The High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ cf mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not filing up the notified posts against the fall out/left over/relinquished/non-joined vacancies by the petitioners who are the next meritorious candidates by following downward merit list in pursuance of the Notifications Nos. 1 to 4 and 9 of 2023 dated 05.04.20:23 is being illegal. arbitrary, perverse, unjust, contrary to the law laid by the this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.31745 oI 2024 and Batch dated

22.09.2025 besides being violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and cons.equently direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in fil'ing out the fall ouUleft over/relinquished/non-joined vacancies as pertheir merit pursuant to the Notification Nos. 1 to 4 and 9 of 2023. dated 05-04-

2023. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the candidature of the petitioners for their respective selected posts against Notification Nos. 1 to 4 and g of 2023, dated 05-04-2023 in terms of orders passed in W.P. No.31745 of 2O24 and Batch dated 22.09.2O25 by this Hon'ble High Court. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ALLIKA SURESH Counsel forthe Respondent No.l: GP FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI NAYAKWADI RAMESH, SG FOR TREIRB Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI BHANOTHU HUSSAIN, SC FORTSWR,EIS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI S.BHOOPAL REDDY, SC FOR TTWREIS The Court made the following: ORDER r.HE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK W.P.No.31364 of 2O2S ORDER: with the consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for.disposa- at the admission stage itself.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned Standing counsel for respondent No-2, sri Bhanothu Hussain, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 and sri s.Bhoopa] Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record. I (

3. when the matter is taken up for hearing, the rearned counsel for cetitioners submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this court in w.P.No.3tr4s of 2024 and batch dated 22.g.2o25 and requested the court to pass similar ord.er in this writ petition also. The said surbmission is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel appt:aring for the respondents. 2

4. In view of the above and. following t]le order passed in w.P-No.3L745 of 2024 and batch dated 22.g.2o25 and in terms thereof, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners by duly operating the Merit List downwards and lill up all the fallout vacancies pertaining to Notification Nos. L to 4 and 9 of 2023 dated 5.4.2023 without carry forwarding the same to the next Notification. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of sixrmonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand. closed. There : 'shall be no order as to costs. \ \ To //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT S OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary, General Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Executive Officer Convener, T lnstitutions, Recruitment Board TREIRB, Hyderabad ellngana Residential Educational 4"' Floor DSS Bhavan [\Iasab Tank

3. The Secretary. Telangana Social Welfare Residentiat fOucltional lnstitutions Society, Hyderabad

4. The Secretary, Telangana Tribal Welfare Residential Educational lnstitutions Society, Hyderabad

5. One CC to SRI ALLIKA SURESH, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for SERVICE - ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. One CC to SRI NAYAKWADI RAIMESH, SC forTREIRB [OPUCJ 8. One CC to SRI BHANOTHU HUSSAIN, SC for TSWREIS IOPUC] 9. One CC to SRI S.BHOOPAL REDDY, SC for TTWREIS [OPUC] 10.Two CD Copies o Along with a copy of the Order dated 22.09.2025 in W.P.No.31745 of 2024 and batch. I HIGH COURT DATED i1611012025 gl!ilt"|F S ORDER i WP.No.31364 of 2025 () (. -1 l1 r'Kt ? 'l !IlB ?fl?f, * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )A t 3 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAIT,IAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 3L745,, 64241 2L61r 96o,4, tL62O, 19335, 2240,3, 260,3o, 2872o., 297^42, 32479 of 20124 AND UIRIT PETITION No. 3762 and 7549 of 2O2S COMMON ORDER: The issue involved in these Writ Petitions is, respondent authorities not operating the merit list downwards and not recruiting the petitioners in the fallout vacancles

2. All these Writ Petitions hereby disposed of by this Common Order, as the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is identical.

