The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 24L59 OF 2O2O ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioners c\allenge thc action of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) in not considering their case for selection and appointment to the posts of Librarians, pursuant to Notihcation No. 2O o{ 2017. dated 14.O4.2017 in thc non-joining vacancies/ absentees/ vacancies arose due lo selection of candidates in morc than one recruitment, as illegal.

2. According to Sri Goda Shiva, learned Scnior Counsel appearing on behall of Smt. Goda Ramalakshmi, learned counsel for petitioners, as per Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public Servrce Commission Rules, il an'; selectecl candidate does not take up thc olTer o[ appointmcnl, then Lhe samc has to bc olfered to the nexL rrrcrit'..,rious candidate in the order of merit. Admittedly, in the insteint casc, TGPSC has not followcd the said Ruie, thereby manl of the notihed posts are lying vacant, submits learned Senior Counsel. 2

3. The Recruiting Agency - TGPSC issued various Notifications for filling up of vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects, Secondary Grade Teachers in English ar-rd'lelttgu Media. Hostel Wellare Officcrs in Grade II in the hostels run for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classcs, Language Pandits and School Librarians' The selection process in respect of a1l the above posts inciude written examination, certificate verification in the raLio of 1:2 and eventual selection in the ratro of 1:1 1or one lcr get selectecl to thc posts, referred Lo supra. Though all the Notifications r.r,ere independently issued by TGPSC and selection process conducted separately, results of t1-re r'r'ritten cxamination u'ere declared proximately close to one another. As can be sccn from ttre list ol posts for which selection process took p1ace, gencral cducational qualifications required for thc posts notified are by and large common, but the hrerarchy and the place of work would be one of the crucial factors for the candidates Lo take a call where they find their names in the list of selected candidates suitable for certificate verification. To elaborate this point a little further, it would be .\ \ .-t I o J necessary to state that a Trained Graduate Teacher is dehnitely superior to a Secondary Grade Teacher; simiiarly, a Librarran in a Junior College is superior to a Librarian in the School. Insofar as Hostel Welfare Offlcers 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 and 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 proccss of selcction in respect ol posts to which they u'ould 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 wilh and PSC is required to prepare the merit list to the extent of vacancies notified only. For any rcason, 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 recruiLment. However, the fact remains that many times, candidates do not join the post to which they are selected or though they join the \ I I 4 post, leave the employment immediately thereafler. This can be for various rcasons. To obviate this contingency and to avoid candidatc 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: Not\,'ithstand ing anything contained in ad hoc Rule issued in G.O.Ms,No. 544, G.A- (Ser.A) Department, dated 04.12 1994, e.ny car-rdidate whose name has been included in a selection list in a direct recruitment prepared by the Commission, on elrquiry bl/ the Commission, may relinquish l.tis claim for aPpointmcnt in writing in the proforma prescribed bv the Commission. The Commission shall thereupon remove thc name of such candidates from the selectton list arcl select anv other candidate according to rules. The candidate n'hose name has be eu so remor, cd frorn thc selection list shall be intbrmed of ssrngval by the Cornmission and shall have no right for thc said ".1sh appointment in future u,ith reference to the said selection: Provided this provision is applicabtc only $'hen a singlc category of posts is notified in a notification and not applicable to a notification \\'here multiple categories of posts are notified. Ilou'ever, it shall be ensured that the list shall not be operated for anv additional vacancies indcnted b,v the Government DePartments. The selection list for the purpose of selecting candidates in placc or- relinquished candidate/ candidates shall bc operated only till the rlcxt notilication is issued or for a period oI one year, *,hichever is earlicr.'' As rcquirecl by Rule 6(A). only after the final merit list is drawn, n illingness of candidates shouid be enquired to by the PSC and if the candidates expressed their unwillingness, "\ ) o ) their names should be excluded from the final merit list and to that extent, add the name of next meritorious candidate, draw the select list and fonl,ard the same to lhe appointing authority The relinquishment 1S voluntary, and no body can force a candidale 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 notihed in a notification and not applicable to a notification vi,here multiple categories of posts are notified- Howevcr, it shall be ensured that the list sha11 not be operated for any additional vacancies indented by the government. The selection list for thc purpose of selecting candidates in place o[ relinquished candidates / candidates sha1l be operated only l-ill the next notification is issued or for a period of year, whichever is earlier.

