ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief : “….to issue the Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the Petitioner as language pandit Telugu/GradeII Telugu pandit under BC-B women category in the Prakasam District with regard to DSC2008 by cancelling the appointments of Respondents 5 and 6 vide proceedings RC No 251/A1/2008, dated 02.11.2010 and proceedings RC No 251/A1/2008, dated 16.10.2009 respectively as well as proceedings No 251/A1/2008, dated 16.10.2009 of the deceased Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi with all consequential benefits i.e., from 16 10 2009 and pass…” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd Respondent issued the Notification for the recruitment of Teachers in the year 2008, therein Prakasam District, Telugu language Pandits were allotted 250 posts, therein 9 posts reserved for the BC-(B) Women category. The Petitioner claimed BC-B Women category and she appeared for the post of language pandit (Telugu) bearing Hall Ticket No.08301000608. Thereafter, the results were declared and the Petitioner secured 49.50 Marks with Rank No.469. The 6th Respondent and her relative Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi as well as the 5th Respondent got appointment under the BC-(B) Women Category by submitting Bogus caste certificate to the Respondents 1 to 4. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted several representations to the Respondents 1 to 4 with a request to take necessary action against the appointment of Respondents 5 and 6 as well as the relative of 6th Respondent by name Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi under the BC-(B) Women category with regard to the Telugu language Pandits, but no action had taken. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad by way of filling ?.?.??.5332/2014 with a request to cancel the appointment of Respondents 5 and 6 and the relative of 6th Respondent Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi as well as another person by name Smt. Kadali Sujatha, subsequently to appoint the Petitioner in the post of language Pandit (Telugu) under BC-(B) Women Category. In the said O.A., the Tribunal has granted interim direction, directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary steps on the Representation of the Petitioner and to submit a report to be prepared in the enquiry. In the said O.A., the Tribunal has granted interim direction, directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary steps on the Representation of the Petitioner and to submit a report to be prepared in the enquiry. Later, the said O.A.No.5223/2014 was disposed of vide order dated 08.03.2017 with a direction to the Hon'ble Joint Collector and the Chairman of District Level Screening Committee, Prakasam District to conduct enquiry into the genuineness of the caste certificates of the above said persons i.e., Unofficial Respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Based on the said enquiry report, the 3rd Respondent was directed to take action on the enquiry report within one month thereafter. As the respondents have not taken any action, the petitioner preferred C.A.??.395/2017 in O.A.No.5223/2014 on the file Hon'ble Tribunal for implementation of the Orders passed in ?.?.??.5223/2014 dated 08.03.2017. While pending the said C.A.No.395/2017 in O.A.No.5223/2014, the District Level Screening Committee with regard to the Caste Certificate of the 5th Respondent was cancelled vide proceedings D.Dis.No.C4/99/2016 dated 19.08.2018, Subsequently, questioning the same, she filed Appeal before the Government Backward of Andhra Pradesh, Classes Welfare(F) Department, but the Appellate Authority declined to grant the suspension of the District Level Screening Committee, pending Appeal, on the said reason, the 5th Respondent filed WP.No.44509/2018 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. This Court vide order dated 10.12.2018 has disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Further held, till the said exercise attains finality, status quo, as on date, in all respects, shall be maintained by the Respondents therein. In view of the said order of this Hon'ble Court, the 5th Respondent is continuing. The District Level Screening Committee Prakasam District also cancelled the BC-(B) caste certificate of 6th Respondent vide proceedings Rc.C4/99/2016 dated 29.11.2019, therein the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur dated 02.02.2018 incorporated. As per the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur that the surnames of "Pathi" and "Bellamkonda" are not tallied with the surnames of "Perika Balija" caste which is pertaining to BC-(B) category. As per the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur that the surnames of "Pathi" and "Bellamkonda" are not tallied with the surnames of "Perika Balija" caste which is pertaining to BC-(B) category. As per the Petitioner's knowledge, the 6th Respondent is also continuing after cancellation of her Caste Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi, who is relative of the 6th Respondent (father of Mohini Devi and mother of Pathi Lakshmi Devi are sibs) and also claimed as Perika Balija caste, which comes under the BC-(B) category. The said Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi also got appointment of Language Pandit (Telugu) by submission of false caste certificate. As per the cancellation proceedings Rc.C4/99/2106 dated 29.11.2019 of the 6th Respondent, mentioned that Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi expired at the time of enquiry of District Level Screening Committee, on the said reason her name was deleted from the list of enquiry. As per the death certificate issued by the Tirumella Gram Panchayath, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District dated 10.04.2015, Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi expired on 11.07.2010. The report of Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur dated 02.02.2018 was also incorporated in the cancellation of caste certificate of 6th Respondent by the District Level Screening Committee vide proceedings Rc.C4/99/2016 dated 29.11.2019 that there are no surnames of "Pathi" and "Bellamkonda" in the caste of "Perika Balija" which comes under the BC-(B). Now the vacancy of Language Pandit (Telugu) with regard to Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi is vacant due to her death. Later, the Petitioner submitted her Representation dated 23.09.2020 in person to the 3rd Respondent by sending the same to the Respondents 1, 2 and 4 through Registered post on 24.09.2020 by stating all the above said facts and also requested to appoint the Petitioner as Language Pandit Telugu, which is vacant due to death of Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi. But the Respondents 2 to 4 have not taken any action. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The Counter affidavit has been filed by 4th respondent, while denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, submitted that, the petitioner has filed a complaint to the District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole against 1) Pathi Lakshmi Devi, 2) Bellamkonda Mohini Devi, 3) Kadali Sujatha & 4) Shaik Shameela Begum as they have selected to the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) in DSC 2008 by producing fake caste certificate as BC-B (Perika Balija) & (Dudekula) respectively. Due to these candidates got appointment as Language Pandit (Telugu) the petitioner has lost her employment as Language Pandit (Telugu) in DSC 2008 in the category of BCB Women. It is further submitted that, the District Collector & Magistrate, Praksam District has cancelled the caste certificate of the 5th respondent i.e., Shaik Shameela Begum, D/o Basha Mohiddin basing on the report of District Level Scrutiny Committee, Prakasam District in Progs.D.Dis.C4/99/2016, dated 19.08.2018 as she does not belong to Dudekula (BC-B), but belongs to Indian-Islam-Muslim (OC). She is liable for terminating from the service without further notice. But, she has filed a W.P.44509/2018 before this Hon'ble High Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2018. the operative portion reads as under : Having heard the learned counsel on either side and taking into consideration the pendency of the appeal, the stay application and the show cause notice, issued by the fourth respondent on 29.09.2018, and having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is likely to lose her job, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the first respondent herein to verify the appeal, dated 09.10.2018, said to have been preferred by the petitioner herein against the orders of the District Collector, dated 19.08.2018, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity of being heard to all the stakeholders. Till the said exercise attains finally. status quo, as on today in all respects, shall be maintained by the respondents herein. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” It is further submitted that, the District Collector & Magistrate, Praksam District has cancelled the caste certificate of the 6th respondent i.e., Pathi Lakshmi Devi, D/o Ranganayakulu basing on the report of District Level Scrutiny Committee, Prakasam District in Progs.Rc.C4/99/2016, dated 29.11.2019 as she does not belong to Perika Balija (BC-B), but, belongs to Balija (OC). She is liable for terminating from the service without further notice. But, she has filed a W.P.763/2020 before this Hon'ble High Court and the said writ petition was also disposed of by this Hon'ble High Court, vide order, dated 08.01.2020. She is liable for terminating from the service without further notice. But, she has filed a W.P.763/2020 before this Hon'ble High Court and the said writ petition was also disposed of by this Hon'ble High Court, vide order, dated 08.01.2020. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under : “In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, the Government-1" respondent is direct to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner, dated 06.01.2020, if it is pending before him strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitioner, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed". Further, it is submitted that, the 6th respondent has filed another W.P.No.1548/2020 before this Court seeking to set aside the Progs.Rc.No.C4/99/2016, dated 29.11.2019 and filed counter. The case is pending. It is submitted that, Bellamkonda Mohini Devi, D/o Venkateswarlu was expired on 12.07.2010, hence, the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Prakasam District, Ongole has omitted the name of the candidate from the enquiry. It is further submitted that, after verification of the Common Merit List of Language Pandit (Telugu) of DSC 2008, it is noticed that, the petitioner is immediate second candidate in BC-B Female category after selection of 5th respondent Shaik Shameela Begum and one more candidate is in the Merit list before the petitioner BC-B female. It is pertinent to note that there is no producer of operating waiting list if any candidate disqualifies and that vacancies will be carries forward to next notification. It is submitted that, the 5th and 6th unofficial respondents have filed an appeal on the orders of the District Collector, Prakasam District regarding to cancellation of their Caste Certificates as fake certificate. The appeals are still pending at Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. After receipt of the report from the appellate authority, further action will be taken in the matter. 4. The Counter affidavit has been filed by 5th respondent, inter alia, submitted that on 29-09-2018 the 4th respondent issued show cause notice vide proceedings in RC No. 5936(A2)84/2018. After receipt of the report from the appellate authority, further action will be taken in the matter. 4. The Counter affidavit has been filed by 5th respondent, inter alia, submitted that on 29-09-2018 the 4th respondent issued show cause notice vide proceedings in RC No. 5936(A2)84/2018. For which, he submitted explanation on 09-10-2018 in person and through register post. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in D.Dis.No. C4/99/2016, dated 19-08-2018. The 5th respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent-Government on 30-10-2018, an endorsement was made in appeal acknowledging the receipt, an application was also filed for granting interim order seeking stay of all further proceedings in D.Dis.No.C4/99/2016 pursuant to orders dated 19-08-2018. Since no order was passed, the petitioner was filed WP No. 44509 of 2018 and obtained orders of status quo pending appeal. The appeal is still pending with the 1st respondent for consideration, due to COVID-19 situation the same is not taken up. Therefore, this writ petition is not at all maintainable in view of pendency of the appeal before the Government, even otherwise the writ petitioner is not eligible since he did not secure required marks in DSC 2008. The orders in OA No. 2989 of 2012 referred in the writ petition are not applicable to the present set of facts and she cannot aim relief taking shelter of said order. 5. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5. It is submitted that she is entitled for appointment of Telugu Language Pandit Grade-II Telugu Pandit under the BCB Women Category. After 2008 DSC, the respondents 1 to 4 conducted DSC-2012, DSC-2014 and DSC-2018, but no BC-B candidate was appointed. Actually, the deceased Bellamkonda Mohini Devi expired before the declaration of her probation period i.e., on 11.07.2010, but her appointment was on 09.11.2009, still her post is vacant. Hence the petitioner is eligible for appointment of the Language Pandit (Telugu) Grade-ll in the existing vacancy of deceased Bellamkonda Mohini Devi. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the Writ petition. 6. The Counter affidavit has been filed by 6th respondent. It is stated that all the educational and transfer certificates of petitioner poses that the petitioner belong to BC-B Pirika Balija community. The same was ignored by the RDO, Markapur. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the Writ petition. 6. The Counter affidavit has been filed by 6th respondent. It is stated that all the educational and transfer certificates of petitioner poses that the petitioner belong to BC-B Pirika Balija community. The same was ignored by the RDO, Markapur. That the Tahsildar, Cumbum, after verifying all the educational records, enquiring the elders in the village, issued caste certificate after following the due process, till date no body objected the same. That the petitioner's brother P. Rajshekar, who studied upto M.Sc, in his TC, his caste was mentioned as BC-B Pirika Balija. The petitioner's sister P. Laxmi Devi in her TC, her caste was mentioned as BC-B Pirika Balija. It is further stated that the Hon'ble RDO, Markapur, without putting the notice to the petitioner, conducted enquiry and has not enquired anyone in the community in Thurimella Village, he simply answering the queries raised by one Pottikelapudi Jayram, came to conclusion that the petitioner belong to Balija Community, which has no basis at all. That the petitioner studied B.A. privately and B.Ed at Machilipatnam, her husband who worked in Army died in hairiness and she is presently working at MPUP, Kandulapuram, as such the report of RDO, Markapur has no basis and it cannot be taken as truth. The RDO has given three contradictory reports to each other, that itself shows that the RDO is vindictive, deliberately issued the report to deprive her caste certificate. It is further submitted that at present this respondent is working as Teacher in MPUP, Kandulapuram, Cumbum Mandal if the above grounds are not considered, she would be losing her job and she would be put to irreparable loss and damage. 7. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6. It is submitted that the 6th Respondent in her Counter Affidavit Para Nos. 4 to 7 stated that she belongs to "Perika Balija" and the same is pertaining to BC-B Category. Even though the 6th respondent belongs to BC-B, but she selected in OC Women Category. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur without hearing of the 6th respondent, gave his report stating that the 6th respondent got "Perika Balija" Caste Certificate fraudulently. 4 to 7 stated that she belongs to "Perika Balija" and the same is pertaining to BC-B Category. Even though the 6th respondent belongs to BC-B, but she selected in OC Women Category. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur without hearing of the 6th respondent, gave his report stating that the 6th respondent got "Perika Balija" Caste Certificate fraudulently. Actually, the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur Division states that the surname of the "Pathi" family who are claiming "Perika Balija" has not been issuing Caste Certificate from 2000 onwards. The Birth and Death Register of Cumbum Mandal verified by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the surname of "Pathi" people were recorded as "Balija Community". The Family Members of the 6th respondent i.e., her brother and sister are claiming OC status i.e.," Balija community". Even though the 6th respondent had given opportunities before passing the cancellation of caste certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, but she stated in her counter affidavit that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur had not given the opportunity. It is submitted that the State President of BC RPC got information from the Office of the 4th respondent under the Right to Information Act with regard to appointments under the BC-B category in DSC-2008 pertaining to Language Pandit (Telugu) Grade-II in Prakasham district. Through Lr.Rc.No.6640/A1/2020, Dt. 22.12.2020, therein the 4th respondent office stated that the 6th respondent appointed under the BC-B category. Further the selection list of DSC-2008 with regard to Prakasam District issued by the 4th respondent therein serial No.60, roster No.99 was allotted to BC-B women category and also showing the name of the 6th respondent. As per the said information of the 4th respondent, the 6th respondent appointed under the category of BC-B women, but not under the category of OC Women. 