The High Court · 2025

Petition ur'd()r ll€rction 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed it :.Ltp1,.ort tf the pct:tion the High Court may be pleaserl to suspend the pror"rs:rnar sorcction notification dated .1 2r 02-2024 issued in pursuance of tre notificaiion No.0,1/2023 dateej O5_A4_2023 by the 3rd respondent, pendin; drsposalof the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners : SRI G VENKATA KRISHNAIAI_I Counsel for the Re:;pondent Nos. 1 & 4 to 7: Gp FOR SERVICES _ I Counsel forthe Responclent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI N. RAMESH, SO FOR TREIRB The Court made the following: ORDER .r-.,r.F- -1i--iiir.-:. :,'. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No'4329 of 2024 ORDER: Thc issue raised in the present Writ Pet-itron ts sclu:rrel-v covereci brv the Con-rrnon Order' ciated 22 '09 2025 passcd bY ttris Court in W.P.No.31745 of 2024 and batr:h' Therelore, lollowrng the Common Order' passcd by W.P.No.31745 of 2024 and batch ancl in this Court tn tcrms thcreof, the prescnt Writ Petition rs disposed of. .lhere shali be no ordcr as to costs MiscellirneouspeLitions,ifzrny,penclingshallstand cl o secl SD MALLIKA SISTANT RJUNA RAO REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 G iio;rabad 5oooo4 Department ' Secretariat Buildings' State . .-^r r^crir, rrions Recruitmenl Board The Princlpal Secretary'-Education ot i"tunqanu Hyderahao i***:#l??iffi :iiii5,?',.','#'f biJ",:''3\'3i';'i';n;;-"'o 'H:$i;'l #f {trd$s":JB'.",T'r**lmm;'i'i'i*if ';ii:ffi The Commissioner' Social W"f f"" for the State of Telangana' Secretariat ::J;;::::"1.'"'"*"0 werrare ror the state orrerangana' secretariat ?:IJ;:::::"1. *'""' werrare ror the State or reransana secretariat 's}:' '"3'f Builtlinqs HYderaoao 1 The CornrrtissronerlDirccror. Schcr;l Education, Nampa ly. liyderabad 8 One CC to SRI G VENKAIA KRTSHNATAH Advocaie .OpUCl 9 One CC tc, SiRl N RA|\4ESH. SC FOR TRETRB 10 Two CCs to Gp FOR SERVTCES | .High Courl for thc State of Tetangana 11 Two CD C c p,ies \pvr \ ,J , , ,\ '., HIGH COIJRT DATED:0i'l1Al2A2S ORDER WP.No.4329 af 2024 ( oR TI{E S Dr o.J \ t 2 4 otT it{t25 6) t Ar\ =,- DISPOSII.{G OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I \ !'ut ,.\>r 1 3 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 31745, 6424, 7L6L,9604, 1L62O, 19335, 2240.3, 260,30, 28720, 29 142, 32479 of 2024 AND WRIT PETITION No. 3762 and.7549 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: The issue involved in these Writ Petitions is, respondent authorities not operating the merit list downwards and not recmiting the petitioners in the fallout vacancles.

2. All these Writ Petitions hereby disposed of by this Common Order, as the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is identical.

3. Heard learned counsel for respective parties: Sri Siva, learned Senior counsel representing Smt' Goda Rama Lakshmi, Himangini Sanghi, Sri Kohir Bhaskar Reddy, Sri Bondempally Ramulu, Ms' Devara Samhitha, Sri Anirudh Sadhu, Sri V' Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Vemula Suresh, Ms. P. Anusha, counsel appearing for the petitioners. 4 Learned Government Pleader lor Sr:rvices, Sri N. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel TRtrI-RB, Sri S. Bhoopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for State Residential trducationai Society, counsel ap,pearing for the respondents.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Wp No.31745 of 2024 are discussed hereunder: Learned Senior Counsel Sri Siva, repr.esenting Goda Rama Lak.shmi, iearned counsel for the peti,,ioner, submits that the 3i.d respondent authorities on 05.O+.2023, calling for applications from eligible candidates for'reing recmited to various 1:osts viz. Lecturer/physical Dire,ctor/ Librarian in Degree Colleges (Notification No. 1/1)023), Junior LecturersT'F'hvsical Directors/Librarians in, unior Colleges in Resi<lential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.2/2023), post Graduate Teachers in Residential Educationa,l Institutions Societir:s (Notification No.3/202I]) Librarian (School) in Residential Educationa-l Institutions Societies (Notification No.412023), physicai Director (Schoot)/Physical Director Grade_II in Residential 5 Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No'5/2023) and Trained Graduate Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.9 / 2023)'

