ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Petitioner initially prayed to declare the action of the official respondents in appointing the private respondents as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) by taking into consideration marks obtained in Part-A when the marks secured are equal, instead of taking the age as criteria, as illegal and arbitrary. Subsequently, petitioner had taken out I.A.No. 1 of 2024 seeking to implead the 6 th respondent, I.A.No. 2 of 2024 to permit him to add grounds 3 and 4 mentioned therein as grounds 4.5 and 4.6 in Writ Petition and I.A.No. 3 of 2024 seeking amendment of prayer to declare the action of official respondents in appointing the 6th respondent as Assistant Engineer, as illegal and contrary to law and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 511-517 of 2024, dated 22.02.2024 and quash the same and consequently, declare that petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from the date the 6 th respondent was appointed/from the date similarly-placed candidates were appointed earlier with all consequential benefits like seniority, arrears of pay, etcetera and also to direct the official respondents to appoint him as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under BC-A local category. 2. The case of petitioner is that appointment of the 6 th respondent as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is illegal and contrary to law, particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 511-517/2024 dated 22-02-2024. Petitioner references several writ petitions ie. Writ Petition Nos. 18291 of 2018 and others that have been filed on similar grounds, with the matter reserved for judgment. The present case is said to be identical in nature. 3. Petitioner, who claims to be belonging to ‘BC-A’ category, applied for the post of Assistant Engineer as per Notification dated 11-01-2018, according to which, selection process was based entirely on written examination. He is stated to have secured 61 marks and ranked 428. The grievance arises from the second and the third list published by respondents. The second list includes candidates such as Rank No. 133 (Sri K Saiteja, BC-B Local) and Rank No. 141 (Chittluri Akhil, BC-B Local), who secured 61 marks, just as petitioner did. The third list also includes a candidate (Bombay Dinesh Chandra, BC-A, Rank No. 398), who also secured 61 marks. The second list includes candidates such as Rank No. 133 (Sri K Saiteja, BC-B Local) and Rank No. 141 (Chittluri Akhil, BC-B Local), who secured 61 marks, just as petitioner did. The third list also includes a candidate (Bombay Dinesh Chandra, BC-A, Rank No. 398), who also secured 61 marks. According to petitioner, when candidates secured same marks, the one, who is older, should be selected, however, the official respondents, through notification dated 05-05-2018, ignored petitioner’s case, instead, called other candidates for verification of certificates which took place on 16-05-2018 and 17-05-2018, excluding petitioner from the list. Appointment orders were later issued to private respondents. Petitioner argues that the action of respondents in not selecting him is unlawful and violation of principles of natural justice. He further emphasizes that notification did not contain any specific instruction regarding how marks should be treated in the event of a tie and also there was no provision stating that marks secured in Part A or Part B alone would be considered for tie-breaking. In the absence of such a provision, official respondents’ decision to introduce this new method of tie-breaking is described as unauthorized and contrary to law. Petitioner refers to Writ Petition No. 18527 of 2018 and batch which challenged selections, wherein the official respondents filed counter affidavit detailing the full information about candidates who scored 61 marks and their likelihood of being adversely affected. The name of petitioner found place in Table- A, at Serial No. 8, stating that if petitioner were appointed, other candidates (such as Kanneti Saiteja, Chittluri Akhil, and Bombay Dinesh Chandra) would be adversely affected. It is stated therefore, these candidates have been made private respondents in the present writ petition. Additionally, petitioner points out that both the petitioner and the 6 th respondent scored 61 marks in the examination and belong to BC-A category. He specifically argues that he performed better in Part-A of the examination, hence, is entitled to be appointed to the position of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), as per the rules and merit-based selection process outlined in the original notification. 4. This Court vide order dated 09.08.2024 allowed I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2024 and accordingly, prayer was amended. 5. The 1st respondent based on the counter, contends that the relief sought by petitioner was misconceived and untenable. 4. This Court vide order dated 09.08.2024 allowed I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2024 and accordingly, prayer was amended. 5. The 1st respondent based on the counter, contends that the relief sought by petitioner was misconceived and untenable. TGSPDCL had issued the subject Notification for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Assistant Engineer (Civil). A total of 133 posts were notified; selection process involved a written examination in two parts: Part-A consisting of 80 marks in the relevant engineering discipline and Part-B consisting of 20 marks in General Awareness and Numerical Ability. In cases where candidates secured the same aggregate marks, preference was given to candidates who had higher marks in Part-A. This selection process was challenged in Writ Petition No. 18277 of 2018 and batch. On 11-12-2018, this Court allowed the said batch directing to review merit list of selected candidates, giving priority to older candidates in cases where multiple candidates secured the same aggregate marks. The selection should be revised based on this criterion and the exercise was to be completed within four weeks of receipt of Court’s order. Aggrieved by the said order, Writ Appeal No. 180 of 2019 and batch was filed, wherein Division