The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's case for appointment as Librarian (School) in Residential Educational lnstitutions Societies, pursuant to the Notification No. 20 oI 2017 daled 14-04-2017, by operating the Merit List downwards, based on his merit and BC-A Social Status, and accordingly appoint him as Librarian (School), pending disposal of the above writ petrtion. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.SATYANARAYANA YADAV Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: GP FOR SERVICES-I|| Counsel forthe Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI S.BHUPAL REDDY, SC FOR TSWREIS The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.29473 of2023 ORDER: petitioner for aPPointment as Seeking to direct the respondents to consider the case of the Librarian (School) in Residential pursuant to Notification No.20 of Educational Institutions Societies' 2017, dated 14.O4.O17, duly operating the Merit List downwards' based on his merit and BC-A social status, the present writ Petition is hled' 2) Heard Sri G. Satyanarayana Yadav' learned counscl for the petitioner, Sri P.S. Rajashekar, Iearned Standing Counsel' appearing for respondent No. 1, learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill appearing for respondents 2 and 3, and Sri S Bhupal Reddy' Iearned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents 4 and 5' 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Zone-VI and BC-A communitv and completed B'Sc' in the year 2010 from Osmania University and also passed B'Li Sc from Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Open Univsersity' in the month of January' 2O 16' While so, he responded to the notihcation No-2O of 2017' dated 14.04.2017 , issued by the respondents inviting online applications for the posts of Librarian (School) in Residential Educational Institutions 2 PK, .I W.P.No.29473 of 2023 Societies. He was also issued with hall ticket, appeared the written tests held from l7.Og.2ol7 and 7a.O9.2O17 - As he was qualihed in the written test, he was called for web oplions and certificate verihcation in 1:2 ratio. Accordingly, he exercised his web options on 28.O5.2O18 and attended for certihcate verification on 30.05.2018. Learned counsel submits that thereaJter, respondent No. t has prepared a common merit list for Zone-V and Zone-VI by miing the candidates of both the zones, which is defective. Separate lists have to be prepaled for each zone for the purpose of recruitment. Some of the candidates who secured less merit were included in Open Category and candidates who secured more merit r,r,'ere included in reserved category, contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabhorual a. State of Puniabl - Further, when single category post of Librarian is notihed, calling web options itself is contrary to the Rules and Procedure, due to which, severa.l ineiigible candidates were considered for appointment in other zones, ignoring the fact that those candidates can be considered against 2Ook open quota only. Therefore, the entire selection process is vitiated ald the merit list is liable to be set aside. karned counsel lurther submits that rather the respondents ought to have operated the Merit List downwards by duly following the dicta settled by the Hon'ble 'rs9s 121 scc z+s 3 PK, J W.P.No.29473 oJ 2023 Supreme Court in Munia Pta veen v- Telangana2 ar.d ought to have appointed the petitioners and similarly situated persons who are next meritorious candidates, as per their merit and social status, and by following Rue 6(A) of Telangana State Public Service commission Rules, as per ttre adjudication of this Court in W.P.Nos'2O232 ard 2027 3 of 2017 wherein this Hon'ble Court vide common order dated 06'09'2018 has directed the respondents to follow Rule 6 (A) of the Rules in respect of appointment to the posts of TGTs [science) and the same was also confirmed in W.A. Nos.1494 arrd 1524 of 2018, dated 22'll'2O18' Similarly, in W.P.Nos.29737, g7ag2 and 37921 of 2018 and 836 of 2019, this Court directed respondent No.1 therein to fo11ow Rule 6(A) of the Rules and {ina_1ize the selections accordingly alrd the same was also confirmed in W.A. Nos.S11 of 2O2l vide order dated 3l'12'2021' 4) Learned counsel has further contended that in the case on hand a1so, respondent No. t has appointed 115 candidates in Zone-vl and sti1l there are 37 vacancies on