ORDER : As the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is interlinked, both the Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed by this common order. 2. Initially, O.A.1972 of 2018 was filed before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, questioning the letter No.G1/4749/2009, dated 21.10.2017 of the Special Commissioner, Department of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada and Notification No.8/2018, dated 16.08.2018 issued by the Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission, Vijayawada, (for short ‘APPSC’) for conducting Special Qualifying Test (for short ‘SQT’) through on-line with syllabus consisting of General Studies & Mental Ability, by awarding minus marks for wrong answers, as illegal, arbitrary and consequential declaration that the applicants are not liable for subjecting to the above SQT. Later, the above OA was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.(AT).No.2174 of 2021. 3. W.P.No.30350 of 2022 is filed questioning the action of the 2nd respondent-APPSC in not declaring the results of Special Qualifying Test, vide Notification No.08 of 2018, dated 16.08.2018, even though, SQT was conducted in the year 2018. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioners herein working in various categories of Ministerial service, were appointed by transfer to the post of Lecturers in different Government Polytechnic Colleges in the State. They were appointed by virtue of the provision in the rules earmarking separate percentage in the Ministerial Service candidates right from the category of Office Subordinate, Record Assistant, Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant etc., In their promotion orders, a condition was imposed that they should be qualified in the Special Qualifying Test conducted by the APPSC. The applicants were promoted/appointed by transfer as Lecturers on various dates from the year 2009 onwards. Though no such qualifying test was conducted, they were performing their duties as Lecturers, in view of the qualifications possessed by them. (ii) But, all of a sudden, APPSC has issued the impugned notification No.8/2018, dated 16.08.2018 for conducting SQT through on-line with syllabus consisting of General Studies & Mental Ability. Apart from that, APPSC has also introduced a new system of negative marks by appending a note. According to the note, it stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.235, Finance (HR-I, Plg & Policy) Department, dated 06.12.2016, each wrong answer will be penalized @ 1/3rd of the marks prescribed for the question. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred O.A.No.1972 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 5. According to the note, it stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.235, Finance (HR-I, Plg & Policy) Department, dated 06.12.2016, each wrong answer will be penalized @ 1/3rd of the marks prescribed for the question. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred O.A.No.1972 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that implementation of negative marks in the written examination as per the said G.O., is illegal and arbitrary and the said Clause is not applicable to the present case, as the present notification is issued to conduct SQT for appointment by promotion for non-teaching staff. The negative marks scheme was introduced for direct recruitment. There is no provision of negative marks for departmental tests as per GOMs.No.235, dated 16.12.2016. In support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on para-4 of the said G.O., which reads as follows : “4. The negative marking system as ordered above will come into effect immediately and will be applicable to all the notifications for direct recruitment to be issued by APPSC”. 6. As per the above said paragraph, the negative marks system will be applicable only to all the notifications for direct recruitment to be issued by APPSC. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in OA.No.1972 of 2018, the Tribunal passed interim orders and dismissed the vacate stay petition, which was filed by the respondents. He further submits that the Andhra Pradesh Government Employees Association, Vijayawada made a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 16.05.2022 for regularization of Lecturers working in various Government Polytechnic Colleges, who was promoted/appointed by transfer from 2009-2017. In turn, the 1st respondent issued Memo No.1853345/TE.A2/2002, dated 21.11.2022 requesting the Director of Technical Education to examine and furnish a detailed report along with specific recommendations to the Government for taking further action in the matter. 7. In turn, the 1st respondent issued Memo No.1853345/TE.A2/2002, dated 21.11.2022 requesting the Director of Technical Education to examine and furnish a detailed report along with specific recommendations to the Government for taking further action in the matter. 