5. Learned Senior counsel lurther submits that the petitioners herein were eligible for substantial number of posts proposed to be hlled up by the above Notifications' They have responded to the same. The selection process comprised of a computer based test which was held between 1"t and 23.d August, 2023. It is pertinent to mention here that so far as Degree Lecturers, Junior Lecturers and Post Graduate Teachers are concerned, Paper-I was conducted simultaneously' The said paper being general studies, it may be only for the purpose of convenience instead. of setting more than one paper for testing the ability of the candidates'

6. Learned Senior counsel further submits that in respect of Junior Lecturers and Post Graduate Teachers' paper-Il which was pedago5/ was conducted commonly' The 3.d paper was independently conducted for all the posts as it related to their respective subjects for which the 6 i eci-Llitmont is to be held. It is also pertine,t to state there was no nrinimum marks prescribed for ea,:h of the paper and scler:tjons were to be made based orL the aggregate marks Se,lLlred by the candidates. 7 . Lear ned Senior counsel further sllb.nits that it is common orudency that could be reasonabl]. expected from a Board ,3iven the responsibility of conduc:ting selections and recornmending candidates for variour; posts in the hier-arch,,. starting fi-om a Trained Graduate Teacher {the lorver position lor which Notification has been issued by the 3.a respondent Board) and the highest position being that of Degree Lecturers to declare results from top to bottom for- t:ffectively filling up of all the vacencies. B. Leanred Senior counsel further submits that if the results fcr the lcu,est post of TGT is declared simultaneortsly with that of a Degree Lecturers, there couid be a, possibility of a candidate behind selected agalnst both the posts. In such a situa_tion, one of the posts could not be fi1led up and that obviously, would be the post lower in the hierarchy. In those cir<;umstances, it 7 would be necessarily call for reviewing the entire situation based on the number of people who do not report to certificate verihcation arldlor further selection process like demonstration etc., g. Learned Senior counsel further submits that in the instant case, the schedule for certificate verification (list containing candidates in the ratio of I:2 i'e' two candidates for every vacancy to be fi11ed up)' In respect of Post Graduate Teacher was fi'xed on 9th February, Librarian (school), Physical Director (school) on Bth February, Trained Graduate Teacher on 25th, Junior Lecturer on 16th and Degree Lecturer on 1Srh February, 2023. The hnal list (1:1) in so far as post graduate teacher; Librarian (school), Physical Director (school)' librarians (Degree college), Physical Director (Degree Cotlege), Librarian (Junior College), and Physical Director (Junior College) was finalized and appointment orders to these peopie were issued' on l4'O2'2O24' In so far as Trained Graduate Teachers, Junior Lecturers and Degree Lecturers are concerned, appointment orders were issued on 4th March. 8

10. A ccnsiderabie number of people havr: been selected to more trzrn one post and obviously as it is impossible to report to all the posts to which they have been selected, oniy one r.acancy would be lilled up and other vacancies to r.r'hich th.- candidates have been selecterl would go a begging. lihis can never be the purpose of issuing of Notihcaticns. Unfortunately, this very crur;ial aspect has been lost sight of the 3.a respondent Board resulting in forcing the unemployed youth to knock thr: doors of this Hon'ble CrttLrt for justice.

