ORDER : GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. 1. Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.Nos.20801 of 2022, Sri Tagore Yadav Yaragorla. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Dheera Kanishka, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos.21395 and 21416 of 2022, Sri G. Raja Babu, Learned Government Pleader for Village and Ward Secretariats and Sri Harinath Reddy Somagutta, Learned Standing Counsel for Dr. Y.S.R. Horticulture University. 2. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.20817 of 2022 and the present Writ Petitioners in these three Writ Petitions are all similarly situated. Even in the earlier round of litigation, the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.20817 of 2022 and the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.20801 of 2022 have jointly filed W.P.No.3167 of 2021. Similarly, the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21416 of 2022 and W.P.No.21395 of 2022 have jointly filed W.P.No.16954 of 2020. Learned Single Judge of this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, was pleased to dispose of both the Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos.16954 of 2020 and 3167 of 2021) by a Common Order dated 13.04.2022 (Ex.P.11 in W.P.No.21416 of 2022), As all the four persons were aggrieved of the subsequent Proceedings of the Official Respondents, each person has filed a separate Writ Petition, wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of W.P.No.20817 of 2022 which is filed by one Sri Yennammalluri Mohammed Zakir Hussain vide Order dated 07.07.2023. This Court has perused the facts in the present Writ Petitions and it is of the opinion that the facts are similar in nature. 3. Admittedly, the result of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.20801 of 2022 was declared by the evaluator on 30.12.2019, which is also countersigned by the Principal of the Evaluation Centre (pages 45 & 46 in W.P.No.20801 of 2022). Similarly, the result of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21395 of 2022 was declared by the evaluator on 06.01.2020, which is also countersigned by the Principal of the Horticulture Polytechnic on the same date (page 41 in W.P.No.21395 of 2022). Similarly, the result of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21416 of 2022 was declared by the evaluator on 06.01.2020, which is also countersigned by the Principal of the Horticulture Polytechnic, Kalikiri, Chittoor District on the same date (page 41 in W.P.No.21416 of 2022). 4. Similarly, the result of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21416 of 2022 was declared by the evaluator on 06.01.2020, which is also countersigned by the Principal of the Horticulture Polytechnic, Kalikiri, Chittoor District on the same date (page 41 in W.P.No.21416 of 2022). 4. Learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of W.P.No.20817 of 2022 by taking into consideration the ratio of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Ors. : (2005) 9 SCC 799. In the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also referred to another case titled as Charles K. Skaria Vs. Dr. C. Mathew: (1980) 2 SCC 752 . Para Nos.7 & 8 of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda’s case would squarely apply to the facts in the present Writ Petitions also. The Order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20817 of 2022 dated 07.07.2023 has attained finality. 5. In this view of the matter, the above Writ Petitions V i t (W.P.Nos.20801, 21395 and 21416 of 2022) stand allowed in terms of the Order passed in W.P.No.20817 of 2022 dated 07.07.2023. No Order as to costs. However, having regard to the fact that the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.20817 of 2022 (Sri Yennammalluri Mohammed Zakir Hussain) who is similarly situated as that of the present Writ Petitioners had secured the Order on 07.07.2023, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petitioners shall also be entitled for appointment from the date Sri Yennammalluri Mohammed Zakir Hussain (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.20817 of 2022) had been appointed for the purpose of computation of seniority and all notional and other attendant benefits from the said date onwards i.e., from the date of appointment of Sri Yennammalluri Mohammed Zakir Hussain. However, they shall not be paid any arrears of salary for the said period since they have not been taken into service. 6. Registry is directed to annex a copy of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20817 of 2022 dated 07.07.2023 along with this Order. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. D.RAMESH, J. 1. 6. Registry is directed to annex a copy of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20817 of 2022 dated 07.07.2023 along with this Order. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. D.RAMESH, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 5th respondent, in issuing Letter No.3106/Estt.(A&E)/2022 dated 27.05.2022, by not showing the actual date of result contained in Award List dated 08.01.2020 and 10.01.2020 respectively issued by the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and further action of 3^^^ respondent in rejecting selection and appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the Letter addressed by respondent University without considering the Award List dated 08.01.2020, declaring the result of the petitioner as passed Pn 08.01.2020 and 10.01.2020, thereby den3dng candidature of the petitioner for selection and appointment, to the post of Village Horticulture Assistant notified in the Notification No.Ol/Horti/2020, dated 10.01.2020, as illegal, arbitrary. 2. Heard Mr.G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Service & the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and learned Government Pleader for Village and Ward Secretariats appearing for the respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents issued a notification No.01/Horti/2020, dated 10.01.2020, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Village Horticulture Assistants (General Recruitment). 4. As per Para No.3 of the notification, the required educational qualifications for the eligibility was as under:- ‘PARA-3: EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: A candidate shall possess the academic qualifications for thepost on the date ofthe notification. The candidates having either of the following qualifications are eligible for the post of Village Horticulture Assistant. 1. Must possess 4 years B.Sc Horticulture/B.Sc (Hons.) Horticulture/B.Tech. Horticulture from any university accredited by the Indian Council ofAgricultural Research (ICAR), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Govt, of India, New Delhi (or) any University recognized in the State. 2. Must possess 2 years Diplom.a in Horticulture (from Dr. YSRHU/ANGRAU recognized). ” 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possessed the academic qualification of two (02) years Diploma in Horticulture from Dr.YSRHU was completed in the month of December, 2019. 2. Must possess 2 years Diplom.a in Horticulture (from Dr. YSRHU/ANGRAU recognized). ” 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possessed the academic qualification of two (02) years Diploma in Horticulture from Dr.YSRHU was completed in the month of December, 2019. The certificates could not be received by the petitioner by the time of applying for the post. As the last date for submission of online application was 31.01.2020, the petitioner made his application in time. The results were declared on 08.01.2020 and as such on the date of the notification i.e. 10.01.2020, the petitioner possessed the academic qualification of two (02) years Diploma in Horticulture. