The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2od Respondent to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade -ll under nolification No.B/2018 dated 30.01.2018 in the order of their merit against the unfiiled vacacncies after scrupulgusly following the Rule 64 of the TSPSC Rules of Procedure Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NITIN REDDY Counsel for the Rgspondent No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for lhe Respondent No.2: SRI M. RAM GOPAL RAO, SC FOR TSPSC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 5456 0F 2020 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioners challenge the action of the Telangana State Fublic Service Commission (TGPSC) in not following Rule 6 A of the Rules of Procedure dated 23.12.2015 while selecting eligibte candidacies to the posts of Hostel Welfare Of{iccrs Grade-ll under notif-rcation No 8 of 2018 dated30.0l.2olsandundertakingselectionandappointmcnt to the said post without removing double selected candidates who are also in the selection list under notification No' 7 of 2O18 dated 3O.01-2O18 thereby resulting in several unfilled vacancies, affecting petitioners' right to be considered for appointment lower down in the mcrit in their turn as arbitrary' illegai and without jurisdiction' According to Sri T Nitin Reddy' Iearned counsel for

2. petitioner, as per Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules, if any selected candidate does not take up the offer of appointment, then the same has to be offered to the next meritorious candidate in the order of merit' Admittedly' in i 2 the instant case, TGPSC has not followed the said Rule, thereby many of the notihed posts are lying vacant, submits learned counsel.

3. The Recruiting Agency - TGPSC issued various Notihcations for filling up of vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects, Secondary Gradc Teachers in English and Telugu Media, Hostel Welfare Officers in (iradc-ll in the hostels run for Scheduled Castes, Schedulcd Tribes and Backu,ard Classes, Language Pandits and School Librarians. The selection process in respect ol :rll the above posts include u.ritten examination, certificate verification in the ratio of 1:2 and eventual selection in the ratio of 1:1 for one to get selected to the posts, referred to supra. Though all the Notifications were independently issued by TGPSC and selection process conducted separately, results of the rvritten examination were declared proximately close to one another. As can be seen from thc list of posts lbr which selection process took place, general educational qualihcations required for the posts notifred are by and large common, but the hierarchy and the place of work would be one of the crucial ,l ,...(r 3 factorsforthecandidatestotakeacallwheretheylrndtheir namesinthelistofselectedcandidatessuitableforcertificate verihcation. To elaborate this point a little further, it would be necessar]/ to state that a Trained Graduate Teacher is dehnitely superior to a Secondary Grade Teacher; similarly, a Librarian in a Junior College is superior to a Librarian in the School' Insofar as Hostel Weifare Officers are concerned, the Hostels run for the Scheduled Tribe candidates in scheduled areas would normally be preferred by candidates beionging to the said group as their possibilities of transfers r,'ould be far and few and therefore' a person who is selected both for a BC Hostel and SC Hostel would definitely not prefer to participate in the further process of selection in respect of posts to which they would be given a second preference. The recruitment procedure is regulated by the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules The system of maintenance of wait list is dispensed with and PSC is required to prepare the merit list to the extent of vacancics notilied only. For any reascn, selected candidates do notjoin in the post offered to him or after joining the post' he leaves the -l 4 employment, the said vacancies go to the next recruilment. However, the fact remains that many times, candidates do not join the post to which they are selected or though thr:y join the post, leave the employment immediately thereaftcr. This can be for various reasons. To obviate this contingency and to avoid candidate in the select list not joining the post after his selection, PSC is required to follow procedure prescribr:d by Rule 6(A), which reads as under: " 6-4: Notwithstanding anything contained irr a<i hoc Rule issued in G.O.Ms.No. 544, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, datr:d 04.12.199a, any candidatc $,hose name has been included in a sel'ction list in a direct recruitment prepared by the Commission, on cnquirl br the Commission, may relinquish his claim for appointment in u.riting in the proforma prcscribed bl the Commission. The Conrmission shall thereupon remove the name of such candidates from the seloction list and select an1' other candidate according to rules. The candiditte u l.rose name has becn so removed from the selection list shall be informcd of such removal by the Commission and shall have no riglrt for the said appointment in future r"ith reference to the said selection. Provided this provision is applicable onlv rvhen a single category of posts is notilted in a notification and not applicable to a notiircation rvhere multiple categories of posts are notified. Ho\a,evcr, it shall be ensured that the list shall not be operated for any zrdditional vacancies inclented by the Government Departments. The selection list for the purpose of selecting candidates in place or relinquished candidate/candidates shall be operated only till the next notification is issued or for a period of one year, whichever is earlier." a l As required by Rule 6(A), only after the hnal merit list is drawn, willingness of candidates should be enquired to by the PSC and if the candidates expressed their unwillingness' their names should be excluded from the final merit list and to that extent, add the name of next meritorious candidate, draw the select list and forward the same to the appointing authority' The relinquishment is voluntary, and no body can force a candidate to relinquish even if he is selected to more than one post. Proviso to Rule 6(A) is applicable only when a singlc category of posts is notified in a notification and not applicable to a notification where multiple categories of posts are notified' However, it shall be ensured that the list shali not be operated for any additional vacancies indented by the government The selection list for the purpose of selecting candidates in place of relinquished candidates / candidates shal1 be operated only till the next notification is issued or for a period of year, whichever is earlier.