11. Lean-re.d Senior counsel further submits that the recmiting authorities have been relying upon the State Governmeni, rnstn_rctions as constrained in rf .O.Ms. No.B1 G.A.(Ser.A), Department, dated 22.O2.tgg7 and G.O.Ms.No.lj44, G.A.(Ser.A), DepartrrLent, dated 04.72.199,3. The purport of the G.Os would make it necessary that the recruiting agency will have to furnish a list equal to the number of vacancies nctified in the Notificatiort. in other words, in a recruitm<:nt year, after the selection of candidates and after issue oI appointment order, if th,: candidates failed to join du.y within the I stipuiated period, that vacancy shall be notified in the next recrLlitment year. By virtue of the said G'Os' the system of preparing a waiting list for faliout vacancies has been done away with. In the latter G'O' referred to above' which is anadhocrulemadeinexerciseoftheporversconferredby the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Governor, it was made clear that fallout vacancies' if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining etc ' of selected candidates, shall be notihed in the next recruitment. L2. Learned Senior counsel further submits that while explaining the above said method, this principle may rvell be applicable to cases where the recruitment agencies are required to hold selections for filling up vacancies to a particular post alone. But, it does not answer iogic to extend the said principle in cases where number of posts atdifferentlevelsinhierarchyaresoughttobefilledup. The present case is a classic case where the application of said principle has resulted in more than 1800 of the vacancies remaining unfrlled. The result of application of this principle and where results are declared either 10 sirnultanr:ous1y or in respect of posts in the lower category eariier in point of time than the post in the jeigher echelons of the hie ra ichy.

13. Learnr:d Senior counsel further sut,mits that the petitio,ers in the present writ petition have all been included in the 1:2 list calling for certificrate verillcation but could not make up to 1:1 that is eventual selection for issuance rrf appointment order. This is a rrirect resurt of applicatior-r of principle .,.t,hich cannot be made applicable in cases u.here more number of posts are sought to be fi1led up. Since this is the only reason, why the petitioners have not been eventually selected, they are :onstrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this t{on,ble Court.

14. After hearing the matter, initially, this Hon,lele Court granted rn1erirn crder on 13.11.2024 as follor,;s: "Httuin g regard to the submissions mad-e bg learned, counse.l for the respectiue parties, there shali be an inteim .Lirection to the respond.ents to consi.Cer the case of the petitioners for appointment itt their respectiue posts against the fallout/ relinquished. uacancies dulg operating the Merit List d_ou.tnutards, in accordonce with the decision of the Hon,bte Aper Cowt 11 in Ciuil Appeat Nos.10583-1O585 of 2017, dated 17.08.2017."

15. Against the above said interim direction, vacate stay along with counter affidavit filed by respondent No'3/ Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as "TREI-RB") vide I.A. No.1 of 2025. In the said vacate stay petition, the

3.d respondent submitted that the recruitments have been notified after a long gap period and the candidates were agitating for early publication of the results no sooner they wrote the examination in question as the election code r'vas about to come in force. Therefore, it has become necessary for the "TREI-RB" to announce the results of the provisionally selected candid ates irrespective of higher posts or lower posts whatever it may be'

16. It is further stated that the candidates selected in more than one post, were also reluctant to give their consent to join in a particular post fully knowing well that they are meritorious and get more than one post' It is the prerogative of the candidates on merit, but not the (TRtrI- RB). If the TREI-RB follows against the rights of the L2 selected c:indidates and take relinquishlnent from the same t;ar.didates at the time of certilicate verification for specihc pcs;t, it leads to infringement of furLclamental right of a perstn suaranteed undcr Articles i4 and 16 of the Constitut:o n of India.

