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 Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) against any unfilled or unclaimed vacancies left under the Notificaiton No. 5412017 daled 21110120'1 7 issued by the 2nd Respondent, as per her merit and eligibility. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.NITIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3 & 4: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI D.BALA KISHAN RAO. SC FOR TSPSC The Court made the following: ORDER Q HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEtrMAFAKA . WRIT PETITION No. 3356 OF 2O2O ,- ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioner chaUenges the action of the Telangana State Public Service Commission ('I'GPSC) in undertaking appointments to the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) under Notiflcation No. 54 of 2A17, dated 21.1A.2017 without calling for relinquishments from the sr:lectecl candidates as per mandatory Rule 6-A of the Telangana Statc public Service Commission Rules, thereby resuiting in unfilled vacancies due to unwillingness of such selected candidates, alfecting petitioner's right to appointment downrvards in the merit.

2. According to Sri T. Nitin, learned counscl for petitioner, as per Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public Servicc Commission Rules, il any selected candidate docs not take up the offer of appointment, then the same has to be oflered to thc next meritorious candidate in the order of merii. Acimittedlv, in the instant case, TGPSC has not follor,r.ed the saici RuJe, ttrereby many of the notihed posts are lying vacant, sr-rbmits learned co u n sel. - I

3. The liecruiting Agency TGPSC issued various Notifications. for lilling up of vacancies of Trained Graduate 'l'eachers in virrit-lns subjects, Secondar5, Gruclc Teachers in English a.d 'li iiteu Media, Hostcl Wellare ()fficers in ()r,cle II in the hostcis; ru n lbr Schedulcd Castes, Scheduled .lribe s and Backrvarcl C asscs, Language pandits and School Librarians. Tlrc: selection process in resprcl of all the above posts incluci,:r r,,,r-itLen examination, certificate verificitlion in the ratio of 1:2 lind ei entual selection in the ratio of 1:l lor one to g.t sel.crr,.i t.r the posts, relerred to supra. Thor-rqh all the Nor ilicalicr s \\-e.e independently issued by TGpSC and selection process c', r'trirrr:tcd separatcly, results ol tht: written examrlatir:n rr,r:r-r: declared proximately close to one anothcr. 1\s .tan tre seen from the list ol 1;osts jbr u,hich sel<--ction llioces:; iook piace, general eclucational qu:r lifications req,-rireci irr t ltt: Dosts notificd are by and large cornmolr, but the hrerarchy an.-l iitc place of work vr,,ould bc one of t.ae. crucial factors lor t he c andidates to take a call u.here tltcy lind their narncs ir: litr 1i-si of selectecl candidatcs suitable fur r crtifi<ate ve.i{icatior. 'l'o tiaborate this point a little lurther, it ,.r.or-ricl be ri.cessary t(. sli-:ic tl'rat a Trained craduate Teacher is deriniterv .) I _ -. "-.=^, i l ,7 I ., superlor to a Secondary Grade Teacher; similarly, a Librarian in a Junior College is superior to a Librarian in rhe School. insolar as Hostel Welfare Officers are concerned, the Hoslels run for the Scheduled Tribe candidates in schedulecl are:; r.vould normally be preferred b.y candidates belonging to the said group as their possibilities of transfers would be far ar-rd fer,r. and therefore, a person who is selectecl both for a BC Hostel and SC liostel would definite.ly not prefer to participate in the further process of selection in respect of posts to which they. wcruld be given a second preference. The recruitment procedure 1S reglllated by the Telangana State public Service Commission Rules The system of maintenance of wait list is dispenscd u,ith and PSC is required to prepare the merit list to thc extent of vacancies notified only. For arry reason, selected canclidates 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 dmes, cat_rclidates do not join the post to which they are selected or though they join the post, leave the employment immediately thereafter. Ihis can be for various reasons. To obviate this contingency and to avoid 1 C, candidate in ti-re select list not joining the post after his selection, PSC is required to follow procedure prescribed by Rule 6(A), r.r''h:ich reads as under: issuecl in G.O.lvls.No.544, G.A (Ser.A) Department, daterl 04 12 1998' an), candidat{ whr)se narle has been included in a selection list in a direct recruitmcrt prepared by the Commission, on enquiry by the Commission, mav rclinquish his claim for appointment in rvriting in the proforma prescribecl by the Commission' The Commission shall thereupon remo\re the name of such candidates from the selection Iist ard select anv other candidate according to rules The canrlidate rvhose lame has betn sc, removed from the selection list shall be informed of such removal bv tiie Commission and shall have no right for the said appointment',n ftlture with reference to the said selection: Provirled this provision is appticable only when a single category of posts is notified in a notification and n()t applicatrle to a notification u'here multiple categories of posts are notified flo$'ever' it slrallbeensrtrecltilatthelistshallnotbeoperatedforanyadditional r,acanciesin(len|(]dbytheGovernmentDepartments.Theselectionlist lor- ihe pur:rose cf selecting candidates in place or relinquished cancliCate,/cantlidales shall be operated only till the next notification is issuerl or ft:r a pcriod of one year, whichever is earlier'" As required by Rule 6(A), only after the linal merit list is drawr-r. $'lllingness of candldates should be enquired to by the PSC ar(l if the candidates expressed their unu'illingness' their names should be excluded from the final merit list and to that exte 111, acld the name of next meritorious candidate, draw thc seiect list :rnd 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 single 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 ti1l 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: "9 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 in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in WP No. 71.17 of 2O2O dated ll.O8.2O2O and WP No- 4495 of 2019 dated 1l.6.2019 and as confirmed vide judgments dated 03.07 2019 in WA. No. 551 of 2019 these writ petitions can be disposed of directing the public service commission arrd the State Government to fill all the unfilled vacancies strictly by following Rule 6(4) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules. It is made clear that the vacaflcies, which were relinquished by the selected candidates, after giving ' I I I I l I I I I i 6 appointment orders, those vacancies had to be tagged on to the next notiflcation nnd the vacancies lvhich are still lying vacant even after issuance of appointment orders, those vacancies have to bc ftlled up strictly by following Rule 6(A) of Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules and the same should be offered to the next meritorious t:anciidates in order of merit

