The High Court · 2025

Order

Petitioner filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering her claim for appointment to the pos[ of Assistant Beat Officer (ABO) in the resultant vacancy arisen due to selection of the candidate shown above her in the merit list for the post of Assistant Beat Officer selected for both the posts i.e. Forest Beat Ofhcer (FBO) and Assistant Beat Ofhcer.

2. Petitioner claims to be belonging to ST community and passed intermediate, hence, she is eligible and qualified for thc post of ABO. While so, the government accorded permission for direct recmitment of 23 posts of FBO in the erstwhile Adilabad Circle and ten ABO in Adilabad Circle Accordingly, a notification was issued for 23 posts of FBO out of which six posts are to be filled by the Scheduled Area candidates and ten posts of ABO notified to Scheduled Area ST Post The Government uide G.O.Ms.No. 12, dated 17 'O2'2O12 constituted the Selection Committee to select the candidates by direct recruitment. Acaordingly, Notihcation dated 26 'O3 '20 12 was 2 issued for filling up the posts of FBO and ABO. Responding to the said notification, petitioner appeared for written test on 23 .06.2012 . The authorities directed the individuals to produce Scheduled Agency Area Certihcates to verify the genuineness of Agency Area Certificates issued by the Tahsildar concerned. Out of 28 certificates produced by the candidates, the Authorities felt only two certihcates were genuine and remaining including petitioner's were cancelled by the District Collector, Adilabad. Aggrieved by the same, some of the candidates fi1ed Writ Petition No. 22952 of 2Ol4 and batch q,herein, initially, this Court granted interim direction suspending the order passed by the District Collector. By virtue of the above dispute, recruitment process was stopped. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner approached the 1.t respondent and submitted represcntation dated

1.7 .O7 .2O 14 to reconsider his Agency Area Certificate by considering the relevant evidence produced by her. Consequently, the 1.t respondent directed the Authorities to re condlrct the enquiry with regard to the genuiniQr of petitioner's certificate. Accordingly, the respondent Authorities re- considered the entire material submitted by her and submitted a report concluding that Scheduled Area Certificate produced by

her is genuine. Meantime, the Writ Petitions frled earlier were -.J, _) allowed by the judgment dated 27 'O4'2O17 ' In view of the said judgment, the respondent authorities decided to complete the selection process and accordingly, issued orders to the short- listed candidates to attend walking test' The 3'd respondent therefore, issued proceedings dated 24'O3'2018 to petitioner to attend the walking test at Forest Complex, Adilabad and petitioner participatecl in the test on 07 'O4 '2018 at 05 00 A'M' Thereafter, in the merit list prepared separately for the post of FBO and ABO, petitioner secured 105 marks and show at Sl.No. 14 and a provisional list was prepared dated O7 04 2018 with six candidates for the post of FBO and ten candidates for ABO. It is stated that on verifrcation of the said list' one B.Manga was selected for both the posts; once Manga was seiected to the post of FBO, petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of ABO as she was the next meritorious person. In view ol the same, pelitioner submitted representalion dated 1O.04.2018 to the District Forest Ofhcer/ District Collector / Conservator of Forests/ MLA to consider her claim for appointment to the post of ABO' Petitioner states that in similar circumstances, the government issued G'O'Ms'No' 61 t 4 daLed 29.10.2010 to consider the claim of the candidates who applied for two posts and selected for both the posts in selection, will be considered for the higher post only and selection in the Iorver post will be automatically cancelled to accommodate the next meritorious candidate in the selection list in the respective category and community, however an option along with declaration should be taken from the candidate for the posts to which he / she opted for appointment and with the approval of District Selection Committee his 7 her name should be deleted from the merit list then selection list should bc prepared. In vieq, of the same, petitioner requests that her case be considered in the resultant vacancy arisen in place of B. Manga who was selected for the post of FBO.

