Telangana High Court

Rathod Vidyarani vs The State Of Telangana on 28 May, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 32472 OF 2018

O R D E R:

Petitioner filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the

action of the respondents in not considering her claim for

appointment to the post 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 Officer (FBO)

and Assistant Beat Officer.

2. Petitioner claims to be belonging to ST community

and passed intermediate, hence, she is eligible and qualified for

the post of ABO. While so, the government accorded permission

for direct recruitment 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 vide G.O.Ms.No. 12, dated 17.02.2012 constituted

the Selection Committee to select the candidates by direct

recruitment. Accordingly, Notification dated 26.03.2012 was

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 Certificates 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 certificates were genuine and remaining including

petitioner's were cancelled by the District Collector, Adilabad.

Aggrieved by the same, some of the candidates filed Writ Petition

No. 22952 of 2014 and batch wherein, 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 1st respondent and submitted representation dated

17.07.2014 to reconsider his Agency Area Certificate by

considering the relevant evidence produced by her.

Consequently, the 1st respondent directed the Authorities to re-

conduct the enquiry with regard to the genuinity 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 filed earlier were

allowed by the judgment dated 27.04.2017. 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 3rd respondent

therefore, issued proceedings dated 24.03.2018 to petitioner to

attend the walking test at Forest Complex, Adilabad and

petitioner participated in the test on 07.04.2018 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 07.04.2018

with six candidates for the post of FBO and ten candidates for

ABO.

It is stated that on verification of the said list, one

B.Manga was selected for both the posts; once Manga was

selected 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 of the same, petitioner submitted representation

dated 10.04.2018 to the District Forest Officer/ 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

dated 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 lower 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 / her

name should be deleted from the merit list then selection list

should be prepared. In view 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 Officer filed counter on behalf of

the respondents. It is stated that pursuant to the order in Writ

Petition No. 22951 of 2014 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 07.04.2018 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

out of four, three attended are qualified in waking test; as such,

as per the final merit list, Penduri Sujatha (111 marks) and

B.Manga (95 marks) were considered for appointment against

the two posts reserved. Likewise, again the five ABO posts ST-

Local ST(W), ten candidates were shortlisted in 1:2 ratio an out

of ten, eight candidates qualified in test; as such, as per final

merit list, top-most candidates namely Gundam Srilekha (123

marks), B. Vanitha (118), J. Sangeetha (113), Birineni Manga

(106) and Vanitha Pawar (106) were selected and allotted to the

Unit Officers. Petitioner stood as the 6th candidate with 105

marks and not selected for the said post. It is stated, Manga got

selected for appointment to the post of FBO and allotted to

Bellampally unit as well for the post of ABO in Kaghaznagar

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 04.12.1998, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

vide memo dated 14.02.2013 clarified that maintenance and

operation of waiting list for all the recruitments shall be

dispensed with and the list of candidates approved /selected in

any recruitment by any recruitment agency in the State shall be

equal to the number of vacancies notified for that recruitment

only including those meant for reserved community / category

notified by the unit officers. The fallout vacancies, if any due to

relinquishment and non-joining etcetera of selected candidate

shall be notified in the next recruitment. Hence, petitioner was

not considered for the post of ABO against the unfilled 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 2017 was filed and this Court dismissed the same.

Further, as per G.O.Ms.No 69, dated 13.05.2017, 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 14.09.2018,

the government issued orders that consequent to reorgnization

of the department, the Environment Forests, Science and

Technology 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

as per the afore-mentioned G.O., there is no direct recruitment

for the post of ABO afterwards.

It is stated, since petitioner stands at the 6th place

in the final merit list and there were only five woman posts of

ABO notified in direct recruitment-2012, she was not selected

for the post of ABO due to lower merit than selected candidates.

4. Sri Ravinder Alkuchi, learned counsel for petitioner

had made submissions reiterating the averments in the writ

affidavit. In support of his contention, he relied on the following

judgments:

In The District Educational Officer & Member

Convenor, District Selection Committee Nizamabad v. B.