77. It is frrther stated that no,,vhere in the Notification had ment ic ned that the results of the ab<xre notification 1na wouid be published descending order. The post notified r r-1 the ciifferent notifications tLolds different qualihcatt:;.s with different standards of exerminations and accordingly the results were notified deperding upon the completion of the selection process. It . s also clearly mentionec against para No.V of the Notification, which reads as follolvs

1. V:,.cancies: The recnritrnent will be made tc the vacancies notihed before the examination only. There shall be no waiting list as per G.O.Ms.llo.g1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 22.02. 997. If additional vacancies ar.e reported by 13 the Government, an addendum to that effect will be isst. ed.

2. Unfilled and non-joining vacancies will be carry for-warded to next recruitment."

18. It is further stated that in the previous recruitment also, some candidates denied to give relinquishment and joined lower post instead of higher post according to their convenience. Hence, the averments made in the aff,rdavit are not correct and accordingly, the TREI-RB is proceeding scr-upulously as per G.O.Ms.No.81, G'A'(Ser'A), Department, dated 22.O2.1997, which is mentioned against para No.V of the Notiflcation. lg. It is further stated that the petitioners have themselves stated that different written examinations have been held for different posts and they have applied for the said posts since they are qualihed to apply to ali the said posts. From this, it is clear that different examinations have been conducted for different posts with different standards of examination, but not with the same standard though they are possessing qualifications for all the posts 1-4 in question. The provislonal selection list was notifred as and when lhe selection process is complet:d in a specihc notification notified bj, the TRtrI RB s() as to avoid crlticism ircm the meritorious candidates. The TREI-RB rvith a 13oocl intention, had proceeded for the early publicaticrn of the results and the who1,3 process was completecl r,vrthin a span of 24O days frcm the date of issuance cf Notification on 05.04.2023 Th,: TREI-RB now proceeding by follorving G.O.Ms.No.81, G.A.(Ser.A), Departme n:, dated 22.O2.1.997 carry forq,ar,ling the lallout vacancies tc the next recruitment. Hence, the averments made by ttie petitioner are far away fronr the rules in vogue anci rvithout any deviation to the ruies, in existence.

20. Lear:rerd Standing counsel lor the respondent counsel also relied upon the very same juclgment .vhich is relied upon by the petitioner's counsel. Henct:, prayed the Hon'ble Court to vacate the interim order g,ranted by this Court. ANYALYSIS OF THE CASE LAWS AND ]F'INDINGS OF THE COURT: 15 2l . Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.3 have relying upon the following cases and case laws:

1. In the Writ Appeal No'517 of 2O2l' The appeal is fi1ed against the order of the Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14926 of 2O2O. The issue involved in the case is that, writ petitioners have participated in the process of selection pursuant to the Notification dated 31'05'2018' issued by the present appellants/respondents in the main Writ Petition in respect of as many as 1370 vacancies' The learned Single Judge has passed the following order: "9. This Court, hauing considered the iual submissions made by learned. counsel for the respectiue parties, is of the considered uieuL that since the issue raised in these Wit Petitions is squarelg couered- by the judgments rendered bg this Court in W.P.No.7 1 17 of 2O2O dated 1 1'O8 2020 and W.P.No.4495 of 2019 dated 11.06.2019 and as confirmed uide lud,gment d-ated. 03.O7.2O19 in W'A No'551 of 2O19, these uit petitions con be disposed of directing the Public Seruice Commisston and, the State Gouernment to fitl up all the unfilled uocancies stricttg bg follott'ting Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public Seruice Commission Rules' It is made clear that the uacancies, which utere relinquished bg the selected candidates' afier giuing appointment ord-ers, those uacancies haue to be tagged on to the nert recruitment notification and the uacancies' u-thich are still lying uacant euen afier i-ssuance of oppointment ord-ers, those uacancies are to be filled up stictlg bg following 16 RuIe 6lA) of the Telangana State lTtblic Seruice Commission Rule:; and the sdme shou.ld be offered to the next meritoious candidates in the order of meit." Agairrst the above said order, the present Writ Appeal is llied. While dismissing the Wr-it Appeal, the Hon'b1e trivision Bench of this Court madr the following Order "ht th.e considered optnion of this Court. ke,ep g in uit:u; tn.e aforesaid judgmen| ortce a uacancA is ad.uerli:;ed- and th_e u.)cancA is unfillecl, as the person irt tuito:;e fauoLir ciSiy;<tintttu,:nt order l.as bee .. is,s:;cd has not joined, the same cannot carrA forwa,.d to the next selection. The next person in tl.te unitirtg List shout,1.,5e appointed against the uacancg. Horueuer, in cases u'here appointment orders tt,ere jssuerj_ persons haue .joined and left thereafier, then thc: partiatlar uacancies haue to be carried foru,,ard. to t h.e next select,l.ott and thereJore, this Court does not ,inrl ang reoson to interfere uith the order passed bg the leanted Single Judge. Accordirtglg, the urit ctppeal is dismissed_."