3. The District Forest Ofhcer hled counter on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No. 22951 of 2Ol4 and batch, the Committee decided to take a decision for all the 28 Nos. short-listed candidates in walking test and candidates eligible for the said test as per the merit an category-wise were called on 07.O4.2O18 and the test was conducted. Against two FBO posts of ST -Local Scheduled (W), four women candidates were short-listed in 1:2 ratio and 5 out of four, three attended are qualified in waking test; as such' as per the ltnal merit list, Penduri Sujatha (111 marks) and B.Manga (95 marks) were considered for appointment against the two posts reserved Likewise, again the Iive ABO posts ST- Local ST(W), ten canclidates were shortlisted in 1:2 ratro an out of ten, eight candidates qualified in test; as such' as per hnal merit list, top-most candidates namely Gundam Srilekha (123 marks), B. Vanitha (118), J' Sangeetha (113)' Birineni Manga (106) and Vanitha Pawar (1O6) were selected and allotted to the Unit officers. Petitioner stood as the 6th candidate with 1O5 marks and not selected for the said post lt is stated' Manga got selected for appointment to the post of FBO and allotted to Bel1ampally unit as well for the post of ABO in Kag}:aznagar unit of appointment as per the individual merit secured in both the posts. This respondent states that as per G O'Ms'No' 544' dated O4.12.1998, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests uide r:rerrlo d'ated 14.O2.2O 13 clarified that maintenance and operation of waiting list for all the recruitments shal1 be dispensed with and the list of candidates approved / selected in any rccruitment by any recruitment agency in the State shall be -/ I I i i I l l I I I I 6 equal to the number of vacancies notif,red for that recruitment only including those meant for reserved community / category notihed by the unit officers. The fallout vacancies, if any due lo relinquishment and non joini.ng elcetera of selected candidate shall be notified in the next recruitment. Hence, pelitioner was not considered for the post of ABO against the unf-rlled vacancy arisen in place of B. Manga and the recruitment has been completed. it is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances in the same recruitment, Writ Petition No. 5393 of 2Ol7 u,as filed and this Court dismissed the same. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No 69, dated 13.O5.2O17, the government accorded sanction for upgradation of 1305 posts of ABO to that of FBO under the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Telangana. As per G.O.Ms.No. 153, dateed 14.O9.2018, the government issued orders that consequent to rcorgnization ol the department, the Environment Forests, Science and Technologr Department has proposed for upgradation of 230 posts of ABO to that of FBO who are presently working in the department. Thus due to upgradation of ABO to the post of FBO 7 as per the afore-mentioned G.O., [here is no direct recruitment for the post of ABO afterwards. It is stated, since pelitioner stands at the 6h place in the fina1 merit list and there were only five woman posts of ABO notified in direct recruitment 2012, sL,e was not selected for the post of ABO due to lower merit than selected candidates' Sri Ravinder Alkuchi, learned counsel for petiLioner 4. had made submissions reiterating the averments in the writ afhdavit. In support of his contenllon, he relied on the following judgments: In The District Educational Olficer &' Member Conuenor, District Selection Cotnmittee Nizamabad u' B' AnnoLpurna (Writ Petition No. 2 1306 of 2O05), the Division Bench of this Court held that 'having regard to the fact that such vacant post remains unhlled, is necessary to be hlled, subjecl to the number of vacancies vis-d-vis number of candidates so selected on merit Consequently, it has to be held that the respondent / applicant being immediately next in iine standing at Serial No. 2 15, has been rightly held to be entitled for such post and the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners that since there is no such waiting list, respondent 8 cannot be considered does not hold any water or merit for consideration. Admittedly, there is no waiting list in the present case and the respondent sought appointment as against the vacancy that has arisen pursuant to the selcction. This vacancy u,hich arose due to improper selection shall be deemed to have been in existence as on the date of selection process, but not later'. In Gouernntent of A.P. rep. bg Secretary, Education Depdrtment u. Sarniullah Shareef (W.P.No. 20933 of 2005), the Division Bench of composite State of Andhra Pradesh held that 'this is a case where 16 persons who produced bogus certificates were appointed, the very selection and appointment of such persons has became nonest tn the eye of law. Had they not appeared, the respondcnts herein would have been selected. This is not a case u,here some genurne candidate, after selection and appointment, left the post and as such, it needs to be hlled up in the next recruitment. Since the selection and appointment of the said candidates was nonest in the eye of law, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly directed to consider the case of respondents. I I I i r q In Gooernment o;f And.hra Pradesh v Bhagam the Division Bench of this Court held as Dordsanammat under: "