Zone-YI. Yet, respondent No'l has not operated the merit list downwards and appointed the next meritorious candidates against those 37 vacalcies and the same is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles i4, 16 and 2 1 0f the constitution of India. Further, responderit No.1 had appointed two candidates with hall ticket ' zoi lr+l scc tgt I i l .l I i) 4 PK, J W.P.No.29473 of 2023 Nos. 1720001325 and 172OOO3839 vide proceedings dated 07.1O.2O23 pursuant to the order dated 05.12.2022 passed in W.A. No.826 of 2019. In the judgment dated 05.12.2022, it was stated that 1O vacancies were available pursuant to Advertisement/Notihcation dated 14.O4.2O 17, b.ut those 10 vacancies pertain to physicaliy handicapped category. After the relinquishment was obtained by respondent No. 1, the selection list was published artd therefore the question of aly vacancies arising out of relinquishment does not anse. Duly recording the said submission, the Division Bench has disposed of the Writ Appeal directing to consider the case of the appellalts therein against the resultant vacancies on account of relinquishment in the category to which they belong. Therefore, the learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is also similarly entitled for appointment against the existing vacalcies caused due to relinquishment or otherwise, by operating the Merit List downwards on par with the candidates who were appointed vide proceedings dated 07.1O.2O23. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to issue suitable directions to respondent No. 1 to appoint the petitioner as Librarian (School) in the left over existing vacancies based on his merit and social status. 5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that pursuant to the notification No.2O l20 17, dated 14.O4.2O17, petitioner I I l I i i l I i PK, J W.P.No.29473 of 2O23 has applied, appeared for written examination and subsequently participated in certificate verification in the ratio of 1:2. It is further contended that as against 256 vacalcies notified, 145 vacancies were notihed against Girls Institutions for which only female candidates are eligible. Out of the remaining 1 1 1 vacancies notified in Boys Institutions, 49 vacancies were notihed against lMomen category' and only female candidates are eligible for those vacancies. Therefore, the balance 62 vacancies were notihed against general category for which both male and female are eligible. Out of those 62 vacancies, the petitioner, being a male caldidate and belonging to ZoLe VI artd BC-A community, is eligible to compete only against 26 vacancies (4 OC (general) unreserved vacancies of Zone-V + 19 OC (general) vacancies of Zone-YI + 4 BC-A(G) vacancies of Zone-VI). Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a general ranking lisl of all the candidates in order of merit and called the candidates for certificate verification in 1:2 ratio from the merit list. Further, while drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.P.No.763, GA (SPF-A)D, dated 15.1i.1975, he contended that the post of Librarian in REIS is a multi cadre post though the vacancies are in different departments in different institutions within the departments arrd in different zones. Hence, the post of Librarian in 6 PK, J W.P.No.29473 of 2O23 the schools of REIS does not come under single category post, S contended by the learned counsel for the peti[ioner.

5.1) As regards preparation of a common merit -list for both the zones, the learned Standing counser has contended that the said action of the Commission was upheld by this Hon,ble Court in W.p. Nos.29737 of 2018 & batch vide order dated 23.07.2oL9. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is unsustainable. Learned Standing counsel has further contended that due selection procedure was strictly followed by the Commission in the present case duly following the Rule of Reservation of State and Subordinate Service Rules. Further, as per the procedure, after hlling up the vacancies of unreserved category, the local vacancies of all categories (including Open Category) will be filted up. In other words, the candidates of BC/SC/ST communities will also be selected against oc-local vaca,cies arong with oc ca.didates. If the OC vacancies are hlled purely with OC candidates then there is no possibility for the candidates of BC/sc/sr categories in the serection list against OC local vacancies.

