The High Court · 2025

Order

In this Writ Petition, petitioner ch4llenges the action of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) in publishing the selection notification dated 19.01.2019 of the provisionally-selected candidates for appointment to the post of School Assistant (Physical Education) under the 1st respondent notilrcation No. 55 of 2O17, dated 21.1O.2O17. A consequential direction is sought to the 2"d respondent to follow Rule 6-A ald select and appoint petitioner as per her merit by removing all the candidates who have relinquished their caldidate to the post of School Assistant (Physical Education).

According to Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Goda Ramalakshmi, 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 2 instant case, TGPSC has not followed the said RuIe, thereby many of the notified posts are lying vacant, submits learned Senior Counsel.

3. The Recruiting Agency - TGPSC issued various Notifications for filling up of vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects, Secondary Gradg Teachers in trnglish and Telugu Media, Hostel Welfare Officers in Grade-II in the hostels run for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, Language Pandits and School Librarials. The selection process in respect of all the above posts include wntten examination, certihcate verification in the ratio of 7'.2 and eventual selection in the ratio of 1: 1 for one to get eventually selected to the poSts, referred to supra. Though ail the Notihcations were independently issued by TGPSC and selection process conducted separateiy, results of the written examination were declared proximately close to one alother. As can be seen from the list of posts for which selection process took place, general educationai qualifications required for the posts notified are by ald large common, but the '...38he J hierarchy and the place of work would be one of the crucia.l factors for the candidates to take a call where they find their names in the list of selected candidates suitable for certihcate verification. To elaborate this point a little further, it would be necessary 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 Libranan 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 belonging to the said group as their possibilities of transfers would be far ald 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 4 notifled only. For any reason, selected candidates do not join in the post offered to him or after joining the post, he Ieaves the employment, the said vacancies go to the next recruitment. However, the fact remains that many times, caldidates do not join the post to which they are selected or though they join the post, leave the employment immediately thereafter. This cal be for various reasons. To obviate this contingency and to avoid carididate in the select list not joinilg the post after his selection, PSC is required to follow procedure prescribed by Rule 6(A), which reads as under: issued in G.O.Ms.No. 544, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 04-12.199a, any candidate rvhose 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 candidates from the selection List and select any other candidate according to rules. The candidate whose name has been so removed from the selection list shalt be informed of such removal by the Commission and sha-ll 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 o[ posts is notilied in a notilication and not applicable to a notiarcation where multiple categories of posts are notifred. However, it 5 shall be ensured that the list sha-tl not be oPerated for any additional vacancies indented by the Government DePartments. The selection list for the purpose of setecting candidates in place or relinquished candidate/ caldidates shall be operated only till the next notfication is issued or for a period of one year, whichever is earlier." As required by Rule 6(A), only after the Iinal merit Iist is drawn, willingness of candidates should be enquired to by the PSC alrd 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 ald forward the same to the appointing authorit5z. The relinquishment is voluntary, arrd 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 notifrcation 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 caldidates in place of relinquished candidates / candidates shall be operated only till 6 *P. the next notihcation is issued or for a period of year, whichever is earlier. 4 . trarlier, 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. 7ll7 of 2O2O dated 11.08.2020 and WP No. 4495 of 2019 dated I1.6.2019 and as confirmed vide judgments dated 03.07 2019 in WA. No. 551 of 2019 thesc writ pctrtions can be disposed of directing the public service commission and the State Government to fill alt the unfilled vacancies strictly by following Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State hrblic Serwicc Commission Rules. It is made clear that the vacancies, which were relilquished by the selected caldidates, after giving appointment orders, those vacancies had to be tagged on to the next notification and the vacancies which are still lyilg vacant even after issuance of appointment orders, those vacancies have to be filled up strictly by following Rule 6(4) of Telangana State hrblic Service 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.2O21, Writ Appeals were disposed of setting aside 7 the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge. The Dirrision Bench had remanded the matter to deal with each and every individual Writ petition, in order to give a frnding of fact whether Rule 6(A) of the Rules has been complied or not. The -with Division Bench, taking into consideration Rule 6 which 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 notrfied 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 for petitioner places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 (Telangana Sta;te Leuel Police Recruitment Board ! Nanmetla Vanshi). Attention of this Court was drawn to the following paragraph: 8 " We have heard learned counsel for the parties in the conspectus of the aforesaid submissions and find no reason to interfere with the concurrent Ilndings of the two Courts below. The manner of interpreting the rule in question has already been set oul in Munja Praueen case (Supra). If a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment, he has not done what was required to be done by him as u".rn.y arising which set out herein above, it cannot be construed "" " has to be carried forward to the next recruitment process- As to the consequences of 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 fmstrated 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 thc appellants would go agarnst thc very ethos of providing public employment to persons eligible arld meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner leaving a large number of vacancrcs unfllled. 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'ble 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 I I I i J 9 Counsel appearing for TGPSC contends that respondents have strictly followed Rule 6(,\) 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 recmitment notification oniy and those unhlled .r"".rr"i." 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 iight of the arguments advanced on both the sides, it is to be seen that in Munia Praueen u. Stdte 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 the GOM would be that after the appointment order is issued ald 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, tn Narimetla Vam-shi's case, it has been held that 'if a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment, he has not done what ' (zon) M scc tst l0 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. It is further observed that public employment is an important source of employability for young people in the country where we are facing problems of adequacy ofjobs. An interpretation of the kind sought to be 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. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Ashok crlics Somcnno Goutd.a a State oJ Karnataka2. 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: '1reoz1 r scc za " In view of the fact that the appointments under the impugned Rules rvere made as back as in i987 and only the present appeltants 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 appeltants who were vigiialt in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time. lrarned counsel for the State a]so submitted that the State Government has already framed new rules, and as such we do not find it necessarJr to quash the Rules under which 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 the same notiflcation, in Writ Petitions No. 20232 ar,d 20273 of 2018, directed the Commission to strictly abide by the maldate 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 2O18 and 1524 of 2O18 were frled by the Cornmission. The said Writ Appeals were disposed of conlirming the t2 -eI-= directions of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the Commission published the revised frnal selection iist dated

