The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A WRIT PETITIOII No. 9840 0F 2020 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioner challenges the action . of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGpSC) in undertaking appointments to the post of processing Supervisor under Notification No. 23 of 2018, dated O4.O8.2O 1g withour calling for relinquishments from the selected candidates as per mandatory Rule 6-,4 of the Telangana State public Service Commission Rules, thereby resulting in unfilled vacancies d.ue to unwillingness of such selected candidates, affecting petitioner's right to appointment downwards in the merit. 2. According to learned counsel for 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 the instant case, TGPSC has not followed the said Rule, thereby many of the notified posts are lying vacant, submits learned counsel. 2 -l

3. The Recruiting Agency - TGPSC issued various Notifications for hlling up o[ vacancies of Trainr:d Graduate Teachers in various subjects, Secondary-.Grade Teachers in English and Telugu Media, Hostel Welfare Officers rn Grade-ll in the hostels run for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, Language Pandits and School Lillrarians. The selection process in respect of all the above posts include written examination, certificate verification in the ratio of l:2 and eventual selection in the ratio of 1:1 for one to get selected to thc posts, referred to supra. Though utt tf," Notifications were independently issued by TGPSC and selection process conducted separately, results of the written examination were declared proximately close to one another. As can be seen from the list of posts for which selection process took place, general educational qualihcations 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 lor certiltcate verification. To elaborate this point a little further, it rvould be necessary to state that a Trained Graduate Teacher is <lefinitely 7" -) superior to a Secondary Grade Teacher; similarly, a Librarian in a Junior Cotlege is superior to a Librarian in the School- Insofar as Hostel Welfare 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 would be far and few and therefore, a person who is selected both for a BC Hostel and SC Hostel would definitcly not prefer to participate in the further process of selection in respect ol 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 notilied only. For any reason, selected candidates do not 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 times, candidates do not join the post to which they are selected or though they join the post, leave the employment immediately thereafter' This can be for various reasons. To obviate this contingency and to avoid 4 .l candidate in the select list not joining the p()st after his selection, PSC is required to follow procedure prescribed by Rule 6(A), 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 04.12.1998, any candidate whose nante 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 rvriting in the proforma prescribed by the Commission. The Commission shall thereupon remove the name of such candidates from thc selection list and select any other candidate according to rules. The candidate u'hose name has been so removed from the selection list shall br: informed of such removal by the Commission and shall have no right for the said appointment irl luture q,ith reference to the said selection: Provided this provision is applicable only '"r'hen a single category of posts is notilled in a notification and not applic:rble to a notihcation where multipb categories of posts are notified However, it shall be ensured that the list shall not be operated for an-r' additional vacancies indented by the Government Departments. The sele,:tion 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 Rule 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 hnal 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 7', ) ,.1 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 when a single _only 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 shall 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 shall be operated only till the next notihcation 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: "9 This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the L€arned 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' 7ll7 of 2O2O dated 11.08.2020 and wP No. 4495 of 2Ol9 dated 11.6.2019 and as conhrmed vide judgments dated 03.07 2O19 in WA' No. 551 of 2019 these writ petitions can be disposed o[ directing the public service commission and the State Government to fill all the unhtled vacancies strictly by following Rule 6(4) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules. It is made clear that the vacancies, which were retinquished by, the selected candidates, after giving 6 ') appointment orders, those vacancies had to be tagg<:d on to the next notification and the vacancies which are still tying vacarlt even after issuance of appointment orders, those vacancies have to bc fillcd up strictty by following Rule 6(A) of Telangana. .State Prrtrlic Sr:rvice Commission Rules and the same should be offered to the next meritorious candidates in order of merit-"