5.2) Insofar as the contention of the petitioner as regards web options is concerned, though the notirlcation is only for the post of Librarian (School) recruitment, there are two societies viz., Social welfare societies a-d BC welfare Societies in Zone-v & Zone-vl and two gender based 1 PK, J W.P.No.29473 of 2O23 institutions are available in each zone and all are notified together' Therefore, the Commission has prepared a common merit list and' sought for post preferences/web options, which 'is legal' valid and justified. Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that though 17 petitioners were impleaded in W'P'No 29737 ot 2Ol8' but they did not join even though orders were passed in their favour' Out of those 17 non-joining vacancies, 1 vacancy falling under OC(General) un-reserved of TSWREIS Boys Institution in Zone-V was hlled as per the orders in W.A. No.S36/2019 as the said candidate was in merit' As such' only one non-joining vacancy in the category of OC-G-L of TSWREIS-Boys But, 20 meritorious candidates are Institution it Zone-Yt is available' the petitioner herein, suitabie for available in the merit list above selection against the said vacancy and there is no BC-A (G) vacancy tn Zone-Vl. Due to his low merit, the petitioner did not get selection either in UR vacancies or in Local vacancies. Hence, it is not possible to select the petitioner by operating the merit list downwards' It is further contended that the commission does not maintain any waiting list and all the unfilled vacancies will be carry forwarded for the next notification. Similarly, as per G O'Ms No 81, GAD' dt'22 'O2 ' 1997 ' ard as per Rule 6 of TSPSC Rules of Procedure, all non-joining vacalcies of I 8 PK, J W.P.No.29473 oJ 2023 selected candidates are to be notified in the next recruitment. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record 7l As can be seen from the material on record, the issues raised by the petitioners regarding (1) preparation of common merit list for zone-v alrd VI by rnixing the candidates of both Zones, (21 Implementation of Rule 6-A of TSPSC Rules, and (3) inclusion of some of the candidates, who secured less merit, in the open category and some candidates, who secured more merit, were included in the reserved category, in respect of the very same notification No.2O/2O lT, were already dealt with in W.P.No.29737 of 2018 & batch and decided by this Court vide common order dated 23.07.2079, upholding the action of the Commission. 8) As regards, common merit list, reievant portion of the order dated 23.O7 -2079 reads as under: "Irarned Advocate General appearing for the State had contended that Zone-wise merit lists have been prepared and every effort has been made to ensure that the Rules are strictly adhered to aJId, to demonstrate this, the learned Advocate General has pointed out the separate selected candidates lists of Zone V and Z,one Vl, which are filed at page No.1O of the material papers filed atong w.ith I.A. No.S of 2018, and contended that the contention of the petitioners that a common Merit List has been prepared for both the Zones is totally incorrect. 9 PK, J W.P.No.29473 of 2023 ThisCourt,afterhearingthesubmissionsoftheparties,hasspecifica-lly asked the learned counsel lor the petitioners to give some illustrations as to howtherespondentshaveviolatedtheRulesinpreparingtheselectedlists, but the learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any illustrations' except stating that BC-B women candidates have secured more marks than thecand.idatesselectedintheopencate8ory.ThisCourtisoftheviewthat womenreservationhastobeapplied.horizontally,butnotvertically'Ifthe Selectedlistsconsistofrequirednumberofpercentageforwomen,thenit should not be touched Even in respect of other issues' learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any illustrations as to violation in preparing the selected lists. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere" " Likewise, as regards Rule 6-A of the Rules' relevant portion of the 9) common order dated 23 'O7 '2019 reads as under: It would be important to note RuIe 6(A) of the Rules' which reads as follows: "Rule 6(A) : Notwithstanding anything contained in adhoc Rule issued in G.O.Ms.No.544, G.A (Ser'A) Ifepartment' dated 04 12 1998' any candidate whose name has been included in a selection list in a direct recruitment prepared by the Commission' on enquiry by the Commission' may relinquish hisclaimforappointmentinwritingintheproformaprescribedbythe Commission, The Commission shall thereupon remove the name of such candidates from the selection list and select any other candidate according to rules. The caldidate whose name has been so removed