High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 1sil CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to Qonsider the candidature pf thg petitigner and fill up thp vacanc)4 pqqt forthwith DIug lnspectgr in Multi-Zone- ll wilh all consequential benefits, pending disposal of the abqvp Writ Pqtition Ceunsel for the Petitioner: S!1. RAMESH CHI!-LA Cgunsel for the Rqspondent nos.1&3: GP FQR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Regpondent No.2:SRl P.S RAJA FHEKAR SC FOR TGPSC The Cgqrt me{e tfig following: ORPFB / I THE HON'BLE SRI .'USTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.16580 of2O24 Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for the position of Drug Inspector in Drugs Control Administration Department, Government of Telangana, in pursuance to Notification No.21 12022, dated 08.12.2022, the present Writ petition is liled. 2l Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents l and 3, and Sri P.S.Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel, for respondent No.2. 3) Brief facts of the case are as follows Petitioner is the native of Nalgonda of Multizone_ll and SC Community and completed B.pharmacy Degree. As he is etigible for the post of Drug Inspector, petitioner has responded to notification No.2l 12022, dated 08. 12.2022, issued by respondent No.2 calling applications for the post of Drug Inspector wherein out of total 18 vacancies (5 in Multizone-I and 13 in Multizone-ll), 2 vacancies in Multizone-Il were earmarked Thereafter, the petitioner has appeared tn the examination conducted through Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) on for SC category. I -)

19.O5.2O23 FN & AN with hall ticket No.2211900020 and secured 297.083 marks ancl 62 General Rank and 3.d rank in his communitv. Further, respondent No.2 has ca-lled four candidates, including the petitioner, for certificate verificatio tt @7:2 ratio on 2O.O2.2O24 anc{ thereafter provisional selection list of candidates was published ot 23.02.2O24. However, on enquiry, petitioner came to know that one selected candidate by name Mahesh Babu bearing Hall Ticket No.221 iIZ00645 in SC category in Multizone_ll has not joined since he was already working as a probationary Officer in Bank of Baroda (Thane branch) and therefore one post was left vacant. As such, on O6.05.2024, petitioner made a representation ro the Chairman, TSPSC, to consider his candidature, being the next meritorious candidate in SC category, for the vacant posr by treating it as hon_joining and deemed to relinquishment'. However, no action is taken thereon. Hence, the presen t writ lreti tron. 4) Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submrts that the respondents havr. crroneously not considered the case of the petitioner for the post of Drug Inspector when one post is remained vacant artd the same is against the law laid down b5. the Hon,ble Supreme Court passed rn The Telangana State Leuel police Recruitment Board u Naimetla Vomshi [Civil Appeal l 3- No.473512022, dated 23.11.20221, and in the case of MunJa Pra veen vs. Sta.te of Telanganc, and also violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 (g) and 2l of the Constitution of India. 5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has contended that in Multizone-ll out of 13 vacancies, 2 vacancies were earmarked for SC category and the same were hlled up with meritorious SC candidates. However, the petitioner was not selected due to his low merit. Subsequently, the Unit lists were prepared and sent to the Unit Officer for issuance of appointment orders to the selected candidates. Though the Unit Officer has not yet furnished any report in this regard, it is learnt that among the two selected candidates in the SC category, one of the candidate has notjoined in service. Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.B l, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 22.O2. 1997, non_joining vacancies have to be carried forr+ard to the next recrurtment since there shall be no waiting list as per the said G.O. as well as in terms of Rule 6 of rspSC Rules of procedure, but shall not be Iilled up with next meritorious candidates as stated by the petitioner. It is further contended that the Commission will not maintain any Iist once the Unit Lists are furnished to the Unit Ofhcer. Further, vide G.O.Ms.No.544, GAD, dated 04.12.199g, the Government has 'zotz scc t+ zgz 4 ordered that no recruiting agency in the State shall maintain/ operate waiting lists for all recruitments. Hence, the Commission will not maintai. any waiting rist and the fa out vacancies due to relinquishment and norr-joining shall be notified in the next rebruitment. H ence , it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Reliance hzrs becn placed on Vaflamtrtati Solthish Babu a. State of Andhra Prqdesh2. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsCl. 7) A perusal of the record goes to show that, admittedly, the selection list for rhe post of Drug Inspector, in pursuance to the notification No.2l /2022, dated 08. I2.2O22, was published on 23.02.2024 in rtspect ol'5 candidates in Multizone_l and 13 candidates ir-r Multizone-ll. Out of the said 13 r,acancies, 2 vacancies were earmarked for SC category and the same were already hlled with meritorious SC candidates but the petitioner could not be selected due to his low merit. Thereafter, the Unit Lists u.ere alrearlv sent to the Unit Officer for issuance of appointment orders and accordingly necessary appointment orders were also issued to the selected candidates. Thereafter, vide Proc.Rc. No.50 5 /El I 2024-2, dated 10.06.2024, respondent No.3 '1zozz1 ts scc 193 7 I -5 has issued posting orders to 12 candidates, on completion of their training, at different places as stated therein. At that stage, petitioner came to know that one candidate by name Mahesh Babu selected under SC Category in Multizone-Il has not joined as he was already on some other employment and therefore one post fell vacant. In such a situation, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 on 06.05.2024 seeking consideration of his candidature for such post. 8) Admittedly, the petitioner 1S seeking consideration of his candidature for the post of Drug Inspector in the vacancy arose due to non-joining of one Mahesh Babu. 9) The law holding the field is that there cannot be any waiting list in the absence of any specific provision of law. 10) Here, it is pertinent to refer relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.8l, General Administration Department, dated