5. Aggrieved by the said common order, TGPSC preferred Writ Appeal No. 533 of 2O2l and batch. By -judgment dated 26.1O.2021, Writ Appeals were disposed of setting aside the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge. '[he Division Bench had remanded the matter to deal with each and every individual Writ petition, in order to give a finding of lzrcl u,hether 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 appointment order, the fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining of selected candidates shall be notified 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 zrdvanced in respect of individual cases 6 Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 7 7 4735 ot 2022 dated 23.11.2022 (Telangana State Leuet potice Recntitment Board. a Nanmetla Vamshi). Attention of this Court was drawn to the following paragraph: " We have heard learned counsel for the parties in the conspectus of the aforesaid submissions and llnd no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the tq,o Courts below. The manner of interpreting the rule in question has already been set oll in MunJa Praveen case (Supral If a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment, he has not done what rvas required to be done by him as set out herein above, it cannot be construed as a vacancy arising tvhich has to be carried forward to the next recruitment process. As to the consequences of the large number of vacancies nhich have remained on these different accounts, the details of which have been set out herein above, again lend support to thrs conclusron that a large part of the process is not lrustrated by not lilling up of the vacancies. public employment is an important source of emplovabilit], for young people in the country where we are facing problems of adequacy of jobs. An interpretation of the kind sought to bc propounded by the appellants 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.' 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 Apex Court. In that view of the matter, the Writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8 F\

7. Lcarned Standing Counsel Sri P.S.Rajasekhar representing Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Stan<ling Counsel for TGPSC contends that respondents have- strictly follou'ed Rule 6(A) of the Rules and some of the vacancies, which u'ere relinquished by the persons appointed in those var:ancies, havc to be tagged on to the next recruitment notificat ion only and those unfilled 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 tt. sides, it is to be seen that in Munja Pra ueen o. State of Telanganal, 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 Lhe GOM would be that after the appointment order is issued and thc appointed person does not join, then the vacancy cannot be f-rlled in on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downward. Based on the said judgment, rn Narimetla Vamshi's case, it has been held that 'if a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment, he has not done what ' 1:otzy r,r scc ;92 7 9 '"vas required to be done by him and it cannot be construed as a vacancy arising which has to be carried forward to the next recruitment process. Public employment is. an important source of employability for young people in the country where we are facing problems of adequacy of jobs. An interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded by the appeilants would go against the very ethos of providing public employment to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manncr leaving a large number of vacancies unfilled. This would not be an appropriate interpretation. Reliance *a" ,lso plr..d on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok dlias Somanna Gouda u Sta'te of Karnatakaz. This judgement was paraded to buttress the contention that 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 could be / are candidates more meritorious than petitioneis. In 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 1987 and only the present appellants 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 reliel only to the ' 1teoz; t scc 28 l0 \ present appellants who were vigilant in making gr ieva nce and approaching the Tribunal in time. l,earned counsel for the State also submitted that the State Government has already framed nerv rules, and as such u,e do not lind it necessary to quash the_Rules utrrler which the present selections rvcre made as they are no longer in exisl( nce".

9. At this juncture, it is also to be seen that this Court in similar circumstances, dealing with the same notification, in Writ Petitions No. 20232 ar,d 2027 3 of 2018. directed the Commission to strictly abide by the mandate of Rule 6(A) and make an enquiry with the rest of the candidates u'ho figured in the said selection list and in the event any such cirndidates indicate their rvillingness to relinquish their selection as TGTs (Science), the Commission shall remove his / her name in lhe selection list and include the name of the next candidate in terms of merit. Chalienging the said order, Writ Appeals No. 1494 of 2018 and 7524 of 2018 were ltled by the Commission. The said writ Appeals were disposed of conhrming the directions qf the learned Single Judge. Th<:reafter, the Commission published the revised hnal selection list dated

03.O7 .2O2O and 22.O4.2O2O.

