2. All these Writ Petitions hereby disposed of by this
3. Heard learned counsel for respective parties:
Sri Siva, learned Senior counsel representing Smt.
Goda Rama Lasxmi, Himangini Sanghi, Sri Kohir Bhaskar
Reddy, Sri Bondempally Ramulu, Ms. Devara Samhitha,
Sri Anirudh Sadhu, Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Vemula
Suresh, Ms. P. Anusha, counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
Learned Government Pleader for Services, Sri N.
Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel TREI-RB, Sri S.
Bhoopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for State
Residential Educational Society, counsel appearing for the
respondents.
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WP
No.31745 of 2024 are discussed hereunder:
Learned Senior Counsel Sri Siva, representing Goda
Rama Lasxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the 3rd respondent authorities on 05.04.2023, calling
for applications from eligible candidates for being recruited
to various posts viz. Lecturer/Physical Director/Librarian
in Degree Colleges (Notification No.1/2023), Junior
Lecturers/Physical Directors/Librarians in Junior Colleges
in Residential Educational Institutions Societies
(Notification No.2/2023), Post Graduate Teachers in
Residential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification
No.3/2023), Librarian (School) in Residential Educational
Institutions Societies (Notification No.4/2023), Physical
Director (School)/Physical Director Grade-II in Residential
Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.5/2023)
and Trained Graduate Teachers in Residential Educational
Institutions Societies (Notification No.9/2023).
5. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the
petitioners herein were eligible for substantial number of
posts proposed to be filled up by the above Notifications.
They have responded to the same. The selection process
comprised of a computer based test which was held
between 1st and 23rd August, 2023. It is pertinent to
mention here that so far as Degree Lecturers, Junior
Lecturers and Post Graduate Teachers are concerned,
Paper-I was conducted simultaneously. The said paper
being general studies, it may be only for the purpose of
convenience instead of setting more than one paper for
testing the ability of the candidates.
6. Learned Senior counsel further submits that in
respect of Junior Lecturers and Post Graduate Teachers,
paper-II which was pedagogy was conducted commonly.
The 3rd paper was independently conducted for all the
posts as it related to their respective subjects for which the
recruitment is to be held. It is also pertinent to state there
was no minimum marks prescribed for each of the paper
and selections were to be made based on the aggregate
marks secured by the candidates.
7. Learned Senior counsel further submits that it is
common prudency that could be reasonably expected from
a Board given the responsibility of conducting selections
and recommending candidates for various posts in the
hierarchy starting from a Trained Graduate Teacher (the
lower position for which Notification has been issued by
the 3rd respondent Board) and the highest position being
that of Degree Lecturers to declare results from top to
bottom for effectively filling up of all the vacancies.
8. Learned Senior counsel further submits that if the
results for the lowest post of TGT is declared
simultaneously with that of a Degree Lecturers, there
could be a possibility of a candidate behind selected
against both the posts. In such a situation, one of the
posts could not be filled up and that obviously, would be
the post lower in the hierarchy. In those circumstances, it
would be necessarily call for reviewing the entire situation
based on the number of people who do not report to
certificate verification and/or further selection process like
demonstration etc.,
9. Learned Senior counsel further submits that in the
instant case, the schedule for certificate verification (list
containing candidates in the ratio of 1:2 i.e. two
candidates for every vacancy to be filled up). In respect of
Post Graduate Teacher was fixed on 9th February,
Librarian (school), Physical Director (school) on 8th
February, Trained Graduate Teacher on 25th, Junior
Lecturer on 16th and Degree Lecturer on 15th February,
2023. The final list (1:1) in so far as post graduate
teacher; Librarian (school), Physical Director (school),
librarians (Degree college), Physical Director (Degree
College), Librarian (Junior College), and Physical Director
(Junior College) was finalized and appointment orders to
these people were issued on 14.02.2024. In so far as
Trained Graduate Teachers, Junior Lecturers and Degree
Lecturers are concerned, appointment orders were issued
on 4th March.
10. A considerable number of people have been selected
to more than one post and obviously as it is impossible to
report to all the posts to which they have been selected,
only one vacancy would be filled up and other vacancies to
which the candidates have been selected would go a
begging. This can never be the purpose of issuing of
Notifications. Unfortunately, this very crucial aspect has
been lost sight of the 3rd respondent Board resulting in
forcing the unemployed youth to knock the doors of this
Hon'ble Court for justice.
11. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the
recruiting authorities have been relying upon the State
Government instructions as constrained in G.O.Ms. No.81
G.A.(Ser.A), Department, dated 22.02.1997 and
G.O.Ms.No.544, G.A.(Ser.A), Department, dated
04.12.1998. The purport of the G.Os would make it
necessary that the recruiting agency will have to furnish a
list equal to the number of vacancies notified in the
Notification. In other words, in a recruitment year, after
the selection of candidates and after issue of appointment
order, if the candidates failed to join duty within the
stipulated period, that vacancy shall be notified in the next
recruitment year. By virtue of the said G.Os, the system of
preparing a waiting list for fallout vacancies has been done
away with. In the latter G.O. referred to above, which is
an adhoc rule made in exercise of the powers conferred by
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by
the Governor, it was made clear that fallout vacancies, if
any, due to relinquishment and non-joining etc., of
selected candidates, shall be notified in the next
recruitment.
12. Learned Senior counsel further submits that while
explaining the above said method, this principle may well
be applicable to cases where the recruitment agencies are
required to hold selections for filling up vacancies to a
particular post alone. But, it does not answer logic to
extend the said principle in cases where number of posts
at different levels in hierarchy are sought to be filled up.
The present case is a classic case where the application of
said principle has resulted in more than 1800 of the
vacancies remaining unfilled. The result of application of
this principle and where results are declared either
simultaneously or in respect of posts in the lower category
earlier in point of time than the post in the higher echelons
of the hierarchy.
13. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the
petitioners in the present Writ Petition have all been
included in the 1:2 list calling for certificate verification
but could not make up to 1:1 that is eventual selection for
issuance of appointment order. This is a direct result of
application of principle which cannot be made applicable
in cases where more number of posts are sought to be
filled up. Since this is the only reason, why the petitioners
have not been eventually selected, they are constrained to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
14. After hearing the matter, initially, this Hon'ble Court
granted interim order on 13.11.2024 as follows:
"Having regard to the submissions made by learned
counsel for the respective parties, there shall be an
interim direction to the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioners for appointment in their
respective posts against the fallout/relinquished
vacancies duly operating the Merit List downwards, in
accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Civil Appeal Nos.10583-10585 of 2017, dated
17.08.2017."
15. Against the above said interim direction, vacate stay
along with counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3/
Telangana Residential Educational Institutions
Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as "TREI-RB")
vide I.A. No.1 of 2025. In the said vacate stay petition, the
3rd respondent submitted that the recruitments have been
notified after a long gap period and the candidates were
agitating for early publication of the results no sooner they
wrote the examination in question as the election code was
about to come in force. Therefore, it has become
necessary for the "TREI-RB" to announce the results of the
provisionally selected candidates irrespective of higher
posts or lower posts whatever it may be.
16. It is further stated that the candidates selected in
more than one post, were also reluctant to give their
consent to join in a particular post fully knowing well that
they are meritorious and get more than one post. It is the
prerogative of the candidates on merit, but not the (TREI-
RB). If the TREI-RB follows against the rights of the
selected candidates and take relinquishment from the
same candidates at the time of certificate verification for
specific post, it leads to infringement of fundamental right
of a person guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
17. It is further stated that nowhere in the Notification
had mentioned that the results of the above notification
would be published in a descending order. The post
notified in the different notifications holds different
qualifications with different standards of examinations and
accordingly, the results were notified depending upon the
completion of the selection process. It is also clearly
mentioned against para No.V of the Notification, which
reads as follows:
1. Vacancies: The recruitment will be made to the
vacancies notified before the examination only. There
shall be no waiting list as per G.O.Ms.No.81, General
Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated
22.02.1997. If additional vacancies are reported by
the Government, an addendum to that effect will be
issued.
2. Unfilled and non-joining vacancies will be carry
forwarded to next recruitment."
18. It is further stated that in the previous recruitment
also, some candidates denied to give relinquishment and
joined lower post instead of higher post according to their
convenience. Hence, the averments made in the affidavit
are not correct and accordingly, the TREI-RB is proceeding
scrupulously as per G.O.Ms.No.81, G.A.(Ser.A),
Department, dated 22.02.1997, which is mentioned
against para No.V of the Notification.
19. It is further stated that the petitioners have
themselves stated that different written examinations have
been held for different posts and they have applied for the
said posts since they are qualified to apply to all the said
posts. From this, it is clear that different examinations
have been conducted for different posts with different
standards of examination, but not with the same standard
though they are possessing qualifications for all the posts
in question. The provisional selection list was notified as
and when the selection process is completed in a specific
notification notified by the TREI-RB so as to avoid
criticism from the meritorious candidates. The TREI-RB
with a good intention, had proceeded for the early
publication of the results and the whole process was
completed within a span of 240 days from the date of
issuance of Notification on 05.04.2023. The TREI-RB now
proceeding by following G.O.Ms.No.81, G.A.(Ser.A),
Department, dated 22.02.1997 carry forwarding the fallout
vacancies to the next recruitment. Hence, the averments
made by the petitioner are far away from the rules in
vogue and without any deviation to the rules in existence.
