ORDER : Challa Gunaranjan, J. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief; “ .... to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of School Assistant notified in Notification No. 768/TRC-1/2018, dated 15.02.2019, though petitioner got merit marks and by denying service weightage marks to the petitioner only on the ground that the genuineness of service certificate about service particulars of the petitioner were not confirmed by the authorities and delay for 2 days, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chanda and further action in not considering petitioner for appointment, while considering similarly situated candidates as per orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.19289 of 2020, dated 13.07.2022, as arbitrary and pass....” 2. Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 3. Petitioner possess qualification of M.A., M.Ed. (Telugu) besides Special B.Ed. (hearing impaired). She has been working as Teacher at S.V. School for Deaf, which is under control of Tirumala Tirupati Deveasthanams (“T.T.D.”) since 08.09.2008. The said appointment is contractual in nature. Notification No.768/TRC-1/2018, dated 15.02.2019, came to be issued by 2nd respondent for recruitment to the post of School Assistants (Special Education) under Inclusive Education for Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS) under the Andhra Pradesh Samagra Shiksha (SMS). As per the said notification, the recruitment shall be through selection process consisting of written test and other criteria and for School Assistant (Special Education), total marks prescribed are 100 for written test (Teacher Eligibility Test-cum-Teacher Recruitment Test) (TET-CUM- TRT). It also provided that 5 marks shall be awarded as weightage to Inclusive Education Resource Teachers (“IERTs”), who are working in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Subsequently, respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.31, School Education (Exams.) Department, dated 06.05.2019, amending Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Samagra Shiksha (SMS) Scheme of Selection Rules, 2019 (for short, “the Rules, 2019”), inter alia, adding Note-V under Rule 6, by which, weightage marks have been extended to not only IERTs, but also IEDSS working in T.T.D. run institutions. Petitioner appeared for examination held on 31.05.2019. Petitioner appeared for examination held on 31.05.2019. Later, candidates were called upon to upload service certificates from respective institutions for the purpose of verification and awarding weightage marks. Petitioner submitted service certificate, dated 14.10.2019, issued by the 5th respondent. The verification process was conducted by respondents, for which, petitioner was called upon to attend the process on 11.12.2019, on which date, the originals were submitted. The certificate produced, by petitioner was sent for verification to ascertain the genuineness of the same. However, nothing has transpired thereafter despite repeated requests and follow-ups from the petitioner. As 4th respondent started to proceed with selection without taking into consideration the weightage marks, petitioner addressed e-mail, dated 03.07.2020, seeking some more time to follow-up the issue. Ultimately, petitioner could succeed to get necessary genuineness certificate be uploaded with respondent on 04.07.2020. Respondents have published merit list and selection list on 03.07.2020 at midnight, without considering the weightage marks being awarded to petitioner. As per the merit list, petitioner is stated to have secured 56.8 marks without reference to the entitlement of weightage on account of her past service. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4. Respondents 1 to 4 filed counter-affidavit admitting to the factum of  issuance of Special D.S.C, 2019 Notification and also applicability of G.O.Ms.No31, dated 06.05.2019, for the purpose of awarding weightage marks to the candidates working in IEDSS/IERTs/CRTs working in TTD run institutions and other institutions respectively. However, in the counter affidavit, respondents stated that as petitioner belongs to O.C., the minimum qualifying marks required to secure being 60% i.e. 60 marks as against 100 marks, as petitioner secured only 56.8 marks, she cannot be considered for the purpose of adding any weightage marks. Further, it is also stated that petitioner has submitted the original certificates for verification including the service certificate claiming weightage of marks, the respondents have addressed to TTD authorities for ascertaining genuineness of the same, to be intimated on or before 30.06.2020. Further, as there was no response from TTD, follow-up communication dated 30.06.2020, has been addressed by 2nd respondent to all DEOs for uploading weightage marks based on verification of documents on or before 05.00 P.M. on 01.07.2020, however, petitioner’s experience certificate came to be verified by respondent and got uploaded only on 04.07.2020 beyond the cut-off date of 01.07.2020, therefore, weightage marks of petitioner were not taken into consideration. In sum and substance, the entire of the counter-affidavit, respondents maintained that because of delay in certifying the genuineness of service certificate by 5th respondent, and the same being not uploaded by 01.07.2020, petitioner has not been considered for the purpose of awarding weightage of marks, besides the primary contention that as petitioner could not secure minimum 60 marks, she could not have been even otherwise considered for awarding weightage of marks. 