Telangana High Court
Kambalapalli Mahender vs The State Of Telangana on 21 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.16580 of 2024
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering
the candidature of the petitioner for the position of Drug Inspector
in Drugs Control Administration Department, Government of
Telangana, in pursuance to Notification No.21/2022, dated
08.12.2022, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2) Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for
respondents 1 and 3, and Sri P.S.Rajashekar, learned Standing
Counsel, for respondent No.2.
3) Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner is the native of Nalgonda of Multizone-II and SC
Community and completed B.Pharmacy Degree. As he is eligible
for the post of Drug Inspector, petitioner has responded to
notification No.21/2022, dated 08.12.2022, issued by respondent
No.2 calling applications for the post of Drug Inspector wherein out
of total 18 vacancies (5 in Multizone-I and 13 in Multizone-II),
2 vacancies in Multizone-II were earmarked for SC category.
Thereafter, the petitioner has appeared in the examination
conducted through Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) on
19.05.2023 FN & AN with hall ticket No.2211900070 and secured
297.083 marks and 62 General Rank and 3rd rank in his
community. Further, respondent No.2 has called four candidates,
including the petitioner, for certificate verification @1:2 ratio on
20.02.2024 and thereafter provisional selection list of candidates
was published on 23.02.2024. However, on enquiry, petitioner
came to know that one selected candidate by name Mahesh Babu
bearing Hall Ticket No.2211700645 in SC category in Multizone-II
has not joined since he was already working as a Probationary
Officer in Bank of Baroda (Thane branch) and therefore one post
was left vacant. As such, on 06.05.2024, petitioner made a
representation to the Chairman, TSPSC, to consider his
candidature, being the next meritorious candidate in SC category,
for the vacant post by treating it as 'non-joining and deemed to
relinquishment'. However, no action is taken thereon. Hence, the
present writ petition.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents have erroneously not considered the case of the
petitioner for the post of Drug Inspector when one post is remained
vacant and the same is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in The Telangana State Level Police
Recruitment Board v. Narimetla Vamshi [Civil Appeal
No.4735/2022, dated 23.11.2022], and in the case of Munja
Praveen vs. State of Telangana 1 and also violative of Articles 14,
16, 19 (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 has contended that in Multizone-II out of 13
vacancies, 2 vacancies were earmarked for SC category and the
same were filled up with meritorious SC candidates. However, the
petitioner was not selected due to his low merit. Subsequently, the
Unit lists were prepared and sent to the Unit Officer for issuance of
appointment orders to the selected candidates. Though the Unit
Officer has not yet furnished any report in this regard, it is learnt
that among the two selected candidates in the SC category, one of
the candidate has not joined in service. Learned Standing Counsel
has further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.81, General
Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 22.02.1997, non-joining
vacancies have to be carried forward to the next recruitment since
there shall be no waiting list as per the said G.O. as well as in
terms of Rule 6 of TSPSC Rules of Procedure, but shall not be filled
up with next meritorious candidates as stated by the petitioner. It
is further contended that the Commission will not maintain any
list once the Unit Lists are furnished to the Unit Officer. Further,
vide G.O.Ms.No.544, GAD, dated 04.12.1998, the Government has
2017 SCC 14 797
ordered that no recruiting agency in the State shall maintain/
operate waiting lists for all recruitments. Hence, the Commission
will not maintain any waiting list and the fall out vacancies due to
relinquishment and non-joining shall be notified in the next
recruitment. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
Reliance has been placed on Vallampati Sathish Babu v. State
of Andhra Pradesh 2.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by
respective counsel.
7) A perusal of the record goes to show that, admittedly, the
selection list for the post of Drug Inspector, in pursuance to the
notification No.21/2022, dated 08.12.2022, was published on
23.02.2024 in respect of 5 candidates in Multizone-I and 13
candidates in Multizone-II. Out of the said 13 vacancies, 2
vacancies were earmarked for SC category and the same were
already filled with meritorious SC candidates but the petitioner
could not be selected due to his low merit. Thereafter, the Unit
Lists were already sent to the Unit Officer for issuance of
appointment orders and accordingly necessary appointment orders
were also issued to the selected candidates. Thereafter, vide
Proc.Rc.No.505/E1/ 2024-2, dated 10.06.2024, respondent No.3
(2022) 13 SCC 193
has issued posting orders to 12 candidates, on completion of their
training, at different places as stated therein. At that stage,
petitioner came to know that one candidate by name Mahesh Babu
selected under SC Category in Multizone-II has not joined as he
was already on some other employment and therefore one post fell
vacant. In such a situation, petitioner made a representation to
respondent No.2 on 06.05.2024 seeking consideration of his
candidature for such post.