10. The grievance of petitioner in this case is that pursuant to the subject notification, she applied to the post of 7 1l OC(W) of Processing Supe rvisor notihed under Zone-VI and secured 150 marks and ranked 33'd in the State in General and 8th among Women, under Open Women Category, 3'd rank She was provisionally selected for certificate verification and attended the same on 03.06.20 19; selection notification u'as pubiished on 21.08.2O19 and all the selected candidates were asked to exercise option for relinquishment if they wish to over the website through their web note dated 23'08'2019 and

29.Oa.2olg. Women candidate who was selected against OC(W) in Zone VI relinquished her post as shc was selected for a higher post under Notification No'22 of 2018 in the same department' It is stated, the Commission published another provisional selection notification on 05. 10.20 19 by removing the relinquished candidates and including the next meritorious candidates without verifying whether they are interested in taking up the job for various reasons' On noticing that the 2"d rank holder in the zone under OC(W) was also selected against higher post under Notihcation No. 22 of 2018, and is shown against both the posts, petitioner is stated to have submitted representation to again ask for relinquishment from the next selected candidates and on relinquishment, consider her case 12 for the said post on 07 .lO.2Ol9 and 01.1 l.2Ol9. Subsequently, she lrled Writ Petition No.24522 of 2019 wherein this Court on 2O.1'l .2019, drrected the respondent Cor4mission to consider her represcntations and pass appropriate orders in at;cordance with law. She therefore, made further representations lo the 2nd respondent on 02.12.2019. The Commission uidr: proceedings dated 13.O3.2020 statcd that further relinquishment is not possible under Rule 6-A repeatedly and rejected her case for consideration against the unhlled vacancies. 1 1. On thc other hernd, the case of the 2r'|cr respondent Commission is Lhzrt the Commission sought relinquishments from 3O.O8.2019 to 03.O9.2019 from the candidates who figured in the provisional selection list which was pubiished on

21.O8.2019; lhree candidates have relinquished their post and accordingly, th ree next meritorious candidates were selected in place of relinquished candidates and the hnal selection list was published on OS.1O.2O 19. It is also stated that Commission filled up 11 vacancies out of 12 notified vacancies and 1 vacancy was kept unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates in categories concerned. lt is also stated, Commjssion sought relinquishments from 30.08.2O 19 to t3

03.09.2019 for Notihcation No. 22 of 2018 for the posts of Assistant Dairy Manager and Assistant Quality Controller as per mandatory Rule 6-A from the candidates u,ho figured in Provisional Selection List, however, no candidate responded to' opt relinquishment. In view of the above facts, it is stated, the Commission followed Rule 6-A in letter and spirit and there is no vacancy available to be filled up in petitioner's District /community and Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. Bc that as it may. In view of the judgment in Narimetla Vamshi's ccrse, this Court is of the opinion that pcti[ioner being the next meritorious candidate is entitled to be recruited.

13. Further, in the judgment in Ashok alias Som.anna 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 petitioner, 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 Narhnetla I I t4 Vam.shi's case (supra). For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition deserves to bc allowed 14 The Writ Petition is accordingly, allorved. The 2"d respondent is directed to select and appoint petitioner as per her merit against the unfilled / unclaimed vacancies by removing the names of the candidates who could have relinquished to the post of Processing Supervrsor under Notification No. 23 of 2018, dated 04.O8.2018. No costs.

15. Consequently, miscellaneous Applicatlons, if any shall stand closed SD/.N. SRIHARI DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII lt, sEcTlof.r t_ OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Animar Husbandry Dairy Deveropment and Fisheries p.enqrtment, state of rerangana secretaii6t euirttinq. secretariat. HvaeraurJ The Secretary, Tetangana State pubtic Servtce Co;;is;io;, piiinioir'"""- Enavan Nampaily, Hyderabad_5001 03 The Managing Director, Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Viiaya Bhivqn, Latapet; fimifi, -HvOeriulO-_SObCiii One CC to Sri S Rahut Reddy nOvirciiejO-pUdi -"-' Two ccs to GP For Fisherie6, fiigh couri rorlnt State of rerangana. [oUT] One CC to Sri D. Bala Kishan Ra6, Advocate ioptici One CC to Sri Palle Sri Harinath, Advocate IOCUCI-' Two CD Copies To,

4. 5. 6. 7. B. MBC GJPv HIGH COURT DATED: 2110312025 Le1 o t-, ,,q. l) & o v *s -S s I l" ,!: ,/ .;,, ORDER WP.No.9840 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \l LT