5. Petitioner filed reply-affidavit denying the contention of respondents that unless one secures the qualifying marks are not entitled to be considered for recruitment and has placed on record the instances of three cases, where candidates, who have secured marks less than 60 have been later added with service weightage marks and as they crossed the minimum marks of 60% have been considered for provisional selection. The details of three candidates have been set out in the reply affidavit, who have been provisionally selected and placed at Serial Nos. 19, 29 and 42 respectively. Further, petitioner also has provided particulars of three candidates who have been selected, though they secured marks less than petitioner after adding weightage marks. Therefore, had petitioner been added weightage marks of five, her total marks would be 61.8 for her to be placed in merit list and consequently, selected in the selection list. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition, would submit that as petitioner has secured 56.8 marks and added with 5 weightage marks would totally get 61.8 marks which is above the required marks of 60, therefore, ought to have been considered for selection, and by not adding the weightage marks on the pretext of non-verification of certificates on time, cannot be denied her candidature being considered for selection. He would place reliance on order, dated 13.07.2022, passed in W.P.No.19289 of 2020, by a co ordinate Bench of this Court in similar circumstances and seeks to allow the writ petition in terms of the same. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Seryices-III, opposing the said submission by drawing attention to the contents of the counter-affidavit, would submit that unless petitioner secures minimum qualifying marks of 60 out of 100, she being O.C. candidate, question of adding weightage marks would not arise, therefore, tried to sustain the action of respondents. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Seryices-III, opposing the said submission by drawing attention to the contents of the counter-affidavit, would submit that unless petitioner secures minimum qualifying marks of 60 out of 100, she being O.C. candidate, question of adding weightage marks would not arise, therefore, tried to sustain the action of respondents. He also contended that there is delay of three days in uploading the confirmation of the genuineness of service certificate by 5'^ respondent, therefore, as the cut-off time being 5.00 P.M. on 01.07.2020, respondents cannot extend the timeline and consider the case of the petitioner and at any rate, since petitioner has not secured minimum required marks of 60, question of considering her past service, even if the same is genuine, does not arise. 8. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions. 9. For better appreciation of contentions raised by both learned counsel, it is apt to refer relevant clauses of D.S.C, 2019 Special Notification and as well as G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 06.05.2019. Clauses 10 and 13 of the said notification, read as follows: “10. METHOD OF RECRUITMENT: The Recruitment shall be through a selection process consisting of Written Test and other criteria stipulated by the Government from time to time. For School Assistants (Special Education) the total marks shall be 100 (hundred) for the Written Test (TET-cum-TRT). It will be purely based on Merit cum Roster system as per the existing provisions being adopted by Government of Andhra Pradesh.” 13. STRUCTURE OF EXAMINATION / TEST: The Structure and Content proposed for TET-CUM-TRT for School Assistants (Special Education) are as follows: School Assistants (Special Education) - (TET cum TRT): Duration of examination: 3 Hours Part Topic MCQs Marks Part I General Studies and Current Affairs 30 15 Perspectives in Special Education and Inclusive Education 10 5 Methodology in Special Education and Inclusive Education 20 10 Psychology with reference to CWSN 20 10 Part II Category of Disability Specialisation (i. ID, ii. HI, iii. VI, iv. SLD, v. ASD & COP with MD) 120 60 Total 200MCQs 100 Marks Weightage to iERTs 5 Marks *ID = Intellectual Disability, HI = Hearing Impairment, Vl= Visual Impairment, SLD=Specific Learning Disabilities, ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder, CP with MD = Cerebral Palsy with Multiple Disabilities. HI, iii. VI, iv. SLD, v. ASD & COP with MD) 120 60 Total 200MCQs 100 Marks Weightage to iERTs 5 Marks *ID = Intellectual Disability, HI = Hearing Impairment, Vl= Visual Impairment, SLD=Specific Learning Disabilities, ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder, CP with MD = Cerebral Palsy with Multiple Disabilities. Note 1: - Weightage shall be given to Inclusive Education Resource Teacher who are working in Sarva Shikhsa Abhiyan (SSA)., Andhra Pradesh. Note 2:- Weightage @ 0.5 mark (1/2) for every one completed year subject to a maximum of 5 marks. Note 3:- More than six months of a service shall be considered as one year. Note 4:- Less than six months of a service in one year will be ignored.” 10. Relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 06.05.2019, reads as under: ii. The following shall be added as Note 5 under Rule 6: Note 5:- Weightage shall be given to IERTs / IEDSS / CRTs who are working in TTD run institutions / NGOs working for the State Government-run institutions / KVBV Schools, including KGBV Special Schools.” 11. 1st respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No.24 School Education (Exams) Department, dated 15.02.2019, by which. Teacher Eligibility Test-cum- Teacher Recruitment Test for the posts of School Assistants (Special  Education) under Inclusive Education for Disabled Children at Secondary Stage (IEDSS) under the Rules, 2019, came to be notified. The said Rules provided for qualification and eligibility, structure of examination/test and one has to possess and clear. Following the same, 2nd respondent issued Notification No.768/TRC-1/(2018), dated 15.02.20219, for recruitment to the Post of School Assistants (Special Education) in the Government and Zilla Parishat Schools. The said notification was issued in furtherance to aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 15.02.2019, and the Rules provided therein, mutatis mutandis made applicable to selection process. Clause 10, referred to above, dealt with method of recruitment and Clause 13, with “structure of examination/ test”. Initially, in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules 