ORDER : Since the lis in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together, and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering the Master’s Degree of the petitioners obtained from the Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur District, through distance mode, for their appointment to the post of Librarian under the control of respondent Nos.3 and 4, by referring to the Public Notice No.F.27-1/2012 (CPP-II) dated 27.06.2013, as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, discriminatory, apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, and also Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014, and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Librarian, duly recognizing their Master’s Degree, by declaring that the Public Notice dated 27.06.2013 is inapplicable to the petitioners. 3. Heard Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.25837 of 2024; Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.25531 of 2024; Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.24496 of 2024; learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4; Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Public Service Commission, for respondent No.2; and Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 13. Although Sri Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel, filed vakalath on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.25837 of 2024 on 11.09.2025, the matter had already been argued by the earlier learned counsel and it was posted for orders. In view thereof, this Court has proceeded to pass orders on the basis of the arguments already advanced. 4.1 Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.25837 of 2024, submits that Acharya Nagarjuna University is a State University established in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh under Act 43 of 1976, and as a part of its curriculum, the University started providing undergraduate and postgraduate programmes through distance mode by establishing study centers in different parts of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, after bifurcation, the study centers continued to operate and the University was enrolling the candidates belonging to the State of Telangana and was awarding them certificates/degrees. Likewise, the petitioners have prosecuted their Master’s Degree in Library and Information Science from Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur District, through its study centers situated in Telangana, during the years 2017 to 2022, and the said Degrees are also duly recognized by the University Grants Commission and the Distance Education Bureau. 4.2 It is submitted that respondent No.2 issued a General Recruitment Notification vide Notification No.30/2022 dated 31.12.2022, inviting applications for the post of Librarian under the control of respondent Nos.3 and 4. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners, being fully qualified, applied for the said post, appeared and qualified in the written examination, and their names were also shown in the list of selected candidates, and they were accordingly called for certificate verification. However, respondent No.2 has orally refused to consider the candidature of the petitioners, on the ground that the Master’s Degrees of the petitioners were obtained from the study centers of Acharya Nagarjuna University, which are allegedly deemed as outside territorial jurisdiction, as per the Public Notice of the University Grants Commission dated 27.06.2013. 4.3 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, mandates equal opportunities for quality higher education to all students belonging to both the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, with the continuation of existing admission quota for a period of ten years. As such, the Degrees grants by the State Universities established in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh are valid for employment in both the successor States. However, contrary to the same, respondent No.2 is not accepting the Master’s Degrees of the petitioners, in view of the aforesaid Public Notice dated 27.06.2013. 4.4 It is further submitted that the Telangana Social Welfare Educational Institutions Society, through respondent No.2, had earlier issued Notification No.20/2017 dated 14.04.2017, for filling up the posts of Librarian in Residential Schools/Junior Colleges, and the candidates, possessing the Master’s Degree obtained through distance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, were considered for recruitment and meritorious candidates were duly appointed, without any objections. It is also submitted that respondent No.3 also had earlier issued proceedings, filling up the posts of Librarian by way of promotion of Senior Assistants/Junior Assistants/Typists, wherein, the candidates possessing the Degree in Library Science through distance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, whose admission was also subsequent to the issuance of Public Notice dated 27.06.2013, were also issued with promotion orders. As such, the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners herein for appointment, based on the Master’s Degree obtained through distance mode from the study centers of Acharya Nagarjuna University, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, and also in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. 