The High Court · 2025

Qeqnsel for the Reqpondent t!os,!&Qt SRI N. BHUPAL REDDY SC , The Court mqde the following; ORDER ? HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 13039 OF 2O2O ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioner challenges the action of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) in not considering her case for appointment to the post of Librarian, pursuant to Notification No. 20 of 2017, dated

14.04.2017 against the unfilled/ left over vacancies oi incumbents in Writ Petition No. 29737 of 20 i8.

2. According to Sri. Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsei for petitiorier;, as per Rute 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 candidatc in the order of n-rerit. Admittedly, in the instant case, TGPSC has not lbllowed thc said Rule, thereby many of the notified posts are lying vacant, submits learned counsel.

3. The Recr-uiting Agency - TGPSC rssued various Notifications for fi1ling up of vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects, Secondary Grade Teachers in 2 English and Telugu Media, Hostel Welfare Officers in Gradell in the hostels run for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backwarrd Classcs, Language Pandits and School Librarians' The selection process in respect of a1l the above posts include u,ritten examination' certificate verification in the ratio of 1:2 and eventual selection in the ratio of 1:1 ftrr 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 written examination were declared proximately close to one another;' '. ' 6s can be seen from the list of posts for which selcction process took place, general educational qualifications requirecl for the posts notified are by and large common, but the hierarchy ancl the place of work would be one of the crucial factors lor the candidates to take a call where they lind their names in thc list of selected candidates suitable for certihcate vcrification. To elaborate this point a little further, it would be necessary to state that a Trained Graduate Teacher is definitcly superior to a Secondary Grade Teacher; similarly, a Librarian in a .Junior College is superior to a Librarian in the Schooi' Insofar -} J t; as Hostel Welfare Of{icers are concerned, the Hostels run lor the Scheduled Tribe candidates in scheduled areas would normaily be preferred by candidates belonging to the said group as their possibiiities of transfers would be far and few and therefore, a person who is selected both for a BC Hostel and SC Hostcl would delinitely 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 proceclure is regulated by thc Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules. Thc system a 1 i .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 notjoin 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 Limes, 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 alter his .1 selcction, PSO is required to follow procedure prescribecl by Rule 6(A), which rcads as under: issued in C;.O.N'Is No. 544, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 04 12' 19q8' anY candidat,: u'hosc name has been included in a selection list in a direcl recruitlnent prepared by the Commission, on enquiry by the (lommission, m:rr relinquish his claim for appointment in writing in the proforrna prt:scrr'bed by the Commission. The Commission shall thereupon retnove the name of such candidates lrom the selection list anrl select anl'other candidate according to rules' The candidate whose name has bcen so removed from the selection list shall be informed of such removal b-v the Commission and shall have no right for the said appointnent in future with reference to the said selection: F'roviclerl this provision is applicable only rvhen a single :"jsioi?,,?l Pg"t: irs lglifled in a notification and not applicable to a notiiication r,'r.here multiple categories oI posts are notified' However, it shall be.,,",,r.,t tn"i lh; list shall nol be operaled for an1 additional ',/acancies inclenteri by the Government Departments. The selection list lbr the pLlrPose of selecting candidates in place or relinquished cancl idate / ('a ndi(iate s shall be operated only till the next notification is issued or for a priod of one year, whichever is ear1ier." As required by Rule 6(A.), only after the final merit list is drau'r'r. lvillingness of candidates should be enquired to by the PSC anrl if the candidates expressed their unu'illingness, their names should be excluded from the final meiit list and to that extent, add the narne of next meritorious candidate, draw the select list and forward the same to the appointing authority' 5 :4 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 riotifrcation and not applicable to a notification where multiple categories of posts are notilied. However, it shall be ensured that the list shall not be operated for any additional vacalcies indented by the government. The selection list for the purpose of selecting candidates in place of relinquished candidates / candidates shall be operatecl only till ' .I,'he'next'notification is issued or for a period of year, whichever j ,] ls eanrer 4 . trarlier, the Learned Single Judge lr.ho heard t his batch of cases, disposed the same by a common order dalcd

24.06.2021., u,hich reads as unde r: "9 This Court, having considered the rival subn.rissions madc by the Learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the consirlered view that since the issue raised in these t.rit petitions is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court rn Wp No. 7117 of 2O2O dated 11.08.2020 and Wp No. 4495 of 2Ol9 dared \1.6.2019 and as confirmed vide judgments dated 03.07 2019 in WA. No. 551 of 2019 these writ petitions can be disposed of directing thc public service commission and the State Government to tlll all the unfilled vacancies stricdy by following Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State t, 6 Public Service Commission Rules. It is made clear that the vacancies, ivhich rvere rclinquished by the selected caldidates, atter giving appointmeDt orclers, those vacancies had to be tagged on lc) the next notification ancl thc vacancies rvhich are stitt lying vacanf even afte! issuance of appointment orders, those vacancies have to be filled up strictl-r, b,l, follorving Rule 6(A) of Telangana Sta-te Public Service Comrnission Rules and the same should be offered to the next meritorious c?ud idate s in order of merit."