22.O2.1997, which reads as under: "9. Therefore, the government, after careful examination, has agreed with the proposal of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and accordingly direct that hence forth the list of the candidates approved / selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission sha-ll be equal to the number of vacancies only including those for reserved communities/categories notifred by the unit oflicers. The fallout vacancies if any due to the -6- J.- a, relinquishment and non-joining etc., of selected ca_ndidates shal be notificd in lhe next rccruitment.. 11) Similarly, vide G.O.Ms.No.544, General Administration Department, dared 04.72.1ggg, the Government has ordered that no recruiting agency in the State shall maintain/ operate waiting lists for all recrtritments. Hence, TGPSC does not maintain any waiting list and as per this G.O. all fallout vacancies due to relinquishment ;rnd non-joining sha[ be notified in the next recruitment. 12) In this context, it is apt to state that the Honble Supreme Court in Valtampati Scrthish Babu,s case (referred supra) has held as under: "2O. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Suresh Prasad ll2OO4) 2 SCC 681]. In the said decision, it is specifically observed and held that even in case candidates selected for appointment have not foined, in thc absence of any statutory rules to the contrary, the employer is not bound to offer the unfilred vacancy to the candidates next belo$' [he said candidate in the merit list. It is also further held that in the absence of anv provision, the employer is not bound to prepare a waiting list in addition to the panel of serected candicrates and to appoint the candidates from the waiting list in case the candidates from the panel do not join. The aforesaid decision of this Court has been subse<luentl1- foltowed by the Andhra pradesh high Court in Samiulla Shareef 20 l3 SCC Online Ap 4a4.

21. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Surrjsh pra.sad to the facts of the casc on hand and considering the statutory provisions contained in Rule t6 ot the 2Ol2 Rules read with the Guidelines. we are r 7- of the view that the appellant cannot claim appointment on the unfilled vacancy being next below the candidate in the ment list. If the submission on behalf of the appellant is accepted, in that case, it lvill lead to providing for preparation of a waiting list, which otherwise is not permissible as per sub-rule (5) of Rule 16. If the same is permitted, it will be directing the respondents to act contrary to the statutory provisions. Therefore, the High Court has not committed any error in refusing to appoint the appellant to the post which remained unfrlled due to one of the selected candidates in the hnal selection list not appearing for counseling. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is absolutely in consonance with the relevant statutory provisions with which we agree." 13) In view of the above settled principle of law, the claim of the pelitioner for consideration of his candidature cannot be directed to be considered in the non-joining vacancy. 14) Insofar as the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner rn Munja Praueen's crrse and Nan-lmetlq. Vam.shlrs case (referred supra) are concerned, this Court is of the view that they are distinguishable on facts of the case on hand. a) ln Munja Prdveen's crrse (referred supre, various electric supply and generation Companies in the State of Telangana have issued separate notifications inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Assistant Engineer (Civil). Many of the candidates got selection in more than one Corporation. At that stage, the State has issued Clarification dated O 1.O6.2016 stating that the Corporations were free to filI up Cr \ I -8 the left over notified vacancies by operating rhe merit list downwards for each category duly relaxing the relevant provision, as a special case under those circumstances, more particularly, having regard to the fact that large number of vacancies were lying vabant. In the present case, no such relaxation orders were issued and further appointment orders were also issued unlike in the case of Munja Praueen's case (referred supra). Here, a reading of G.O.Ms.No.81, GAD, dared 22.O2.lgg7, makes it crystal clear that it will have application only after appointment orders are issued. Therefore, the reliance ptaced by the learned counsel in ll/Iunja Pranreen's case (referred. supra) is misconceived. b) Similarly, in Narimetla Vamshi's case (reJerred. supra) also, notificat.ion r.vas issued in respect of 76925 vacancies. Even belore issuance ol appointment orders, nearly 5OO candidates have expressed their unwillingness in writing; more than 75O candidates have not submitted their attestation forms and 120 candidates have not reported for medical examination. In such :r situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the selected candidates have not participa ted fully in the recruitment process and backed off even before the recruitment process could be concluded and thereby held that vacancies on those accounts cannot be treated as fall out vacancies. -9 c) But, here, in the present case, the appointment orders were already issued to a, rhe selected candidates on 10.06.2024 itself and therefore G.O.Ms.No.gl, GAD, dated 22.02.1997, comes into operation. In the absence of any relaxation to the said provision of law, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 15) For the afore-stated reasons, this Court does not Iind any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16) Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs To, //TRUE COPYII SD/-K. AIIIMAJI ,/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR / / sEcflorg6FFtcER

1. One CC to SRt. RAMESH CHTLLA Advocate [OpUC] 2. One CC to SRt p S RAJA SHEKAR SC FOR fGpSC tOpUCl ' Idfr?t= I KKg Two QD Copies to bP FoR 'ERVI.ES ll ,Hish court for the state of retangana. o BS HIGH COURT DATED:2110312025 ORDER WP.No.16580 of 2024 t ) o o ?1 pr E- S t.q i4: 01 Alri 2025 z i lcS..TCHe! t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .{ 0t