5.1 Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.25531 of 2024, submits that the petitioners herein also possess their Master’s Degree in Library Science obtained from Acharya Nagarjuna University, though distance mode, during the years 2016 to 2020. As such, in pursuance of Notification No.30/2022 dated 31.12.2022, these petitioners also participated in the recruitment process and stood meritorious. Despite the same, on the same ground as urged supra, the respondents were not considering the case of the petitioners for appointment. As such, the petitioners submitted their representation to respondent No.2 on 12.06.2024, requesting to consider their qualification as valid and to appoint them as Librarians based on their merit, but there was no response. Thus, the petitioners filed W.P.No.16186 of 2024 before this Court, wherein, vide interim order dated 01.07.2024, this Court directed respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners. However, without reference to any of the submissions made by the petitioners herein, respondent No.2 passed a speaking order vide impugned Memo.No.453/Rectt-pool-II/3/2022 dated 29.08.2024, rejecting the claim of the petitioners, by reiterating that they have studies from the study centers, which are not located within the territorial jurisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna University. However, without reference to any of the submissions made by the petitioners herein, respondent No.2 passed a speaking order vide impugned Memo.No.453/Rectt-pool-II/3/2022 dated 29.08.2024, rejecting the claim of the petitioners, by reiterating that they have studies from the study centers, which are not located within the territorial jurisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna University. 5.2 Referring to the earlier recruitment Notification No.28/2017, learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 is adopting a different stand in different recruitments, as it had accepted the certificates and appointed the meritorious candidates therein, possessing the Master’s Degree in Library Science, obtained from Acharya Nagarjuna University, through distance mode, while denying to consider the case of the petitioners who possess the very same qualification, which is illegal, arbitrary and highly discriminatory. 5.3 It is further submitted that as per Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, even after the bifurcation, the certificates obtained through distance mode from study centers in both the successor States, during the ten years, i.e., 2014-2024, are valid for appointment and higher education. It is submitted that Kakatiya University, which has its territorial jurisdiction in Telangana, also operated study centers in the present State of Andhra Pradesh up to 2022, and those certificates are treated as valid, for appointments and promotions. It is also submitted that the University Grants Commission has also granted approval to Acharya Nagarjuna University for running various courses, including Master’s in Library Science, through Open and Distance Learning Mode, continuously from 2014 to 2024. However, ignoring all these facts, respondent No.2 has rejected the candidature of the petitioners treating their valid certificates as invalid, which is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 6. Similarly, Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.24496 of 2024, submits that the petitioners herein also possess the Master’s Degree in Library Science and in pursuance of Notification No.30 of 2022 dated 31.12.2022, they have also applied for the post of Librarian, appeared and stood meritorious in the written examination. However, their candidature is not being considered on the very same ground that they possess a Master’s Degree obtained through distance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 7. However, their candidature is not being considered on the very same ground that they possess a Master’s Degree obtained through distance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 7. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court to declare the Master’s Certificates of the petitioners as valid, and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider their case for appointment to the post of Librarian, based on their merit, without reference to the rejection vide oral and impugned order, as the case may be. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sheo Syam and Others v. State of U.P. and Others,  (2005) 10 SCC 314 and State of Bihar and Others v. Shyama Nandan Mishra, (2022) 17 SCC 420 . 8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, submits that in response to the orders issued by respondent No.1 to notify the vacant teaching posts in the Department vide G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 22.07.2022, among other posts, (31) vacant posts of Librarian were notified by Public Service Commission vide Notification No.30/2022 dated 31.12.2022, in accordance with the qualification prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 30.07.2021, read with G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 09.12.2005. Subsequently, after conducting the written examination and verification of certificates, a merit list was published by Public Service Commission vide Lr.No.543/RP- III/3/2022 dated 04.10.2024, and in pursuance thereof, the Commissioner of Technical Education issued appointment orders to the meritorious candidates vide File No.CTE-EST2/SMSL/53/2024- ESTABLISHMENT-2-CTE dated 08.10.2024. It is further submitted that out of the (31) notified posts of Librarian, (2) posts were withheld by the Public Service Commission and (24) candidates were issued with appointment orders, in pursuance of which, the individuals also reported for duty at their respective institutions. It is further submitted that the role of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 is confined to notify the vacancies as per the service Rules and to issue the appointment orders based on the merit list furnished by the Public Service Commission. 9.1 Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, firstly submits that in compliance with the interim orders of this Court in these writ petitions, a total of (14) vacancies were to be reserved. 9.1 Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, firstly submits that in compliance with the interim orders of this Court in these writ petitions, a total of (14) vacancies were to be reserved. However, (3) candidates among the writ petitioners, with Hall Ticket Nos.2303000225, 2301001446 and 2303000453 are not within the zone of consideration, as per their merit. As such, in compliance with the interim orders of this Court, a total of (11) vacancies were reserved. 