22. In tt.e present case on hand, the 3.1 respondent issued several notilications to recruit various posts. After cornpletion of the recruitment, nearly 1t,00 rzacancies remained u.nfilled. With regard to the: above said vacancies, the respondent authorities w,ant to carry 71 forward to the next Notification' The above said judgment squarely supports the contention of the petitioners' The contention of the petitioners is that' respondent authorities not operating the merit list downwards and not recruiting the petitioners in the above said fallout vacancies, which were created due to individual getting selectedtomorethanonepostinpursuanceofthe Notif,rcations No.l to 5 of 2023 arrd' 9 of 2023' dated

05.o4.2023.

23. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4735 of 2022 in the case of The Telangana Stqte l,euel Police Recruitment Board and' another Vs' Narimetla VcLmshi and' others' In the said case' selected candidates have not ful1y participated in the selection process. In the above said' case' the Hon'lcle Supreme Court also considered the case in Munia Praaeen and others Vs. State ofTelangana and othersl; ' . zott 1t+1 scc z9z 18 \\rhile rlismissing the said Appeal fi1ed b\. the Telanganil State Level police Recruitment Board and others, the Apex Court observed as follo,"vs: "We ,\aut- heard learnecj cotLnsel for the parttes in. th.e colr.sf)c(rru.s of the aforesaicl submi.ssions arLd fi.nd no reesan to interfere tuith the concurrent .,indi.Lr1s of the tu'o (:oi trts belotu. The manner of interpretinq, the ntle in c1u.t:stion h.as alread.g been set out in Munja pra,.teen cctse, .'S,tpra). lf a candidate has rLot gone thrcugh the procei)--s of recruitment, he ha-s rtot done u)hat was reqrtirect to be done by him a-s se, ouf h.erein eboue, tt ca;inc! l;c coiistt-.ied ..-a a uacanalj ,iri:;i;tg it,itii h ,rtcs t,: be carrL:cl. for-tuard to the next rectuitmerzf proccss. A-s to the c,)tlsequences of the large numbrr oJ u,tcancies toh.ich haue remained. on these d.i,fferent accot,,nts, th.e detail:; c.,f tuhich haue been set out herein abot.e, agatn lencL suTtpctrl to this conclusion that a large paft oj. the proces-s is not fntstrated bg not Jillu.tg up of the uecencles. htblic employment is an impoftant source oi emploLlability for goung people in the countnt where tlte ere facing problems of adequacA oJ jrtbs; An ittterpr=tation of the kind, sought to be propourrled bg the appellants LDould. go against the uery ethos oJ. prouiditcr public emplogment to persons etigil,tle anct meitorio .ts, bg construction of a ntle in a nanner leauing a large number of uacancies unfille,i. This tuould not be an appropiate interpretation.,, 19 10585 of 2017, Munja 24. In Civil APPeal No'10583 Praueen and others Vs' Sto;te of Telangena qnd others, In the said case, the Apex Court observed as follows: "5. All the tests utere conducted at about the same time and the result utas that the more bril'l.iant condidates found their names in the select list of more than one Corporation Mang candidates utere selected in more than one Corporation being high up in the meit tist. On O1.O6.2O16, claifcotion utas issued by the Gouernment of Telangana that the Cotporations tuere free to ftll up the tefi ouer notifted (adueftised) uacancies bg operating the ment list downtuards for each categorg.

