ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.09.2011 in O.A.No.5419 of 2010 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal). 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for petitioners and Sri. K.Suresh Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri B.Ramulu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on record. 3. Brief facts that lead to filing of the present writ petition are that the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh had notified recruitment rules titled “The Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2008” vide G.O.Ms.No.161 Education (Services-VI) Department, dated 06.12.2008. Pursuant to the said G.O., on 06.12.2008 the Director of School Education had issued Teachers Recruitment notification, popularly known as DSC-2008 for filling up of 79 vacant posts of School Assistants (Social Studies). Out of notified 79 posts, two posts were earmarked for Ex-Servicemen. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.112, Education Department, dated 06.10.2009, where under instructions and guidelines were issued for selection of above posts. Pursuant to the said notification, respondents applied and participated in the selection process. The respondent No.1 has got 67.5 marks and secured 37th rank in social studies. 4. It is further contended that earlier, O.A.No.11902 of 2009 and batch were filed to fill up the unfilled posts due to non-availability of suitable Ex-servicemen candidates and the said batch of O.As were disposed of on 22.03.2010 by the Tribunal directing the appellants herein to consider the cases of the applicants therein for appointment according to their merit and ranking issued by the DSC for 13th and 37th roster points, which are earmarked for Ex-servicemen. 5. Pursuant to the above orders, the Government issued Memo dated 04.06.2010 permitting the Commissioner and Director of School Education to appoint the eligible candidates of DSC-2008 as per merit under OC (G) category in the resultant vacancies meant for Ex-servicemen, which could not be filled up due to non-availability of Ex-servicemen candidates and it shall be made applicable to the candidates of DSC-2008 only. 6. The 2nd appellant issued proceedings dated 15.06.2010 to fill up the said two vacant posts meant for Ex-servicemen strictly in accordance with the Rules and consequently, the 3rd appellant herein had issued selection list on 06.08.2010 calling those candidates for selection ignoring the case of the respondent no.1. 6. The 2nd appellant issued proceedings dated 15.06.2010 to fill up the said two vacant posts meant for Ex-servicemen strictly in accordance with the Rules and consequently, the 3rd appellant herein had issued selection list on 06.08.2010 calling those candidates for selection ignoring the case of the respondent no.1. Aggrieved by the same, 1st and 2nd respondents filed O.A.No.5419 of 2010 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 06.09.2011 disposed of the said O.A., directing the appellants herein to consider the case of the applicants therein for appointment to the post of School Assistants (Social Studies) according to their merit and ranking in DSC-2008 for filling up of unfilled vacancies meant for Ex-servicemen at roster points 13 and 37 and issue necessary orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for petitioners had contended that out of total posts of 79 meant for School Assistants (Social Studies), two posts were earmarked for Ex-servicemen at roster points 13 and 37. It is further contended that no suitable Ex-servicemen candidates were available, therefore, two posts meant for Ex-servicemen could not be filled up. It is further contended that as per the Rule 22 (2)(e)(i)[ R.22. Special Representation (Reservation): (2) (e) xxxx (i) In the case of appointments to a post referred to in sub-rule (c), the 13th and 37th turns in each unit of hundred vacancies shall be reserved for ex-servicemen. Out of 13th and 37th roster points, preference to one of the two points for women can be given and if women candidates are not available, both the points with men shall be considered. However, wherever the special or adhoc rules provide that there shall be no reservation for ex-servicemen or if a qualified and suitable candidate is not available from ex-servicemen, the turn allotted to ex-servicemen shall be deemed to be allotted to Open Competition.] of the A.P. Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘Rules’), if suitable candidates are not available, said posts ought to have been filled up by next meritorious OC (G) candidates pursuant to the orders dated 06.09.2011 of Tribunal in O.A.No.5419 of 2010. The appellants have filled up two vacancies meant for Ex-servicemen at roster points 13 and 37 viz., T.Gopal, OC (G), who secured 27th rank with 69 marks and Sri K.Chandra Mohan, OC (G), who secured 35th rank with 68 marks, respectively. It is further contended that respondent No.1 has secured 37th rank with 67.5 marks, whereas 2nd respondent has secured 86th rank with 53.50 marks, who are not next meritorious OC (G) candidates. It is finally contended that the selected candidates viz., T.Gopal, who secured 27th rank and K.Chandra Mohan, who secured 35th rank, both are OC (G) candidates and are meritorious than the respondent nos.1 and 2 and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contended that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the facts and circumstances and the contentions raised, had rightly allowed the O.A., and directed the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondent no.1 for appointment to the post meant for Ex-servicemen quota at roster point no.13. It is further contended that posts, which remained unfilled due to non-availability of Ex-servicemen shall be filled by OC (G) candidates. It is further contended that the respondent No.3 was appointed in roster point No.37 meant for Ex-servicemen, contrary to Rules, since 3rd respondent i.e., Mohammad Burhan had secured 411 rank with 49 marks only. 9. The undisputed facts are that erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 06.12.2008. Pursuant to the said G.O., the Director of School Education issued DSC-2008 notification, for which, 79 vacant posts of School Assistants (Social Studies) were notified in Ranga Reddy district. Out of 79 posts, two posts were meant for Ex-servicemen at roster points 13 and 37. As no suitable Ex-servicemen candidates were available, therefore, said two posts could not be filled up. Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed O.A.No.11902 of 2009 and batch before the Tribunal and the same were disposed of vide order dated 22.03.2019 by the Tribunal directing the appellants herein to consider the case of the applicants therein for appointment in unfilled vacancies earmarked for Ex-servicemen at roster points 13 and 37. 10. Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed O.A.No.11902 of 2009 and batch before the Tribunal and the same were disposed of vide order dated 22.03.2019 by the Tribunal directing the appellants herein to consider the case of the applicants therein for appointment in unfilled vacancies earmarked for Ex-servicemen at roster points 13 and 37. 10. The Tribunal has specifically observed that Sri T.Gopal belongs to BC-D category and K.Chandra Mohan belongs to BC-B category and therefore, the roster points 13 and 37 meant for Ex-servicemen were not filled up by OC (G) category candidates. With the above said observation, the Tribunal disposed of O.A.No.5419 of 2010 directing the appellants herein to consider the case of the appellant therein for appointment to the post of School Assistant (Social Studies) according to the merit and ranks issued in DSC-2008 for filling up the unfilled vacancies meant for Ex-servicemen at roster point 13. Though Sri T.Gopal and K.Chandra Mohan belong to BC-D and BC-E categories respectively, they are more meritorious than the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, having secured 27th and 35th ranks respectively. It is settled principle that a candidate though belongs to reserved category, if he is meritorious and within the zone of consideration in OC category, he has to be appointed in OC (G) category and he cannot be treated and considered as reserved candidate. Therefore, the reason recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous, unsustainable. 11. The appellants herein, after due process and considering the merit and ranks, have appointed two OC (G) candidates i.e., T.Gopal, who secured 27th rank with 69 marks and K.Chandra Mohan, who secured 35th rank with 68 marks. Admittedly, 1st respondent has got 37th rank with 67.5 marks, therefore, the candidates, who are appointed in 13th and 37th roster points meant for Ex-servicemen, are more meritorious than the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. Further, the contention of learned counsel for respondents that Mohammad Bhuran was appointed at roster point 37, though secured 411th rank with 49 marks, is incorrect since Mohammad Burhan was appointed in BC-E(G) category. As per Rule 22(e)(i) of the A.P. Subordinate Rules, the posts which remained unfilled due to non-availability of Ex-servicemen candidates, shall be filled up in OC (G) candidates. 12. As per Rule 22(e)(i) of the A.P. Subordinate Rules, the posts which remained unfilled due to non-availability of Ex-servicemen candidates, shall be filled up in OC (G) candidates. 12. In the present case, as no suitable Ex-servicemen candidates are available, two meritorious OC (G) candidates were appointed and those selected candidates are more meritorious than the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.09.2011 passed in O.A.No.5419 of 2010 by the Tribunal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.