ORDER : K Manmadha Raoo, J. This writ petition is filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the 2 respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner vide Proceedings Rc.No.819/R&T/Admn-I/2017, dated 19.11.2019 in not selecting and appointing thee petitioner as SCTSI(Civil) by treating thee petitioner as belongs to OC category despite thee petitioner belongs to BC-E as certified by the Tahsildar, Podili Mandal and selecting the person with lesser merit under BC-E category in Zone-III, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to rules and violative of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to select the petitioner as SCTSI(Civil) in terms of his merit under BC-E category in Zone-III basing on the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Podili pursuant to the orders of Hon’ble High Court in WP No.26758 of 2017 dated 29.8.2017 and to pass…” 2. Heard Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel representing Sri G.Suryam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri T.Benarjee, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent issued Notification vide Rc.No.208/R&T/ Rect.1/2016, dated 17.9.2016 for filling up the posts of SCTSI(Civil) and other Posts. As the petitioner belongs to Muslim religion, he intended to claim the reservation under BC-E category as provided under the rules. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted Online application for the post of SCTSI (Civil) in pursuance of the Notification dated 17.9.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel further submits that as the petitioner belongs to BC-E Community, he made an application dated 24.03.2017 to the Tahsildar, Podili, for issuance of BC-E Certificate. As the certificate was not given by the concerned Tahsildar, the claim of the petitioner to treat him as BC-E category could not be entertained in the absence of any caste certificate, and as such, he was treated as belongs to OC category basing on the Online application. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for preliminary and main examinations and he secured 241 marks out of 400 marks and the cut off marks for BC-E category is 240 marks. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for preliminary and main examinations and he secured 241 marks out of 400 marks and the cut off marks for BC-E category is 240 marks. Learned counsel further submits that, questioning the action on the part of the Tahsildar, in not issuing the caste certificate, the petitioner was filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12633 of 2017 before this Court and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.4.2017 and directed the Tahsildar to consider the application of the petitioner. However, the Tahsildar failed to consider the same. Accordingly, the petitioner again preferred W.P.No.26758 of 2017 before this Court seeking for the same relief. Consequently, this Court, vide order, dated 29.08.2017 in WPMP No.33214 of 2017 in WP No.26758 of 2017 directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the application of the petitioner and pass necessary orders. In pursuance of the said orders, the Tahsildar issued Caste Certificate on 27.04.2018 certifying the petitioner as belongs to BC-E category. Learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner submitted an application dated 02.01.2019 to the 2nd respondent to consider his candidature as BC-E, but he failed to do so. Learned counsel mainly contended that, though there were administrative lapses on the part of the Revenue authorities in issuing the certificate of Caste, the same resulted into non issuance of Caste certificate at the time of making an application to the recruitment notification for the post of SCTSI. On account of the same, the petitioner was treated erroneously as belongs to OC category instead of BC-E category. He submits that as the petitioner was construed as OC category in the absence of the Caste Certificate at the relevant point of time, he was denied selection under BC-E category despite he got more merit than the last selected candidate of BC-E category in Zone III. The petitioner had got 241 marks and whereas the last selected candidate under BC-E category got 240 marks. He submits that the petitioner was treated as BC-E category, he would have got selected under BC-E category against the vacancies meant for the said category. As the grievance of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner has preferred another writ petition WP No.12865 of 2019 and the same was disposed of this Court vide order dated 04.9.2019 and directed to pass appropriated orders on the petitioner representation. As the grievance of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner has preferred another writ petition WP No.12865 of 2019 and the same was disposed of this Court vide order dated 04.9.2019 and directed to pass appropriated orders on the petitioner representation. However, while passing orders on the representation, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner has not submitted a caste certificate at the time of application and at the time of physical verification. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by issuing directions to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner by creating supernumerary post. