The High Court · 2025

1. 9r Srikanth, s/o Satyanarayana Aged 40 years, Unemployee, R/o H.No. 3_6- 334, Subashnagar, Karimnagar District, Telangana

2. State of Telanganga, represented by its principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department. Secretariat Buildings. Hyderabad' ...RESPON DENT/PETITIONE R I N WP. NO.81 9,8I2O2O 3 State of T.elanganga, represented by its principal Secretary. Backward Classes Welfare Department. Secretariat Buiklings, Hyderbbad 4- Telangana social welfare Residential Educational, lnstitution Societv. DSS Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, represented by its Secretary

5. Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Telangana Backward classes, welfare Residential Educational lnstitution Societies-, Room No.206. 2nd Floor, OSS gfiatin Opp. Chacha Nehru Park, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, represented OV itsdecieia-rfi' ,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP.NO.81 98/2020 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 vacate the interim orders dated 1510612020 passed in W.p.No. 8198 of 2020 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SRINIVAS KUDUMULA Counset for the Respondent Nos.1,2&4: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE counsel forthe Respondent No:3: sRr D. BALAKTSHAN RAo sc FoR Tcpsc Counsel forthe Respondent NO.5: SRI N. BHUPAL REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER ) '1 ,HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 8198 0F 2020 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioner challenges the action of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) in not considering his case for appointment to the post of Librarian (Schools), against the unfilled/left over vacancies of incumbents in Writ Petition No.29737 of 2018' According to Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for

2. petitioner, as per Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State [lublic 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' Admitledly, in the instant case, TGPSC has not followed the said Rule, thereby many of the notilied posts are lying vacant, submits learned counsel. The Recruiting Agency - TGPSC issued various 3. Notifications for filling up of vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects, Secondary Grade Teachers in English and Telugu Media, Hostel Welfare Officers in Gradell in I 2 ttre hostels run for Scheduled Castes' Scheduled Tribes and Backrryard Classes, Language Pandits and School Librarians' The selection process in respect of all the above posts include written examination' certificate verifrcation 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 aU tbe NotificationswereindependentlyissuedbyTGPSCandselection process conducted separately' results of the written examination were declared proximately ciose to one another' As can be see n from the list of posts for which selection process took place, general educational quali{ications required for the posts notified are by and large common' but the hierarchy and the place of work would be one of the crucial factors for the candidates to take a call where they find their names in the list of selected candidates suitable for certificate verification. To elaborate this point a little further' it would be necessanT to state that a Trained Graduate Teacher is definitely superior to a Secondary Grade Teacher; similarly' a Librarian in a Junior College is superior to a Librarian in the School' Insofar as Hostel Welfare OIficers are concerned' the Hostels run for the \/ -) f Scheduled Tribe candidates in scheduled areas would normally be preferred by candidates belonging to the said group as their possibilities of transfers would 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 vacancies notified only. For any reason, selected candidates do r-rot join in the post offered to him or after joining the post, he leaves the employment, the said vacancies go to the next recruitment. However, the fact remains that many tirnes, candidates do not join the post to which they are selected or though thel'join the post, leave the employment immediately thereafter. T}ris can be for various reasons. To obviate this contingency and to avoid candidate in the select list not joining the post after his \ \ l J 4 selection, PSC is required to follow procedure prescribed by Rule 6(4), which reads as under: " 6 A: Notwithstanding anything contained in ad hoc Rule issued in G.O.Ms.No. 544, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 04.12.1994, any candidate whose name has been included in a selection list in a direct recruitment prepared by the Commission, on enquiry by the Commission, may relinquish his claim for appointment in writing in the proforma prescribed by the Commission. The Commission shall thereupon remove the name of such caldidates from the selectiox list arrd select any other caldidate according to rules. The candidate rvhose name has bien so removed from the selection list shall be informed of such removal by the Commission and shall have no right for the said appointment in future with reference to the said selection: Provided this provision is applicabte only when a single category oi posts is notifred in a notification and not applicable to a notification where multiple categories of posts are notified. Holr'ever, it shall be ensured that the list shall not be operated for any additional vacancies indented 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." As required by Ruie 6(A), only after the final 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 th\ setect list ald forward the same to the appointing authority. \ :I , 5 The relinquishment is voluntary, ald 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 single category of posts is notified in a notification and not appticable to a notification where multiple categories of posts are notilied. However, it shall be ensured that the list shall not be operated for an5z additional vacancies indented by the government. The selection iist for the purpose of selecting candidates in place of relinquished candidates / caadidates shall be operatecl only till the next notification is issued or for a period of year, u,hichever is e.rrlier