3. Heard learned counsel for respective parties: Sri Siva, learned Senior counsel representing Smt. Goda Rama Lakshmi, Himangini Sanghi, Sri Kohir Bhaskar Reddy, Sri Bondempally Ramulu, Ms. Devara Samhitha, Sri Anirudh Sadhu, Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Vemula Suresh, Ms. P. Anusha, counsel appearing for the petitioners. 4 Lerlrned Government Pleader for Services, Sri N. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel TREI-RB, Sri S Bhoopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for State Residential Educational Societ5r, counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. For: the sake of convenience, the facts in WP No.31745 of2024 are discussed hereunder: Leztrned Senior Counsel Sri Siva, representing Goda Rama Lal<shmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 3'd respondent authorities on O5.O4.2O23, calling for applications from eligible candidates for being recruited to variorrs posts viz. Lecturer/Physical Director/Librarian ln Degree Colleges (Notification No.l /2023), Junior Lecturers/Physical Directors/Librarians in Junior Colleges in Rer;idential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.2/2023), Post Graduate Teachers in Residenl.ial Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.3/2023), Librarian (School) in Residential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.4/2023), Physical Director (School)/Physical Director Grade-II in Residential 5 Educational Institutions societies (Notification No. s /2023) and Trained Graduate Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.9 / 2023).

5. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioners herein were eligible for substantial number of posts proposed to be filled up by the above Notifications. They have responded to the same. The selection process comprised of a cornputer based test which was held between l"t and 23rd August, 2025. It is pertinent to mention here that so far as Degree Lecturers, Junior Lecturers and Post Graduate Teachers are concerned, Paper-I was conducted simultaneously. The said paper being general studies, it may be only for the purpose of convenience instead of setting more than one paper for testing the abiliff of the candidates.

6. Learned Senior counsel further submits that in respect of Junior Lecturers and Post Graduate Teachers, paper-Il which was pedagogr was conducted commonly. The 3'd paper was independently conducted for aII the posts as it related to their respective subjects for which the 6 recruitnrent is to be held. It is also pertinent to state there was no minimum marks prescribed for each of the paper and sel,:ctions were to be made based on the aggregate marks secured by the candidates.

7. Learned Senior counsel further submits that it is common prudency that could be reasonably expected from a Board given the responsibility of conducting selections and recommending candidates for various posts in the hierarctLy starting from a Trained Graduate Teacher (the lower position for which Notification has been issued by the 3.d respondent Board) and the highest position being that of Degree Lecturers to declare results from top to bottom lbr effectively filling up of all the vacancies.

8. Le:rrned Senior counsel further submits that if the results for the lowest post of TGT is declared simultaneously with that of a Degree Lecturers, there could be a possibility of a candidate behind selected against both the posts. In such a situation, one of the posts cc,uld not be filled up and that obviously, would be the post lower in the hierarchy. In those circumstances, it 7 would be necessarily call for reviewing the entire situation based on the number of people who do not report to certificate verification andf or further selection process like demonstration etc.,

9. Learned senior counsel further submits that in the instant case, the schedule for certificate verification (list containing candidates in the ratio of l:2 i.e. two candidates for every vacancy to be filled up). In respect of Post Graduate Teacher was fixed on 9th February, Librarian (school), physical Director (school) on gth February, Trained Graduate Teacher on 2sth, Junior Lecturer on 16th and Degree Lecturer on 15th February, 2023. The finat list (1 : 1) in so far as post graduate teacher; Librarian (school), physical Director (school), librarians (Degree college), physical Director (Degree college), Librarian (Junior college), and physical Director (Junior college) was finaltzed and appointment orders to these people were issued on 14.02.2024. In so far as Trained Graduate Teachers, Junior Lecturers and Degree Lecturers are concerned, appointment ord.ers were issued ort 4th March. 8