4. Earlier, the Learned Single Judge who heard this batch of cases, disposed the same. by a common order dated

24.06.2021, which reads as under: i)\ 6 "9 This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the Learned counsel for the respectivc palties, rs of the considered vie$' that since the issue raised in these n'rit petitions is squarely covered by thc judgments rendered by this Court jn WP No. 7117 of 2O20 dated 11.08.2020 and WP No. 4495 of 2019 dated 1 1 .6.2019 and as conhrmed vide judgments dated 03.07 2O 19 in WA. No. 551 of 2019 these writ petitions can be disposed of directing the public seruicc commission and thc State Government to fili aU the unhlled vacancies strictly by following Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Ru1es. It is made clear that the vacancies, which were relinquished by the selected candidates, after giving appointment orders, those vacancies had to be tagged on to the next notification and the vacarcies which are still lying va('ant cven after issuancc of appointment orders, lhose vacancies havc to bc filled up strictlv by following Rule 6(A) of Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules and the same should be offcre(i to the ncxt mcritonous r:andidates in order of merit."

5. Aggrieved by the said common order, TGPSC preferred Writ Appeal No. 533 of 2027 and batch. By judgment datcd 26. lO.2O2l, Writ Appeals were disposed ol setting asidc the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge. The Division Bench had remanded the matter to deal with e:rch and every individual Writ petition, in order to give a hnding of fact whether Rule 6(A) of the Rules has been complied with or not. The Division Bench, taking into consideration Rule 6 u.hich provides that in case a candidate does not joint pursuant to issuance of 7 appointment order, the fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining of selected candidates shall be notifled in the next recruitment, observed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the said statutory provision. It is on remand, arguments have been advanced in respect of individual cases. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment

6. rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 (Telangana State l*uel Police Recruitment Board u Nantmetla Vam.shi). Attention of this Court was drawn to the following paragraph: " We have heard leamed counsel for the parties in the conspcctus of the aloresaid submissions and find no reason to interfere ivith the concurrent hndings of the two Courts below. The manner o[ interpreting the rule in question has already becn set o,.rl in Munja Proueen case (Supra). lf a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment, he has not done what was required to be done by him as set out herein above, it cannot be construed as a vacancy arising rT'hich has to be carried forward to the next recruitment process. As to the consequences of the large number of vacancies which have rematned on these different accounts, the details of which have been set out herein above, again lend support to this conclusion that a large part of the process is not frustrated by not hlling up of the vacancies Public employment is an imPortant source of employability for young people in the country where rve are facing problems of adequacy of jobs An interpretation of the kind'sought to be propounded by the appellants I 8 would go against the very ethos of providing public employment to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rllle in a manner leaving a large number of vacancies unfilled- This would not be an appropriate interpretatlon. " t.\ Learned counscl submits that from the above,refurred judgment and portion cxtracted supra, the defence projected by TGPSC is unsustainable and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition descrves to be allowed.

7. I-earned Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajasekhar appearing on behalf of Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC contcnds that respondents have strictly followed Rulc 6(A) of the Rules and some of the vacancies, which '.r,ere relinquished by the persons appointed in those vacancies, have to be tagged on to the ncxt recruitment notihcation only and those unhlled vacancies cannot be filled up by the next meritorious candidates in the order of merit. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

8. In the light of the arguments advanced on both the sides, it is to be seen that in Munja Pra ueen o. State of 9 ( Telangornal , while interpreting the concept of 'fall out vacancies', if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining' it has been opined that the appropriate interpretation of the GOM would be that after the appointment order.is issued and the appointed person does not join' then the vacancy cannot be filled in on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downward Based on the said judgment' in Narimetla Voltnshi's case, it has been held that 'if a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment' he hasnotdonewhatwasrequiredtobedonebyhimandit CannotbeconstruedaSavacancyarisingwhichhastobe carriedforwardtothenextrecruitmentprocess.However,itis also observed that public employment is an important source of cmployability for young people in the country and an interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded would go against the very ethos of providing public employmcnt to persons eligible and meritorious' by construction of a rule in a manner leaving a large number of vacancies unfilled This would not be an appropriate interpretation' Reliance was also '(201?) l4 scc 797 I 10 t) placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok oliots Somanna Gouda o State of Karndtakc2. This judgement u,as paraded to buttress the contention that petitioners alone would have to be considered for the vacancics and the respondcnts cannot frustrate the fruits of the litigation to petitioners on the ground that there could be / are candidates more meritorious than petitioners' In the said judgment, it is held as under: ' In vieu, of the fact that the appointments under the impugned Rules wcre made as back as in 1987 and oull the present appellants had approachcd the Tribunal for relief, the case o[ other candidates cannot be considered as they never approachetl for redress within rcasonable time. Wc are thus inclined to grant relief only to the present appellants u,ho vrcre vigilant in making grievzrlce and approaching the Tnbunal in time. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the State Govcrnment has already framed new rules, and as such we do not find iL necessary to quash the Rules under which the present selections rvere made as thel are no longer in existence".