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the date of notification, the Diploma was not issued to on the petitioner and as 3uch it cannot be said that the petitioner acquired the requisite academic qualification on the date of the notification. He submits that mere completion of the course in the month of December, 2019 would not make the petitioner eligible for the post under the notification. He submits that the petitioner has no right for consideration pursuant to the notification. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for non-congidering the case of the petitioner along with others, they have approached this Honhle Court by way of filing W.P.No.3167 of 2021 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by a common order, dated 13.04.2022 where in the penultimate Para No.20, this Court observed as under:- . “The petitioners appeared in ihe selection process under the interim orders passed in the writ petitions. It is therefore furtherprovided that if the respondent No.3finds that the result wasdeclaredby the date of the notification i.e. 10.01.2020 and the petitioners succeeded therein, the petitioners acquired the requisite academic qualification on the date of notification, thefurther selection process with respect to those petitioners shall be completed and if there is no other legal impediment" 8. Consequent upon above directions, the respondents has passed the present order on 10.06.2022 which is impugned in this Court, declaring that the petitioner has acquired the eligible qualification only after the date of notification. Hence, he is not eligible for the post of the Village Horticulture Assistant is notified in notification dated 10.01.2020. Aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition is filed. 9. Hence, he is not eligible for the post of the Village Horticulture Assistant is notified in notification dated 10.01.2020. Aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition is filed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has acquired the eligible qualification and the petitioner has pursued Diploma in Horticulture course in the year 2019-2020 from Dr.YSRHU, I.D.No.BPHP/17-2020, Course No.DH-205 and of the marks list was appended along with the copy Writ Petition, which was signed by the competent authorities on 08.12.2020 and 10.01.2020. According to the said marks list, the Candidates of BPHP/17-2020 marks were declared on 10.01.2020 itself. Hence, he has qualified and eligible asl on the date of the notification i.e. on 10.01.2020. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda . Chairman, JEE and others, (2005) 9 see 799 wherein the Honhle vs Apex Court has categorically observed that the general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in applieation form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to,the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard, in the matter of holding of requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets and that those documents are in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of resolution. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle, as it pertains to the domain of procedure. Every fraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, the petitioner has qualified by placing the marks memo, dated 10.01.2020. Hence, the petitioner is eligible for the selection as per notification dated 10.01.2020. 12. Every fraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, the petitioner has qualified by placing the marks memo, dated 10.01.2020. Hence, the petitioner is eligible for the selection as per notification dated 10.01.2020. 12. After notice, the respondents have filed their counters contending inter alia that they have not disputed the factual aspect of the case; that as per the directions of this Honhle Court in the above Writ Petition they have referred the matter to the concerned University and after obtaining the information from the University, they have considered the cases of the petitioner and passed the impugned orders dated 10.06.2022. 13. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that in fact the respondents addressed a letter to the Registrar Horticulture University, who is the competent authority for declaration of result of two (02) years Diploma in Horticulture course and requested to clarify the result of two (02) years Diploma Course and accordingly the Registrar has clarified the date of declaration of result of two (02) years Diploma Course list and date of approval of final GPA Report after completion of the summaries and he has given a table along with the qualification pertaining to the petitioner’s course to the said table as contended in the last examination on 10.12.2019 and date of final theory of Award List on 10.01.2020 and approved data (GPA Report) on 24.07.2020 and date of issuance of certificate on 26.08.2020. 14. According to the above table and qualification given by the Registrar Horticulture University, there is no ambiguity with regard to the approved data (GPA Report) on 24.07.2020 and accordingly, the date of results should be taken as on 24.07.2020. After that the date has to be taken into consideration. Hence, the petitioner is not eligible as on the date of notification dated 10.01.2020. 15. Mr.G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that though the petitioner has completed the last examination on the date of final theory Award list on 10:01:2020 and in view of the pandemic situation all institutions have closed and would not be able to Award or release the results in the pandemic time only. After regularization of the 1®‘ year, the institutions have issued the cei'itificates. After regularization of the 1®‘ year, the institutions have issued the cei'itificates. 16. Even, according to the clarification issued by the Registrar Horticulture University, it clearly establishes that the date of final theory Award is on 10.01.2020 (Marks memo). If the above said date is taken into consideration as per the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and others, wherein it was clearly stated that the relevancy of the eligible qualification is to be taken by producing necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets. In the instant case, the marks sheet is available as on 10.01.2020. Hence the petitioner is qualified as on the date of the notification on 10.01.2020. 17. Considering the submissions and arguments made by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have followed the due procedure by requesting the Horticulture University authorities for getting the clarification with regard to the announcement of the results of two (02) years Diploma in Horticulture Course. But, the respondents, who take the clue that the copy of final theory Award is on 10.01.2020 (Marks memo) and even according to the'said marks memo, the petitioner is qualified in the examination. Hence, this Court having taking into the observatio ns of the Hon'ble Apex Court, considered opinion that the petitioner is eligible as on the date i.e. on 10.01.2020, as per the mark sheets. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the case based on their selection and i issue a proper appointment. 18. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, stand closed. The interim stay, if any. granted, shall stand vacated.