10. A crtnsiderable number of people have been selected to more 1-han one post and obviously as it is impossible to report to all the posts to which they have been selected, only one vacancy would be filled up and other vacancies to which the candid.ates have been selected would go a begging. This can never be the purpose of issuing of Notifications. Unfortunately, this very crucial aspect has been lost sight of the 3'd respondent Board resulting in forcing the unemployed youth to knock the doors of this Honble Court for justice. 1 1. Leerrned Senior counsel further submits that the recruitirrg authorities have been relying upon the state Governrrent instructions as constrained in G.o.Ms. No.81 G.A. (Ser .A) , Department, dated 22 'O2 'L997 and G.O.Ms.No.544, G-A.(Ser.A), Department, dated o4.1 2.1998. The purport of the G.os would make it necessary that the recruiting agency will have to furnish a list equral to the number of vacancies notified in the NotificaLion. In other word.s, in a recruitment year, after I the selection of candidates and after issue of appointment order, if the candidates failed to join duty within the 9 stipulated period, that vacancy shall be notified in the next recruitment year. By virtue of the said G.Os, the system of preparing a waiting list for fallout vacancies has been done away with. In the latter G.O. referred to above, which is an adhoc rule made in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Governor, it was made clear that fallout vacancies, if dfly, due to relinquishment and non-joining etc., of selected candidates, shall be notified in the next recruitment.

12. Learned Senior counsel further submits that while explaining the above said method, this principle may well be applicable to cases where the recruitment agencies are required to hold selections for filling up vacancies to a particular post alone. But, it does not answer logic to extend the said principle in cases where number of posts at different leve1s in hierarchy are sought to be filled up. The present case is a classic case where the application of said principle has resulted in more than 1800 of the vacancies remaining unfilled. The result of application of this principle and where results are declared either L0 simultaneously or in respect of posts in the lower category earlier irr point of time than the post in the higher echelons of the hierarchy.

13. Lezrned Senior counsel further submits that the petitione:rs in the present Writ Petition have all been includec: in the l:2 list calling for certificate verification but could not make up to 1: 1 that is eventual selection for issuanct: of appointment order. This is a direct result of application of principle which cannot be made applicable in cases where more number of posts are sought to be filled up. Since this is the only reason, why the petitioners have nol- been eventually selected, they are constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. L4. Aftr:r hearing the matter, initially, this Honble Court granted lnterim order on 13.11 .2024 as follows: "Hauing regard to the submissions made bg learned counsel for the respectiue parties, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment in their respectiue posfs against the fatlout/relinquished uacancies dulg operating the Meit List downutards, in accordance uith the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court 11 in Ciuil Appeal lVos.I 0583-10585 of 2017, dated 17.O8.2017."

15. Against the above said interim direction, vacate stay along with counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3/ Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as "TREI-RB") vide I.A. No. L of 2025. In the said vacate stay petition, the

3.d respondent submitted that the recruitments have been notified after a long gap period and the candidates were agitating for early publication of the results no sooner they wrote the examination in question as the election code was about to come in force. Therefore, it has become necessary for the "TREI-RB" to announce the results of the provisionally selected candidates irrespective of higher posts or lower posts whatever it may be.

16. It is further stated that the candidates selected in more than one post, were also reluctant to give their consent to join in a particular post fully knowing well that they are meritorious and get more than one post. It is the prerogative of the candidates on merit, but not the (TREI- RB). If the TREI-RB follows against the rights of the 72 selected candidates and take relinquishment from the same cerndidates at the time of certificate verification for specific post, it leads to infringement of fundamental right of a pet:son guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

17. It is further stated that nowhere in the Notification had mentioned that the results of the above notification would lce published in a descending order' The post notified in the different notifications holds different qualifications with different standards of examinations and accordingly, the results were notifred depending upon the completion of the selection process. It is also clearly mentiorred against para No.V of the Notification, which reads as follows:

1. Vacancies: The recruitment will be made to the vacancies notified before the examination only' There shall be no waiting list as per G.O.Ms.No.81, General Aclministration (Ser.A) Department, dated 22:,32.1997. If additional vacancies are reported by 13 the Government, an addendum to that effect will be issued.