4. Earlier, the Learne d Single Judge who heard this batch of cases, disposed the same by a common order dated

24.06.2021, which reacls as undcr: "9 This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the Learned counsel for the respective partics, is oI the considered vie\,\, that since the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgrnents rendered by this Court in WP No. 7ll7 of 2O2O dated 11.08.2020 and WP No. 4495 of 2019 dated ) ) -t I I i : l l 6

11.6.2019 and as confirmed vide juclgments dated 03.O7 2O19 in WA. No. 551 of 2019 these u'rit petitions can bc disposed of directing the public serwicc commission and the State Government to fi1l all the unfilled vacancies strictly by follorving Rule 6(4) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules. lt is made clear that the vacancies, which vvere relinquished by the selected candid3tes, after giving appointment orders, those vacancies had to be tagged on to thc next notLfication and the vacancies u'hich arc sLill lying vacant evcn after issuance of appointment orders, those vacancies have to be filled up strictly by following Rule 6(4) of Telangana Statc Public Scrvice Commission Rules and the same should be offered to the ncxt 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. 70.2027 , Writ Appeals rvcrc 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 hnding of facl $dether Rule 6(4.) of the Rules has bccn complied \viLh or not. The Division Bench, taking into consideration Rulc 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 sclected candidates shal1 be notihed in thc next recruitment, observed that thc order passcd \ n 7 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. [,earnecl Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 ot 2022 dated 23.I1.2O22 (Telangana State Leael Police Recruitment Board a Nantnetla Vamshi). Attention of this Court u,as drawn to the following paragraph: " We have heard learned counscl for the parties in thc conspectus of the aforesaid submissions and find no rcason to interlere with the concurrent findings o[ the two Courts belou,. The manner of interpreting the rule in question has already been set ott in Munja Praueen case (Supra). It a candidatc has not gonc through the process of recruitment, he has not done what r.vas required to be done by him as set out herein above, it cannot be construed as a vacancy arising rvhich has to be carricd fonvard to the ncxt recruitment process. ns to the consequences of the Iarge number of vacancies rvhich have remained on thesc different accounts, the details of which have been set out herein above, again Iend suppor[ to this conclusion that a large part of the process is not liustrated bY not f1lling up of the vacancies. Public employment is an important sourcc o[ ernployability for young people in the country where r,r,e are facing problems of adequacy of jobs. An interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded by the appellants would go against the ver1, cthos oI providing public employment to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner leaving a large number of vacancies unhlted. This siould not be an appropriate interpretation," ) \ I 8 Learned counsel submits that from the above rcferred judgment and portion extracted supra, the defence projectcd by TGPSC is unsustainable and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He also relied on the ratio laid down in Writ Petition No. 4495 of 2019, dated 11.06.2C-19 and the judgment in Writ Appcal No. 551 of 2Ol9 dated 03.O7.2019. In that vicw of the matter, learned Senior Counsel submits that Writ Petition desen es 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 the Rules and some of the vacancies, rvhich were relinquished by the persons appointed in thosc vacrtncics, havc [o be taggcd on to the next recruitment notiltcation only and those unhlled vacancies cannot be hlled up by thc next meritorious candidates in the order of merit- Thcreforc, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

8. In the light of the argumen[s advanced on both the sides, it is to be seen that tn Munja Pranteen v. State oJ 'l \ o i I i I 9 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 and the appointed person docs not join, then the vacancy cannol be fil1ed in on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downward. Based on the said judgment, in Narimetla Vqm.shi's case, it has been held that 'if a candidate has not gone through the process of rccruitment, 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 nex[ recruilment process. However, it is also observed that public employment is an important source of employability lor young people in the country and an interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded would go against the very ethos of providing public employmcnt to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a rnanner ieaving a large number of vacancies rinfilled. This would not be an appropriate interpretation. Reliance was also ' (z&D r+ scc zsz I 10 : placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok alias Somannrr Gouda u Sta.te oJ Karnataka2. This judgcment rvas paraded to buttress the contention that petitioners alonc would have to be considered for the vacancies and thc respondenls cannot frustrate the lruits of the litigation Lo petitioners on the ground that thcre could be / are candidates more meritorious than petitioners. In the said judgment, it is held as under: " In vicw of the fact that the appointrnclrts under the impugned Rules rvere made as back as in 1987 and onl-\ the present appellants had approachcd the Tribunal for rclicf, the casc of other candidates car)not be considerecl as they never approachcd for tcdress r.vithin reasonable timc. We are thus inclined to grant relief oul!'to the present appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time. Learned counsel for the State also sul)Inilted thal the State Government has alrcady franrcd nerv rules, and as such rve do not find it necessary to quash the Rules undcr rvhir:h thc present selcctions u'ere made as they are no longer il'I existence". 9 At this juncture, it is also to be secn thal l.his Court in similar circumstances, dealing with similar r-rotification, Writ Petitions No. 20232 arrd 20273 of 2O18. directcd the Commission to strictly abide by the mandate of Rule 6(4) and (\ee2) i scc 28 \ c make an enquiry with the rest of the candidates who hgurecl in the said selection list and in the event any such candiclates 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 candidatc in terms of merit. Challenging the said order, Writ Appeals No. 7494 of 2O18 and 7524 of 2018 were fi1ed by the Commission. The said Writ Appeals were disposed of confirming the directions of the learned Single Judge. Thercafter, the Commission published the rcvised final selection list d:tteci