Bench by order dated 27.02.2020, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. In Civil Appeal Nos. 511-517 of 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered a judgment on 22-2-2024, setting aside the order in the Writ Appeal and batch holding that interference with selection process was incorrect. It specifically directed accommodation of eight candidates out of 12 referred to in the Judgment, within six weeks from the date of the said order. However, it is made clear that these eight persons were to be given appointments within the specified time frame and petitioner in the present case was not part of the judgment of the Supreme Court, hence, he could not compare himself with those 12 persons. Petitioner's claim for the benefit of the Supreme Court's order was rejected as he was not part of the group of candidates covered by the judgment. Additionally, it is stated, the 6th respondent filed Writ Petition No. 18527 of 2018 challenging the selection process which was allowed on 24-10-2018 directing the respondents to issue an appointment order to him as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Additionally, it is stated, the 6th respondent filed Writ Petition No. 18527 of 2018 challenging the selection process which was allowed on 24-10-2018 directing the respondents to issue an appointment order to him as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). This order was later challenged in W.A. No. 177 of 2019, and in view of non-implementation, the 6 th respondent filed C.C. No. 207 of 2019. As a result, the official respondents issued proceedings No. SPOO CGM (HRD) Ms. No. 635, dated 7-11-2019, appointing the 6th respondent as Assistant Engineer. Recording the same, Writ Appeal No. 177 of 2019 was dismissed as infructuous by order dated 27-02-2020. Hence, petitioner could not also compare himself with the 6 th respondent. Therefore, Petitioner's claim was without merit. It is clarified that there were no vacancies available in BC-A local category for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under the subject Notification and any vacancy that arises due to resignation would be carried forward to the next recruitment process as per G.O. Ms. No. 81, dated 22-02-1997. Consequently, petitioner was not entitled to appointment under the said notification. 6. The 6th respondent also filed counter stating that he applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as per the Notification dated 11-01-2018, and participated in the written examination. Both himself and petitioner secured equal marks of 61, however, he is nearly two years older than petitioner. On coming to know that respondent corporation intended to select candidates based solely on their marks in Part-A of the examination, without considering the age factor, the 6 th respondent filed Writ Petition No. 18527 of 2018, wherein official respondents filed a counter stating that one BC-A Open Point remained unfilled and he could be appointed to that vacancy. On 24-10-2018, the learned Single Judge issued a final order directing the official respondents to issue appointment orders to the 6 th respondent as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Failure to comply with the said direction prompted petitioner to file Contempt Case No. 207 of 2019. Simultaneously, official respondents filed Writ Appeal No. 177 of 2019, challenging the learned Single Judge’s order. During this time, the official respondents issued appointment orders to the 6 th respondent on 07-11-2019, as per Proceedings SPDO CGM (HRM) Ms. No. 635. Failure to comply with the said direction prompted petitioner to file Contempt Case No. 207 of 2019. Simultaneously, official respondents filed Writ Appeal No. 177 of 2019, challenging the learned Single Judge’s order. During this time, the official respondents issued appointment orders to the 6 th respondent on 07-11-2019, as per Proceedings SPDO CGM (HRM) Ms. No. 635. Further, it is stated that when official respondents filed Writ Appeal No. 180 of 2019 and batch contesting the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18277 of 2018, learned counsel for the 6 th respondent informed the Division Bench that his client had already been appointed and requested to separate this Appeal from the above batch. The Division Bench granted this request and dismissed W.A. No. 177 of 2019 as infructuous, as the 6th respondent had already been appointed on 07-11-2019 and completed nearly five years of service. The 6 th respondent argues that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not nullify his appointment order as the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 177 of 2019 was not questioned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and no action has been taken to challenge the orders made in that case. Therefore, he contends that petitioner's request to challenge his appointment lacks merit, as the petitioner's case is not supported by any ruling from the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the order in Civil Appeal Nos. 511-517 of 2024, dated 22-02-2024, did not impact the 6th respondent’s appointment. The Supreme Court's decision was aimed at continuing the originally-appointed candidates without interruption and directing appointment of eight elderly candidates, but the case of the 6 th respondent was not included in that batch and was not challenged in the Appeal. It is asserted that petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought, as Writ Appeal No. 177 of 2019, which involves the 6th respondent, was dismissed as infructuous and appointment of the 6 th respondent remains valid. He therefore, prays that Writ Petition be dismissed. 