5. Aggrieved by the said common order, TGPSC preferred Writ Appeal No. 533 of 2O2l and batch. 81' judgment dated 26.1O.2O21, 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 individual Writ petition, in order to give a finding of fact whether Rule 6(A) of the Rules has been complied with or not. The Division Bench, taking into consideration Rule 6 whir:h provides that in casc 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 notilied in the next recruitment, observed that the orcler passed by the learnecl Single Judge is contrary to the said statutory provision. It is on remand, arguments have been advanced in respect of individual cases.

6. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment rendered b1' the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. i '' 1 4735 of 2022 dated 23.17.2022 (Tela.ngana Stolte Leuel police Rect'uitment 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 fin<.l no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The manner of interpreting the rule in question has alreadl bcen set out Lo Munja Praueen case (Supro). If a candidate has not gone through thc 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 lvhich has to be carried forward to the next recruitment process. As to lh{l consequences of the large number of vacancies which have rt:mai.cd o. these different accounts, the details of which have been set out hc.cirl above, again lend support to this conclusion that a large part of the process is not frustrated by not filling up of the vacancies. publit: employment is an important source of employability for young people in the country where we are facing problems of adequacl. of jobs. Ait interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded by the appellants u,ould go against the very ethos of providing public employment to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a malrller leaving a large number of vacancies unfllled. This rvould not be an appropriate interpretation." Learned counsel subrnits that from the above referrcd judgrnent and portion extracted supra, the defence projected by TGpSC is unsustainable and contrary to law laid down by the Honble Apex Court. In that view of the matter, the Writ petition deserwes to be allowed. ) I 8 - x :

7. l,earned Standing Counsei Sri P.S.Rajasekhar represcnting Sli M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC i:onlends that respondents have strictiy foilowed Rule 6{A) of thc Ru lcs and some of the vacancies, which were relinquishecl br' l.he persons appointed in those vacancies, have to bc tagged on to the next recruitment nodfication only and ti-rosc unliiicd vacancies cannot be frlled up by the next meritorious can didates in the order of merit. Therefore, he sccks Lo disnriss the Writ Petitions. 'n the light of the arguments advanced on both the S. sides, it is to be seen that in Munia Pranteen u. Sta.te of Telanganal , u.hile interpreting the concept of 'fall out vacancies', il ar-ry, due to relinquishment and non-joining, it has been opint:cl that the appropriate interpretation of the GOM u.oukl bt llr.it :iiter the appointment order is issued and the app,:intcci peis;on does not join, then the vacancy cannot be filled in on lht basis of the rvaiting list or by operating the merit list dou,nu'rrrci. Ilased on the said judgment, in Naritnetla Vam.shi's c*se, il, has been held that 'if a candidate has not gone t hro,rgh tlre process of recruitment, he has not done what itlOil) l.: S,. ( ')- 9 .., was required to be done by him and it cannot be construcd as a vacancy arising which has to be carried fonvard to the next recruitment process. Public employment is an important source of employability for young people in the country rvhere u,e are facing problems of adequacy of jobs. An intcrpretation oi the kind sought to be propounded by the appellants would go against the very ethos of providing public empioyment to persons eligible and meritorious, by constmction of a rule in a manner leaving a large number of vacancies unfilled. This u,ould not be an appropriate interpretation. Reliance r'vas also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok alias Sontc.nna Gouda a Stdte of Kdrndtdka2. This judgement n'as paraded to buttress the contention that petitioncrs alone u.ould 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 unde r: " In view of the fact that the appointmcnts under the impugned Rules nere made as back as in 1987 and onh the present appellants had approached thd Tribunal for relief, the case of other candidates cannot be considered as they never approacheci for redtess within reasonable time. We are thus inclined to grant relief only to the ' (1992) I scc 28 I I 10 present appellants $ho were vigilant in making grievance and approaching rhe Tribunal in time Learned counsel for the State also submitted that thc lltate Government has already framed new rules' and aSSuChwer]tlrtrltirn<lltnecessarytoquashtheRulesunderwhichthe present seit'ltio:ts r'ere made as they are no longer in existence"' At thisr Juncture, it is also to be seen that this Court 9. in simiiar clrcrLilrstances, dealing with the same notification' in Writ Petitions Nct. 20232 at:ld 20273 of 20i8' directed the Commissiou to strictly abide by the mandate of Rule 6(A) and make an cnriuirl' urith the rest of the candidates who figured in the sai<l scl:ciiotr list and in the event any such candidates inclicatethclr--r'illingnesstorelinquishtheirSelectionaSTGTS (Scicnce), ti-r e Llornmission shall remove his / her name in the se1ccliol-l list and include the name of the next candidate in termsofIn,]Iit'.Cilallengingthesaidorder,WritAppealsNo. 1491 of 2()18 and 1524 of 2018 were fi1ed by the Commission' The saltl Wi'il Appeals were disposed of conhrming the direclionsilithelearnedSingleJudge.Thereafter,the Commissiorr irubiished the revised final selection list dated A3.O7.2O2a and 22.O4'2O2O' 'lhe grievance of petitioners in this case is marks of 10. iast canriirlatc -under ST Agency in the provisional selection list 1t as per the merit ranking list is 34.733 and petitioner is the next meritorious with 33.933 marks and within the zonc of consideration. It is learnt reliably that several vacancies are unhlled as many selected candidates did not take up the post clue to their selection elsewhere as shown in the Annexure.