9.2 It is submitted that respondent No.2 issued Notification No.30/2022 dated 31.12.2022, inviting applications for the posts of Librarian under the control of respondent Nos.3 and 4, and total of (71) vacancies ((40) under Intermediate Education and (31) under Technical Education) were notified, and the qualification prescribed for the said post, is mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 09.12.2005, G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 30.07.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 25.11.2002. In pursuance of the said Notification, the petitioners herein participated in the recruitment process. It is submitted that all the petitioners herein completed their Master’s in Library Science in distance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, through its study centers situated in Telangana, during the years 2017 to 2022. However, the Public Notice of the University Grants Commission dated 27.06.2013 bars the Universities to operate study centers outside its territorial jurisdiction, and as per the Nagarjuna University Act, the territorial jurisdiction is Guntur and Ongole Districts only. As such, since the petitioners have joined the study centers of Acharya Nagarjuna University outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University, after publication of the said Public Notice, they are ineligible for appointment. Therefore, even if the proviso under Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, which guarantees equal opportunities to students for higher education, is made applicable, the petitioner’s Master’s Degrees are not valid, as the University is not authorized to operate study centers outside its jurisdiction. 9.3 It is further submitted that the University Grants Commission had addressed a letter dated 08.09.2015 to the University, clarifying that the University established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act, and that the programmes shall not be offered through franchising arrangement and/or through private institutions/colleges. It is submitted that the study centers, where the petitioners have studies, are not a part of Acharya Nagarjuna University, and they are in the fashion of franchising arrangement with private institution. It is submitted that the study centers, where the petitioners have studies, are not a part of Acharya Nagarjuna University, and they are in the fashion of franchising arrangement with private institution. As such, the degrees of the petitioners are not valid, and therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly passed the order dated 29.08.2024 (impugned in W.P.No.25531 of 2024), rejecting the candidature of the petitioners. 9.4 It is further submitted that in similar circumstances, in W.P.No.3006 of 2021, this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition vide order dated 17.08.2022, in view of the fact that the petitioners therein also prosecuted their Degrees though distance education mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, through the study centers in Telangana, which are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University. As such, the said principle is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 10.1 Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents, submits that in pursuance of Notification No.30/2022 dated 31.12.2022, the unofficial respondents have also participated in the recruitment process, appeared for and cleared the written examination, and were called for certificate verification. However, in view of the subsisting interim orders of this Court, they were not issued with the appointment orders. It is submitted that mere securing of higher marks and merit in the general ranking list does not entitle the petitioners to be considered for appointment, owing their unrecognized Master’s Degree certificates. 10.2 It is submitted that in response to the letter addressed by respondent No.2 dated 17.05.2024, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur District, vide letter dated 06.06.2024, communicated a list of candidates who have passed B.Li.Sc./M.Li.Sc. Degrees from their University from distance education mode, wherein, the petitioner’s names were also included, and against their name, it was recorded that they have undertaken their studies through distance mode in Telangana State. Further, against the column, ‘whether the study centre is within the jurisdiction limits of the University?’, it was recorded as ‘yes’, as per Ref-3 of Part-XI of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. However, the said Acharya Nagarjuna University is located in Andhra Pradesh. 10.3 It is submitted that the University Grants Commission had earlier issued a Public Notice dated 27.06.2013, whereby, certain guidelines were issued and the Universities were requested to offer only those programmes approved by the University Grants Commission and to follow the policy on territorial jurisdiction and study centers. However, the said Acharya Nagarjuna University is located in Andhra Pradesh. 10.3 It is submitted that the University Grants Commission had earlier issued a Public Notice dated 27.06.2013, whereby, certain guidelines were issued and the Universities were requested to offer only those programmes approved by the University Grants Commission and to follow the policy on territorial jurisdiction and study centers. As such, the Universities are not authorized to open study centers or off-campus centers beyond the territorial jurisdiction of such University, and a University established under an Act shall only operate within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act. Thus, since the territorial jurisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna University in only confined to Guntur, Prakasham and Krishna district, which now form a part of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Master’s Degrees obtained by the petitioners, through study centers in Telangana, are unrecognized. It is submitted that the Notification dated 31.12.2022 clearly specified that the educational qualification certificates obtained through distance education