18. The principles taid don'n in the above said two orders would squarely apply to the facts of the present case' There is absolutely no justihcation on the part of the petitioner authorities in refusing to give posting orders to the I respondent herein by relying upon the above mentioned instructions of the Government of A.P and Condition No 8(4) of the said notiflcation. The vacancl of Thanadar, in the instant case, by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be a non-joining vacancy nor can it be said that the vacancy has arisen due to relinquishment' The contention contra being advanced by the petitioner authorities does not stand for twin tests o[ reasonableness and rationality The contingency in the instant case is neither a case of relinquishment nor it is a case of non joining by the selecled candidates. On the other hand, it is a case of selected ca:ndidate opting for higher post- This option for higher post cannot be equated to either relinquishment or non joining'

19. The process of recruitment starts from the date of notifying the vacancies and attains finality with the act of issuing appointment order, offering the post to the selected candidate ln the absence of reaching the said finalitl' of issuing appointment order in respect of subject vacancy, the question of eithcr relinquishment or non filling of the same does not arise. The interpretation sought to be given by the authorities for denying appointment to the applicant/ I respondent herein is contrary to the very spirit and object of sewice jurisprudence and we hnd total lack of justification on the part of the petitioner authorities and such action undoubtedly tantamounts to transgression of Part-IIl of the Constitution of India in the event of testing the same on the touchstone of Article 16 of the Constitution of India". ' 20r4(l) ALD 88 (DB) I t 10 In M. Raj Sekhar a State of Telangana2, this Court observed that " As noticed above, this Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court recognized the right of a candidate, who is next in the eligibititv iist [o clain to include in the merit list and be appointed to a \/acanc], against which no appointment order was issued, as the more meritorious candidate did not apt to the post in issue. This right is subject to overarching decision of the employer not to fill a post, even if therc is a vacancy, for valid reasons. From the proposition of lan culled out from the precedent decisions, it is beyond pale of doubt that the selection process is complete only when appointment orders are issued to all the candidates included in the merit list to the cxtcnt o[ \,acancics notihed or a conscious, well considered decision is taken not to lLll all or an) oI the vacancies. In the case on hand selection process \\''as not complete as candiclate selected against SC reserved vacancy, Sri S.Arvind Kumar did not report for certificate verification and no appointment order u,as issued to him- In view of the law on the PNR,J subject, the claim of petitioner to rnclude his name in the merit list against SC reserved vacalcy, in the place of Srr S.Arvind Kumar, who has opted out for appolntment as Assistaut Engineer at the stage of certiilcate verification by the appointing authority, is valid. It is not the stand of responden[s that thcv did not intend to fill up all the vacancies notified. In fact, it was offered to Mr. Arvind Kumar, but he did not evince interest. Onl]' reason assignecl io deny claim of petitioner was procedural, i.e., in view of G.O.Ms.No.81, ad hoc rule and Rule 6 of the Public Serwice CommisSion Rules of Procedure, and not on the ground that the Department did not intend to fill the vacancy for valid administrative reasons. In other words, only by treating the vacancy caused due to not reporting for certificate ver-1fication by Sri S. Arvind Kumar as fallout vacancy, petitioner's claim is denied. 