11. On the other hand, the case of the 2na respondent Commission is that the Commission sought relinquishments frorn O2.O1.2019 to 05.01.2019 from the candidates who figured in the provisional selection list of School Assistant (Tclugu) to relinquish to the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) if they arc not willing to join the lower post since School Assistant is highcr post to the Language Pandit (Telugu) and the rcsults of the School Assistant (Telugu) were declared on 01.11.2O18 i.e. much earlier than Language Pandit (Telugu). In response, lO5 candidales from the list of selected candidates to the post of -s.A (Telugu) have submitted their relinquishments to the posr of Language Pandit (Telugu) and accordingly, next meritorious candidates from Language Pandit (Telugu) were selected in place of thc relinquished candidates and the final resuits of the Language Pandit were published ,on O 1.'O3.2O 19. it is also stated that the Commission filled up 602 vacancies out oi 634 1l notified vacatncies arlLd. 28 vacancies kept unlilled due to non- availatrility of cligible candidatcs in categories concerned' It is also stated, lu'o vacancies are withheld clue to Court cases penrJing 6n6i tr,vo due to Agency Area clarification; as such' it is clear t}'rat Lhere are no vacancies available to v"'hich petitioner's candidature c:ln bc considered as petitioner belongs to ST- Wornen, Malta]rubaagar District. Flc th:rt as it n'ray. In vier,r' of the judgment tn 12 NoLrirrretlc Vomshi's ccse, this Court is of the opinion that pctitioner b.ring the next meritorious candidate is entitled to be recruited .

13. F',-rrther, in the judgment in Ashok alias Soma.nna Gottida's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted relief only lo tire appr-'ll:rit ts r,vho werc vigilant in making grievance and approaching rht-- iudicial fora in time. Same principle is liable to be extenclet l ir'l lh, i present case as we1l, in view of the fact that i1 is 6n1]' Irr:iitiot-,er, who knocked the doors of this Court for redressal c grier,.rnce on the principles which are in consonance with the ir-rdgment rendered by the Apex Court in Narlmetla Vam.shi's case (supra). For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. l3

14. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The 2"d respondent is directed to select and appoint petitioner as per her me rit against the unfilled / unclaimed vacancies by removing the names of the candidates ,"l,ho could have relinquished to the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) under Notification No. 54 of 2O17, d.ated 21.1O.2O17. No costs.

15. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if an1. shail stand closed. / //TRUE COPY// SD D L. LAKSHMI BABU PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 'o ', The Soecial Chief Secretary School Education(General Department) Education. Hyderabad Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State ot I elangana . - Bhavan Nampally, Hvderabad-suu1uJ

2. The Secreta.v, r" ra'tl'rl Biiig 3^' o^r1".Su *i"e Commission' Prathibha 3. The Commi..ion"' d'irZSii]cl"ti']ition"r and Directorate of School - 4 bliri;i' Ed rCitionat omcer, I\/:habubnagar District 3. ?*S 3SJ1"'SXTUI[ Salt"6!i:rLo3^eft*, Hish court ror the state or , l*t'AU SliJ:Slfft,i8Xill ." FoRT'PSC I.PUCI 8. Two CD CoPies \ PSK. GJP A:9 II It HIGH COURT NBK,J DATED:21 10312025 ORDER WP.No.3356 of 2020 I -Z o' !1.I .) 4 16: ,.r ) 02 14 AY 2025 z ! t t.sr,^TcH e.O t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS "%- nD@*