7. In the rejoinder, petitioner states that in the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 511-517 of 2024, dated 22-02-2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that in cases of a tie in marks during recruitment, preference must be given to candidates, who secured higher marks in Part-A (the core subject), and not based on age. 7. In the rejoinder, petitioner states that in the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 511-517 of 2024, dated 22-02-2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that in cases of a tie in marks during recruitment, preference must be given to candidates, who secured higher marks in Part-A (the core subject), and not based on age. This ruling overrides the earlier decision of the High Court that considered age as tie-breaking factor, providing a legal basis for petitioner’s claim. Therefore he raised additional grounds to challenge the selection and appointment of the 6 th respondent. Petitioner reiterates that he applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under Notification No. 01 of 2018, securing 61 marks in the written examination, with a ranking of 428. He emphasizes that both himself and the 6 th respondent secured 61 marks in total, with 49 and 48 marks respectively in Part A. According to petitioner, this difference in marks in Part-A makes him the rightful candidate for selection over the 6th respondent. Petitioner argues that appointment of the 6th respondent is contrary to the prescribed legal framework and the Supreme Court's judgment, and as such, it is unsustainable in law. He also disputes the assertion of the 6 th respondent regarding continuation of the originally-appointed candidates. It is contended that the Supreme Court’s ruling made it clear that preference must be given to candidates with higher marks in Part A and since he scored higher marks in Part A, he should have been selected over the 6 th respondent. The 6 th respondent’s appointment cannot stand simply because it was made based on a concession by the official respondents. According to petitioner, such a concession does not override the law declared by the Supreme Court. He challenges the argument that appointment of the 6th respondent was not contested before the Supreme Court on the ground that law declared by the Apex Court is binding upon all individuals, regardless of whether they were parties to the case or not. Thus, he insists that the law should apply in his case and he should be appointed as the rightful candidate. 8. Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned Sanding Counsel for the respondent Company and Sri Gurram Srinivas, learned counsel for the 6 th respondent. 9. 8. Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned Sanding Counsel for the respondent Company and Sri Gurram Srinivas, learned counsel for the 6 th respondent. 9. Upon perusal of pleadings and submissions made by both the parties, this Court finds that selection procedure followed by the official respondents was in accordance with the guidelines specified in the Notification. The method of ranking candidates, including tie-breaker rules, was transparently outlined, with preference given to higher marks in Part-A (Engineering subjects) in the event of equal marks. The tie- breaking system, which gave preference to candidates who secured higher marks in Section -A when marks were identical in both sections, was consistent with the job requirements and the technical nature of the position. 10. Furthermore, in the judgment in C.A. Nos. 511-517 of 2024 on which basis, petitioner seeks to cancel the appointment of the 6th respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that decision of the Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court in interfering with the selection process is not correct. However, since additional affidavits and a statement of employment position was filed by respondent company, the original appointments which were made by respondent company on 26.05.2018 pursuant to the Notification continued despite institution of Writ Petition as there was no interim order. Their employment continued even after the Single Bench and the Division Bench heard and disposed of Writ Petitions as well as Writ Appeals. At the time of admission of Civil Appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 30.04.2020 stayed the impugned order. It observed that the upshot of these proceedings is that appellants who were appointed on 26.05.2018 were continued to function on their respective posts till date. Therefore, the appellants who were originally-appointed shall continue in service without any interruption. Insofar as the unsuccessful petitioners are concerned, out of them, respondent–company submitted that in Sl.Nos. 8,11,12 (Routhu Anil Kumar, Chowan Vindu and Bhattu Swati) cannot be appointed for the reason that they are not qualified and are outside the zone of consdieraiton even as per the orders of the High Court. Out of the remaining petitioners, G. Shanker, Sl.No.4 has been appointed and is working, thus, there are only eight persons whose appointments are in issue. Out of the remaining petitioners, G. Shanker, Sl.No.4 has been appointed and is working, thus, there are only eight persons whose appointments are in issue. Based on the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent - company, these eight persons can be accommodated and orders of appointment can be given if Court considers it appropriate. Hence, the Supreme Court directed that these eight persons should be given appointment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Admittedly, petitioner was not part of the group of candidates covered by that judgment. The Supreme Court’s order specifically addressed accommodation of 8 candidates, hence, it cannot be extended to petitioner’s case. 11. As regards the claim of appointment of the 6th respondent is concerned, as the appointment was made following the order in Writ Petition No. 18527 of 2018 and subsequent orders in Contempt Case No. 207 of 2019 and he was serving the company from 2019 and the order in Writ Appeal No. 177 of 20129 was not challenged in the Supreme Court, his appointment order attained finality. Hence, this Court also finds that official respondents are right in prioritizing candidates based on marks in Section-A, given the technical nature of the role of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Their decision to adopt this methodology was based on sound reasoning and in accordance with the organization’s needs. There is no merit in the Petitioner’s claim that the ranking system was unlawful or arbitrary. The Writ Petition lacks merit, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 13. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.