High Court · 2025

19. K. Naveen Kumar, S/o K. Venkataiah, Occ. Unemptoved, Aoed 29 v ll !9, 2-11,_Ylll-ag_e. Juntupatty, Mandat. yatat. Dist. nahga RdOOy -'sO H.T No.. 1753106524 20. J Srikanth Reddy, S/o J. Govind Reddv Occ. Unemploved. Aoed 28 years H.No. 3,9. Villaqe. Yelmakanya. Mandat. Thandur, Oi!t. qaiga Reddy - 50 1141 HTNo 1753115756 Qe($, 1144

21.K. Santosh Kumar, S/o K. Yadaqiri Occ. Unemploved, Aoed 24 vears H.No 1-S-,r/illage Govindapur, Manda[ Dautatabad. oistl frtreait<-- sdZz'a7tif Nd... 17531M258.

22. Kondigarisatish. S/o KondiqariRamulu Occ H.No 4-15, Village Kanayipaily. Mandat 509381 HTNo 1753103284

23.M. Venkat Prasa{, S/o M. Venkataiah Occ H.No. 7-66, Village. Doulatabad. Mandal. 509330 H.T No . 1753103107 _Unemploye_d. Aged f4 Years Kothakota, Dist IrIghbqgnagsl. _U4employed Aged 2[ Years Doulatabad, Dist. Vikarabad- 24 Q. Shekhar, g/o G Hanumanna Age. 29.years, Occ. Unemoloved Rlo 2-ZB Venkatairur, Mahabubnagar District-H. T. N6. 17 531 03324 .,.PETITIONER$ ANP 1 2 J Plqlg g{ Telqngana.,. Rep. through Frincipat Secretary Schoot Education ((ieneral Department) Secretariat, Hyderabad' Telangana State Public Service_ Bhavan Nampally, Hyderabad-500103 ^C^ommission, Rep. by its Secretary, prathihha Commissioner Commissioner Saifabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - and Directorate of School Education Rep. By its ...RESPONDENTS

9.' Petition under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High .Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in ,publishing the impugned selection notifications dated 1111012019 (TelUgu Medium) and 02t11t2019 (English Medium) of the provisionally selected ,bgndidates for appointment to the post oi Segondary Grade Teapher uoder the 1'st Respondent, notified vidg Notification No 53/2017 laled ?11'lOl2O17. a4fl un{grtqking appointments, contrary to the propedure prescrihed under Bule-QA of the BQleg of Procedure End directions of the Hqnorable High Couit in W.A.N;.419 ol 1O1g and batch d?ted 30/08/2019, leaving several uqfilled vaeanciqs and thereby affecting Petitioners right to be considered for appointment as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14, 16,21 of the Constitutipn of !4dia alQ con$equently direct the Respondents to select and appoint the PeliliPne[9 as pqr their merit a1{ eligibility by removing all the candidates who have nQt reqpon{qd to the web nOtification treating them as deemed to have relioquished their candidature lo the post of Secondary Grade Teacher under the ,19t ResPondent notified vide Notificqtion No.53/2017 dated 21t10t2017, with ali consgquential bppefits. IA O:tOF 20 Petitiqn under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumqtances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may hP pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the Petitioners foJ appgintqent to fhe ppq! qf $econdary Gradq Teacher (Telugu Medium) qr (English Medlqm) under the Notification No.53/2017 dated 2111012017 as per their turn in the merit ligt agalnst the unfilled vacanoies left out due to absentee cendidates' Counselfor the Petitioner: S_RlGODA itllYl 9E-I19R 9oUNSEL, REP. FoR Ms. GODA RAMALAKSHMI ' Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 3: GP FoR ScHooL EDUCATIoN Counsel for lhe Respondent No.2: llJ L S^ ll1lS:KHAR, REP. FOR SRI M.RAMGOPAL RAO,,SC FPR TGPSO The Court made the following: ORDER 61 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 1434 OF 2O2O ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioners challenge the action of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) in publishing the selection notihcation dated 11.7O.2O19 (Telugu Medium) and 02. ll.2Ol9 (English Medium) of the provisionally selected candidates for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher under the 1 respondent Notihcation No. 53 of 2017, dated 2l.lO.2Ol7 and undertaking appointments contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 6-A of the Rules of Procedure and directions of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 419 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 30.08.2O19 leaving scveral unhlled vacancies, thereby affecting petitioners right to be considered for appointment. 2 According to Sri Goda Shiva, Iearnecl Senior Counsel representing Ms. Goda Ramalakshmi, Icarned counsel .,-,f9r :p_etiligners, as per Rule 6(,{) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules, if any selected candidate does not I 2 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 notilied posts are lying vacant, submits learned Senior Counsel.