12. The posttion before us is totally different as poi.nted out earlier, some of the candid'ates' utho got sel-ected in more than one of the Corporations u)ere called for ueification of their certificates No appointment order has been issued titl tLLis stage' In the meantime ' the State issued a cloification as set out in the letter dated O 1.06.20 16 releuant porlion of tt'thich reads as undet "... I am to inuite attention to the aboue subject and reference ated and inforrn the Gouemment afier coreful examination of the motter hereby relaxes the prouision' as a special cose und'er the ciratmstances' of calling for the candidate on basis for ueification of cefiificates as contained in their notifications os one time option and permits the TRANSCO' TS SPDCL and TS NPDCL to ftll up the lefi ouer notiJied (oduertised) uacancies of 20 Assls/ant Enqineers of their respectiue utilitg dutg operction the meit list rlotunuards for each cateLtorlJ by fo cuing other rules prescibecl in their respectiue notifi.catLon. . . .,, F inaliy, the above case was disposed of r,vith the follorr,rns obsenration : " | 8. We ere also of the uieut that the Gor.,entment tuas justifi.ecl in isstLing the letter dated O 1 .06.2O i 6 in the larger ptLblic in-terest. 1:,t. In uiew of the aboue discu.ssion, tye ailout appeals, set aside the jud.gment:; of the tLic Dtttision Bench and learned Single Jttrloe of the Htqh Court and consequently tlismiss the rurit .cetitions. The Corporations mag fill up t,trc posts ,ts directed in the letter d.ateti O i.O6.2Ol,i ancl irt ;he light of the interpretation of clause g anrl 9 of t'').1.Ms. giuen bg us.,' 25 Learned counsel for the responclent opposlng the contentions o. the petitioners, counsel with regat-d to the aborre said judgment, submitted that the orders pas,secl in Munja Przrveen's c€ se passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court and the order in G.().Ms.No.g1, dated 22.O2.IggT are rn consonance with each (lther observing that G.O.Ms. would come into operation only after appointment letter issued. The TREI-RB had notified the provisional selection rist one after the other ancl the appointing authorities i.e. Secretaries ti. a1l the five Residential Societies forthwith issued appointment orders to all the candidates selected irrespective of their selected posts and the candidates also joined duties in the month of September' 2024. Hence, the .ludgment referred in the interim order by the Hon'ble High Court is not relevant to this case as the appointment orders were already issued to the selected candidates and the fallout vacancies after the appointment orders, is to be carry forwarded to the next recruitment as per C.O.Ms.No.S1 which is in vogue'

26. It is to be noted that aLl the tests were conducted at about the same time and the result was that the more brilliant candidates found their names in the select list of more than one category. On O1'06'20 16' clarification was issued by the Government of Telangana that the Corporations were free to fill up the left over notified (advertised) vacancies by operating the merit list downwards for each category' As per this Hon'ble Division Bench Court Order and as per Munja Praveen's case' the failout vacancies cannot carry forward to the next selection'

27. Learned counsel for the respondent No'3 relied upon the G.O.Ms.No.B1, dated 22'02'1997' wherein para No8 and 9 reads as follows: 22 "8... ;\c:c rding to these rules, ir., a recruitment. Ae{Lr, agarnst n.urrtber of notified uacancies, selection shc. be rnade ontq to tlte eTual number o/posts notifiect and. there s\all be no utaitirry list. In other uorcls, in a recruitment lear, alter se/ccf:orr of the cand.idates and after issue of ap2ointmo nt orcLcr:;, if the candidate fails to .join d.utg tt,ithin the sttpuluk'd peiod that uacancg shalt be nottJi.etl agnin {n the tTeyt n:crtutment gear, this ctltenates the sAstent oJ- orepctnng utuirin,t.,s'for fallou t the L,aconcies....