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 while denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that the petitioner has obtained BC-E certificate and NCL certificate on 27.04.2018 and 28.1.2018 respectively i.e., after completion of selection process and with a lapse of more than one and half year from the date PMT/PET, which was last opportunity given to the candidates to submit the said certificate. Admittedly the petitioner did not submit the said certificate within the stipulated time, though he has submitted other certificates. It is true that the petitioner made an application on 02-01-2019 i.e., after nearly two (2) years from the date of completion of selection process, stating that he obtained BC-E certificate on 27-04-2018 based on the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and he secured 241 marks i.e., secured more marks than the selected candidate in BC-E community and requested to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of SCT SI (Civil) in BC-E vacancies. The said application was considered keeping in view of the possession of BCE certificate, as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court issued in WP No. 12865 of 2019, dated 04-09-2019 and the same was rejected, as all the vacancies notified for BC-E category candidates were filled up with the candidates who have submitted BC-E and NCL certificates during online application, PMT/PET and they have completed training and now working at their respective posting places. So, at this point of time, he cannot be appointed against the BC-E vacancies, by terminating the services of the last selected candidate i.e., 4th respondent herein. Hence, there are no merits in his claim and request. So, at this point of time, he cannot be appointed against the BC-E vacancies, by terminating the services of the last selected candidate i.e., 4th respondent herein. Hence, there are no merits in his claim and request. Accordingly, the petitioner’s application dated 02-01-2019 was considered as per orders of the said Hon'ble Court and disposed of by a speaking order vide Memo.Rc.No.819/R&T/Admn.1/2017, dated 19-11-2019. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the contention of the petitioner that there is no fault on his part in not submitting BC-E community certificate and NCL either at the time of submission of application form or at the time of conducting Physical Measurement Test (PMT)/ Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and it is only due to non-granting said certificates by the Revenue authorities and he cannot be made suffer, is not correct, and is unsustainable, as there is no fault admittedly on the part of the official respondents herein nor on the 4th respondent herein. Therefore, neither official respondents nor the 4th respondent can be made responsible for not granting the said certificates to the petitioner by the Revenue Authorities. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, apart from the above, for the sake of petitioner, the 4th respondent's selection cannot be found fault nor he should not be terminated, as the 4th respondent's selection was in accordance with the provisions of said notification and rules. Hence, the petitioner cannot be accommodated in place of the 4th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case warranting interference of this Hon'ble Court either with the impugned proceedings dated 19.11.2019 or with the appointment of the 4th respondent, therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has also opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same as there are no merits in the present writ petition. 6. It is an admitted fact that the 2nd respondent issued Notification vide Rc.No.208/R&T/ Rect.1/2016, dated 17.9.2016 for filling up the posts of SCTSI(Civil) and other Posts. Accordingly, as the petitioner belongs to Muslim religion and he comes under the category of BC-E, he has submitted Online application for the post of SCTSI (Civil) in pursuance of the above Notification. 6. It is an admitted fact that the 2nd respondent issued Notification vide Rc.No.208/R&T/ Rect.1/2016, dated 17.9.2016 for filling up the posts of SCTSI(Civil) and other Posts. Accordingly, as the petitioner belongs to Muslim religion and he comes under the category of BC-E, he has submitted Online application for the post of SCTSI (Civil) in pursuance of the above Notification. But, as the Backward Class certificate was not issued by the Tahsildar, Podili, he was considered under open category in the said recruitment. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for preliminary and main examinations and he secured 241 marks out of 400 marks and the cut off marks for BC-E category is 240 marks. Since the Tahsildar, Podili, has not issued BC-E Integrated Community certificate vide his application No.CGC01171965513, dated 24.03.2017, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.12633 of 2017 before the Common High Court and the same was disposed of by the Common High Court vide order dated 17.04.2017, directing the Tahsildar, Podili, to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law in a time bound manner. In pursuance of the same, the 2nd respondent considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the petitioner’s application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein again approached the Common