ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring that the sub-clauses para 12(iv) and (vi) by the Respondent No. 2 in notification vide RC No. 237/Rect/Admn-2/2025 dated 15.08.2025 are arbitrary and discriminatory, and violation of the rights of reserved category candidates under Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to permit reserved category candidates to compete for open category post based on their merit, without insisting for 40% marks in each paper and to reserve category candidate to compete in OC vacancies notwithstanding their availing of reservation benefits in the interest of justice and pass…” 2. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. Mantha Anusha Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 issued a Notification bearing Rc.No.237/Rect/Admn-2/2025 dated 15.08.2025, inviting applications for (118) posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor (Category-6) through a combined process of direct and limited recruitment. As such, since the petitioner meets the educational qualifications, age and experience as prescribed in the Notification, he is an aspirant for selection to the said post. It is further submitted that as per Paragraph 12 (iv) of the impugned Notification, the candidates belonging to OC/EWS category, BC category and SC/ST/ Orthopedically categories are required to secure 40%, 35% and 30% of the marks in each paper, respectively for qualifying. However, under Paragraph 12 (iv) of the impugned Notification, only the candidates securing 40% and above marks in each paper would be considered under the unreserved category, irrespective of their aggregate marks, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is submitted that Note 3 of Paragraph No.9 of the statutory rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 21.03.2023, which amended the Telangana State Prosecution Rules, 1992, stipulates the minimum marks to be secured in each paper in order to qualify in the written examination, as 40% for OCs, 35% for BCs and 30% for SCs/STs. It is submitted that Note 3 of Paragraph No.9 of the statutory rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 21.03.2023, which amended the Telangana State Prosecution Rules, 1992, stipulates the minimum marks to be secured in each paper in order to qualify in the written examination, as 40% for OCs, 35% for BCs and 30% for SCs/STs. It is further submitted that the aforesaid G.O. merely prescribes the standards applicable to the candidates in order to qualify, but it does not create any post-wise or category-wise restrictions, and the Recruitment Board cannot modify or act contrary to the statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As such, the said Clauses 12 (iv) and (vi) are not only contrary to the statutory Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 21.03.2023, but also contrary to the law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Goutam Dabbiru v. Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P. and others , 2019 (1) ALD 132 (DB). 4. It is further submitted that Clause 12 (vi) of the impugned Notification prevents the candidates belonging to BC/SC/ST categories from being considered in the open competition posts (OC/EWS categories), unless they secure more than 40% of the marks, even if they are otherwise more seditious in the aggregate performance, and therefore, the said Clause is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that in view of the said Clause, the BC/SC/ST candidates, who secured higher aggregate scores, but fell marginally short in a single paper, are excluded from the open competition, whereas, the less meritorious candidates meeting the per-paper cut-off marks are eligible. 5. It is further submitted that the reservation policy in India allows the reserved category candidates to compete both under the reserved and open categories. When a reserved category candidate secures more marks and qualifies for an open category position, he/she is entitled to be considered for that position, even if they have already availed the benefit of reservation. This provision is rooted in the Constitution of India, which aims to provide social equality and opportunities to the marginalized groups. However, by imposing the condition of securing a minimum of 40% marks in each paper, the candidates belonging to such reserved categories are being deprived of this opportunity, thereby, defeating the main object of reservation. This provision is rooted in the Constitution of India, which aims to provide social equality and opportunities to the marginalized groups. However, by imposing the condition of securing a minimum of 40% marks in each paper, the candidates belonging to such reserved categories are being deprived of this opportunity, thereby, defeating the main object of reservation. It is further submitted that Paragraphs 12 (iv) and 12 (vi) themselves are self-contradictory and have no nexus with the object of selecting the meritorious Assistant Public Prosecutors. As such, the prescription of ‘per-paper/post-wise cut-off’ is not only illegal, arbitrary and irrational, but also simultaneously operates as a post-wise disqualification, creating ambiguity, vagueness and uncertainty. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel prays this Court to set aside the Clauses 12 (iv) and (vi) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025, and to direct the respondents to permit the reserved category candidates to compete for the open-category post, as per the Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 21.03.2023, strictly on the basis of their merit, without insisting for 40% marks in each paper. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, while drawing the attention of this Court towards Clauses 12 (iv) and (vi) of the Notification Rc.No.237/Rect/Admn-2/2025 dated 15.08.2025, submits that the framing of selection criterion is the prerogative of the user department and the recruitment authority so as to assess the relative merit of the candidates. It is submitted that as per the procedure followed conventionally in the earlier recruitments of Assistant Public Prosecutors under the provision of applicable Rules, and after due consultation with the user department, it has been prescribed that the candidates who secure the minimum marks of 40% in each paper, i.e., Paper-I and Paper-II, shall be considered for selection, under open category. As such, the Notification issued by respondent No.2 is valid and cannot be termed as illegal, arbitrary or contrary to the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. As such, the Notification issued by respondent No.2 is valid and cannot be termed as illegal, arbitrary or contrary to the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. It is further submitted that the BC/SC/ST candidates, who secure 40% and above marks in each paper are eligible for consideration under Open Competition, and the prescription of the minimum qualifying marks in each paper is to ensure that every candidate possesses basic minimum knowledge in each subject, and to provide a level-playing field for all the candidates to be considered for OC/EWS posts, while simultaneously extending the concession to the BC/SC/ST candidates in respect of the reserved category posts. Further, the said candidates are not prevented from consideration to the OC posts, if they secure a higher merit by qualifying with more than 40% of marks in each paper. As such, Clauses 12 (iv) and (vi) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025, are not illegal, arbitrary or irrational, as contended by the petitioner. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays this Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the lis in the present writ petition pertains to the validity of Clauses 12 (iv) and (vi) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025, which deals with the minimum marks to be secured in order to qualify in respective reserved categories, in addition to the marks to be obtained, so as to compete in the Open/EWS categories. The clauses under challenge are extracted hereunder: “12. SELECTION PROCEDURE / SCHEME A) Written Examination: Note: iv) The minimum marks to be secured by Candidates in order to qualify in the written examination for each paper is 40% for Posts under OC including EWS; 35% for Posts reserved for BCs; and 30% for Posts reserved for SCs and STs / Orthopedically Handicapped. Qualifying in each of the Papers: Paper-I and Paper-II is an essential prerequisite for a Candidate to be considered for selection. … vi) Candidates who secured 40% and above in each Paper i.e. Paper-I and Paper-II only are eligible to be considered for selection for Posts under OC / EWS.” 9. Qualifying in each of the Papers: Paper-I and Paper-II is an essential prerequisite for a Candidate to be considered for selection. … vi) Candidates who secured 40% and above in each Paper i.e. Paper-I and Paper-II only are eligible to be considered for selection for Posts under OC / EWS.” 9. From a bare reading of the above, it is clear that the respondents have restricted the reserved categories candidates to compete in the open category, by imposing the condition of securing more than 40% of marks in each paper, while prescribing the minimum qualifying marks for BCs and SC/ST/PH candidates are 35% and 30% respectively. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the Telangana State Prosecution Service Rules, 1992, issued under G.O.Ms.No.16, Home (Courts.A1) Department, dated 21.03.2023, and paragraph 9, pertaining to Rule 11 of the Telangana State Prosecution Service Rules, 1992, is extracted hereunder: “9. For Rule (11), the following shall be substituted, namely:- 11. Method of Examination of Assistant Public Prosecutor:- (a) Written Examination:- Candidates will be required to appear for a written examination in 2 papers (each of 3 hours duration). Both papers will be set in English Language only. The syllabus is given below. Paper I:- Indian Constitution, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990, Indian Evidence Act, 1972, Indian Penal Code and Minor Acts-200 Questions – 200 Marks. Paper II:- Descriptive Type from the above syllabus with emphasis on Pleadings and Drafting – 200 Marks. NOTE 1) Paper I will be Objective in nature containing 200 questions. Candidates have to answer the questions on an OMR Answer sheets using Blue/Black Ball Point Pen Only by selecting the appropriate choice on the computer, if the test is conducted in web-mode. 2) Paper II will be descriptive in nature. Candidates have to answer the questions using Blue/Black Pen in the question cum answer booklet which will be supplied by the TSLPRB 3) Minimum marks to be secured by the Candidates in order to qualify in the written Examination is 40% for OCs, 35% for BCs and 30% for SCs / STs in each Paper. 