The High Court · 2025

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedln the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dlrect the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated lo.oT.2023forrecruitmenttothepostofStipendiaryCadetTrainee(SCT)Police Constable (TSSP) and (Civil) in the existing vacancies as per the iudgment of the HonourableApexCourtinCivilAppealNo.4T35l2O22'dated23-11-2022pendtng drsposal of the writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI RAJASEKHAR REDDY' SC FOR TSLPRB The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEl'' *NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI I'I \NDA w RIT PETITIO No.224200 F 202=I DATE. L7.t2.2025 BETWEEN: Guguloth Sagar and others , )etitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. SecretarY, Home DePartment Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and other . .ll rspondents ORDER Heard Sri Sai Prasen Gundavararr learned of the P etitioners, counsel aPPearing on behalf Pleader fo Services learned Assastant Government (Home) appearing on behalf of the respor dent No'1 2 SN,J w.P.No.22420 of 2023 - and Sri Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board appearing on behalf of the respondent No'2' 2 The oetitio ers aDD roached the Court see kino Draver as under: "...to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Wrlt of Mandamus. declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioners dated lo-O7-2023 for recruitment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable in (TSSP) and (Civil) in the existing vacancles as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.47 35/ 2022, dated 23-11- 2022 between The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and anr Vs. Narimetla Vamshi and ors pursuant to the Notification dated 31-05-2018 though the person who got equal marks to the petitioner was got appointed as illegal. improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and also violation of prrnciples of natural justice and further direct the 2"d respondent to for appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (TSSP) and (Civil) in the existing vacancies as per the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4735/2O22, dated 23-11-2O22 and to pass " J sN,l W.P.No.2 i l2O of 2O23 The case of the DEtitioners tn brief er: D e 3 v r n a lo e n d vit fil cl bv the o of e re w t tion is as under: i) The petitioners applied for the posts of I tipendiary CadetTrainee(SCT)PoliceConstablein(TSSP)lnd(Civil) in pursuancse of the Notification dated 31'05'2(l B and the petitioners qualified in all stages of selectlon : rd secured marks equal to the last selected candidates b- were not selected due to age preference' As sevet'i I selected candidates did not join or complete the selecti n process' many vacancies remained unfilled' ii) Similarly situated candidates approach€( the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No' 4735 of 2O22;rd the Apex Court, vide order dated 23'Ll'2022' affirmet that such unfilled vacancies ought to be filled by the next meritorious candidates. iii) RelYing on the said submitted rePresentation judgment, th<: Petitioners dated 10.07.20i 3 to the 4 - SN.J w.P,No.2242O ol 2023 respondent Nos.1 and 2, however, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had not considered the said representation as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERU ED THE RECORD A) The relevant oorti n of the iudoment of th Aoex Court dated 23.tL.2(J22 oassed in Civil Aooeal No.473 5 ot 2022 in "The Telanqa a State Level Police Recruat ment Board and another vs. Narimetla nd oth h reu "Learned counsel also seeks to rely upon the judicial precedent in "Munja Praveen and Ors. Vs. State of Telangana and Ors. " reported as .(2017) 14 SCC 797 , where 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 does not join, then the vacancy cannot be filled in on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downward. 5 SN,J W.P. ).22420 of 2023 Lastly it is urged that the Court has lrken care of the scenario where a person has joined a rd left as those vacancies are to be carried forward. We have heard learned counsel for t e parties in the conspectus of the aforesaid submissio I and find no reason to interfere with the concurrent f tdings of the two Courts below. The manner of interp 3ting the rule in question has already been set out n Munja Praveen case (Supra). If a candidate has tot gone through the process of recruitment, he has rot done what was required to be done by him as set ( ut herein above, it cannot be construed as a vacaT( 7 arising which has to be carried forward to the next r: :ruitment process. As to the consequences of the large r tmber of vacancies which have remained on thes(, different accounts, the details of which have been set ( rt herein above, again lend support to this conclusic I that a large part of the process is not frustrated by rot filling up of the vacancies. Public employment is an nportant source ol employbility for young people in Il country where we are facing problems of adequacy c f jobs; An interpretation of the kind sought to be proprr nded by the appellants would go against the very lthos of providlng public employment to persons cl r ible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner leaving a Iarge number of vacancies unfilled. -- is would not be an appropriate interpretation. We are thus in agreement with tre view adopted and accordingly dismiss the appe I leaving parties to bear their own costs. Interim order(s) stands vacated.,, 6 - sN,J W.P.No.22420 of 2023 DIScussro AND C ONCLUS ION: 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners have addressed a detailed representation dated 10.07.2023 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, requesting them to fill up the unfilled 1,370 vacancies in pursuance of Notification No.BB/Rect./Admn.I/2018, dared 31.05.2018, duty taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon,ble Apex Court in Munja Praveen and others v. State of Telangana and others, reported in (20t7) t4 SCC 791 .