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: "g This court, having considered the rivar submissions made by the Learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that since the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Wp No. 7117 ot 2O2O ctareri tl.Oa.2O2O arld Wp No. 4495 of 20.19 dated 17'6 2019 and as confirmed vide judgments dated 03.07 2o19 in wA. No. 551 of 2Ol9 these wdt petitions can be disposed of directing the public service commission and the State Government to nff aU" tt. unfilled vacancies strictly by following Rule 6(.4) of the Telangana State l 6 Public Service Commission Rules' lt is made clear that tbe vacancles' which were relinquished by the selected candidates' alter giving appointment orders, those vacancies had to be tagged on to the next notification and the vacancies which are still lying vacant even after issuance of appointment orders' those vacancies have to be frlled up strictly by following Rule 6(A.) of Tetangana State- Public Service Commission Rules and the same should be offered to the next meritorious candidates in order of merit'" Aggrieved by the said common order' -TGPSC 5. preferred Writ Appeal No' 533 of 2021 and batch' By judgment dated' 26.10.2021, Writ Appeals were disposed of setting aside the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge' The Division Bench had remanded the matter to deal with each and every individualWritpetition,inordertogiveafindingoffactwhether Rule 6(A) of the Rules has been complied with or not' The Division Bench, taking into consideration Rule 6 which provides thatinCaSeaCandidatedoesnotjointpursuanttoissuanceof appointment order, the fallout vacancies' if any' due to relinquishment and non-joining of selected candidates shall be notiliedinthenextrecruitment,observedthatthdorderpassed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the said statutory provision. It is on remand, arguments have been advanced in resDect of individual cases' I \ 7

6. l.earned counsel places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 (Telangana State l*uel PolTce Recruitment Board a Nanmetls. Vanshl). Attention of this Court was drau,n to the following paragraph: " We have heard learned counsel for the parties in the conspectus of thc aforesaid submissions ald hnd no reason to interfere wittr+he concurrent hndings of the two Courts below. The rnanner of interpreting the rule in question has already been set o.ut i\ Munja Praveen case (Supra). If a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment, he has not done what was required to be done lt-y him as set out herein above, it cannot be construed as a vacancy arising which has to be carrit.rl forward to the next recruitment process. As to the consequences ol the large number of vacancies which have remained 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 filling up of the vacancies. Public employment is an important source of employability for young people in the country rvhere we are facing problems of adequacy of .lobs. An interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded by the alrpellants the very ethos of providing public emplo,.ment to would go a€lirinst 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." Learned counsel submits that from the above referred judgment and portion extracted supra, the defence projected by TGPSC is unsustainable and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble \ \ I i 8 Apex Court. He also relied on the ratio laid down in Writ Petition No.4495of2ol9,dated11.06.2019andthejudgmentinWrit Appeai No. 551 of 2019 dated o3'07'2O19 ln that view of the matter, learned counsel submits that Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. karned Senior Counsel Sri P'S' Rajasekhar 7. appearing on behalf of Sri M' Ramgopal Rao' learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC contends that respondents have strictly followed Rule 6(A) of the Rules and some of the vacancies' which were relinquished by the persons appointed in those vacancies' have to be tagged on to the next recruitment notihcation only and tfrose unfilled vacancies cannot be filled up by the next meritorious candidates in the order of merit' Therefore' he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petitions' In the light of the arguments advanced on both B. the sides, it is to be seen that it MunJa Pra oeen rt' State of Tela nganal , 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 r(2017) 14 scc 797 l 2 I 9 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 . Narirnetla Vam.shi's ccse, it has been held that 'if a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment, he has not done what was required to be done by him and it cannot'be construed as a vacancy arising which has to be t carried foru,ard to the next recruitment process. However, it is also obsewed that public employment is an important source of employability* 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 employment 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 placed on tl-re .ludgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Ashok alias Sorno,nna Goutdd a Sitate of Kantataka2. This judgement rvas paraded to buttress the contention that ' lrosz; r scc zs l I r 10 petitioners alone would have to be considered for the vacancies and the respondents cannot frustrate the fruits of the litigation to petitioners on the ground that there courd be / are candidates more meritorious than petitioners. ln the said judgment, it is held as under: " In view of the fact that the appointments under the impugned Rules were made as back as in 1gg7 and only the present appellarts had approached the Tribunal for relief, the case of other candidates cannot be considered as they never approached for redress within reasonable time. We are thus inclined to grant relief only to the present appellants who were yigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the State Government has already framed new rules, and as such we do not lind it necessary to quash the Rules under lr,hich the present selections were made as they 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 Peritions No. 20232 and 20223 of 2OlB, directed the Commission to strictly abide by the mandate of Rule 6(A,) and make an enquiry with the rest of the candidates who figured in the said selection list and in the event aly such candidates indicate their willingness to relinquish their selection as TGTs (Science), the Commission shall remove his / her name in the \ / -/ 1l selection list and include the name of the next candidate in terms of merit. Challenging the said order, Writ Appeals No' 7494 of 2018 and 1524 of 2O18 were filed by the Commission' The said Writ Appeals were disposed of colfirming the directions of lhe iearned Single Judge' Thereafter' the Commission published the revised final selection list dated