22.O4.2021 . i0. The grievance of petitioners is that pursuant to Notification No. 20 of 2017 issued by thc l sr respondent, petitioners all appeared for the posts of Librarian (School) in ResidenLial trducational Institutions Societies and appeared lor selection process. All of them were cerlled for certificate verification on 24.05.2018 and 23.07.2018 and marks list / notification for selection of the candidates was published on

14.08.2018. It is stated challenging the process of selcctron, some candidates filed Writ Petitions No. 29737. 37992 anct 1 \ 1 1)- ij( 37921 of 2O18 and pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 27.08.2019, the 1"t respondent having r:on sidered the relinquishment option issued revised selection list. The 1"t respondent issucd web notification on 12.72..2019 mentioning lhat 174 canclidates have not joined and 154 offered relinquishment at the time of selection. On implementation of orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4495, 16292 aad i5403 of 2019, the Commission had taken a decisron for filling up of those vacancies with next meritorious candidates zrnd issttr:cl accor<lingl1r, 21n61hgr Notification on 71.06.2020 u'here under the candid:rtes n'ho did not take up their posts rvere to be considcred as rclinquished. According to petitioner, though this Court gave protection only to six candidates, the 1"t rcspondent broadly Laken a decision, treating all non-joining posts as cicnied relinquishments and gone ahead with the lilling up of all thosc vacancics and hlled up all the posts with thc next meritorious candiclates. It is submitted that pctitioners are also similarly-placed persons and seeking same relief.

11. On the other hand, it is the case of Lhe respondent Commission that in compliance with the common order of this I n I I 1i Court dated 23.07.2019 in Writ petition No. 29732 of 2019 and batch, the Commission sought relinquishmen t frorn 26.O7.2079 to 3O.O7.2OI9 from the candidates who hgured in provisional selection list which was published on 14.0g.2O1g; in response, 30 candidates relinquished their post and accordingly, 29 next meritorious candidates were selected in place of such candidates and final selection iist was published on 27.O8.2079 and 1 PH vacancy was not hlled up from Lhe relinquished vacancics due to non-availability of eligible candidates. I t is stated, thc Commission filled up 246 vacancics out of notilied 256 under the Notihcation and the remaining I O vacancies r.r,ere kept unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates in the categories of VH(Women)L and VH(Women)UR and HH (Gencral)(L).

12. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4, it is stated that merit is the prime most important element iri selection process coupled with commun rty, zone, institulion, 1ocal status, gender, etcetera, as such, it is clear that pctilioners could not get selection due to their low merit but not for any other reasons as alleged by them. It is also stated that it is not l ') _l I i I i 14 appropriate to scek relinquishments repeatedly cven after the selccted candidzrtes have joined their respective duties and it is nol rcliabie to seek relinquishments again and again to consider the next meritorious candidates for selection in the- non joining vacancies as it leads to indeflnite delays in concluding a recruitment ancl other problems in the selection procedure as selcctions are hnalized taking into account of merit, eligibility, local/non-local status duly following the rule of rcservation rn, luding woln( rl tcscrvation-

13. Bc that as it may. In view of the judgmcnt in Nq.rirnetla Vamshi's case, this Court deems iL appropriate to direct the 1.t rcspondent to consider the candidature of pctitioners as per merit.

14. lrurthcr, in the judgment ln Ashok qltqs Somanna Gowda's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted relief only to thc appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the judicial fora in time. Same principle is liable to be exlencled in thc pre sent case as well, in view of the fact that it is only petitioners, u,ho knocked the doors of this Court for reclressal of grievance on the principles which are in consonance ) )/ / 15 with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Noirimetlo Vam.shi's case lsupra). For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

15. The Writ Petition is accordingly-, allowed_ Thc lsr respondcnt is directed to considcr the case of petitioners for selcctron and appointment to the post of Librarians as pcr their merit in the selection process in the non-joining vacancies, iI any by operating the next merit. No costs.

16. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if anv shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// sD/'p. GowRr PUTY RE 'HANKAR SECTION OFFICER To, Hvderabad. T.S..Hvderabad

1. The Secreiary, Telangana State Public Service Commission' Nampally' ,. T#?;#Ipal Secretary, Social Welfare Department' Secretariat' :. int'b'i"Ji'prj3ecretary, BC Welfare Department' Secretariat' 4 o;;' iU i; o on RAMALAKS H M s one cc to SRr. rvr. RAMa6FXi iiqoisi-ion IPJt"l ioPllql--..^. d. 5'# Ed i; siii. N. eHui'1-f nEoov, Sc ron MJPTBCWRETS [oPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies 1,- 4oygcirf^tp e u c I "trib T.S..Hvderabad. B IVI I I I a HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 ORDER WP.No.24159 of 2020 \' HE S I/q 0 2 mnv 2n25 't 2 o A !t 9e :jr,^-r{',Yl --:- t L,J ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS il(