20. Learned Standing counsel for the respondent counsel
also relied upon the very same judgment which is relied
upon by the petitioner's counsel. Hence, prayed the
Hon'ble Court to vacate the interim order granted by this
Court.
ANYALYSIS OF THE CASE LAWS AND FINDINGS OF
THE COURT:
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent
No.3 have relying upon the following cases and case laws:
1. In the Writ Appeal No.511 of 2021. The appeal is
filed against the order of the Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.14926 of 2020. The issue involved in the case is
that, writ petitioners have participated in the process of
selection pursuant to the Notification dated 31.05.2018,
issued by the present appellants/respondents in the main
Writ Petition in respect of as many as 1370 vacancies. The
learned Single Judge has passed the following order:
"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."
Against the above said order, the present Writ
Appeal is filed. While dismissing the Writ Appeal, the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made the following
Order:
"In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in
view the aforesaid judgment, once a vacancy is
advertised and the vacancy is unfilled, as the person
in whose favour appointment order has been issued
has not joined, the same cannot carry forward to the
next selection. The next person in the waiting list
should be appointed against the vacancy. However, in
cases where appointment orders were issued, persons
have joined and left thereafter, then the particular
vacancies have to be carried forward to the next
selection and therefore, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed."
22. In the present case on hand, the 3rd respondent
issued several notifications to recruit various posts. After
completion of the recruitment, nearly 1800 vacancies
remained unfilled. With regard to the above said
vacancies, the respondent authorities want to carry
forward to the next Notification. The above said judgment
squarely supports the contention of the petitioners. The
contention of the petitioners is that, respondent
authorities not operating the merit list downwards and not
recruiting the petitioners in the above said fallout
vacancies, which were created due to individual getting
selected to more than one post in pursuance of the
Notifications No.1 to 5 of 2023 and 9 of 2023, dated
05.04.2023.
23. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.4735 of 2022 in the case of The Telangana
State Level Police Recruitment Board and another Vs.
Narimetla Vamshi and others. In the said case, selected
candidates have not fully participated in the selection
process. In the above said case, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court also considered the case in Munja Praveen and
others Vs. State of Telangana and others1;
. 2017 (14) SCC 797
While dismissing the said Appeal filed by the
Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and
others, the Apex Court observed as follows:
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties in the
conspectus of the aforesaid submissions and find no
reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the
two Courts below. The manner of interpreting the rule
in question has already been set out in Munja Praveen
case (Supra). 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 a vacancy arising which has to
be carried forward to the next recruitment process. As
to the consequences of the large number of vacancies
which have remained on these different accounts, the
details of which have been set out herein above, again
lend support to this conclusion that a large part of the
process is not frustrated by not filling up of the
vacancies. Public employment is an important source of
employability for young people in the country where
we are facing problems of adequacy of jobs; An
interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded by
the appellants would go against the very ethos of
providing public employment to persons eligible and
meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner
leaving a large number of vacancies unfilled. This
would not be an appropriate interpretation."
24. In Civil Appeal No.10583 - 10585 of 2017, Munja
Praveen and others Vs. State of Telangana and
others. In the said case, the Apex Court observed as
follows:
"5. All the tests were conducted at about the same
time and the result was that the more brilliant
candidates found their names in the select list of more
than one Corporation. Many candidates were selected
in more than one Corporation being high up in the merit
list. On 01.06.2016, clarification was issued by the
Government of Telangana that the Corporations were
free to fill up the left over notified (advertised)
vacancies by operating the merit list downwards for
each category.
12. The position before us is totally different as pointed
out earlier, some of the candidates, who got selected in
more than one of the Corporations were called for
verification of their certificates. No appointment order
has been issued till this stage. In the meantime, the
State issued a clarification as set out in the letter dated
01.06.2016 relevant portion of which reads as under:
"... I am to invite attention to the above subject and
reference cited and inform the Government after careful
examination of the matter hereby relaxes the provision,
as a special case under the circumstances, of calling
for the candidate on basis for verification of certificates
as contained in their notifications as one time option
and permits the TRANSCO, TS SPDCL and TS NPDCL
to fill up the left over notified (advertised) vacancies of
Assistant Engineers of their respective utility duty
operation the merit list downwards for each category
by following other rules prescribed in their respective
notification...."
Finally, the above case was disposed of with the
following observation:
"18. We are also of the view that the
Government was justified in issuing the letter
dated 01.06.2016 in the larger public interest.
