ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the appointment of the respondent No.4 as Assistant Executive Engineer in Zone–IV as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India by declaring that the writ petitioner is entitled to be selected and appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in Zone-IV against Post Code No.4 in pursuant to the recruitment Notification No. 9/2018, dated 29.11.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent herein by further declaring that Form-I to III enclosed to G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 issued by the 1st respondent where under ‘2%’ sports reservation has been provided for meritorious sports person in all posts and the impugned action is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 and further contrary to Rule-2(19) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and issue consequential directions and pass such other orders....” 2. The precise case of the petitioner is that he was qualified in the computer based examination for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer under notification No.9/2018, dated 29.11.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent and he presented all documents including his sports credentials before the 3rd respondent and also the petitioner was identified under Sports Quota as per note in web. As there was no objection to the tentative placement, the said list has been finalized. It is not known whether any clarification is sought from 1st respondent and the petitioner was kept under dark with regard to his candidature though he was qualified under 2% sports quota. By virtue of non-implementation of 2% sports reservation, though the petitioner is entitled too and in the pretext of Forms 1 to III, 3rd respondent has erroneously refused to implement the sports reservation of 2% this Writ Petition came to be filed to direct the 3rd respondent to reserve one vacancy of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) against post code No.4 in Zone-IV in respect of recruitment notification dated 29.11.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent and further declare the appointment of the 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 and also contrary to Rule-2(19) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Hence, requested to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 3. Hence, requested to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 3. Heard Mr. V. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.K. Ravi Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/SAAP; Mr. S.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Mr. G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel, representing Mr. V.Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition and mainly contended that as per Form-I, II and III annexed to G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 are inconsistent to Rule 2(19) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules (in short ‘the Rules’) and G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 itself. Rule 2(19) of the Rules is reproduced hereunder: “(19) Meritorious Sportsman:- “Meritorious Sportsman” means a sportsman who has represented the State and or the Country in a national or international competition or Universities in the Inter-University tournaments conducted by the Inter- University Boards or the State School in the national sports/games for schools conducted by the All India School Games, Federation in any of the games, sports, mentioned below and any other games/sports as may be a specified by the Government from time to time”. 5. Wherein, it is mentioned Atheletics, Badminton, Basketball and Teak Wondo (aa) Carroms etc., The definition of meritorious sports person includes participants not only international and national events and also inter universities and G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012 goes a step further and says 2% sports reservation for meritorious sports person in all government posts and hence the Form-I to III are inconsistent with Rule 2(19) of the Rules and G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012. In view of the said orders, the respondent authority are entitled to implement the priorities stipulated therein and under the guise of Forms-I to III, the respondent authorities cannot act contrary to the said rules. The petitioner eligible for 2% sports reservation and hence this writ petition is liable to be allowed. 6. Per contra, the 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit and mainly contended that the 3rd respondent has forwarded the documents submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent dated 21.01.2020 for assignment of priorities as per rule in vogue. The petitioner has submitted South Zone Inter University participation Certificate at SRM University, Chennai from 29th December-2015 to 3rd January, 2016 in Basketball discipline. The petitioner has submitted South Zone Inter University participation Certificate at SRM University, Chennai from 29th December-2015 to 3rd January, 2016 in Basketball discipline. As per G.O.Ms.No.74 he was assigned 51 tentative priority and the same is sent to the 3rd respondent on 05.02.2020 for publication, inviting objections on the tentative priority list by placing website. Accordingly, final priority list was prepared by SAAP, got approved by Government Level Committee and the same was forwarded to the 3rd respondent for further action and ended its role. Once final priority list submitted to the 3rd respondent for further action, SAAP has no role to select the candidate for recruitment against notification, it is the duty of the 3rd respondent to act on, on receipt of final priority list duly approved by Government Level Committee. The petitioner has not made any allegations against the respondents 1 and 2 and the matter purely relates to the 3rd respondent only. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Per contra, 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that as per Notification dated 29.11.2018 to fill up 309 vacancies through direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Executive Engineers in various Engineering Services, among them, one vacancy (Roster Point: 98) was reserved for meritorious Sports Persons in Zone-IV (Civil) (Post Code No.04) in A.P.Water Respurce Department as per G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012 in pursuance of Commission’s Notification No. 9/2018, dated 29.11.2018 for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers in various engineering services. The petitioner along with another candidate who qualified in the AEEs Main examination was provisionally called for verification of original under Sports Quota in 1:2 ratio. The petitioner represented the University of Vikrama Simhapuri University, Nellore in the Game of Basketball Men Team Event in South Zonal Inter-University competition held at SRM University, Chennai for the year 2015-16. IT is further contended that the petitioner has submitted Form-III which is eligible for employment to Group-IV posts/Service under the Statement Government/similar posts in Government Institutions, whereas the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is in Gazetted level category having pay scale at Rs. 37100-91450/-. Hence, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered under meritorious sports person quota for the selection process to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. 