6. The specific prayer of the petitioners is to consider the grievance of the petitioners as put forth in the petitioners, representdtion dated 70.07.2023, seeking recruitment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) police Constable in (TSSP) and (Civil) in the existing vacancies, duly taking into consideration the observations in the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2O22, dated

23.11.2022.

7. Learned Standing Counse! appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 submits that appropriate directions -- 7 sN,l W.P.n ).22420 of 2023 may be issued to respondent No.2 to r ens;6s1 16" representation of the petitioners dated LO.O7.2OZ3, seeking recruitment to the post of Stipel diary Cadet Trainee (SCT) police Constable in (TSSp) a nd (Civit) in the existing vacancies, duly taking into r.r nsideration the observations in the judgment of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), within a reasonable period.

8. Learned counsel appearing on bel alf of the petitaoners does not dispute the said ;ubmission made by the tearned Standing Counsel ap Dearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 Board. 9, TAKIN GI NTO coN SID ERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstar ces of the case, b) The submissions made by the learrr:d counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerr . learned Assistant Government pteader for Servicr: ; (Home), appearing on behalf of respondent No.t and the 8 SN,J w.P.No.22420 of 2023 - learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No'2- Board, c) The judgrnent of the Apex Court dated 23.LL.2O22 passed in Civil Appeal No'4735 ot 2022in "The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and another vs. Narimetla Vamshi and others" (referred to and extracted above)' d) The law laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in "Munja Praveen and others v' State of Telangana and others" reported in (2017) 14 SCC 797, e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos.5 to 8 of the present order' he Wr t o r Pe itio is di o t rec tn h rel oco ider the n van e f n rsa t re Dre en atio n ated1 .o7 o 2 e 3, seekin fill inq uo of 2 t It 1 7()v n eof n N A I o d -7 1 ,t I i i i 1 o5 u I fo r 9 der n t e c de Tra ne rn th S P e is an v a sid ra n h e a o h o e n A x c e 1 2 e No 4735 of 20 22 in"Th e T R c LI! en Boa d d r r f, rt o er a w.r) {o.22420 "f 2:#C s ) s f n ( TSsP) e taki n In o ud m nt of he _ livil Aooeal c nqana st vel Po e a ( tla v a mshi a I b ve). strict adherence to the sD eciftc observ Ons made thereunder an D ssa D ro rtat orde within a f e lo e sf o l1 eID of a aw and dulv r a 4 t t o r h r co m m un icate re !'esen at!o t ts ton d n dated to 7. 20 w ver t IE s Ib o n E! titioners, 23 to th e I , t on ers ! costs. 0",,,, "ll'r'n"i,? i:.H j""j:l: n s,, i r a n y, p e A d i n s i i r this Writ //TRUE COPYII SD/-F PONNA KRISHNA Asfr! IANT REG|STRAR _ -- _-1 i IECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principalsecretary. -Home Department. Secretanat B - T.S.,Hyderabarl - SOO'022. 2. lhe Chairman, Telanqana. State Level police Recruitmen ^ Comp_tex, Lakdr_ka_poot uvo"iioro:'so6 0bi l"" " 3 one cc to sRt sAr pander.r curiD;V;RXiu Advocate -",:.:ffi'a &l$.ffi @mffi:' rr dings, |oard, DGP Office | )PUCI at Hvderabad [OUT] 4TwoCCstoAGPFoRSERV|CESl,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, S O*N",CC iO SN.i. RAJASEKHAR REDDY , SC FOR TSLPRB [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies BM BS Ny \ .l i IHE S ( C C)o t \ /) -^n, --r-, '/t' * /- i i), t; 'l HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 ORDER WP.No.22420 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q 1 t? \z- t,