9. At this juncture, it is also to be seen that this Court in similar circumstances, dealing with similar notification, in Writ Petitions No. 20232 ar,d 2027 3 of 20 18, directed the Commission to strictly abide by the mandate of Rule 6(A) and make an enquiry with the rest of the candidates who hgured in ' 1r9szy t scc zs the said selection list and in the event any such candidates indicate their willingness to relinquish their selection as TGTs (Science), the Commission shall remove his / her name in the selection list and include the name of the next candidate in terms of merit. Challenging the said order, Writ Appeals No. 1494 of 2018 and 1524 ol 2018 were filed by the Commission. The said Writ Appeals were disposed of conhrming the directions ol the Iearned Single Judge. Thereafter, thc Commission published thc revised fina1 selection list dated

22.O4.2021 .

10. The grievance of petitioners is that pursuant to Notification No. 8 of 2018, dated 30.01.2018, they applied for the post of Hostel Welfare Ofhcers Grade-II; appeared for written I examination and their names were included in the listed candidates for certificate verihcation in 1:3 ratio and certihcate verification was also done. A web note was released on

30.1 1.20 19 directing provisionally-selected candidates to offer relinquishment if they desire so on the link provided on the TSPSC website on or before 03.12.2019. It is stated, no enquiry was made, in writing, from the selected candidates as per Rule Ir t? 6-A. it is also stated, some candidates have offered relinquishment on line and several did not; against the few candidates who have offcred relinquishment, candidates who were next meritorious were added but further-enquiry in writing from the candidates added se eking relinquishmenl was not done. As a result, the impugned selection list contains candidates who are also on the selection list under Notihcation No. 7 of 2018 thereby depriving them of therr right to be considered for the post as per merit and eligibility . 1 1. Whereas the case of the 2"a respondent Commission is that Commission sought relinquishment for NotillcaLion No. 7 of 2018 on 3O.1 1.2O19 to 03.12.2019 and for Notihcation No. 8 of 2018 on the same dates; 28 candidates relinquished in HWO Grade II uide noLiltcation No. 8 of 2O 18 and 38 candidatcs uide Notification No. 7 of 2018 and in the place of the said candidates, the next meritorious candidate were selected and the revised provisional selection list was published on

30.12.2019 for both the Notifications. It is furthr:r stated that the Commission filled up 216 vacancies out of notihed 219 under Notihcation No. 8 of 2018 and remaining three were kept l3 unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates in categories concerned. The commission filled up 73 vacancies out of notihed 87 under Notification No. 7 of 2018 and four were kept unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates in PH category and 1O vacancies were reserved in Nalgonda District in compliance with the orders of this Court dated O5' 1 1 2019 in Writ Petition No. 5O47 of 2O18. As petitioners do not belong to either Nalgonda or PH category, there are no vacancies available in petitioner's catcgory. Hence, it is stated, the Commission followed Rule 6-A in lctter and spirit hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may. In view of the judgment in 12. Norritnetla Vam.shi's case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 2'd respondent to consider the candidature of l ) petitioners as Per her merit i3. Further, in the judgment in Ashok alias Somanna Gotodd's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted relief only to the appeliants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the judicial fora in time. Same principle is liable to be pxtended in the present case as well, in view of the fact that I -7 1 i I I i I i i I I t4 it is only petitioner, who knocked the doors of this Court for \: redressal of grievance on the principles which are in consonance with the juclgment rendered by the Apex Court in Narimetlq. Vam-shi's case (supra). For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

14. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The 2"d respondent is directed to select / appoint petitioners as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade II pursuant to notification No. g of 201g, dated 3O.O 1.2018 as per their merit against the rinfilted / unclaimed vacancies, if any. No costs.

15. Consequently, misccllaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. I t To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY .DEPUTY REGISTRAR _ \\_ . \\ SEcTIoN OFFICER \ \J '1 . The Principal Secretary Backward Classes Welfare Department Secretariat, 2. The S6cretary, Telangana State Public Service Commission, Prathibha T.S.,Hyderabad Bhavan Nampally, Hyderabad-500103

3. One CC to SRI NITIN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE ,High Court for the State of 5. one ic to sRt.- M. RAGIviGoPhL RAo, sc FoR rsPSC [oPUc] 6 Two CD Copies Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] BM BS \\.r---- I \. HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 ORDER WP.No.5456 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,-:- _:: :-: ==::-. 4 ra: \ 3 0 APR ?025 . (^ \-(,-ql t i-,O '-'-. r.i I ( -t---=- + o ,-'