37100-91450/-. Hence, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered under meritorious sports person quota for the selection process to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The vacancy reserved for meritorious sports person (Roster Point 98) in Water Resource Department under Zone-IV was filled by open competition due to non availability of eligible sports persons as per G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 09.08.2017 and also as per G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 23.01.2018 stated that “(iii) in the event of non-availability of eligible sports person, the points reserved for them should be deemed to be allotted to Open Competition in the same recruitment. Based on the Unit List issued by the Commission the Government has also given appointments to the selected candidates and they were doing their jobs. Therefore, at this juncture, question of considering the case of the petitioner in the meritorious sports person quota does not arise. Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit, denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that on perusal of the General Ranking List, it is clear that the 4th respondent was secured Rank No.88 and belongs to Open Category. Further, under open category there are four persons were also selected, who secured ranks 97, 98, 107 and 108 respectively under the General Ranking List. The four persons were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers in Panchayat Raj Department in view of their preferences. The 4th respondent selected for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer by order dated 20.08.2020 and as per modification order dated 09.09.2020 the petitioner joined in the office of Superintending Engineer, TGP & GNSS Circle, Tirupati. The respondent was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Water Resources Department under Zone-IV Open Category in view of the fact non availability of eligible sports person. If the sports person is available, in view of the preferences given by the 4th respondent, he would have been given posting in Panchayat Raj Department in view of his eligibility and selection. Form-III submitted by the petitioner is only meant for employment to Group-IV posts. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, the petitioner was not selected. If the sports person is available, in view of the preferences given by the 4th respondent, he would have been given posting in Panchayat Raj Department in view of his eligibility and selection. Form-III submitted by the petitioner is only meant for employment to Group-IV posts. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, the petitioner was not selected. If the petitioner is entitled to be selected for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, the appointment of the 4th respondent will not be illegal in view of the fact that he was given under Zone-IV under Open Category in view of his preferences. As long as the 4th respondent is in the zone of consideration, the amended prayer sought for in the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 9. Both the counsel have painstakingly taken this Court through records of the case and presented their respective points of view very ably. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decisions of this Court in W.P.No.13979 of 2020, dated 24.01.2022, wherein learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:- 16. A reading of Annexure-I of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 would go to show that ‘Archery’ is a recognized sport for 2% Reservation and Annexure-II dealing with priorities prescribes participation in the All India Inter University Tournament. In the counter-affidavit of respondent No.4, petitioner’s participation in All India Inter University Archery Competitions was admitted. Under the said circumstances, placing the petitioner in ‘not eligible list’ on the premise that as per G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012, All India/South Zone Inter Universities Certificates are not eligible for Group-II Post is not sustainable. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of learned Standing Counsel are rejected”. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has participated in Inter University basketball tournament. As per G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 23.01.2018, which is an amendment of statutory reservation provides for 2% horizontal reservation and roster points 48 and 98 are the relevant roster points and the present recruitment is concerned with roster point 98 against which the petitioner is claiming. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.13979 of 2020, dated 24.01.2022 pertains to group-II service, whereas the judgment in W.P.No.11057 pertains to Group-I service. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.13979 of 2020, dated 24.01.2022 pertains to group-II service, whereas the judgment in W.P.No.11057 pertains to Group-I service. It is well settled proposition that when there is conflict between statutory rules and executive orders statutory rules will prevail vide Para 10 of the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogender Sreevastava”, (2010) 12 SCC 538 . 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 2(19) makes no such distinction and under meritorious sportsman definition from persons, who participated in international events to persons participated in inter universities are all included and hence the issuance of Form-III is contrary to the law declared by this Court. In the instant case the 4th respondent was appointed on the assumption that there is non-availability sports quota candidate and when the assumption does not exist and that the petitioner is entitled to be selected under sports quota, the action of the 3rd respondent in giving appointment to the 4th respondent in null and avoid and however, the petitioner is to be adjusted in the existing vacancy 17 in Nos. In Zone-IV and he is to be granted notional service from the date on which the 4th respondent appointment appointed and requested to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent vehemently opposed that the order passed in W.P.No.11057 of 2021, dated 29.07.2021 is not covered to the facts of this case. 13. In the light the light of the submissions of both the counsel and also the decisions of this Court passed earlier cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case, the petitioner is eligible under 2% sports reservation has been provided for meritorious sports person. Therefore the impugned action of the 3rd respondent is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 and also contrary to Rule 2(19) of the Rules. Hence, declaring the appointment of the 4th respondent as Assistant Executive Engineer in Zone-IV issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary as it is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 and Rule- 2(1) of the Rules. However, this Court by its order dated 09.09.2020 it is categorically noted that any decision with reference to the recruitment for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in Zone-IV, shall be subject to the result in this writ petition. However, this Court by its order dated 09.09.2020 it is categorically noted that any decision with reference to the recruitment for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in Zone-IV, shall be subject to the result in this writ petition. Therefore, the result of this Writ Petition shall binding on the 4th respondent also. 14. Under the aforementioned circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed, while declaring the appointment of the 4th respondent as Assistant Executive Engineer in Zone-IV as illegal and arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. The official respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in Zone-IV in pursuant to the recruitment Notification No.9/2018, dated 29.11.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent under 2% Sports Quota, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.