High Court by way of filing W.P.No.26758 of 2017 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue the Online Integrated Caste Certificate to the petitioner in the category of BC-E. Thereafter, the Common High Court, vide order, dated 29.08.2017, has disposed of the said writ petition with the following observation: “…..that the petitioner was granted BC-E caste certificate in 2008 as well as in 2012, which certificates even as on date are valid and they are neither cancelled nor suspended by the respondent authorities by following due process, and that the enquiry report of the Tahsildar discloses that enquiry has been made in relation to the surname rather than the aspects which are required to be enquired into in relation to the categories falling within items 1 to 14 in G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 07.07.2007, and accordingly, directed the respondent-authorities to reconsider the application of the petitioner and pass necessary orders after causing enquiry as mandated, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order….” 7. Pursuant to the above order, the Tahsildar, Podili has issued Caste Certificate on 27.04.2018 and Non-Creamy Layer Certificate on 28.11.2018. Pursuant to the above order, the Tahsildar, Podili has issued Caste Certificate on 27.04.2018 and Non-Creamy Layer Certificate on 28.11.2018. So, it is the contention of the petitioner that, from the date of Notification for recruitment dated 17.09.2016, he has been pursuing legal remedies for getting his Caste certificate. There are no laches or lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner. It is only on account of administrative lapses on the part of the Revenue Board and the Revenue authorities. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, there are absolutely no laches or inaction on the part of the petitioner, calling for denial of the post for non-submission of the Caste Certificate. 8. It is also observed that, while pursuing his legal remedies, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and secured 241 marks in the final written examination, which is highest in the B.C.-E category. For no fault of the petitioner, he was treated in open category, resulting in petitioner not falling within the zone of consideration for selection to the post. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, for the administrative lapses or inaction on the part of the revenue authorities in issuing Caste certificate to the petitioner, he being the meritorious candidate in BC-E category, cannot be denied the opportunity of consideration of his candidature in the order of merit in BC-E category since he has been pursuing his legal remedies ever since the Notification. Moreover, it is contention of the respondents’ counsel that already entire selection process has been completed, and in the said process, the 4th respondent stood second in the written examination and was considered for appointment in BC-E category. However, the petitioner is meritorious candidate, who secured highest marks in the candidates belonging to BC-E category, and though there are no laches on the part of the petitioner in submitting his caste certificate, his case could not be considered in the said category. Meritorious candidate cannot be kept aside without there being any omission on his part in securing caste certificate, for the administrative lapses and confusion on the part of the authorities. 9. In a case of Potluri Anjali, D/o Hanumantha Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LawSuit (AP) 80, wherein it was held that, in case, no vacancy is available in the cadre, respondents are directed to create one supernumerary post. 9. In a case of Potluri Anjali, D/o Hanumantha Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LawSuit (AP) 80, wherein it was held that, in case, no vacancy is available in the cadre, respondents are directed to create one supernumerary post. However, the petitioner is not entitled to claim monetary benefit, as she was not appointed to the post on the principle of “NO WORK – NO PAY”. 10. This Court, on earlier occasions also, in similar cases, has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner that in case no vacancy available create one supernumerary post by following the above decision. 11. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and also by following the above decision, this Court is inclined to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order in Rc.No.819/R&T/Admn-1/2017, dated 19.11.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to appoint the petitioner as SCTSI (Civil) pursuant to the Notification in Rc.No.208/R&T/Rect.1/2016, dated 17.09.2016 in terms of his merit at roster point under BC-E category in Zone III basing on the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Podili, pursuant to the orders of this Court in WP No.26758 of 2017 dated 29.08.2017 by giving benefit of notional seniority from the date when the less meritorious candidate to the petitioner was appointed. In case, no vacancy is available in the cadre, the respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to create one supernumerary post. However, the petitioner is not entitled to claim monetary benefit, as he was not appointed to the post on the principle of ‘NO WORK – NO PAY”. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.