22.04.2W1. The grievance of petitioner is that he belongs to

10. BC-A community; pursuant to Notification No' 20 of 2017 dated 14.04.2017 isstied by the 3'd respondent, he participated in the selection process; appeared in the writte n examination and secured 213 marks wherein the 3'd respondent prescribed cut off marks as 214, but in the present case' the 1st merit candidate under BC-A category secured 213 marks which are equivalent to him under Zone Y is concerned, therefore' in view of the fact that petitioner secured 213 marks, falling within zone of consideration, he ought to have been appointed as Librarian under either the 4fr and 5e respondent is concerned' therefore' all selected candidates including petitioner were directed to appear for certificate verification to be conducted on 1 t I t2

30.05.2018. It is stated, admittedly, at the time of making selections to the post of Librarian in Degree /Junior Colleges' even though several candidates falling within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Librarian (Schools) their names also placed in the probable selection list of Librarian in Degree /Junior Colleges also including Librarians in Degree /Junior Colleges and assuming that candidates selected for appointment to higher post of Librarian in Degree colleges and relinquish their appointment to the post of Librarian (Schools), surprisingly, the 3'd respondent issued common final selection list of Librarian (Schools) on 14'08'2O18 for Zones V and VI , without preparing individual selection for Zone V and Vi and without implementing rule of reservation, and which was the subiect matter in Writ Petition No' 297 37 of 20 18, wherein this Court by order dated 23.O8.2018 directed respondents not to make further process for selection is concerned. The said Writ Petition was finally heard along with other Writ Petitions and by order dated 23-07.2019, directed not to apply the yardstick of disturbing a.lready selected candidates, including impleaded respondents in Writ Petition I I 'i No. 27937 of 2018 while directing the Commission to strictly follow Rule 6(A) of Rules and finalize selections accordingly, but, admittedly, the 3'd respondent sought for relinquishment only from 115 candidates excluding the impleaded respondents. It is stated, by the said date, the impleaded respondents were also selected to the post of Junior College Librarian and joined the post and as no relinquishment orders were sought from them in terms of the directions of this Court, these vacancies were unfilled and vacant in the eye of law. The order dated