4) For each question in Paper I, the candidate shall be awarded full marks assigned to the question, if he/she choose the correct answer. In case the Candidate has not chosen any answer, the Candidate will be awarded zero mark for that question. 4) For each question in Paper I, the candidate shall be awarded full marks assigned to the question, if he/she choose the correct answer. In case the Candidate has not chosen any answer, the Candidate will be awarded zero mark for that question. In all other cases, 25% of the full marks shall be awarded as negative marks for that question. 5) Paper II shall be evaluated only those Candidates who qualify in the Paper I. (b) The written examinations will be either Online or Offline (OMR based). The Chairman, Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad may take decision in this regard from time to time. Paper-II:- (Descriptive Examination) Answer scripts shall be Scanned/digitalized and preserved for record. (c) Final selection of the Candidates shall be made strictly based on the merit as obtained by them through their aggregate score in the Written Examination out of 400 marks (200 marks in Paper I and 200 marks in Paper II).” (Emphasis supplied) 10. It is evident from the above Rule that the minimum qualifying marks prescribed in the Notification at Clause 12 (iv) falls in tune with the Prosecution Service Rules. Hence, the said condition of securing the minimum qualifying marks in their respective reservations is in accordance with Rule 11(a) Note-3 of the aforesaid Prosecution Service Rules, and therefore, interference with the said Clause is unwarranted. 11. From the above Rule 11(c), it is also clear that the final selection would be entirely based on the merit obtained by the candidates through their aggregate score in the written examination in both the papers, but there is no embargo for the reserved candidates to compete in the open category. However, in the instant case, as per Clause 12 (vi) of the Notification, the candidates shall secure 40% of marks in each paper so as to compete in the OC/EWS categories, which not only goes contrary to the Prosecution Service Rules, but also disentitles them from competing with others in open category, duly enforcing their right of reservation in their reserved categories. 12. In Vijay Goutham Dabbiru (supra), the Division Bench categorically held the following: “17. It appears from the language employed in the proviso that the object of the proviso is to provide a relaxed eligibility criteria for candidates belonging to the reserved categories. 12. In Vijay Goutham Dabbiru (supra), the Division Bench categorically held the following: “17. It appears from the language employed in the proviso that the object of the proviso is to provide a relaxed eligibility criteria for candidates belonging to the reserved categories. The object does not seem to be to provide a relaxed eligibility criteria only to those considered under the exclusive streams. In other words, the relaxed eligibility criteria is not restricted in its application only to those opting to take the reserved category route. 18. The law is well settled that the reserved category candidates are entitled to ride two horses by competing with others in the open category on their own merit and also by choosing to enforce the right of reservation. The proviso to Rule 6(4) is not framed in such a manner as to make the benefit of relaxed criteria available only to those who opt to take the reservation route. Keeping this in mind, we shall now take a look at the decisions relied upon by Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.” 13. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that while Clause 12(iv) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025 is in tune with the Telangana Prosecution Service Rules, Clause 12(vi) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025 is contrary to the said Rules. Hence, it is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed setting aside the impugned Clause 12(vi) of the Notification Rc.No.237/Rect/Admn-2/2025 dated 15.08.2025, issued by respondent No.2, and the respondents are directed to permit the reserved category candidates to compete for open category post based on their merit, strictly in accordance with the Rules in force. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.