from the selection list shallbeinformedofsuchremovalbytheCommissionandsha-llhavenoright for the said appointment in future with reference to the said selection: Provided this provision is applicable only when a single category of posts is notified in a notification and not applicable to a notihcation where multiple cateSories of posts are notihed However' it shall be ensured that the list shall not be operated, for any additionat vacancies indented bv the Government Departments. The selection trst for the purpose of selectilg candidates in place B 10 PK, J W.P.No.29473 of 2O23 of relinquished candidate/ candidates sha_ll be operated only till the next notihcation is issued or for a period of one year, whichever is earlier. A perusal of the above Rule would make it clear that the puttlic Service Comrmssion must enquire from the candidates who are selected as to whether there are willing to relinquish their claim for appointment in writing in the proforma prescribed by the Commission ald if aly of the candidates relinquish their claim for appointment, the same should be filled up by the next meritorious candidate. So, the said Rule makes abundantly clear it has to be followed at the time of preparing the select list. The contention of the learned Advocate General that Rule 6-.4 of the Rutes woutd be made applicabte to a notification where multiple categories of posts are notified, is not correct. This Court is of the considered view that the said contention is contrary to the proviso to Rule 6(4) of the Rules, which makes it abundantly clear that it is applicable only when single category of posts is notified in the notification and not applicable to the notification where multiple categories of posts are notihed. Since only single category of posts of Librarian is notilied in the instant case, the respondents are bound to follow Rule 6(4) of the Rules and the issue was set at rest in W.P.Nos.20232 a]rd 20273 of 2018 dated 06.09.2018, which was conhrmed by a Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1494 and 1524 of 2018, dated 22-7l.2OlA. Therefore, the respondents are directed to follow Rule 6(4) of the Rules in the select list, which was already prepared, by offering rehnquishment option to the selected candidates. However, since the Division Bench in W.A-Nos.1494 and 1524 of 2018, dated 22-11.2018, has already held that the respondents I to 119 who figured in the selection list of264 candidates need not be disturbed, as they have already indicated that they are not willing to relinquish their selection, by extending the same yardstick, the rmpleaded respondents in W.P.No.29737 of 2018 need not be disturbed, as they are also not willing to relinquish their selection. However, in respect of other selected candidates is concerned, the Public Service Commission shall follow Rule 6(4) of the Rules and finalise the selections accordingly-" 10) Now, the only issue left for determination in this writ petition is operating the merit list downwards. i I ! I I ,t 11 PK' J W.P.No.29473 of 2O23 11) A perusal of the record also discloses that after hlling up of the vacartcies notified in Notification No'2O l2OI7 ' dated l4'O4 '2017' one vacarcy falling under OC-General unreserved in TSWRtrIS Boys Institution irt Zone-Y was hlled up as per the orders of this Court in Writ Appeal No.836 of 2Ol9 as per merit and only one non-joining vacalcy in the category of OC-General of TSWREIS Boys Inslitution in Z'one-VI' to which the petitioner belongs to, is available Further' admittedly' the petitioner belongs to BC-A category ald secured 188 marks with 254 rank. Admittediy, only one vacancy is available in OC-General category of Zone-Yl, but there are 2O candidates in the ranking list who are more meritorious than the petitioner' Therefore' the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for i'e to direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment, due to his low merit' 12\ For the afore-mentioned reasons' the Writ Petition is dismissed' Misceltaneous applications, if any' pending in this writ petition' sha,ll stand closed. No .costs SD/.L.VIJAYA LAKSHMI AS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

4. One CC to SRI G.SATYANARAYANA YADAV' Ad One CC to SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC [OPUC] One CC to SRI S.BHUPAL REDDY, SC FOR TSWREIS IOPUC] TwoCCstoGPFORSERVICES-|||,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT] cate [OPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies W BSFYBSK HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 -l o( - 14);-\ ,1^- o (.) 2 o ,lutl 2p5 t oFspATCHEO * f.( 2 o l ORDER WP.No.29473 ot 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I 6 16 I I i