8) Admittedly, the petitioner is seeking consideration of his
candidature for the post of Drug Inspector in the vacancy arose
due to non-joining of one Mahesh Babu.
9) The law holding the field is that there cannot be any waiting
list in the absence of any specific provision of law.
10) Here, it is pertinent to refer relevant portion of
G.O.Ms.No.81, General Administration Department, dated
22.02.1997, which reads as under:
"9. Therefore, the government, after careful examination, has
agreed with the proposal of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission and accordingly direct that hence forth the list of the
candidates approved/selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies
only including those for reserved communities/categories notified
by the unit officers. The fallout vacancies if any due to the
relinquishment and non-joining etc., of selected candidates shall
be notified in the next recruitment."
11) Similarly, vide G.O.Ms.No.544, General Administration
Department, dated 04.12.1998, the Government has ordered that
no recruiting agency in the State shall maintain/operate waiting
lists for all recruitments. Hence, TGPSC does not maintain any
waiting list and as per this G.O. all fallout vacancies due to
relinquishment and non-joining shall be notified in the next
recruitment.
12) In this context, it is apt to state that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vallampati Sathish Babu's case (referred supra) has
held as under:
"20. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in
Suresh Prasad [(2004) 2 SCC 681]. In the said decision, it is specifically
observed and held that even in case candidates selected for appointment
have not joined, in the absence of any statutory rules to the contrary,
the employer is not bound to offer the unfilled vacancy to the candidates
next below the said candidate in the merit list. It is also further held
that in the absence of any provision, the employer is not bound to
prepare a waiting list in addition to the panel of selected candidates and
to appoint the candidates from the waiting list in case the candidates
from the panel do not join. The aforesaid decision of this Court has
been subsequently followed by the Andhra Pradesh high Court in
Samiulla Shareef [2013 SCC OnLine AP 482].
21. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Suresh Prasad to the
facts of the case on hand and considering the statutory provisions
contained in Rule 16 of the 2012 Rules read with the Guidelines, we are
of the view that the appellant cannot claim appointment on the unfilled
vacancy being next below the candidate in the merit list. 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, 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 selected candidates in the final selection list not
appearing for counseling. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is absolutely in consonance with the relevant statutory
provisions with which we agree."
13) In view of the above settled principle of law, the claim of the
petitioner for consideration of his candidature cannot be directed
to be considered in the non-joining vacancy.
14) Insofar as the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Munja Praveen's case and Narimetla Vamshi's
case (referred supra) are concerned, this Court is of the view that
they are distinguishable on facts of the case on hand.
a) In Munja Praveen's case (referred supra), various electric
supply and generation Companies in the State of Telangana have
issued separate notifications inviting applications for recruitment
to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Assistant
Engineer (Civil). Many of the candidates got selection in more than
one Corporation. At that stage, the State has issued Clarification
dated 01.06.2016 stating that the Corporations were free to fill up
the left over notified vacancies by operating the merit list
downwards for each category duly relaxing the relevant provision,
as a special case under those circumstances, more particularly,
having regard to the fact that large number of vacancies were lying
vacant. In the present case, no such relaxation orders were issued
and further appointment orders were also issued unlike in the case
of Munja Praveen's case (referred supra). Here, a reading of
G.O.Ms.No.81, GAD, dated 22.02.1997, makes it crystal clear that
it will have application only after appointment orders are issued.
Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel in Munja
Praveen's case (referred supra) is misconceived.
b) Similarly, in Narimetla Vamshi's case (referred supra)
also, notification was issued in respect of 16925 vacancies. Even
before issuance of appointment orders, nearly 500 candidates have
expressed their unwillingness in writing; more than 750 candidates
have not submitted their attestation forms and 120 candidates
have not reported for medical examination. In such a situation,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the selected candidates
have not participated fully in the recruitment process and backed
off even before the recruitment process could be concluded and
thereby held that vacancies on those accounts cannot be treated as
fall out vacancies.
c) But, here, in the present case, the appointment orders were
already issued to all the selected candidates on 10.06.2024 itself
and therefore G.O.Ms.No.81, GAD, dated 22.02.1997, comes into
operation. In the absence of any relaxation to the said provision of
law, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
15) For the afore-stated reasons, this Court does not find any
merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
16) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 21 - 03 - 2025
sur