19. In view of the above discussion, we allow
the appeals, set aside the judgments of the
Division Bench and learned Single Judge of the
High Court and consequently dismiss the writ
petitions. The Corporations may fill up the posts
as directed in the letter dated 01.06.2016 and in
the light of the interpretation of clause 8 and 9 of
G.O.Ms. given by us."
25. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the
contentions of the petitioners' counsel with regard to the above
said judgment, submitted that the orders passed in Munja
Praveen's case passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
order in G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997 are in consonance
with each other observing that G.O.Ms. would come into
operation only after appointment letter issued. The TREI-RB
had notified the provisional selection list one after the other
and the appointing authorities i.e. Secretaries of all the five
Residential Societies forthwith issued appointment orders to all
the candidates selected irrespective of their selected posts and
the candidates also joined duties in the month of September,
2024. Hence, the judgment referred in the interim order by
the Hon'ble High Court is not relevant to this case as the
appointment orders were already issued to the selected
candidates and the fallout vacancies after the appointment
orders, is to be carry forwarded to the next recruitment as per
G.O.Ms.No.81 which is in vogue.
26. It is to be noted that all the tests were conducted at about
the same time and the result was that the more brilliant
candidates found their names in the select list of more than
one category. On 01.06.2016, clarification was issued by the
Government of Telangana that the Corporations were free to fill
up the left over notified (advertised) vacancies by operating the
merit list downwards for each category. As per this Hon'ble
Division Bench Court Order and as per Munja Praveen's case,
the fallout vacancies cannot carry forward to the next selection.
27. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 relied upon the
G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997, wherein para No.8 and 9
reads as follows:
"8... According to these rules, in a recruitment year, against
number of notified vacancies, selection shall be made only
to the equal number of posts notified and there shall be no
waiting list. In other words, in a recruitment year, after
selection of the candidates and after issue of appointment
orders, if the candidate fails to join duty within the
stipulated period that vacancy shall be notified again in the
next recruitment year, this alienates the system of preparing
waiting list for fallout the vacancies....
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 in the
number of vacancies only including those for reserved
communities categories notified by the unit officers. The fall
out vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non-joining
etc., of selected candidates shall be notified the next
recruitment."
28. Based on the above interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.81,
learned counsel for the respondent opposing the petitioner's
relief i.e. operating the merit list downwards cannot be
possible.
29. In the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the
respondents referred only 8 and 9 paras of G.O.Ms.No.81 as
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen's
case. But in the very same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court also observed as follows:
"14. Even otherwise also, we are of the view that this is
the only logical way to interpret the G.O.Ms. The G.O.Ms.
obviously has been issued, keeping in mind a single
selection process. Here, we are dealing with a multiple
selection process for different Corporations. The more
brilliant candidates were selected in more than one of the
Corporations. They obviously cannot join in more than one
Corporation. Therefore, if the top four candidates have
been selected in all four Corporations, they could only join
one of the Corporations and 12 posts would remain vacant,
if the interpretation given by the High Court is accepted.
This would lead to a position where large number of
vacancies would not be filled up.
15. On a conjoint reading of clause 8 and 9 of G.O.Ms.,
dated 22.02.1997, we are clearly of the view that this was
not the purpose of the G.O.Ms. According to us, the
G.O.Ms. would come into operation only after appointment
letters were issued and, therefore, if a person, who is at
number one position, goes to one of the Corporations and is
given the appointment letter, he may not go to other three
Corporations for verification of the certificate. That does not
mean that the first post in all the Corporations should now
lie vacant."
30. In the case on hand also, not a single selection process,
multiple posts notified on the same date in different
Notifications. After filling up of the vacancies based on the
merit list, nearly 1800 vacancies are lying vacant. In view of
the above said circumstances, in accordance with the
observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munja
Praveen's case, this Court is of the considered view that in the
present case also the authorities can prepare merit downwards
list for non-filling of vacancies. No material is placed on
record to prove that the respondent No.3 issued another
Notification to carry forward the fallout vacancies. Had they
issued such a Notification, the case of the petitioners would
have been otherwise. As such, the contention of the
respondent No.3 with regard to the above G.O. does not hold
water.
31. In view of afore mentioned discussion and taking into
consideration of the above Apex Court's observations, this
Court is of the considered view that these Writ Petitions can be
disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider
the case of the petitioners by duly operating the Merit List
downwards and fill up all the fallout vacancies pertaining to
Notifications No.1 to 5 and 9 of 2023, dated 05.04.2023
without carry forwarding the same to the next Notification.
The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
32. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J
Date: 22.09.2025
Note:
LR copy is to be marked.
B/o
BDR