mode, contrary to the notification of the University Grants Commission dated 27.06.2013 are invalid. Therefore, the petitioners’ names were rightly excluded from the provisional selection list. 10.4 It is further submitted that Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, provides for extension of equal opportunities for the students to get admissions in educational institutional as provident under Article 317-D of the Constitution of India, which had continued for a further period of (10) years, from 2014-2024. However, the said proviso does not have any benefit of extending off-campus centers outside the territorial jurisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna University. Therefore, degrees obtained from the study centers in Telangana District are not valid and recognized under the Act. It is further submitted that the petitioners cannot claim negative equality, and seek a direction to validate their degrees, which are contrary to law. 11. Therefore, learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel, as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents pray this Court to dismiss the present writ petitions. In support of their case, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the i. Hon’ble Apex Court Prof. Yashpal and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others , (2005) 5 SCC 420 and Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and others , (2013) 11 SCC 309 . ii. In support of their case, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the i. Hon’ble Apex Court Prof. Yashpal and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others , (2005) 5 SCC 420 and Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and others , (2013) 11 SCC 309 . ii. Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Subramanya Kumar Y.V. v Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. and others, 2007 (5) ALD 667 ; and iii. This Court in W.P.No.3006 of 2021 dated 17.08.2022, and W.P.No.13823 of 2023 dated 16.07.2024. 12.1 In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.25531 of 2024 submits that the petitioners have obtained their Degrees from Acharya Nagarjuna University through distance mode, with due approvals granted by the University Grants Commission, and it has also been clarified by the University Grants Commission vide letter dated 27.03.2024 that in view of Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, Acharya Nagarjuna University is deemed to have territorial jurisdiction to operate study centers both in Telangana for a period of ten years. Further, similar clarification was also issued by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University vide letter dated 22.01.2025 that it also had the jurisdiction to operate study centers in Andhra Pradesh until 2024. 12.2 It is further submitted that the Public Service Commission has been treating the M.Li.Sc. Degree and other degrees obtained from Acharya Nagarjuna University and Sri Venkateswara University through distance mode from 2014 to 2024 as valid, and accepted the said certificates during earlier recruitments and promotions. It is also submitted that in pursuance of DSC-2024, the State Government had recently appointed one Ms. A. Roja as Language Pandit (Telugu) based on her Postgraduate Degree in Telugu obtained in 2018 from Sri Venkateswara University through distance education mode. Further, respondent No.2 has also appointed one candidate as Junior Lecturer (Telugu) in pursuance of Notification No.22/2022, in spite of the fact that the said candidate pursued her Master’s Degree in Telugu during 2016, through distance education mode. 12.3 It is further submitted that the reliance placed upon the order in W.P.No.3006 of 2021 is misconceived, as the said order has been passed without considering the scope of Section 6 and 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, and G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 18.05.2014, and also since the said writ petition arose in a different context, i.e., admission to B.Ed./B.P.Ed. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances, where different stands were taken by the respondents in respect of the certificates of the candidates, resulting in termination of one set of candidates, this Court allowed W.P.No.7746 of 2023, which was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment in W.A.No.1118 of 2023. It is further submitted that the University Grants Commission had stated that the State Government and the Universities themselves are competent to decide the validity of the certificates, and the State Government has never objected the certificates of the petitioners. As such, the Master’s Degree certificates of the petitioners are valid. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for appointment as Librarians, based on their merit. 13. Having regard to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that in pursuance of the Notification No.30/2022 dated 31.12.2022, the petitioners applied for the post of Librarian under the control of respondent Nos.3 and 4, participated in the recruitment process, appeared in the written examination, and stood meritorious therein. However, their candidature for appointment was rejected on the sole ground that they possess the qualification of Master’s in Library Science, obtained from Acharya Nagarjuna University through distance education mode from its study centers situated in the State of Telangana. 14. The core dispute emanating for adjudication of this Court is whether the respondents are justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Librarian, by treating the petitioners’ Master’s Degree certificates as invalid, while earlier considering the case of the similarly situated individuals. 15. Before adjudicating upon the validity of the petitioners’ Master’s Degree Certificates, it is apposite to note that in an earlier recruitment vide Notification No.20/2017 dated 14.04.2017, issued by the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, the candidates possessing the very qualifications of Bachelor’s and Master’s in Library Science, obtained through distance education mode from the study centers of Acharya Nagarjuna University, operating outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, were not only permitted to participate in the recruitment process, but were also selected and appointed as Librarians in respective institutions. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the proceedings in Rc.No.G/TS/5379/2019/Z-VI(G)/Librarian-9 dated 25.09.2019, to demonstrate the appointment of one Mr. Bandaru Venkateshwarlu, who possesses Bachelor’s of Library Science from Acharya Nagarjuna University. 16. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the proceedings in Rc.No.G/TS/5379/2019/Z-VI(G)/Librarian-9 dated 25.09.2019, to demonstrate the appointment of one Mr. Bandaru Venkateshwarlu, who possesses Bachelor’s of Library Science from Acharya Nagarjuna University. 16. Likewise, in respect of the recruitment for the post of Librarian in Government Junior Colleges conducted under Notification No.28/2017 dated 02.06.2017, the Public Service Commission had rejected the candidature of individuals holding the Master’s in Library Science Degree obtained from the Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu, on the ground of territorial justification. However, the Degrees obtained from Acharya Nagarjuna University through distance education mode were never objected, and even appointments were issued to such candidates, on the basis of their merit. The petitioners have placed on record the relevant selection list and service particulars of certain individuals possessing the very same qualification. 17. Further, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that several individuals who acquired their Master’s in Library Science Degrees through distance education mode from the study centers of Acharya Nagarjuna University in Telangana after the Public Notice of the University Grants Commission dated 27.06.2013, were also considered for promotion to the post of Librarian in Government Junior Colleges. The petitioners have also placed on record the details of such candidates, viz., Mrs. Y. Vijaya Laxmi, Mrs. A. Praveena, Mrs. G. Swaroopa Rani, Mrs. N. Madhuri and Mr. A. Gangadhar, who are working as Librarians in Government Junior Colleges, having M.Li.Sc. qualification, obtained through distance education mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University from 2018 to 2020. 18. Similarly, in pursuance of the Teachers Recruitment under DSC-2024, one candidate Ms. A. Roja, who possesses a Master’s of Arts Degree, obtained in the year 2018, through distance education mode from Sri Venkateswara University, which also operates beyond the State of Telangana, as that of Acharya Nagarjuna University, was appointed as Language Pandit (Telugu). The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the proceedings dated 09.10.2024 and her M.A. Certificate, to demonstrate her appointment on the basis of such certificate. The same is not denied by the respondents. 19. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the proceedings dated 09.10.2024 and her M.A. Certificate, to demonstrate her appointment on the basis of such certificate. The same is not denied by the respondents. 19. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondent authorities have consistently accepted the same qualification as that of the petitioners herein, i.e., Master’s Degree in Library Science obtained through distance education mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, and on the basis of such certificates, appointments and promotions were granted to the said individuals. As such, this Court is of the view that the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting/not considering the claim of the petitioners, who stand on an identical footing as that of the aforesaid individuals, amounts to a clear discrimination between similarly placed candidates and also violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. 20. It is pertinent to note that none of the aforesaid instances were ever specifically denied by the respondents, apart from the sole contention that the petitioners cannot claim ‘negative equality’ for appointment merely because certain similar individuals were granted appointments. However, this Court is of the considered view that the instant case does not fall under the principle of ‘negative equality’, as the petitioners are not relying upon a single appointment or promotion to claim parity. In fact, the petitioners have demonstrated a series of recruitments and promotions during several years, in due acceptance of the degree certificates obtained through distance education mode from the very same University. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the respondents that the petitioners cannot claim negative equality cannot be countenanced. Hence, the decisions relied upon by the respondents are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 21. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned rejection/non-consideration of the petitioners herein for appointment to the post of Librarian is wholly unsustainable on the sole ground of discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similarly situated individuals. 22. Hence, the decisions relied upon by the respondents are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 21. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned rejection/non-consideration of the petitioners herein for appointment to the post of Librarian is wholly unsustainable on the sole ground of discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similarly situated individuals. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider/re-consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Librarian, in pursuance of Notification No.30/2022 dated 31.12.2022, purely based on their merit and without reference to the rejection order vide Memo.No.453/Rectt-pool-II/3/2022 dated 29.08.2024 (impugned in W.P.No.25531 of 2024), as was done in the cases of appointment/promotions of similarly situated candidates, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.