3. The Recruiting Agency TGPSC issued various Notifications for hlling up of vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects, Secondary Grade Teachers in English and Telugu Media, Hostel Welfare Officers in Grade-ll in the hostels run for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, Language Pandits and School I-ribrarians. The selection process In respect of all the above posts include written examination, certihcate 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 Notifrcations 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 6) J 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 certihcate verification. To claborate this point a little further, it would be necessary to sLate that a Trained Graduate Teacher is dehnitely superior to a Secondary Grade Teacher; similarly, a Librarian in a Junior Collegc is superior to a Librarian in the School. Insofar as Hostel Welfare Ofhcers are concerned, the Hostels run for the Scheduled Tribe candidates in scheduled areas rr"oulcl normally be preferred by candidates belonging to the said group as their possrbilities 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 preler to participate in the lurther 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 ':;sf;:'164lqfg4611ce . of wait list is dispensed with ,and PSC rs required to prepare the merit list to the extent of vacancies 4 r-.. notifled 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 candidate in the select list not joining the post after his selection, PSC is required to follow procedure prescribed by Rule 6(A), which reads as under: ,6-A: Notwithstanding anghing cottained . in ..ad hoc. Rule issued in G.O.Ms.No. 544, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 04.12.1998. any candidate whose name has becn included in a sclection tist 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 the selection list and select any other candidate according to rules. The candidate whose name has been so removed lrom 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 applicable only when a single category of posts is notified in a notification and not applicable to a notification where multiple categories of posts are notihed. However, it shall be ensured that the list shalt not be operated for any additional vacancies indented by the Government Departments. The selection list \ \ 5 for the purpose of selecting candidates in place or relinquished candidate/ candid ates 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 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 hnal merit list and to that extent, add the name of next meritorious candidate, drau, the select list and forward the same to the appointing authority. The rclinquishment 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 single category of posts is notified in a notilication and not applicable to a notification u.,here 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 seiection list for the purpose of selecting candidates in place of relinquished candidates / candidates shall be operated onty till the next notification is issued or for a period of year, whichever is earlier. 6

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

24.06.202I, which reads as under: " g This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the Learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that since the issue raised irl these writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in WP No 7117 oI 2020 dated. 11.08.2020 and wP No. 4495 0f 2019 dated 11 6.2019 and as confirmed vide judgments dated O3-O7 2019 in WA.No. 551 of 2019 these writ petitions can be disposed of directing the public service commission and the State Government to fitl all the unfillecl vacancies strictly by following Rule 6(4) ol the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules. It is made clear that the vacancies, which were relinquished by the Selected candidates, after giving appointment orders, tagged on to the next notificatiori aIId the those vacancies had to b€ vacancies which are still lJring vacant even after issuance of appointment orders, those vacancies have to be frlled up strictly by following Rule 6(A) of Telangana 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 2027 and batch. By judgment dated. 26.10.2O21, Writ Appeals were disposed of setting aside the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge. The Division' Bei=ch fiad remanded the matter to deal with each and every indvidual Writ petition, in order to give a finding of fact whether \ -,/ 1 Rule 6(,4) of the Ruies has been complied with or not. The Division Bench, taking into consideration Rule 6 w.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 advanced in respect of individual cases.

6. Learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgpent . rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2022 dated 23.17.2022 (Telangdna Stdte I*uel Police Recnitnent Board. u Narr'metla Vam.shi). 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 lind no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The manner of interpreting the rule in question has already been set out in Munja Praveen case (Supra). Ifa caldidate 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 which has to be carried forward to the next recruitment process. As to the consequences of the large number of vacancies which have remained on \ \ I 8 t 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 where we are facing problems of adequacy of jobs. An interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded by the appellants would go against the very ethos of providing public emptoyment to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner Ieaving a large number of vacancies unfilled. This would not be an appropriate interpretation." learned Senior 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'trle Apex Court. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajasekhar appearing on behalf of Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC contends that respondents have strictly followed Rule 6(A) of thp 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 notification only g1rd,..tbgs,r,,+llfiIled, vacanciqs cannot be hlled up by the next ..:,"rr&t,;r/;.:." ***iat.', 9 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 Praveen a. State oJ Telanganat, 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 pcrson does not join, then the vacancy cernnot be filled in on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downward. Based on the said judgment, in Narimetla Vam.shi's ccse, it has been held that if a candiclate 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 carried forward to the next recruitment process. However, it is also observed 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 ' tz\ r,r scc zez I l0 public employment to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner leaving a large number of vacalcies unfilled. This would not be an appropriate interpretation. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok @lias Som,c,nn.rr Gouda u State of Karnatakq2. 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 petitioners. In the said judgment, it is held as under: .. ,: i " ln view of the [act that the appointments under the impugned Rules were made as back as in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached the Tribunat for relief, the case of other candidates cannot be considered as they never approached for redress within reasonable time. We are thus inclined to grart relief only to the present appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time. karned counsel for the State also submitted that the State Government has already framed new rules, and as such we do not hnd it necessary to quash the Rules under which the present selections were made as they are no longer in existence". ' lrsszy r scc zs l1 g. At this juncture, it is also to be seen that this Court in similar circumstances, dealing with the similar notifrcation, in Writ Petitions No. 20232 and 20273 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 who figured in 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 of 2O18 were hled by the Commission. The said Writ Appeals were disposed of conhrming the directions of the learned Single Judge.