'zoz r{ty eln r+a 1rs.y I I ! I a i I i In S. Vasundara a. The Sta,te o:f Telangana rep' bg its Principal Secretary, Reueftue Department (W'P(TR) No' 3853 of 2017), this Court, considering the judgments in B.Anncrpurna's ctzse (supra) and M. Rai Sekhar's case (supra), passed orders in favour ol petitioner therein' ln Munia Pra oeen a. Sto:te of Telanganc3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the process of recruitment starts from the date of notifying the vacancies and attains finality with the act of issuing appointment order, offering the post to the selected candidate. In this case, no appointment ordcr was issued to Smt. Manga, hencc, the process of recruitment cannot be said to have attained hnality' ln Telangana Sto:te l*uel Police Recruitment Board o. Narimetla Vamshi (Civil Appeal No 4735 ot 2022\, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 'if a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment he has not done what was required to be done by him as set out herein above, it cannot tre construed as vacancy arising which has to be carried forward to the next recruitment process' ' (20 r7) r4 scc 797 { { t 1,2 I ln I(. Ashok a. Sta,te of Telangana (Civil Appeal !. No. 2O9 of 2023), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the judgment in Munja Praaeen's case, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the individual for appointment. In Porika Suchrrritha o. Vice Chq.irman q.nd Managing Director, Andhra Prad.esh Industries InJrastructure Corytoration Ltd. (Writ Petition No. 229 of 2O13), this Court issued direction to the respondent to issue appointment orders to the individual. ln T. Saritha a. Telangana Sta'te Power Generation Corporation ltd. (W.P.No. 42734 of 2Ol7 and batch), this Court held that since the unfilled vacancies, which were notilted in 2015 notification, are now notified in the latest notif rcation dated 04.10.2023, it is clear that unlilled posts are very much required and had the respondent - Corporation undertaken the exercise of operating merit list downrvards, petitioners would havc been appointed in 20 17 itself.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I apart from reiterating the averments in the counte.r, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vallanrytati Satish Ba.bu u. The State o;f Andhra pradesh 13 (Civil Appeal No. 2473 of 2022), applying the law laid down in Bihar State Electricitg Board u. Sutesh Prasad (2004]' 2 SCC 681 arrd State oJ Andhra Pradesh rep'bg its Secretdry, E;ducation Departrnent v. So;miulla Shareef (2Oi4 (1) ALT 165 (DB)) and considering the statutory provisions contained in Ruie 16 of the Rules, 2OI2 read with the guidelines, held that appellant cannot claim appointment on the unhlled vacancy next bclow the candidate in the merit tist' If the submission on behalf of the appellant is accepted, in that case, it will 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, in that case, 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 unfilled due to one of the selectecl candidates in the final selection list not appcaring for counselling. In view of the above pleadings and arguments based 6. on the case 1arv, it is c1ear, the case of petitioner is that one B.Manga was selected for both the posts ie' ABO and FBO; once Manga was selected / opted to the post of FBO, petitioner is I t I I i I I I I : I i I I I l I i l l I l ) I I I I l4 entitled to be considered for the post of ABO as she was the next meritorious person. On the other hand, learned Government Pieader places reliance on G.O.Ms.No' 544, dated O4' 12' 1998 and contends that petitioner is not eligible to be considered'

