ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in selecting the respondents No. 3 to 5 under BC-B(General) category, though they are eligible for selection under OC (General) category i.e. first 13 vacancies by virtue of their securing 9th, 12th and 13th rank in the selection and accommodating the 6th and 7th respondent in the OC (General) category by denying the rightful and lawful selection of the petitioner under BC-B (General) category vide Selection Notification dated 17.8.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently quash and set aside the same to the extent of unofficial respondents by declaring that the petitioners are entitled for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in Commerce under BC-B (General) category in pursuance of the Recruitment Notification vide 26/2016 dated 27.12.2016 with all service benefits would arise and to pass….” 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.R.V.Mallikarjuna Rao, assisted by Sri.Harinath Reddy Somagunta, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri G.Seena Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.2. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that a notification vide 26/2016 dated 27.12.2016 was issued by the 1 st respondent for filling up of Lecturer Posts in the Government Degree Colleges under A.P.Collegiate Education Services. Basing on the qualifications, the petitioners had applied for thepost of Lecturer in Commerce. Written Examination was conducted in the year June, 2017 and on passing the written examination, interviews were held in December, 2017. The 1 st respondent published the merit list on 19.01.2018 and the final selection list was published on 17.8.2018.As per the merit list, the petitioners stood at Serial No.29 and 32 with 251.5 and 248.83 marks respectively. The petitioners belong to BC-B community. The post of Lecturer belongs to Specified Gazetted Category and organized into Zones/City Cadre and hence reservation of appointments to local candidates is not applicable in terms of Para 8 of the A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975. Total 50 posts were notified in the State. Out of 50 posts, 24 posts are meant for OC. Total 50 posts were notified in the State. Out of 50 posts, 24 posts are meant for OC. Among those 24 posts, 13 posts are meant for OC (General), 11 posts belong to OC(W). Further 6 posts are meant for BC-B category. Out of which, 4 posts are allocated for BC-B and 2 posts for BC-B (W). Thus the first 13 candidates stood in the merit list. 4. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 who secured 283.34, 276.67 and 274 marks respectively, belong to BC-B category got 9 th 12 th and 13 th ranks as per the merit and they are eligible to be selected under OC (General) category. However, the respondent No.3 who is 9 th ranker and respondent No. 5 who is the 13 th ranker in the merit list were selected under BC-B (General) vacancies, due to which, the petitioners being next candidates to be selected under BC-B (General) category lost the opportunity of rightful selection. 5. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 secured 273.50 and 270.33 marks respectively and they belong to OC category on communal basis. They got 14 and 15 ranks respectively, in the merit list as per their marks. Thus, they are not eligible for selection under OC (General) category as per the marks secured by them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that only to accommodate the respondent Nos.6 and 7, the official respondents accommodated the respondent nos.3 to 5 under BC-B category instead of OC(G) as per their merit. Now two vacancies in BC-B(G) have been reduced from selection list for which the petitioners alone are eligible on the basis of their merit, but they were deprived of the same, because of such illegal, arbitrary selection by the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondents ought to have shown the meritorious BC-B candidates as selected under OC-G 13 candidates list and consider the case of the petitioners along with others as per their merit in the resultant BC-B vacancies as per law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to support his contentions placed reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate bench of this court in Chitra Srinivasarao vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Services Commission and Anr. W.P. No. 3440 of 2021 , wherein it was held: “16. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to support his contentions placed reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate bench of this court in Chitra Srinivasarao vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Services Commission and Anr. W.P. No. 3440 of 2021 , wherein it was held: “16. It is well settled law that any reserved candidate in any selection either for admission into educational institutions or in recruitment, who obtained higher merit so much as that he can get into unreserved vacancy, based upon the merit, cannot be counted against the percentage/quota meant for reserved candidate and WP No. 3440 of 2021 that such meritorious reserved candidate has to be considered against unreserved vacancy only by giving way for another reserved candidate to occupy reserved seat/vacancy. When the law is clear, the procedure adopted by the Public Service Commission is incorrect and unconstitutional.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. Learned counsel finally submits that the law laid down basing on the facts therein and the present facts are identical inasmuch as filling up of vacancies of Open Category in the present case. Thus, the unofficial respondents No. 3 to 5 who secured moremerit marks and got 9 th , 12 th and 13 th ranks in the selection and being the first 13 vacancies meant for OC (General) to be filled on the basis of merit alone, they should have accommodated the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the OC (General) vacancies only. The petitioners are entitled for selection under BC-B (General) vacancies, as they are the only candidates available to be considered in the said category. Thus, the action of the 1 st respondent in filling up the BC-B (General) category vacancies with the meritorious candidates in the selection, though they are eligible to be selected under OC (General) quota and denied the petitionersthe rightful selection and appointment as Lecturer in Commerce. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the writ petition. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 i.e. the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) would submit that subject notification is closed long back. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the proceedings of the authorities and the copy of the same are placed on record, it shows that the persons i.e., the respondent Nos. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 i.e. the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) would submit that subject notification is closed long back. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the proceedings of the authorities and the copy of the same are placed on record, it shows that the persons i.e., the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were sent to the Regional Medical Board, Guntur for examination and as per the report of the Regional Medical Board, Guntur, they are suffering from Physical disability above 40% as such they are eligible for such post. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that there is no material in the case of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 10. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions, would submit that issuing of notification for direct recruitment of 504 vacancies of Lecturer in Govt. Degree College in A.P. Collegiate Education Service in different subjects, conducting of test, participation of the petitioners in the written examination, their securing marks as mentioned above, their participation in the interview as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. They secured total marks (Written + Interview) of 248.83 (33 Rank) & 251.5 (31 Rank) respectively. The marks obtained by the petitioners are less than the cut off marks of both OC(General) and BC-B (General) categories and they were not selected. 11. Learned standing counsel would further submit that as far as zonal selection is concerned, the petitioners have given preference of zones in the descending order for selection. The final selection is strictly based on the merit, category of post available and zonal preferences given by the candidates.The 3 rd respondent (marks 283.34) was considered only for BC-B vacancies since he availed age relaxation. The 4 th respondent (marks 276.67) was considered based on the APAT orders and the 5 th respondent (marks 274) was appointed as per his zonal preferences. As OC (General) vacancies were already filled, the respondent No.5 was accommodated in Zone-II under BC-B (General) vacancy. With regard to selection of 6 th and 7 th respondents, they are selected as per their merit and zonal preferences since they secured 273.5 and 270.83 marks respectively. Learned standing counsel finally submits that the selection procedure is in accordance with law and hence, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 12. With regard to selection of 6 th and 7 th respondents, they are selected as per their merit and zonal preferences since they secured 273.5 and 270.83 marks respectively. Learned standing counsel finally submits that the selection procedure is in accordance with law and hence, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 12. Considering the submissions made and a keen perusal of the material on record goes to show that the Commission has issued Notification No.26/2016, dt.27/12/2016 for direct recruitment of 504 vacancies of Lecturer in Govt. Degree College in A.P. Collegiate Education Service in different subjects. Out of 504 vacancies, 50 vacancies are earmarked for Commerce subject. Wherein 24 vacancies were allotted for OC category and 06 for BC-B category. The scheme of examination consists of a written examination followed by interview. The Commission has made selections based on the marks secured by the candidates in both written test and interview.Based on the marks obtained in the written test, they were called for Interview and they secured 248.83 (33 Rank) & 251.5 (31 Rank) respectively. A comparative statement of the marks secured by the Petitioners and cut off marks in OC (G) and BC-B (G) category is mentioned below. Category Cut off marks Marks of 1st petitioner Marks of 2nd petitioner OC-G 270.83 248.83 251.5 BC-B (G) 257.83 Marks obtained by the petitioners are less than the cut off marks of both OC-G and BC-B (G) categories and that is the reason why petitioners were not selected. 13. With regard to zones, the candidates have given preference of zones in the descending order for selection. All the candidates are considered for the posts fallen under Open Category, provided that they have not availed age relaxation. The final selection is strictly based on merit, category of post available and zonal preferences given by the candidates. The Selection of 3 rd respondent (marks 283.34) was considered only for BC-B vacancies since he availed age relaxation; the 4 th respondent (marks 276.67) was considered based on the APAT orders and the 5 th respondent(marks 274)as per the zonal preferences of the candidate. Since all the OC(General) vacancies are already filled, the 5 th respondent was accommodated in Zone-II under BC-B (General) vacancy. In view of the same, the selection of respondent nos.3 and 5 respondents is in order. Since all the OC(General) vacancies are already filled, the 5 th respondent was accommodated in Zone-II under BC-B (General) vacancy. In view of the same, the selection of respondent nos.3 and 5 respondents is in order. The 3rd respondent was selected in Zone-IV as per Zonal preference 4,3,2,1 and 5th respondent was selected in Zone-II as per Zonal preference 3,2, 1,4. In view of the same, the selection of the above two candidates is in order as per the procedure adopted by the Commission. The 6 th respondent was selected under Zone-I as per his Zonal preference 2,3,1,4 and the 7 th respondent was selected under Zone-l as per his Zonal preference 2,1,3,4. The Zonal preferences given by the candidates were verified in the selection process. In making the selections, the respondent Commission had taken into account all the possibilities to accommodate the candidates in the Zones opted by him/her. Accordingly, the selection process was completed long back and the selection list also communicated to the Unit Officer on 10.09.2018. 14. Thus, it is clear that the marks obtained by the petitioners are less than the cut off marks of both OC-G and BC-B (G) categories. Hence, they are not selected. Thus, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.