9. Titerefore, the Gouenunent, after careful exttminattort l'Lcts c'trlre ecl uith tr'te proposar of the Andhra pracresh j,ltbric ^Serrrlcc (-'oarnzl sston and accord.inglg clirect thctt he nce Jorih tLte [isr cti tirc candidates approuecL/ selected. bg the AncLLtra Pracle:sLt ,.\tblic Seruice ConLrnrssion sha be eqtttl in titt: ruutnber (t u(tcanaes onlg inciuciing those jctr reserueci co rrtrrttt rri ie s categories nottfied_ by the unit offi.cers The, ftLll out uacoticie;s if ang due to relinquishment and non jotrunq etc., a,'' selected cand.idates shatl be notified the next recntjtrte,tt. "

28. Bascd rn the a-borre interpretation ot. G.O.M,q.No.gl. learned colrnlel for the respondent opposing fl_re petitioner,s relief i.e. operating the merit list downwar<ls cannot be pos sible

29. In the rtounter affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondents referred only B and 9 paras of G.().Ms.No.B 1 as observed by thc Hon,ble Supreme Court in Mr,nja praveen,s case. But ir the very same judgment, the Hon,ble Supreme Court also observed as follows: 23 "14. Euen othentLise also, tue ore of tt'Le uieLo that this is the onlg logical Luag to interpret the G'O Ms' The G'o ltfs' obuioustg hns been issued-, keeping in mind' a sinqle selection process- Here, u)e ore cleoling with a multiple selection proces-s for different Co'porations. The more bittictnt cand'tclates were selectecl in nrore than orte of the Corporations- Tlrcg obuiously ca nnot join in more thdn one Corporation. Therefore, if the top Jour candidates haue been selected' in all four Corporations' they could onlu join one of the Corporations dnd 12 posts utould remain uocant' if the interpretation giuen by the High Coutl is accepted' This tuoutrl lead to a position uhere large number of uacancies tuould- not be ftlled up' 15. On tt conjoint reading of clause 8 and 9 oJ G'o'Ms" dated 22.02.1997, LUe ore clearly of the uietu that th[s u'as According to us' the not the purpose of the G'O Ms G.O.Ms. tttould come into operation onlg after appoin'tment letters uere issued and, therefore' if a person' utho is at number one position, goes to one of the Corporations and is giuen the appointment letter' he maA not go to other tllree Corporations for ueificotion of the cet-tificate That does not mean tllat the first post in otl the Corporations shoul'd nott't lie uacant. "

30.Inthecaseonhandalso,notaSingleSelectionproCeSS, multiple posts notifled on the same date in different Notifications. After frlling up of the vacancies based on the merit list, nearly 18OO vacancies are lying vacant' In view of theaboveSaidcircumstances,inaccordancewiththe observation made by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Munja Praveen's case, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case also the authorities can prepare r:rerit dorvnwards list ibr nc,n-filling of vacancies. No materiai is placed on record to p,reyg that the respondent No.3 issued Notificatioir to carry forward the fallout vacancles Had they issued such a Notification, the case of the pr:trtioners would have beer: otherw,ise. As such, the contention of the respondent l,lc.3 with regard to the above G.O. does not hotd anothe r 3 1 . In vie rv of afore mentioned discussion and taking into consideratlon of the above Apex Court,s observations. this Court is of r he considered view that these Writ F,etitions can be disposed of b',' clirecting the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners by duiy operating the Merit List dorvnrvards a;.rc[ fiIl up all the fa]lout vacancies; pertaining to Notifications No. 1 to 5 and 9 of 2023, date<l 05.04.2023 without carrr,. fonvarding the same to the ne>:t Notiflcation. The said exercise shall be completed within a penod of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ()rder.

32. Accordingly, all the Writ petitions are disposed of. There shali oe no orcler as to costs. 25 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J Date:22.O9.2025 Note: LR coDv is to be marked. B/o BDR