7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to go through the said G.O., on which reliance has been placed by the respondent Corporatior-r. [t reads as under: " Notrvithstancling an]'thing contained in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Sewice Rules / Special Rules or ad hoc Rulcs governing maintenance and operation of waiting list for all the District recruitments for the posts under the State and Subordinate Services and Last Grade Serviccs that are being taken up by various recruiting through agencies Employment Exchange, the maintenance and operation of waiting list for all the recruitments shall be dispensed with and the list ot candidates approved / selected in any recruitment by any recruiting agency in thc State in any department for such posts shall be equal to the number of vacancies notified for that recruitment only including those mean[ for reserved community / category notified by the unit officers. The fallout vacancies, rf any due to relinquishment and non joining etc. of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment.'

8. A perusal of the G.O. makes it clear that maintenance and operation of waiting list for recruitment has been dispensed with in any recruitment including those meant for reserved cammunity/category notified by the Unit Officers .-and the fall out vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and .-l'"' 15 non-joining etc., of selected candidates has to be notified in the next recruitment. Pursuant to the said G.O', it is stated, the Corporation rejected the case of petitioner uide letter dated

23.05.2012. Here, it is to be noted that G'O' was issued in

1998. When it is the case of the respondent Corporation in respect of petitioner for the recruitment that took place in 2010, why thcy have not implemented the said G'O' in respect of Respondents 5 and 6, though they claim that recruitment is of 2OO8 and 2O09, is not known and there is no explanation forthcoming in that direction. Further, the Corporation stated that waiting list was prepared for recruitment 2O08 and 2009, hence, their cases were considered, whereas waiting list was not prepared for 2010 and the question of considering the petitioner's name being at Sl.No.1 does not arise' It is stated that the Application dated 15.06.2011 of petitioner was also placed before the Board of APIIC held on dated 09 08'2O11 and Board directed to conduct fresh recruitment as per G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12- 1998 only. g. In this regard, a look at the above-referred judgment makes it evident that the Hon'bie Supreme Court' while dealing wilh similar circumstances, had categoricaily held I t l6 that in the absence of offer of appointment to the successful candidate, claim of the next meritorious candidate shail be considered- The Supreme Court had interpreted the G.O. in such a way that 'the portion of the G.O.Ms. qulted aboue clearlg lags doun that ttere shall be no u.taiting list and the selection shall be made equal to the number of posts notified. The purpose uas that the uacancies arising due to people leauing the posts must be filled up bg subsequent selection and not on the basis of o uaiting list. It utas cloified that after selection of the candidates and after issue of appotntment orders, if the candidate fails to join uithin the stipulated peiod, that uacancA should be notifted again. This portion of the G.O.Ms. admits of onlg one interpretation that after appointment order is issued and the person appointed does not join, then the uocancg cannot be filled up on the basis of the uaitirtg list or bg operating the rneit list dounuords. Ihis is also clear from clause 9 of the G.O-Ms. uthich also claifies that fall out uacancies due to relinquishment or non-joining of the selected condidates maA be notified in the next recnitment. This obuiously means that tte clause tuill applg after issue of letter of appointment. There can be no relinquishment and non-joining unless an appointment letter is issued.'On a careful reading of the G.O., this Court is of the I I I I i I I I I I I I t t I I I t I I I I I I t7 I vlew that rt would come into operation only after appointment letters were issued. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Gooernmeftt of A.P. o. Ms. Bhagam Dorasanatnma (Writ Pefition No. 24944 of 2O13) had correctly interpreted the G.O. in thc following manner: " The process of recruitment starts from the date of notifying the vacancies and attains Iinality with the act of issuing appointment order, offering the post to the selected candidate ln the absence of rcaching the said ftnality of issuing appointment order in respect o[ subject vacancy, thc question of either relinquishment or non filing of thc same does not arise. The interpretation sought to be given by the authorities for denying appointment to the applicant / 1st r"pondent herein is contrar-y- to the very spirit and object of service jurisprudence and we find total Iack of justihcation on the part of the petitioner authorities and such action undoubtedly tantamounts to transgression of Part III of the Constitution of lndia in the event of testing the same on the touchstone of Article 16 of the Constitution of India-"

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances and legal position, in the considered opinion of this Court, Lhe candidaturc of petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment to the post of ABO in the resuitant vacancy. 1 1 . The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed directing the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Beat Ofhcer in the resultant vacancy caused due to the selection of one B. Manga H'T.No. 30O60 for I I I I 18 both the posts i.e. Forest Beat Oflicer and Assistant Beat Ofhcer along wrth others. No costs 1 r't Consequently, Miscelianeous Applications, if any shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. .Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, on this WEDNESDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE To //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ) 2 and Technology of Telangana. 1 . The Principal Secretary, Forest Environment Sci Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, S The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, State of Telangana, Aryana Bhavan, Hyderabad. The Conservator of Forest, Adilabad Circle Adilabad. The District Collector, Adilabad District. The Forest Divisional Officer, Adilabad Division, Forest Complex, Adilabad. One CC to SRI RAVINDER ALKUCHI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies J 4 5 b 7 o PSK. BS W bi*..--., HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 VACATION COU R7 ORDER WP.No.32472 ot 2018 1t.t E S 14 /.t eo( o i) _t- \) ,,, * 24luu 296 I / ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS m ,.4 f-t1'.1 ?\ b