JUDGMENT : Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 27.12.2023, passed in W.P. No.5904 of 2023 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Heard Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that respondent No. 1 had responded to a notification, dated 31.05.2018, issued by the appellant for filling up the posts of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (for short, 'SCT') Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), SCT Sub- Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve), SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in Telangana State Special Police (for short, 'T.S.S.P.'), apart from other posts. Respondent No. 1 is a member belonging to BC-A community and he was also claiming reservation meant for NCC cadets. Respondent No. 1 was provisionally selected as SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police (T.S.S.P.) on 12.07.2019. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant has called for objections from 13.07.2019 to 15.07.2019 from the selected candidates as to whether there is any grievance in respect of their selections. Respondent No. 1 has not responded to such objections and he has successfully completed training programme and later, appointed as SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in T.S.S.P. 4. Learned counsel further contended that nearly after one year of his selection, respondent No. 1 has submitted a representation on 06.07.2020 contending that less meritorious candidate than that of him was selected as SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) by the appellant and therefore, his case should be considered for appointment to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). The appellant had considered the said representation and rejected the same vide proceedings, dated 05.09.2020, on the ground that respondent No. 1 has not submitted any objections when they were called for at the time of his initial selection and that after undergoing training and nearly after one year, he has submitted a representation to consider his case for selection to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that in all 246 posts were notified in the category of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and the appellant has filled up all the posts and there are no vacancies. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that in all 246 posts were notified in the category of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and the appellant has filled up all the posts and there are no vacancies. Learned counsel further contended that respondent No. 1 has not availed the opportunity of submitting his objections when they were called for at the time of initial selections and belatedly, that too, after completing training in the cadre of SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in T.S.S.P., he has submitted a representation. Therefore, the case of respondent No. 1 was rightly rejected by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that aggrieved by the order, dated 05.09.2020, respondent No. 1 has approached this Court by filing the subject W.P. No.5904 of 2023 i.e. nearly three years after rejection of his representation, contending that his case should be considered for appointment to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), as he is more meritorious than that of the last selected candidate in the said post. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide impugned order, dated 27.12.2023, was pleased to allow the subject Writ Petition and directed the appellant to appoint respondent No. 1 as SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), by creating a supernumerary post, as respondent No. 1 is more meritorious than that of the last selected candidate to the said post, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had further contended that the learned Single Judge has relied upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in K. Ashok v. State of Telangana and others1, but the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, the person who was selected under ex-servicemen quota could not join and therefore, the appellant therein contended that as he is the next meritorious candidate, his case should be considered for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and in those set of circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court has condoned the delay and directed that the case of the appellant therein be considered for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) in the resultant vacancy, which could not be filled up. But, in the instant case, admittedly, the appellant has filled up all the 246 vacancies in the cadre of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and there are no unfilled vacancies, and nearly after four years from the date of his selection, respondent No. 1 has approached this Court by filing the subject Writ Petition and the learned Single Judge has mechanically allowed the subject Writ Petition by directing the appellant to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for appointment to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), by creating supernumerary post. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated 27.12.2023, and allow the Writ Appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 had contended that the appellant-Board had admitted about its mistake in not selecting the meritorious candidate i.e. respondent No. 1, to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). Admittedly, respondent No. 1 is more meritorious than that of the last selected candidate to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). Learned counsel further contended that respondent No. 1 was already working as SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in T.S.S.P. The only issue is that the case of respondent No. 1 has to be considered for appointment to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), as he is more meritorious than that of the last selected candidate to the said post. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the subject Writ Petition in favour of respondent No. 1 and the issue as to whether the delay can be condoned or not, was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in K. Ashok's case (supra), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has condoned the delay in respect of the appellant therein. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in condoning the delay in approaching the Court. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 had further contended that in spite of the fact that respondent No. 1 is more meritorious than that of the last selected candidate to the post of SCT Sub- Inspector of Police (Civil), respondent No. 1 could not be selected as SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 had further contended that in spite of the fact that respondent No. 1 is more meritorious than that of the last selected candidate to the post of SCT Sub- Inspector of Police (Civil), respondent No. 1 could not be selected as SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). Further, respondent No. 1 has submitted all relevant certificates at the time of his initial selection, which would mean that the appellant was aware that respondent No. 1 is a member belonging to BC-A community and holding NCC-B certificate. As less meritorious candidate was selected ignoring respondent No. 1, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the subject Writ Petition. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the appellant to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for appointment to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), as admittedly, there was lapse on the part of the appellant in recruiting a less meritorious candidate than that of respondent No. 1 as SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). However, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellant to create a supernumerary post, more so, when all the vacancies, which were notified vide notification, dated 31.05.2018, were filled up by the appellant and respondent No. 1 has not impleaded the less meritorious candidate than that of him, who was selected as SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the appellant is directed to accommodate respondent No. 1 in the next available vacancy for the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). On such accommodation, the appellant shall keep respondent No. 1 on fresh training meant for the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). 11. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.