THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.826 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Goda Siva, learned counsel for the
appellants; Mr. M.Raman, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent No.1 i.e., Telangana State Public Service
Commission; and Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 135.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.29737 of 2018 filed by the appellants and respondents No.136 and 137 as the writ petitioners.
3. Appellants and respondents No.136 and 137 had filed the related writ petition assailing the action of respondent No.1 in finalising the list of selected candidates for recruitment to the post of Librarian (Schools) in Residential Educational Institutions Society (REIS) pursuant to the Notification No.20/2017, dated 2 14.04.2017. Appellants sought for further direction to respondent No.1 to finalise the select list of Librarians by giving zonal reservation, communal reservation and also women reservation. Further prayer made was for a direction to the respondents to appoint them to the post of Librarian (School) in REIS.
4. The said writ petition was heard along with three other writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.37892 and 37921 of 2018 and 836 of 2019. It appears that the above batch of writ petitions were earlier disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order dated 14.02.2019 against which writ appeals were preferred by respondent No.1. Writ appeals were disposed of on 08.04.2019, whereafter the writ petitions were remanded back for fresh hearing and decision by the learned Single Judge.
5. Case of the appellants as projected before the learned Single Judge was that a notification dated 14.04.2017 was issued by respondent No.1 for recruitment to the post of Librarian (Schools) in REIS. In all 256 posts of Librarian were notified. Following the selection, 104 posts were 3 notified in Zone V and 152 posts were notified in Zone VI. Respondent No.1 had prepared a common merit list for both the zones. Candidates belonging to the reserved category securing better merit were included in reserved category and not in open category. As a result, many deserving reserved category candidates like the appellants were not included under the reserved quota and proportionately many undeserving candidates got selected under the open category.
6. Learned Single Judge did not find merit in the contentions of the appellants and vide the order dated 23.07.2019 dismissed the writ petitions. However, in respect of one of the writ petitions, which were heard together i.e., W.P.No.836 of 2019, learned Single Judge directed the respondents to follow Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules while filling up the vacancies from the select list. 6.1. Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules mandates that Service Commission should follow the procedure of giving relinquishment 4 options to the candidates whose names find place in the selection list and if any of the candidate, who is selected, relinquishes appointment to the post, then the same post should be offered to the next meritorious candidate.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that subsequently a review petition was filed, being Review Petition No.3 of 2019, in W.P.No.836 of 2019. Learned Single Judge by order dated 27.08.2019 clarified that if the impleaded party respondents in W.P.No.29737 of 2018 had not joined the post of Librarian, cases of the petitioners in W.P.No.836 of 2019 be considered in the resultant vacancies. He submits that exclusion of the appellants i.e., petitioners in W.P.No.29737 of 2018 from such reconsideration is not justified. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that as per his information, there are ten vacancies in the post of Librarian pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.04.2017 on account of relinquishment. Therefore, case of the appellants can be considered against those relinquished vacancies. 5
8. Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 135 submits that since no prayer has been made by the appellants against his clients at the stage of appeal, no submission is called for on behalf of the said respondents.
9. However, Mr. M.Raman, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that ten vacancies are available pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.04.2017. But those ten vacancies pertain to physically handicapped category. Clarifying the position, he submits that only after the option of relinquishment was obtained by respondent No.1, the select list was published. Therefore, question of any vacancies arising out of relinquishment would not arise.
10. In the course of the hearing we have put across to learned counsel for the appellants that even if relinquishment vacancies have arisen, case of the appellants can only be considered against vacancies arising out of relinquishment in the reserved category to which they belong. They cannot be considered against vacancies 6 in other categories. However, learned counsel for the appellants submits that case of the appellants are required to be considered at par with the petitioners of W.P.No.836 of 2019.
11. On due consideration, we are of the view that while disposing of the review petition vide the order dated 27.08.2019, learned Single Judge was not justified in excluding the appellants i.e., petitioners in W.P.No.29737 of 2018 from consideration in resultant vacancies on account of relinquishment subject to eligibility, category wise.
12. That being the position, we direct that the case of the appellants shall be considered by the respondents against the resultant vacancies on account of relinquishment in the category to which they belong in tune with the order dated 27.08.2019 passed in Review Petition No.3 of 2019 in W.P.No.836 of 2019.
13. This disposes of the writ appeal.
7
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 05.12.2022 vs