Annapurna (Writ Petition No. 21306 of 2005), the Division

Bench of this Court held that 'having regard to the fact that

such vacant post remains unfilled, is necessary to be filled,

subject to the number of vacancies vis-à-vis number of

candidates so selected on merit. Consequently, it has to be held

that the respondent / applicant being immediately next in line

standing at Serial No. 215, 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

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 selection. This vacancy

which arose due to improper selection shall be deemed to have

been in existence as on the date of selection process, but not

later'.

In Government of A.P. rep. by Secretary,

Education Department v. Samiullah 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 in the eye

of law. Had they not appeared, the respondents herein would

have been selected. This is not a case where some genuine

candidate, after selection and appointment, left the post and as

such, it needs to be filled 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.

In Government of Andhra Pradesh v Bhagam

Dorasanamma 1 , the Division Bench of this Court held as

under:

" 18. The principles laid down in the above said two orders would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. There is absolutely no justification on the part of the petitioner authorities in refusing to give posting orders to the 1 respondent herein by relying upon the above mentioned instructions of the Government of A.P and Condition No. 8(4) of the said notification. The vacancy 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 of 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 selected candidates. On the other hand, it is a case of selected candidate 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. In the absence of reaching the said finality of issuing appointment order in respect of subject vacancy, the question of either 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/1 respondent herein is contrary to the very spirit and object of service jurisprudence and we find total lack of justification on the part of the petitioner authorities and such action undoubtedly tantamounts to transgression of Part-III of the Constitution of India in the event of testing the same on the touchstone of Article 16 of the Constitution of India".

2014(1) ALD 88 (DB)

In M. Raj Sekhar v State of Telangana 2, 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 eligibility list to claim to include in the merit list and be appointed to a vacancy 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 there is a vacancy, for valid reasons. From the proposition of law 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 extent of vacancies notified or a conscious, well considered decision is taken not to fill all or any of the vacancies.

In the case on hand selection process was not complete as candidate selected against SC reserved vacancy, Sri S.Arvind Kumar did not report for certificate verification and no appointment order was issued to him. In view of the law on the PNR,J subject, the claim of petitioner to include his name in the merit list against SC reserved vacancy, in the place of Sri S.Arvind Kumar, who has opted out for appointment as Assistant Engineer at the stage of certificate verification by the appointing authority, is valid. It is not the stand of respondents that they 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. Only reason assigned to 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 Service 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 verification by Sri S. Arvind Kumar as fallout vacancy, petitioner's claim is denied.

2021(1) ALD 144 (TS)

In S. Vasundara v. The State of Telangana rep.

by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (W.P(TR) No.

3853 of 2017), this Court, considering the judgments in

B.Annapurna's case (supra) and M. Raj Sekhar's case

(supra), passed orders in favour of petitioner therein.

In Munja Praveen v. State of Telangana 3, 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

order was issued to Smt. Manga, hence, the process of

recruitment cannot be said to have attained finality.

In Telangana State Level Police Recruitment

Board v. Narimetla Vamshi (Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 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 be construed as vacancy arising which has to be carried

forward to the next recruitment process.

(2017) 14 SCC 797

In K. Ashok v. State of Telangana (Civil Appeal

No. 209 of 2023), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the

judgment in Munja Praveen's case, directed the respondents to

consider the claim of the individual for appointment.

In Porika Sucharitha v. Vice Chairman and

Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Industries

Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (Writ Petition No. 229 of

2013), this Court issued direction to the respondent to issue

appointment orders to the individual.