2. Unfilled and non-joining vacancies will be carry forwarded to next recruitment."

18. It is further stated that in the previous recruitment also, some candidates denied to give relinquishment and joined lower post instead of higher post according to their convenience. Hence, the averments made in the ajfidavit are not correct and accordingly, the TREI-RB is proceeding scrupulously as per G-O.Ms.No.S1, G.A.(Ser.A), Department, dated 22.02.7997 , which is mentioned against para No.V of the Notification. Lg. It is further stated that the petitioners have themselves stated that different written examinations have been held for different posts and they have applied for the said posts since they are qualified to apply to all the said posts. From this, it is clear that different examinations have been conducted for different posts with different standards of examination, but not with the same standard though they are possessing qualifications for all the posts t4 inquestion.Theprovisionalselectionlistwasnotifiedas and whr:n the selection process is completed in a specific notifical.ion notified by the TRtrI-RB so as to avoid criticisrnfromthemeritoriouscandidates.TheTREI-RB withagoodintention'hadproceededfortheearly publication of the results and the whole process was completed within a span of 24O days from the date of issuan,:e of Notification on 05'O 4'2023' The TREI-RB now procee,ling by following G'O'Ms'No'S1' G'A'(Ser'A)' Department,dated'22'O2'LggTcarryforwardingthefallout vacan<:ies to the next recruitment' Hence' the averments made by the petitioner ate far away from the rules in vogueandwithoutanydeviationtotherulesinexistence. 20. Learned standing counsel for the respondent counsel also relied upon the very same judgment which is relied uponbythepetitioner,scounsel.Hence,prayedthe HontlleCourttovacatetheinterimord.ergrantedbythis Courl:. THE CO OF THE CASE LAWS AND OF 15

21. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.3 have relying upon the following cases and case laws:

1. In the Writ Appeal No.511 of 2O2L. The appeal is filed against the order of the Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. L4926 of 2O2O. The issue involved in the case is that, writ petitioners have participated in the process of selection pursuant to the Notification dated 31.05.2018, issued by the present appellants/respondents in the main Writ Petition in respect of as many as 1370 vacancies. The learned Single Judge has passed the following order: "9. This Court, hauing considered the riual submissions made bg learned counsel for the respectiue parties, ts of the considered uiew that since the issue raised in ttrcse Wit Petitions is squarelg couered by the judgments rendered bg this Court in W.P.No.7117 of 2020 dated 11.08.2020 and W.P.No.4495 of 2019 dated 11.06.2019 and as confirmed uide judgment d.ated. O3.O7.2O19 in W.A./Vo.55l of 2O19, these uit petitions can be disposed of directing the Public Seruice Commission and the State Gouernment to fill up all the unfilled uacancies strictlg by following Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Pubtic'seruice Commission Rules. It is made clear that the uacancies, which were relinqui"shed bg the selected candidates, afier giuing appointment orders, those uacancies haue to be tagged on to the nert recruitment notification and the uacancies, which are still lging uacant euen after i-ssuance of appointment orders, those uacancies are to be filled up strtctly bg following 16 Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public Seruice Commission Rules and the same should be offered to the nert meitonous cantdidates in the order of merit." Against the above said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed. While dismissing the Writ Appeal, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made the following Order: "In tlrc considered opinion of tltis Court, keeping in uiew the aforesaid judgment, once a uacanca is ad.uertised and. the uacancy'is unfilled., as the person in whose fauour appointment order has been issued ha:; not joined, the sqme cannot carrA forutard to the nes:t selection. The nert person in the waiting list sfuruld be appointed against the uacancA. Houteuer, in cas;es uhere appointment orders u)ere issued, persons haue joined and left thereafter, then the particular uac:ancies haue to be carried forutard to the nert sel'zction and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere uith the order passed bg the learned Singte Judge. Ac<:ordinglg, the utit appeal is dismissed."

22. In the present case on hand, the 3'd respondent issued sieveral notifications to recruit various posts. After completion of the recruitment, nearly 18OO vacancies remained unfilled. With regard to the above said vacancios, the respondent authorities want to ctrry ,, ,/ fonvard to the next Notification. The above said judgment t7 squarely supports the contention of the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that, respondent authorities not operating the merit list downwards and not recruiting the petitioners in the above said fallout vacancies, which were created due to individual getting selected to more than one post in pursuance of the Notifications No.l to 5 of 2023 and 9 of 2023, dated

05.o4.2023.

23. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Honble supreme court in civil Appeal No.4735 of 2022 in the case of The Telangana stqte Leael Police Recntitment Board and o;nother vs. Narimetla vamshi and others. In the said case, selected candidates have not fully participated in the selection process. In the above said ,case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the case in Munja Praaeen and others Vs. Stqte of Telangantq. and otherst; ' .2oLZ (L4l scczgz 18 Wtrile dismissing the said Appeal filed by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and others, t:he Apex Court observed as follows: "We haue heard learned counsel for the parties in the cor,.spectus of the aforesaid submissiorus and find no reason to interfere utith the conanrrent findings of the tw<t Courts belous. The manner of interpreting the rule in tryestion has already been set out in Munja Praueen ca:;e (Supra). If a candidate ho,s not gone through the prc'cess of recruitment, he has not done what was required to be done by him as sef out Lrcrein aboue, it cantnot be construed as a uacancA arising which has to be carried forward to the nert recruitment process. As to the consequences of the large number of uacancies which haue remairued on these different accounts, the details of which haue been set out herein aboue, again lend support to this conclusion that a large part of the prctcess is not frustrated by not filling up of the uat:ancies. Public emplogment is an important source of employability for Aoung people in .the countrg tahere u)e are facing problems of adequacg of iobs; An interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded bg the: appellants uould go against the uery ethos o/ prctuiding public emplogment to persons eligible and meitorious, bg construction of a rule in a mallner leouing a large number of uacancies unfilled. This u.tould not be an appropiate interpretation." .,/ 79

24. In Civil Appea1 No.10583 10585 of 2OL7, Munia Praaeen and others I/s. State of Telangana and others. In the said case, the Apex Court observed as follows l. ! :, : : .: "5. All the tests were conducted at about the same time and the result u)as that the more billiant candidates found their names in the select list of more than orue Corporation. Many candidates were selected in more than one Corporation being highup in the meit Iist. On O1.O6.2016, claification u)as issued bg the Gouernment of Telangana that tlrc Corporations were free to "ft.ll up the t ft ouer notified (aduertised) uacancies by operating the meit list downwards for each category.

12. The position before us is totally different as pointed out earlier, some of the candidates, who got selected in more than one of the Corporations were called for ueification of their certificates. No appointment order hc,s been' issued till this stage. In'the meantime, the State issued a clarification as set out in the letter dated 01.06.2016 releuant portion of uthich reads as under: "... I am to inuite attention to the aboue subject and reference cited and inform the Gouernment afier careful examination of tlrc matter herebg relaxes the prouision, as a special case under the circum.stances, of calling for the candidate.on basis.for uerification of certificates as contained in their notifications as one time option and. permits the TRANSCO, TS SPDCL and TS NPDCL to fill up the lefi, ouer notified (aduertised) uacancies of 20 Assistant Engineers of their respectiue utilitg dutg operation the meit list downwards for each category by -following other rules prescribed in their respectiue nohftcation..--" Finally, the above case was disposed of with the following observation: *18. We are also of the uieu that the Gouernment utas justified in issuing the letter dated O1.06.2016 in the larger public interest.

19. In uieut of the aboue discussion, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgments of the Diuision Bench and learned Single Judge of the High Court and conseEtentlg dismiss the wit petitions. The Corporations mag fill up the posts as directed in the letter dated O1.06.2016 and in the light of the interpretation of clause B and 9 of G.O.Ms. giuen by us."

25. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the contentic,ns of the petitioners' counsel with regard. to the above said judlgment, submitted that the orders passeid in Munja Praveen'si case passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order in G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997 are in consonance with each other observing that G.O.Ms. would come into operatiorr only after appointment letter issued. The TREI-RB had notilied the provisional selection list one after the other and the appointing authorities i.e. secretaries of all the five 2t Residential Societies forthwith issued appointment orders to all the candidates selected. irrespective of their selected posts and the candidates also joined duties in the month of September,

2024. Hence, the judgment referred in the interim order by the Honble High Court is not relevant to this case as the appointment ord.ers were already issued. to the selected. candidates and the fallout vacancies after the appointment orders, is to be carry forwarded to the next recruitment as per G.O.Ms.No.B1 which is in vogue.

