were appointed as AMVIs as per the selection lists furnished by the APPSC specifying the conditions. It is further stated that pursuant to the orders of Hon’ble Apex Court, APPSC has revised the selection and forwarded certain revised selections to the post of AMVI. In view of the same, four candidates have been selected in which the petitioner lost his selection due to his low merit. Subsequently, he preferred OA No. 694 of 2017 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has granted interim order directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as AMV. Since the petitioner was selected on conditional basis subject to outcome of the WP No. 30167/2011 and batch and meritorious candidate was selected due to revision of selection, his earlier selection is cancelled and consequently his appointment is also to be cancelled. 5. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V. Venkata Naga Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APPSC and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents. 6. 5. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V. Venkata Naga Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APPSC and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents. 6. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition submitted that the petitioner is no where concerned with the litigation and therefore after working for 5 years the petitioner’s appointment cannot be cancelled and the petitioner cannot be penalized for the actions and inactions on the part of the APPSC. He further submits that the litigation between the petitioners in the earlier OAs and the subsequent litigation was only between the APPSC and the petitioner therein and there were no party respondents. The APPSC’s wrong decisions led to the litigation and the success of some other candidates/petitioners should not lead to miscarriage of justice to the petitioner herein. He mainly stated that the petitioner was not a party to the earlier litigation nor he was impleaded as party respondent and therefore the petitioner cannot be terminated. He mainly submitted that the fiasco created by the APPSC should not lead to denial of right of the petitioner herein and the justice that has been meted out to others should not lead to miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. The petitioner was given appointment by the official respondents and his probation was declared and as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, he cannot be penalized at this length of time. His appointment is not out of any misrepresentation or false information etc. the petitioner’s probation has been declared and he is eligible for promotion to the next cadre and he had spent five years of service faithfully with transport department. 7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government has informed that proposal was examined and they were agreed. He further submitted that in view of the orders of the Government in Memo No. 13041/1/2017/TR.II (TR)-2, dated 22.03.2018 the petitioner is continued in service in Zone IV. However since there are 35 vacancies the individual was continued in one of the existing vacancies and no supernumerary post was required to be created. He further submitted that in view of the orders of the Government in Memo No. 13041/1/2017/TR.II (TR)-2, dated 22.03.2018 the petitioner is continued in service in Zone IV. However since there are 35 vacancies the individual was continued in one of the existing vacancies and no supernumerary post was required to be created. Since the Government has taken a decision to cancel the selection of petitioner as AMVI for the reasons stated in their memo, his appointment has to be cancelled but he has continued as AMVI in view of the interim orders of the Tribunal. Since notified vacancies for men under Notification No. 45/2008 are exhausted, the petitioner is not entitled for continuing as MVAI and hence his appointment has to be cancelled. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in pursuance of Notification dated 30.12.2008 and his services were regularized and probation was also declared. Questioning the said notification, this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme court passed orders in favour of the persons, who approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In order to implement the orders of the Apex Court, the respondents have issued Selection Notification No. 45/2008 where under, it was mentioned that provisional selection list and the appointments made are pursuant to the orders dated 29.11.2016 in SLP (C) Nos. 22972-22985 of 2012. It is further observed that due to the above selections, the candidate with Register No. 45020210, who was selected and allotted to Zone-II, BC-B local earlier is now re-allotted to Zone-IV, BC-B Non-local as per his merit and zonal preference exercised and secondly owing to above revision, the candidate with Register No. 45010554 lost his earlier selection for the post of AMVI under BC-B in Zone-IV. The petitioner was selected under BC-B in Zone-IV (Non-Local). In view of the same, this Court has granted interim order dated 17.03.2017 directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as AMVI. 9. The petitioner was selected under BC-B in Zone-IV (Non-Local). In view of the same, this Court has granted interim order dated 17.03.2017 directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as AMVI. 9. In such circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in Vikas Pratap Singh and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that as under: Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent-Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service. 26. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent-State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. 27. Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State to appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation. 28. We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment. 10. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation. 28. We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment. 10. In another case reported in Union of India vs. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that this Court considered the age of the employee who was erroneously promoted and the duration of his service on the promoted post and the factor of retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation and observed as follows: The last prayer on behalf of respondent, however, needs to be sympathetically considered. The respondent is holding the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) since last seventeen years. He is on the verge of retirement, so much so, that only few days have remained. He will be reaching at the age of superannuation by the end of this month i.e. December 31, 2007. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate now to revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period. We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e. upto December 31, 2007. At the same time, we hold that since the action of the Authorities was in accordance with Statutory Rules, an order passed by the Deputy Accountant-General canceling promotion of the respondent and reverting him to his substantive post of Accountant was legal and valid and the respondent could not have been promoted as Senior Accountant, he would be deemed to have retired as Accountant and not as Senior Accountant (Functional) and his pensionary and retiral benefits would be fixed accordingly by treating him as Accountant all throughout. 32. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Though the respondent is allowed to continue on the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of retirement i.e. December 31, 2007 and salary paid to him in that capacity will not be recovered, his retiral benefits will be fixed not as Senior Accountant (Functional) but as Accountant. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs. 11. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs. 11. In another case reported in V. Jagannadha Rao vs. State of A.P. (2001) 10 SCC 401 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Presidential Order dated 18.10.1975 belonging to different parts of the State in the matter of public employment, education etc. and that the Rules framed by the State Government under the proviso to Article 309 whereby UDCs of the Labour Department, and Factories and Boilers Departments were made eligible for recruitment by transfer to the posts of Assistant Inspector of Labour, Assistant Inspector of Factories were violative of the Presidential Order. 12. In another case of K. Madhava Reddy vs. State of A.P. Civil Appeal Nos. 4947-4951 of 2014, dated 29.04.2014, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: While the basic question whether such G.O.Ms permitting promotion by transfer from one department to the cadre or zone to another may have been the same, it cannot be denied that the rules with which this Court was concerned in Jagannadha Rao’s case (supra) were different from those with which we are dealing in the present case. We feel that on the question of application of doctrine of prospective overruling, the judgment in Jagannadha Rao’s case (supra) will not stand as an impediment for this Court. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the orders passed by the High Court and hold that while G.O.Ms. No. 14 and 22 have been rightly declared to be ultra-vires of the Presidential Order by the State Administrative Tribunal, the said declaration shall not affect the promotions and appointments made on the basis of the said GOMs. prior to 7th November, 2001, the date when Jagannadha Rao’s was decided by this Court. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon considering the case of V. Jagannadha Rao’s case (supra), this Court is of the considered view that, while declaring the notification dated 6.3.2017 issued by the 1st respondent to the extent of holding that the petitioner’s appointment as AMVI is cancelled as illegal, and thereby directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all full benefits, for which he is entitled to, in accordance with law. Further, the 1st respondent is directed not to create any unnecessary havoc with regard to others by disturbing/terminating the services of the petitioner that too after 5 years of service as AMVI with declaration of probation. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.