In T. Saritha v. Telangana State Power

Generation Corporation Ltd. (W.P.No. 42734 of 2017 and

batch), this Court held that since the unfilled vacancies, which

were notified in 2015 notification, are now notified in the latest

notification dated 04.10.2023, it is clear that unfilled posts are

very much required and had the respondent - Corporation

undertaken the exercise of operating merit list downwards,

petitioners would have been appointed in 2017 itself.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for

Services-I apart from reiterating the averments in the counter,

relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Vallampati Satish Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

(Civil Appeal No. 2473 of 2022), applying the law laid down in

Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad (2004) 2

SCC 681 and State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary,

Education Department v. Samiulla Shareef (2014 (1) ALT

165 (DB)) and considering the statutory provisions contained in

Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012 read with the guidelines, held that

appellant cannot claim appointment on the unfilled vacancy

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, 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

selected candidates in the final selection list not appearing for

counselling.

6. In view of the above pleadings and arguments based

on the case law, it is clear, 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

entitled to be considered for the post of ABO as she was the next

meritorious person. On the other hand, learned Government

Pleader places reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 544, dated 04.12.1998

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

Corporation. It reads as under:

" Notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules / Special Rules or ad hoc Rules governing maintenance and operation of waiting list for all the District recruitments for the posts under the State and Subordinate Services and Last Grade Services that are being taken up by various recruiting agencies and also through Employment Exchange, the maintenance and operation of waiting list for all the recruitments shall be dispensed with and the list of candidates approved / selected in any recruitment by any recruiting agency in the State in any department for such posts shall be equal to the number of vacancies notified for that recruitment only including those meant for reserved community / category notified by the unit officers. The fallout vacancies, if 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 community/category notified by the Unit Officers

and the fall out vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and

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 vide 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 they have not implemented the said G.O. in respect of

Respondents 5 and 6, though they claim that recruitment is of

2008 and 2009, is not known and there is no explanation

forthcoming in that direction. Further, the Corporation stated

that waiting list was prepared for recruitment 2008 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 09.08.2011 and

Board directed to conduct fresh recruitment as per

G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 only.

9. In this regard, a look at the above-referred

judgment makes it evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

while dealing with similar circumstances, had categorically held

that in the absence of offer of appointment to the successful

candidate, claim of the next meritorious candidate shall be

considered. The Supreme Court had interpreted the G.O. in

such a way that 'the portion of the G.O.Ms. quoted above clearly

lays down that there shall be no waiting list and the selection

shall be made equal to the number of posts notified. The purpose

was that the vacancies arising due to people leaving the posts

must be filled up by subsequent selection and not on the basis of

a waiting list. It was clarified that after selection of the

candidates and after issue of appointment orders, if the

candidate fails to join within the stipulated period, that vacancy

should be notified again. This portion of the G.O.Ms. admits of

only one interpretation that after appointment order is issued and

the person appointed does not join, then the vacancy cannot be

filled up on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit

list downwards. This is also clear from clause 9 of the G.O.Ms.

which also clarifies that fall out vacancies due to relinquishment

or non-joining of the selected candidates may be notified in the

next recruitment. This obviously means that the clause will apply

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

view that it would come into operation only after appointment

letters were issued. Further, the Division Bench of this Court

in Government of A.P. v. Ms. Bhagam Dorasanamma (Writ

Petition No. 24944 of 2013) had correctly interpreted the G.O. in

the following manner:

" 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 the absence of reaching the said finality of issuing appointment order in respect of subject vacancy, the question of either relinquishment or non-filing of the same does not arise. The interpretation sought to be given by the authorities for denying appointment to the applicant / 1st respondent herein is contrary to the very spirit and object of service jurisprudence and we find total lack of justification on the part of the petitioner authorities and such action undoubtedly tantamounts to transgression of Part III of the Constitution of India 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, the

candidature of petitioner deserves to be considered for

appointment to the post of ABO in the resultant vacancy.

11. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed directing the

respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment

to the post of Assistant Beat Officer in the resultant vacancy

caused due to the selection of one B. Manga H.T.No. 30060 for

both the posts i.e. Forest Beat Officer and Assistant Beat Officer

along with others. No costs.

12. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any

shall stand closed.