Telangana High Court
G Nirmala vs The Telangana State Public ... on 5 December, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