5. \gg ricvcd by thc said common order , TGPSC prelerrcd WI it Appeal No. 533 of 2O2l and batch. 81' judgment dated 26.10.2021. Writ Appeals were disposed of setting aside the orders lrassi:d by thc Learned Single Judge. Ttrt: Division Bench had fclnanded thc matter to deal \'sith 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 Bencl'r. taking into consideration Rule 6 which provides th:rt in casc z1 candidate does not joint pursuant to issuance of .lilpointme 1.1t or cler, the fallout vacancies, if any, due to rclinquishmenl and non joining of selected candidates shall be notified in thc next recruitment, observed that the orcier passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the said statutory provision. It is on remand, arguments have Lreen advalced in respect ol individual cases. 7 .i4

6. Irarned counsel places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 o{ 2022 dated 23.11.2022 (Telangana State Level police Recruitment Board u No:nmetlrr 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 find no reason to ir.rterfere with the concutrent findings of the two Courts belorv, The manner of interpreting the rule in question has already been set o:ut i\ lluni( Prqueen case (Sqtra). If a candidate has not gone through the process of rccruitmctrt, hc has not done what was required to be done by him as set out herein above, it cannot be constr-ued as a vacancy arising rvhich has to be carried. fonvard to the next recruitment process. As to the consequences of the lar-ge dumber of vacancieS which have remained on thdde'different aid6unts,'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 cmployment is an important source of employability for young people in thc r:ountry rvhere we are facing problems of adequacy of jobs. An interpr.'tation of the kind sought to be propounded by the appellants rvould go against the very ethos of providing public employment to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner leaving a Iarge number of vacancies unfilled. This would not be an appropriate intcrpretation." | -: I Learned counsei 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 8 Apex Court- I-{e erlso relied on the ratio laid down in Writ Petition No. 4495 of 2019, dated 11.06.2019 and the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 551 ol 2Ol9 datcd 03.O7.2O19. In that vieu' of the matter, learn ed counsel submits that Writ Pe tition deserves to lrr a llou ed.

7. Lear-ned Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajasekhar appearing on behalf of Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TCIPSC contends that respondents have strictly lollowed Rulc 6(A) of the Rules and some of the vacancies, which rr'. rc rr lirl,l,r :, , d hr the persons apPninterl ill llros{ \3, nnci|s. ,1. , l , , ... , , ;, , , . , I 1,..-,;i,-:'r;,.,-r:: <:;-:r -!:-:- have io. bC ta[ged oil'tb'',th6 next 'ietruitment notification only and those unlillcd vacancics cannot be filled up b]' the next meritorious ca.ndidates in the order ol merit. Therefore, he se e ks to disnriss the Writ Petitions.

8. In the light of the arguments advanced on both the sides, it is to be seen that in Munja Praueen o' Sto:te of Teldngandl . rn'hile interpreting the concept of 'fall out vacancics', il' any, due to relinquishment and non joining, it has been opined that thc appropriate interpretation of the ' (:utz) ta scc t,.rz ! 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 Narimetla Vamshi's cose, it has been t "ta tn.,t 'il u candidale 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 empfoi-'abiliry'fql. {oY.qg pe.ople in the country and an interprelation of the kind sought to be propounded would go ..-,' against the very ethos of providing pubiic employment to persons eiigible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner lcaving a large number of vacancies unfilled- This would not bc an appropriate inlerpretation. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok alias Somo:nna Gouda o State of Karnataka2. This judgement was paraded to buttress the contention that ' (i992) 1 scc 28 7 10 petitioners illone would have to be considered 1br the vacancies and the responcients cannot frustrate the fruits of the litigation to petitioners or-r the ground that there could be / are canclidates more meritorious than petitioners. In the said judgment, it is held as under: ' tn view of the fact that the appointments under the impugned Rulcs u,ere made as back as in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached the Tribunal lor relief, the case of other candidates cannot be considerecl as they never approached for redress $'ithin reasorEble time. We are thus inclined to grant relief onll' to the present appcllants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time. karned counsel for the State also submitted that tlre State Government has already framecl neu-rules, ar'rd as suclt we ([o not find it necessary to quash the Rules under rvhich the present selections u,ere made as they are no longer in cxistence'-

9. At this juncture, it is also to be seen that this Court in similar circumstances, dealing r.r,ith similar notilication, in Writ Petitions No. 20232 and 20273 ol 2018, directed the Commission to strictly abide by the mandate of Rule 6(A) and make an enrluit-y with the rest of the candidates who figured in the said selection iist and in the event any such candidates indicate their u'illingness to relinquish their selection as TGTs (Science), the Commission shall remove his / her name in the -."' II selection list and include the name of the next candidate in terms of merit. Challenging the said order, Writ Appeals No. 1494 of 2O18 and 1524 of 2O18 wcre filed by the Commission. Thc said Writ Appeals rr",ere clisposed of confirming the directions oi thc learncd Single Judge. Thereaftcr, the Commrssion publishcd the reviscd final selection list dated

22.01.)O21 .