26. It is to be noted that all the tests were conducted at about the same time and the result was that the more brilliant candidates found their n€unes in the select list of more than one category. On 01.06.2016, clarification was issued by the Government of Telangana that the Corporations were free to fill up the left over notified (advertised) vacancies by operating the merit list downwards for each category. As per this Hon"ble Division Bench Court Order and as per Munja Praveen's case, the fallout vacancies cannot carry forward to the next selection.

27. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 relied upon the G.O.Ms.No.8l, dated 22.02.1997, wherein para No.8 and 9 reads as follows: 22 "8... According to these rules, in a recruitment Aear, against number of notified uacancies, selection shall be mad.e onlg to the equal number of posts notified and there shall be no waitiitg list. In other utords, in a recruitment gear, after s:election of the candidates and after issue of appointment c,rders, if the candidate fails to join duty wtthin the s:tipulated period that uacancg shall be notified again in the nert recntitment Aear, this alienates the sgstem of preparing waiting list for fatlout the uacancies.. .. Th.erefore, the Gouernment, after careful exami1ation

9. lws agreed with the proposal of the Andhra Prodesh Public lleruice Commission and accordinglg direct tlwt hence forth the list of the candidates approued/selected bg the Andhra I'radesh Pubtic Serutce Commission shall be eqtal in the number of uacancies onlg including those for reserued c'ommunities categories notified bg the unit officers. The fall ottt uacancies if ang due to relinquishment and non-joining e:tc., of selected candidates shall be notified tle nert tecruitment."

28. Ilased on the above interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.81, learneC counsel for the respondent opposing the petitioner's relief i.e. operating the merit list downwards cannot be possible.

29. In the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondents referred only 8 and 9 paras of G.O.Ms.No.8l as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen's case But in the very same judgment, the Honble Supreme Court also observed as follows: 23 *74. Euen otherwise also, we are of the uieta that this i"s the onlg logical utag to interpret the G.O.Ms. The G.O.Ms. obuiouslg lto.s been tssued, keeptng in mind. a single selection process. Here, u)e are dealing with a multiple selection process for different Corporations. TtLe more britliant candtdates u)ere selected" in more tlwn one of the Corporations. Th.eg obutouslg cannot join in more than one Corporation. Therefore, if the top four candidates lwue been selected tn all four Cotporations, th.eg could" only join one of the Corporations and 12 posts would remain uacan[ if the interpretation giuen bg the High Court is accepted.. This utould lead to a position uhere large number of uacancies uould not be filled up.

15. On a conjoint reading of clause B and 9 of G.O.Ms., dated 22.02.1997, we are clearlg of the uieut thnt this was not the putpose of the G.O.Ms. According to tts, the G.O.Ms. would come into operation onlg after appointment letlers were issued and, th.erefore, if a person, uho is at number one position, goes to one of t?e Corporations and i.s giien tte appointment letter, trc may not go to otlrcr three Corporations for uerification of the certificate. Ttwt does not mean that the first post in all the Corporations stnuld now lie uacant-"

30. In the case on hand also, not a single selection process, multiple posts notilied on the same date in different Notifications. After filling up of the vacancies based on the merit list, nearly 1800 vacancies are lying vacant. In view of the above said circumstances, in accordance with the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen's case, this court is of the considered view that in the 24 present (:ase also the authorities can prepare merit downwards list for non-filling of vacancies. No material is placed on record tc prove that the respondent No.3 issued another Notification to carry forward, the fallout vacancies. Had they issued such a Notification, the case of the petitioners would have be:en otherwise. As such, the contention of the respondr:nt No.3 with regard to the above G-o. does not hold 'water.

31. In view of afore mentioned. discussion and taking into consideration of the above Apex Court's observations, this Court is of the considered view that these Writ Petitions can be disposect of by directing the respond'ent authorities to consid'er the cast: of the petitioners by duly operating the Merit List d.ownwards and filI up all the fallout vacancies pertaining to Notificarions No.l to 5 and g of 2023, dated 05-04-2023 withoul catry forwarding the same to the next Notification' The saic exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order- 9

32. Accordingly, all the writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 25 Miscellaneous petitions , 7f anty, pending shall stand closed NAMAVARAPU RAJESHTryAR RAO,J Date: 22.09.2025 Note: LR copv is to be marked. Blo BDR