7. He further submits that basing on the said Government Memo, dated 21.11.2022, the Director of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada sent proposals to the Principal Secretary to Government, Skills Development & Training Department, Velagapudi, vide Lr.No.G/4749/2016, dated 15.12.2022 requesting to consider the cases of the Lecturers for declaration of probation after completion of prescribed period of service and for regularization of their services as per Rule 18 (b)(ii) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and also to consider their cases for the upward movement under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) in AICTE scale of pay on par with direct recruits duly exempting them from qualifying in SQT and further requested to issue necessary guidelines in order to consider their names for inclusion in seniority lists for promotion. The above proposal is pending with 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has to take a decision on the said proposal. He further submits that if the 1st respondent considered the remarks submitted by the 2nd respondent and takes decision to relax the SQT, nothing survives in the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.30350 of 2022 submits that though the 2nd respondent conducted SQT Test on 28.10.2018, the results were not declared till today. He further submits that unless the petitioner crossed this hurdle, his services would not be regularized. 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent filed counter inter-alia stating that the Tribunal passed interim orders, dated 27.12.2018 in O.A.1972 of 2018 and directed the 2nd respondent to value the SQT papers of all candidates including the applicants, but not to announce the results, until further orders in O.A., and in view of the above said orders, the 2nd respondent did not publish the results of the said notification. It is further submitted that there is no dispute that said para-4 of the G.O.Ms.No.235 is not applicable to SQT. 10. It is further submitted that there is no dispute that said para-4 of the G.O.Ms.No.235 is not applicable to SQT. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on a perusal of the material available on record discloses that admittedly, all the petitioners were promoted/appointed by transfer between 2009 and 2017 on the condition that they shall qualify in SQT to be conducted by APPSC. In view of the letter dated 21.10.2017, addressed by the Department of Technical Education to the APPSC requesting to conduct SQT to the candidates who were appointed by promotion as such appointees have to qualify in the SQT conducted by APPSC, the APPSC issued Notification No.8 of 2018, dated 16.08.2018. Pursuant to the said Notification, all the petitioners appeared for the SQT conducted on 28.10.2018. 11. The grievance of the petitioner in WP.No.30350 of 2022 is that till date the results were not announced for the said examination, as a result, he lost his eligibility for award of Career Advancement Scheme, though there is no bar in G.O.Ms.No.209, dated 20.11.2010 that he has to qualify in SQT test for awarding CAS scheme and that as SQT is mandatory for regularizing their services, due to inaction of the respondents in declaring results, the regularisation of his services is being delayed, which is illegal and arbitrary. The reason assigned by the respondents for such delay is that in view of the interim orders passed by the Tribunal, dated 27.12.2018, in OA.No.1972 of 2018 [WP(AT).No.2174 of 2021] to value the SQT papers, but not to announce the results, until further orders in the OA, and as no further orders were passed permitting them to announce the results, they are unable to publish the results of the said notification. The petitioners in the said WP.No.2174 of 2021 are aggrieved by the ‘Note’ mentioned in Annexure-I of the Notification No.8 of 2018, wherein, it is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 06.12.2016, for each wrong answer will be penalized with 1/3rd of the marks prescribed for the question. 12. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 06.12.2016, reveals that by the said GO, the system of negative marks was introduced in objective type tests to be conducted by the APPSC. 12. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 06.12.2016, reveals that by the said GO, the system of negative marks was introduced in objective type tests to be conducted by the APPSC. At paragraph No.4 of the said G.O., which is extracted supra, it is made clear that the negative marking system will come into effect immediately and will be applicable to all the notifications for direct recruitment to be issued by APPSC. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the said GO applies to the notification issued by the APPSC for conducting SQT for appointment by promotion for non-teaching staff of the Department of Technical Education. As such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that incorporating such a ‘Note’ in the present notification is arbitrary and causes prejudice to the petitioners. However, since admittedly all the petitioners appeared for the SQT pursuant to the said notification, and in view of the orders passed by the Tribunal directing to conduct SQT as per schedule and to value the papers of all the candidates including the applicants before it, but not to announce the results, until further orders in the OA and thereafter, as no further orders were passed in the said OA [WP(AT).No.2174 of 2021], this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of both the writ petitions. 13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of and the respondent authorities are directed to value the papers, without reference to the ‘Note’ mentioned in the Notification No.8 of 2018 and announce the results, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. It is needless to say that if in the meantime or thereafter, the Government takes any decision based on the report, dated 15.12.2022, in favour of the petitioners, the same would be applicable to the petitioners, irrespective of the result in the preceding paragraph. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.