ORDER : NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. This writ petition is filed challenging Memo No.353/RP-II/2022, dated 06.04.2024 issued by the 2 nd respondent. 2. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S.Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC)-2 nd respondent. 3. The present writ petition was filed by four petitioners. Subsequently, three petitioners i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 4 withdrew the writ petition by order 17.02.2025. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The TGPSC issued Notification No.10/2022 dated 22.08.2022, for recruitment of two Professors, four Associate Professors and 21 Assistant Professors in the 3 rd respondent Institute. The petitioner, having acquired M.Tech in Computer Science, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science/Information Technology. The selection process did not involve a examination. It required submission of online applications, proof of qualifications and experience, assessment academic and research performance, achievement of minimum research scores and participation in an ‘Interview-cum-Demo” held on 30.01.2023. (b) The Schedule of Interview-cum-Demo for the posts of Associate Professors and Assistant Professors was released on 01.02.2023. The interviews were conducted from 06.02.2023 to 08.02.2023, and the petitioner attended as per the schedule. (c) Based on the interview-cum-demo, the marks list of candidates was released by the 2 nd respondent on 15.02.2023. The petitioner secured 1 st rank by scoring 76.900 marks in the Computer Science/Information Technology. However, even after more than thirteen months, no final selection list was published for reasons best known to the respondents. Meanwhile, the Government of Telangana issued Memo No.7593/Ser.D/A2/2022, dated 02.12.2022, outlining the methodology for implementation of horizontal reservation for woman in line with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar-Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission , [( 2007 (8) SCC 785 )] stating as follows :-. “… is informed that 33 1/3% reservation for women, in all categories, in the matter of direct recruitment to the posts, for which, men and women are equally suited shall be implemented horizontally, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar-Daria V Rajasthan Public Service Commission. 5. The 2nd respondent-Commission has issued a Web Note, dated 14.07.2023, which reads as follows :- 'It is hereby informed that, in compliance of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh-Kumar Daria Vs. 5. The 2nd respondent-Commission has issued a Web Note, dated 14.07.2023, which reads as follows :- 'It is hereby informed that, in compliance of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh-Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (1 supra) and interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court in related matters in various W.Ps and the Government Memo No.7593/Ser.D/A2/2022, dated 02.12.2022 of the General Administration (SER.D) Department; Telangana, the Commission has decided to implement the Horizontal Reservation for Women candidates in all categories in the matter of direct recruitment for all the examinations which are conducted by the TSPSC after issuance of the Memo. The selections shall be subject to the outcome of final orders of the Hon'ble High Court in the related matter.” 6. The TGPSC has decided to implement horizontal reservation for women candidates in all categories in the matters of direct recruitment for all the examinations which are conducted by it after issuance of the Memo. No Writ Petitions are pending with respect to the recruitment of Professors, Associate Professors, and Assistant Professors in Forest College and Research Institute, Mulugu, regarding Notification No.10/2022, dated 22.08.2022. 7. The Government of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 10.02.2024, citing the judgment of the Apex Court and the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.38502 of 2022 and 27844 of 2022 stating as follows :- "7. Government after careful examination, have decided to implement 33 1/3 % reservation in favour of women horizontally without earmarking any roster points for them, in each category i.e. OC, BC-A, BC-B, BC-C, BC-D, BC-E, EWS, SC, ST, Physically Handicapped, Ex-servicemen and Meritorious sportspersons, in the matter of direct recruitment to the posts for which both men and women are equally suited, in supersession of the orders issued vide references 3 rd and 4 th read above.” All the Recruitment agencies under the Government, Government Undertakings, Quasi- government institutions, including Government aided institutions and Local bodies, are directed to implement the reservation in favour of women accordingly." 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that a government order can be applied retrospectively if it clarifies an earlier order. However, if the order modifies or amends the earlier order, it must be applied prospectively because applying the order retrospectively would withdraw vested rights, which is not permitted under law. The Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that a government order can be applied retrospectively if it clarifies an earlier order. However, if the order modifies or amends the earlier order, it must be applied prospectively because applying the order retrospectively would withdraw vested rights, which is not permitted under law. Any Government Order should be implemented prospectively and not retrospectively and the same was clearly mentioned in the recent judgment of the Kerala High Court in W.P.(C).No. 30646 of 2023 stating as follows :- "It is a well-accepted principle of construction that a statutory rule or Government Order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Where proceedings are initiated for selection by issuing an advertisement, the selection should normally be regulated by the then-existing rules and Government Orders, and any amendment of the rules or the Government Order pending the selection should not affect the validity of the selection made by the Selecting Authority or the Public Service Commission unless the amended Rules or the amended Government Orders issued in exercise of its statutory power either by express provision or by necessary Intendment indicate that amended Rules shall be applicable to the pending selections. See P. Mahendran v. State of Kamataka [ 1990 (1) SCC 411 ]." 9. Even if the Government of Telangana chooses to enforce G.O.M.No.3 dated 10.02.2024, it should be implemented from the date of its issuance, without retrospective effect, and it is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and against the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and Articles 14, 16, 19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, if any attempt to implement it retrospectively. 10. Aggrieved by the action of the 2 nd respondent, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.6941 of 2024 and this Court pleased to pass the following order :- "To consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2023 and pass appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law and expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioners". 11. 11. The 2 nd respondent as part of compliance with the order passed by this Court, informed the petitioner through Memo No.353/RP-II/2022, dated 06.04.2024, stating that the Government of Telangana issued a Memo vide Govt., Memo No.4981/Ser.D/A2/2023, GAD (Ser.D), dated 01.02.2024, and subsequently issued G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 10.04.2024, and G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 13.02.2024 for implementation of horizontal reservation for all ongoing recruitments. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Memo dated 06.04.2024 and direct the 2 nd respondent to publish the final selection list of Assistant Professor in Forest College and Research Institute, pursuant to Notification No.10/2022, dated 22.08.2022. 13. The 2 nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that TGPSC issued Notification No.10/2022, dated 22.08.2022 proposing to fill up 27 vacancies to the post of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in Forest College and Research Institute, Mulugu, in the State of Telangana. 