8. Heard Sri K. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms. P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the official respondents and Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. 8. Heard Sri K. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms. P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the official respondents and Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, even though the office of the 1st Respondent in Memo No. SEDNOCSE/(RECT) 149/2020 stating that the Petitioner is entitled to appoint as language pandit Telugu/Grade-II Telugu Pandit under the BC-B women category, but she lost the employment due to bogus caste certificates submitted by the Respondents 5 and 6 as well as the deceased Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi. Now the caste certificates of Respondents 5 and 6 were cancelled and also the enquiry proceedings against the deceased Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi were dropped. Further as per the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur dated 02.02.2018 clearly stated that there is surnames of 'Pathi' and 'Bellamkonda' in the caste of 'Perika Balija', which comes under the BC-B category. In view of the said reasons, the Petitioner is entitled to appoint as language pandit (Telugu)/Grade-II, Telugu Pandit which is vacant due to death of Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi. Hence the petitioner is eligible for appointment of the Language Pandit (Telugu) Grade-ll in the existing vacancy of deceased Bellamkonda Mohini Devi. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for appointment of Telugu Language Pandit Grade-Il Telugu Pandit under the BCB Women Category. He further submits that, in the similar set of facts, the Hon'ble A.P Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2389 of 2012 with V.M.A.No.1357 of 2012 and C.A.No.727 of 2012 dated 30.08.2012 gave direction in the vacancy which was not filed for the reason that was a wrong selection and also held that the Applicant therein is entitled for appointment to the post of school Assistant (Biological Science) meant for BC-B community in DSC-2008 from the date when the other candidates in 2008 for school assistants were appointed. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by allowing the present writ petition. 10. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by allowing the present writ petition. 10. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 4.9.2006 passed in WPNo.21306 of 2005 by a learned Division Bench of composite High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, wherein it was observed that as per Rule 13, the preparation of selections Lists should be “The number of candidates selected shall not be more than number of vacancies notified. There shall be no waiting list.” Under the aforesaid provision and also other rules read together, the object as sought to be enunciated is only to restrict number of candidates to that of number of vacancies notified.” 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavits, contended that, there is no producer of operating waiting list if any candidate disqualifies. That vacancy will be carry forward to the next notification. He further submits that, aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in D.Dis No.C4/99/2016, dated 29.11.2018, the 6th respondent filed an appeal before the respondent-Government on 6.01.2010. Since no order was passed, the 6th respondent filed WP No.1548 of 2020 before this Court and this Court granted stay of proceedings vide D.Dis No. C4/99/2016, and the said writ petition is still pending. The appeal is also still pending with the 1st respondent for consideration, due to COVID-19 situation the same is not taken up. In view of the above reasons, as there are no grounds to interfere with the present writ petition and the same is not at all maintainable in view of pendency of the appeal before the Government, even otherwise the writ petitioner is not eligible since she did not secure required marks in DSC 2008. Further, the orders in OA No.2989 of 2012 referred to in the writ petition are not applicable to the present set of facts and she cannot claim relief taking shelter of said order. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 12. On hearing the submissions in detail and also a perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute to the aforesaid submissions leading to filing of O.A. It is further observed that, the fact remains that the petitioner was successful having secured fair and good number of marks i.e., 49.50 with Rank No.469. 12. On hearing the submissions in detail and also a perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute to the aforesaid submissions leading to filing of O.A. It is further observed that, the fact remains that the petitioner was successful having secured fair and good number of marks i.e., 49.50 with Rank No.469. However, she was not selected. Moreover, it is the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the selection made with regard to DSC-2008, Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi was given appointment on 09.11.2009 on the post of Language Pandit (Telugu)/Grade-II Telugu Pandit in Prakasam district under BC-B women category. During the continuance of service she died on 11.07.2010. So, on account of death of Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi, the petitioner claims for consideration for appointment against such vacancy. Moreover, it is contention of the respondents that, admittedly, there is no waiting list in the present case and the petitioner sought appointment as against the vacancy that has arisen pursuant to the selection. This vacancy which arose due to proper selection shall be deemed to have been in existence as on the date of selection process, but not later. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the existing vacancy which arose on account of death of Smt. Bellamkonda Mohini Devi, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.