10. Thc griev:rnce of pelitioner is that pursu:lnt to Notillcation No. 20 of 20 17 issuecl by thc a.a respondent, she appeaied foi the posl of Librarian (School) in Residentral ; Eclucational InStitutions Societies and appearecl for selection process. She was called for certificate verification on

31.05.2018, howevcr, her name could not find place in the fina1 selection list. According to petitioner, the 3.d respondent did not follow the rules and the procedure contemplated in the State and Subordinate Service Rule s and they also violated the Presidential orders whereunder the zone is the unit for recruitment. Unfortunately, the 3'd respondent issued combined selection list for zone 5 and 6, thereby petitioner is deprived of her selection to the post of Librarian. It is stated, this Court in , l 12 Writ Petitiorl llo. 29737 of 20 18 and batch rerdercd the judgment, oper::tive portion of rvhich reads thus: the public Service Con rmission shall follolr' Rule 6A of t-he Rules and finaLse thc:;election accordinglv. According lo 1;etitiorrer, she is uithin th, z,trr- oI consideratior: lor appoinlmcrll Iu l-r. posl ol Ljbrarian prlrsrtant to the judgment of this Court, hence, she n-iacle rcpresentation to the 3'd respondent otr ()7 ()7'2O2O to considcr her case in the left over vacancies, but tl-rerc is no rcsporlse vL'l . I i. On thc other hand, it is the case of the r':spondent Commission ttiat in compliance with the comnlol-l orrlcr of this Corrrl rlated 23.O7.2079 in Writ Petition No.29737 of 2019 and batch, the (lommission sought relinquishment- lron'26.O7.2019 to 30.O7.20 L9 from the candidates u'ho ligurcd in provisional selcciion lisr- *'hich was publishecl on 14.08.2018; ill response, l-,0 candidales relinquished their post and accordingll , 29 next nr:ritorious ciLndidates \\re re sclected in plzrcr: of such ciindidates rr.r C fir-ral selcction list u'as publishcd on 27.O8.2019 and 1 PH \racancy was not hllcd up from the rclinquished r.lrcar-rcics crr-rc to non-availability of cligible candiclates. It is 13 {t stated, the Commission fil1ed up 246 vacancies out of notified 256 under the Notification and the remaining 10 vacancies were kept unfilled due to non availability of eligible candidates in the categories of VH(Women)L and VH(Women)IIR and HH (General)(L). In the counter, it is also stated that merit is the 12. prime most important element in selection process coupled with community, zone, institution' local status, gender, etcetera' as such, it is clear that petitioners could not get selection duc to their low merit but not for a'ny other reasons as alleged 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 meritoriouscandidatesforselectioninthenon-joiningvacancies as it leads to indefinitc delays in conciuding a recruitment and other problems in the selection procedure as selections are finauzed taking into accounL ol merit, eligibility, local/non-local status duly foilowing the rule of reservation including women reservatlon l, I 7 I I I I l.l C' Br: that as it may. In view of tl-re judgment in 13. Narimetla Vam.strri's case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the -1"1 respondent to consider the candidature of petit ioner irs pcr merit.

14. F'urther, in the judgment in Ashok alio,s Somd'nn<r Gowdo's ccrse, the Honblc Supreme Court granted relicf only to the appella n ts who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching thc judicial fora in time. Same principlc is liable to be extended in thc present case as well, in vierv of thc fact that it is only pctirioners, who knocked the doors of this Court for redressal of gricvance on the principles rvhich are in <:onsonancc x.ith the jurlgment rendered by the Apex Court in Narinetla Va'rnshi's case (supra). For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petiti()n descrvt's to be allowed. Thc Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The 3'd

1.5. respondent is directed to consider the casc of petitioner for selcctior-r and zrppointment to the post of Librzrrian rls per her me rit in thc sclection process in the non-join ing vacancies, if anJ,. No costs. 15

16. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any sha11 stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary to the Social Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Principal Secretary, to the Backwrd Classes, Welfarg Department, Secretariat Buidlings, Hyderabad.

3. Secretary, Telangana Public Service Commission, Pratibha Bftavan, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad

4. Secretary, Tglangana Social Welfare Residential Educational lnstitution Society, DSS Bhavan, IVlasab Tank, Hyderabad, 5 Mahatma Jyothi Ba Phu!e, Telangana Backward Classes, Wel{are Residential Educational lnptitutiopal Societiqs, Room No. 206,2.nd Floor, DSS Bhavan, Opposite Chqgha Nehru Park, Masab Tank, HyderEbad. 6. Qne QC to SRI MOHD EASEEB RIYAZ Advocale IOPUCI 7. One Qe to QRl. D PALA KISHAN RAo SC FOR TGPSC [OPUCI 8. One CC to Sfil N. BHUPAL REDDY SC FOR BC IOPUCI 9. Two CQs to GP for Social Welfare. High Court forthe State of lelangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

10. Two CD Copies KKS BS TE HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 ) ORDER WP.No.13039 of 2020 a){r 1H[ d fa1 30 APB 205 \ --. 6|. t;) I,AIC I t!:\). z,' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (* 3 3 \ tL