14. The petitioner has earlier filed W.P.No.6941 of 2024 questioning the action of TSPSC in not declaring the final selection list of Assistant Professors in Forest College and Research Institute, despite completion of the recruitment process more than a year ago without assigning reasons. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 28.10.2023 and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. 15. In compliance of the above order of this Court, the petitioner was issued speaking order vide Memo No.353/RP-II/2022, 06.04.2024, wherein the petitioner was informed that after receiving the revised indents from the Forest College and Research Institute, Mulugu, further process of recruitment would be initiated. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 16. In WP Nos.38502 and 27844 of 2022, this Court has issued directions to the respondent Commission to restrict the women’s reservation to 33 1/3 percent by following the principle of Horizontal reservation within vertical reservation in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (1 supra). 16. In WP Nos.38502 and 27844 of 2022, this Court has issued directions to the respondent Commission to restrict the women’s reservation to 33 1/3 percent by following the principle of Horizontal reservation within vertical reservation in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (1 supra). Consequently, in compliance with the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.27844 of 2022 and 38502 of 2022, the Dept., for Welfare of Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizen (Prog-1) has issued G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 10.02.2024 to follow the principle of Horizontal reservation for women candidates without earmarking any roster points for them and subsequently Rule 22 of State and Sub- ordinate Service Rules-1996 was amended vide G.O.Ms.No.35, General Administration (Ser. D) Dept., dated 13.02.2024, by removing the Roster points earmarked for Women. 17. Accordingly, as per G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 10.02.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 13.02.2024, giving effect to changes thereof in Rule 22 and 22-A of TELANGANA STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1996, the Commission would implement the Horizontal Reservation for Women candidates in the matter of direct recruitment about to the subject Notification. The TGPSC strictly observes Rule 22 of the TELANGANA STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1996, while implementing the Rule of reservation for various communities/categories at the time of filling up of vacancies in multiple recruitments. 18. The Web Note dated 27.06.2024 was issued giving effect to G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 10.02.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 13.02.2024, which propagates the revised changes in the reservation policy for women stating that posts under direct recruitment shall be filled up in a horizontal reservation arrangement, is clearly a clarification to the subject Notification. It is not ultra vires in any manner, as it has only revised the reservation policy regarding women, which ought to be implemented in accordance with the horizontal reservation principle, keeping the overall reservation percentage intact, i.e., up to 33.33 percent reservation in favour of women candidates. Since the web note dated 27.06.2024 served as a clarification to the subject notification, it is within the law laid down to have applicability over the preceding selection process in recruitment of the subject notification. 19. In Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Manu , [(2023 SCC OnLine SC 640)] , the Apex Court held that if a subsequent Government Order is declared to be a clarification of the earlier order, it may be made applicable retrospectively. 19. In Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Manu , [(2023 SCC OnLine SC 640)] , the Apex Court held that if a subsequent Government Order is declared to be a clarification of the earlier order, it may be made applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned Memo dated 06.04.2024 by stating that G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 10.04.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 13.02.2024 were issued for the implementation of horizontal reservation. Petitioner’s contention is that issuance of these GOs., after the publication of final marks for the final selection list of Assistant Professors in Forest College and Research Institute, Mulugu, pursuant to Notification No.10/22, dated 22.08.2022, is illegal and arbitrary. The contention of the petitioner is that new GOs. were issued by the authorities taking their own decision. But, the said contention is not correct. The authorities have issued these two GOs., only with the directions of this Court in W.P.Nos.38502 and 27844 of 2022 as in the said writ petitions, this Court has issued direction to the respondent Commission to restrict the women reservation to 33 1/3 percentage by following the principle of horizontal reservation within vertical reservation in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (1 supra) and also in G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 10.2.2024, wherein paras 3 and 4 read as follows :- 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [ 2007(8) SCC 785 ] that, 'social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are 'vertical reservations'. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc., under Article 16 (1) or 15 (3) are 'horizontal reservations'. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16 (4), the candidates Delonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective Backward Class. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16 (4), the candidates Delonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs stood filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. But the said-principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations, will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservations for SCs, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for SCs in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of 'Scheduled Caste Women'. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste Women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. The same view was taken by the Apex Court in its judgment in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht [2010 (2) SCC 204]. 4. In the Government Memo. 7th read above, it was clarified to the Secretary, Telangana State Public Service Commission that 33% % reservation for women in all categories in the matter of direct recruitment to the posts for which, both men and women are equally sulted, shall be implemented horizontally, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the orders in the reference 6th read above. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the orders in the reference 6th read above. The Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 14.10.2022 In W.P.No.38502 of 2022, directed to follow the principle of horizontal reservation for women candidates without earmarking any roster points for them, with the following observations: "This Court taking into consideration, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others reported in (AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT Pg.3127) and also the earlier interim orders of this Court dated 23.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.27844 of 2022, directs the respondents to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others while making appointments in Group-I Services and to follow the principles of Horizontal Reservation for Women Candidates without earmarking any roster points for them". 22. In view of the above observation, the contention of the petitioner cannot be considered, as the authorities have issued the above mentioned two GOs., only with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said direction was also followed by this Court. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as illegal and arbitrary. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.