2019, the candidates with IERTs, who are working in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), were sought to be awarded weightage of 5 marks, Later, by G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 06.05.2019, Note-V came to be added to aforesaid Rule 6, by which, weightage of marks has been extended even to candidates of IEDSS working in TTD run Institutions as well. It is not in dispute that petitioner is having requisite qualification to participate in the Notification and also that she secured 56.8 marks in the written examination. Petitioner claimed weightage of 5 marks as she was working with 5th respondent on contract basis, falling under the Category of IEDSS, for which, she was issued service certificate, dated 14.10.2019. It appears, there was some delay in confirmation of genuineness of said certificate by the 5th respondent either due to the delay occurred at the instance of respondent or 5th respondent, in turn, reciprocating to the request of the 4th respondent. Admittedly, petitioner submitted original certificates on 11.12.2019. In the counter-affidavit, respondents also ultimately did not dispute the factum of petitioner working with 5th respondent and genuineness of her service certificate, however, the only objection taken was with respect to genuineness being established with a delay of 3 days beyond the cut-off date of 01.07.2020. 12. Be that as it may, main objection taken by respondents in the counter-affidavit is that petitioner does not qualify for consideration of her candidature for selection, as she did not possess minimum required marks of 60 as against 100 marks, which is the cut-off marks, therefore, even if she were to be considered for past service, unless she qualified, adding of weightage of marks would not arise. The said objection seems to be far fetched, inasmuch as Rule 7 of the Rules, 2019 r/w.Para.14 of the Notification does not specify any particular marks a candidate is required to secure, rather specifies that one should possess a particular percentage of marks and above to be considered for recruitment. As any candidate who takes examination can maximum secure 100 marks and also special category candidates, who had past service, can further add up to 5 more marks towards weightage, while computing percentage of qualifying mark one has to consider both cumulatively, but not, otherwise. Therefore, this Court finds that the interpretation placed by the respondents on Clauses 13 and 14 of the Notification, has no rationality. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as demonstrated in the reply- affidavit, respondents themselves have with respect to some of the candidates, treated the marks secured in written examination plus added weightage marks for arriving at total marks secured and have made selections. Therefore, aforesaid contention raised by the respondents has no basis and deserve no consideration. Therefore, aforesaid contention raised by the respondents has no basis and deserve no consideration. 13. Coming to the second aspect of awarding of weightage of marks to the petitioner, it is hot in dispute that petitioner rendered service with 5th respondent since 2008 and had submitted service certificate to that effect. However, only reason for not considering the same appears to be primarily that she did not at first instance secured 60 marks, which this Court for reasons mentioned above rejected, and secondly, the genuineness of the same came to be verified and uploaded with a delay of 3 days. As in the counter-affidavit, respondents do admit the genuineness of said certificate and only other reason for not considering it being the same uploaded with a delay of 3 days, this Court finds that respondents are not justified in rejecting the same on such ground that too not attributable to the petitioner, Petitioner, way back on 11.12.2019, submitted all originals for verification. it is either 4th respondent or 5th respondent, who are supposed to exchange communications for ascertaining the genuineness of the service certificate, and petitioner was not in control of the same. For the said reason, she cannot be punished. As appearing for selections and standing successful will be lifetime opportunity for any candidate, that too, in the days of Covid-2019, such meagre delay cannot be put against her for denying opportunity for being considered for selection. Even otherwise, last date fixed for verification is not sacrosanct, that too, during Covid-19 period. 14. This Court in the order, dated 13.07.2022, passed in W.P. No. 19289 of 2020, considering similar circumstances, wherein also the genuineness of certificate came to be finally uploaded on 04.07.2020 after the cut-off date of 01.07.2020, the delay if any was condoned on account of Covid-19 pandemic and petitioner therein was directed to be considered for selection. The respondents later have issued appointment orders, dated 19.04.2023. Even petitioner in the present case deserves similar treatment claiming parity. 15. The respondents later have issued appointment orders, dated 19.04.2023. Even petitioner in the present case deserves similar treatment claiming parity. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the respondents are directed to add-up 5 weightage marks giving due credit to past service certificate and considering petitioner’s total marks as 61.8, consider her for selection and appoint her to the post of School Assistant (Special Education) under IEDSS under Andhra Pradesh Samagra Shiksha (SMS) in Chittoor District at appropriate roster point giving benefit of notional seniority from the date when less meritorious candidates to the petitioner are appointed. In case no vacancy is available in the cadre, the respondents are directed to create one supernumerary post. However, the petitioner is not entitled to claim monetary benefit as she was not appointed to the post on the principle of “No Work - No pay” As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any, in this case shall stand closed.