Telangana High Court
Aireddy Ramadevi vs State Of Telangana on 21 March, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION Nos. 9626 of 2019, 12700 of 2019, 14590 of 2019, 19222
of 2019, 19242 of 2019, 19278, 19337, 19848 of 2019, 20566 of 2019,
1434 of 2020, 1884 of 2020, 3356 of 2020, 5456 of 2020,
8198 of 2020, , 9840 of 2020, 9911 of 2020,
13039 of 2020, 13074 of 2020, 13887 of 2020
and 24159 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issues raised in these writ petitions are one and the
same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this
common order.
2. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, Sri S.Rahul Reddy, Sri N.Nitin, Sri Srinivas
Kudumula, Sri K.Venumadhav, Sri Ramesh Bura and Sri Poodattu
Amarender, learned counsel appearing for the respective
petitioners, learned Government Pleaders appearing for the State
Government and Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State Public Service Commission.
3. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the
action of the Public Service Commission in not filling up the unfilled
vacancies by the next meritorious candidates. The Public Service
Commission had issued a Recruitment Notification to fill up several
posts by way of different Notifications and all the petitioners herein
have participated in the selection process and they have secured
decent merit in the said selection process.
4. The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that
though they are coming within the zone of consideration for
selection, their cases are not being considered for appointment to
various posts. It has been contended by the petitioners that some
of the selected candidates have not come forward to take up the
recruitment and by not participating in the certificate verification
process, they declined themselves from getting appointed in the
posts in which they were appointed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had
contended that as per Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public
Service Commission Rules, if any selected candidate does not take
up the offer of appointment, then the same has to be offered to the
next meritorious candidate in the order of merit. Admittedly, in the
instant case, the Public Service Commission has not followed Rule
6(A) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules and
thereby, many of the notified posts are lying vacant. Therefore, the
counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that
appropriate orders be passed in these writ petitions directing the
Public Service Commission and the State Government to fill up the
unfilled vacancies by the next meritorious candidates in the order of
merit.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had further
contended that the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely
covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in W.P.No.7117 of
2020, dated 11.08.2020 and W.P.No.4495 of 2019, dated 11.06.2019.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had further
contended that the respondents have carried the matter in appeal
against the order passed in W.P.No.4495 of 2019 dated 11.06.2019
by way of filing W.A.No.551 of 2019 and a Division Bench of this
Court was pleased to dismiss the said writ appeal vide judgment
dated 03.07.2019, confirming the order passed in W.P.No.4495 of
2019, dated 11.06.2019. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners had contended that all these writ petitions can be
disposed of directing the respondents to fill up the unfilled
vacancies by duly following Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public
Service Commission Rules by the next meritorious candidates in the
order of merit.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the Public Service Commission had contended that the
respondents have strictly followed Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State
Public Service Commission Rules and some of the vacancies, which
were relinquished by the persons appointed in those vacancies,
such of those vacancies have to be tagged on to the next
recruitment notification only and those unfilled vacancies cannot
be filled up by the next meritorious candidates in the order of merit.
Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petitions and the same are
liable to be dismissed.
9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view
that since the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered
by the judgments rendered by 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 vide judgment dated 03.07.2019 in W.A.No.551 of
2019, these writ petitions can be disposed of directing the Public
Service Commission and the State Government to fill up all the
unfilled vacancies strictly by following Rule 6(A) of the Telangana
State Public Service Commission Rules. It is made clear that the
vacancies, which were relinquished by the selected candidates,
after giving appointment orders, those vacancies have to be
tagged on to the next recruitment notification and the vacancies,
which are still lying vacant even after issuance of appointment
orders, those vacancies are to be filled up strictly by following Rule
6(A) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules and
the same should be offered to the next meritorious candidates in
the order of merit.
With the above observations, the writ petitions are
accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
24.06.2021
Prv