10. The case of petitioners is that all of them secured marks marginally less than the cut-off marks in their respective categories and districts and they were called for certificate verification in the ratio of 1:3 and accordingly, they all have attended verification. But the 2nd respondent, without following rule of relinqrtishmenf published the 'impugned selection notihcation of SGT. When petitioners and others filed Writ \ \/ I I t2 t Petition No. 8679 of 2079 and Writ Appeal No.419 of 2019 and batch, this Court allowed the Writ Appeai and other Writ Petitions setting aside the provisional selection lists dated

31.1,2.2018 and 04.O4.2()19 for the posts of SGT in both media. The Commission was directed to first seek relinquishment option from all the candidates who are provisionally selected for the post of SGT (Telugu Medium) and (English Medium). In case the commission receives relinquishment option from the provisionally-selected candidates, it is directed to fili up those vacant posts while considering the cases of petitioners. However, it was clarified that petitioners would be entitled to be appointed, provided they fulfil the eligibility and suitability requirement for the said posts. According to petitioners, as against SGT (English Medium) in Ranga Reddy District, petitioner No.1 the next meritorious candidate and belonging to OC (General) S ten persons above her and included in the list were absent Regarding SGT (EM) BC-D(W), peLitioner No.3 was second meritorious candidate and three posts remained due - to absenteeism of more meritorious candidates. Similarly, for the post of SGT (English Medium) ST \ \ t3 candidate in Medak District, petitioner No.6 is the next available meritorious candidate as there were three absentees. Petitioner No.7 belonging to BC-E is liable to be appointed as against SGT (EM) in Mahabubnagar as four vacancies were unfilled and petitioner No.7 being the next meritorious candidate. Regarding SGT (Telugu Medium) BC-D, petitioner No.16 is to be considered as she is the next meritorious and there was one absentee. As against SGT(TM) OC(G), in Ranga Reddy District, five absentees were there and persons in the merit list below the cut-off date got selected under respective reserued posts. Pctitioner No. 18 being the third in the list, can be accommodated in one of the hve available vacancies. [n respect of SGT (TM) OC(G) in Ranga Reddy District, five candidates were absent and petitioner No. 19 being the 4th in thc merit list after the last selected candidate is eligible for appointment. Likewise, for SGT(TM) OC (G) in Ranga Reddy District, OC(G) in Medak, SC in Ranga Reddy District and OC in Ranga Reddy District, petitioners No. 20, 21, 22 and 23 being the next meritorious candidates are entitled to \/ \ / 7 l4

11. However, the case of the 2nd respondent Commission is that selection revised calling relinquishments from the provisional selection list and final results were declared on 16.03.2021 after passing the order in Writ Appeal No. 419 of 20t9.

12. Be that as it may. In view of the judgment in Narimetla Vannshi's ccse, since it is the case of petitioners that they are entitled to be appointed in the place of relinquished candidates, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider candidature of petitionerg as per their. merit-list.

13. Further, in the judgment in Ashok allas Somrrnna 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 \ / / l5 Apex Court in Naritnetla 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"a respondent is directed to select and appoint petiti()ners as per their merit and eligibility by removing all the candidates who have not responded to the web notification treating them as deemed to have relinquished their candidate to the post of SGT under Notilrcation No.53 ol 2Ol7 dated 21.1O.2017. No costs. 1.5. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TTRUMALA DEVI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, School Education (General Department) Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Secretary, Telanggna State Public Service Commisgion' Prathibha ahir* Nr*phtty, HYdErabad-500 1 03 The Commissioner, Commissioner and Directorate of Schoal Education, Saifabad, HYderabad, Telangana One CC to Ms. GODA RAMALAKSHMI, Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI M RAMGOPAL RAO, SC FOR TGPSC IOPUQI Two CCs to GP FQR SCHOQL EDUCATION High Court for the State of retan$ana at HYderabad [OUTI 2 J 4 5 6 7 Two CD Copies BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 I 11" -)r t.5,^r 3 0 APB 2025 ), c It- s l.Al c:B c-o ) ORDER WP.No.1434 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS Io