23.O7.2O1O rvas reviewed by order dated 27.08.2O19 to the effect that if impleaded party respondents in Writ Petition No. 297 37 of 29018 have not joined the post of Librarian, the case of petitioners in Writ Petition No. 836 ol 2Ol9 be considered in resultant vacancies. It is also stated, as on the date of passing the aforesaid orders, respondents issued any selection notification of all provisionally-selected including the candidates who are appointed in higher post of Librarian in Degree /Junior Colleges, without deleting the names in the selection list of Librarian (Schools), pursuant to the notification and fil1ing up the post of eligible candidates as per their marks secured in the l4 written examination, like petitioner in this case who secured 213 marks who is also eligible and entitled for appointment as Librarian (Schools) against the unfilled vacancies in terms of Rule 6A. Petitioner is therefore, state{ to have filed representation date 11.03.2020 requesting the respondents to consider his case for appointment as Librarian (Schools) against the left over /unfilled vacancies in view of the fact that'as per the information sought under the RTI Act still there are 36 vacancies to be f1l1ed for the post of Librarian (Schools) nor steps are taken by respondents to iill up the left over / unirled vacancies, but till today, no further action is taken' thereby denying appointment to petitioner' On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent 1 1. Commission that in compliance with the common order of this Court dated 23.07.2O1g in Writ Petition No' 297 37 of 2019 and batch, the Commission sought relinquishmenl ltom 26 'O7 '2019 to 3O.07.2O 19 from the candidates who figured in provisional selection list which was published on 14'08'2O18; in response' 3O candidates relinquisheci their post and accordingly,29 r,exl meritorious candidates were selected in place of such I I5 candidates and final selection list was published on 27.O8.2O19 I and 1 PH vacancy was not filled up from the relinquished vacancies due to non-availability of eligible candidates. It is stated, the Commission filled up 246 vacancie.s out of notihed 256 under the Notification and the remaining 1O vacancies were kept unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates in the categories of VH(Women)L and VH(Women)UR and HH (General)(L) .

12. In the counter, it is also stated that merit is the prime most important element in selection process coupled with community, zone, institution, local status, gender, elcetera, as such, it is clear that petitioners could not get selection due to their low merit but not for any other reasons as allegecl by them. It is also stated that it is not appropriate to seek relinquishments repeatedly even after the selected candidates have joined their respective duties and it is not reliable to seek relinquishments again and again to consider the next meritorious candidates for selection in the non-joining vacancies as it leads to indefinite delays in concluding a recruitment and other problems in the selection procedure as selections are l \ I { \ \ I I I t I I t6 {i finalized taking into account of merit, eligibility, local/nonJocal status duly following the rule of reservation including women reservation.

13. Be that as it may. In view of the judgment in Ndrim.etla Vam.shl's case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 3.d respondent to consider the candidature of petitioners as per merit.

14. Further, in the judgment in Ashok a,lirrs Somaruta Gouda's ccse, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted relief only to the appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the judicial fora in time. Same principle is liable to be extended in the present case as well, in view of the fact that it is only petitioners, who knocked the doors of this Court for redressal of grievance on the principles which are in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Narimetla Vam,shT's crrse (supra). For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition deserves to be aliowed.

15. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The 3'd respondent is directed to consider the case of petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Librarian (Schools) as .\ \ I t1 per his merit in the selection process in the non-joining vacancies, if any. No costs.

16. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed SD/.P, PADIVIANABHA REDDY DEF,tJTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ----- ECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department. Hyderabad ecretariat Buildings

2. The Principal Secretary. Backward classes welfare Department. secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

3. The Secretary,Telangana Public Service Commission' Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally Station Road, HYderabad

4. The secretary,Telangana social welfare Re_sidential Educational, lnstitution Society, DSSBhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad,

5. Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Telangana Backward classes, welfareResidential - EOuCationai lnstitution Societies-, Room No.206. 2nd Floor, DSS Bhavan Opp' Cnictra Nehru Park, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, represented by its Secretary

6. One CC to SRl. SRINIVAS KUDUMULA Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI D. BALAKISHAN RAO SC FOR TGPSC [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI N BHUPAL REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE,H|gh Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] '10.Two CD Copies KKS KKS HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 1dE Sf4 o o t 0 2 l'lAy 2025 f Dp- ORDER WP.No.8198 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ttA q