79.O7.20t9.

10. The grievance of petitioner in .this case is, one candidate with Hall Ticket Number 1755O00049 informed that she got job as Junior Lecturer (P.D.) in MJPREIS and that she has already given relinquishment to her selection against School Assistant (Physical Education) under the subject notification. However, the 2"d respondent published the provisionally- selected list by showing the candidate with above hall ticket number. She therefore, submitted representation to the Commission on 07.06.2079 along with copy of relinquishment letter of the candidate with Hall Ticket No. 1755000049 and requested to include her name being next meritorious candidate in Karimnagar District under local OC(W) category. Till date, no reply is received nor any action is taken to follow Rule 6-A. 1 1 . Whereas the case of the 2"d respondent Commission is that the name referred to by petitioner bearing Hall Ticket No. 17550OOO49 (K. Radhika) had given relinquishment to the post l3 of PET in REIS, uide Notihcation No. 16 of 2017 and PET in TRT, uide Notifrcation No. 56 of 2017, but she did not opt relinquishment to the post of School Assistant (Physical Education) in TRT, however, petitioner misrepresented this Court saying that Radhika had given relinquishment to the post of School Assistant (Physical Education). Further, the Commission filled up nine out of nine vacancies notified and there are no vacancies left unfilled, as such, it is clear that there is no vacancy available to consider petitioner's candidature.

12. Be that as it may. In view of the judgment in Nqrilmetla Vatnshi's case, this Court is of the opinion that if the candidate with HT No. 1755000049 referred to by petitioner \ does notjoin duty, petitioner's case be considered in her place. I I

13. Further, in the judgment in Ashok alios Somonna Goutda's case, 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 t4 redressal of grievance on the principles which are in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court it 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"4 respondent is directed to consider the case of petitioner to the post of School Assistant (Physical Education) if the candidate with HT No. I755OOOO49 does not join duty ald appoint petitioner in her p1ace. No costs.

15. Consequently, miscellaleous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. AMMAJI PUTY REGISTRAR D SECTION OFFICER To

3. The Special Chief Secretary School Education (Ge Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telan gana The Secreta ry, Telangana State Publi c Service Commissi B havan Nampally, Hyderabad-5001 03 The Commissioner Saifabad, Commissioner and Directorate of School Educati on, Hyderabad, Telan gana. One CC to SMT. GODA RA MALAKSHMI, Advocate epartment) on, Prathibha ID [oPUC] OOL EDUCATION, Hi touTl gh Court for the State of 4 E Two CCs to GP FOR SCH Telangana, at Hyderabad. 6. Two CD Copies PSK GJP S. HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 I -::--.< ,E Sir;t \ 1 [ JI]\ ?025 .-t,nTCv\f.! '(:..,,\,(. ", -. ;l .{l +-'lr/ ORDER WP.No.12700 of 2019 o (J a * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t