ORDER : Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. The issue involved in these Writ Petitions is, respondent authorities not operating the merit list downwards and not recruiting the petitioners in the fallout vacancies. 2. All these Writ Petitions hereby disposed of by this Common Order, as the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is identical. 3. Heard learned counsel for respective parties: Sri Siva, learned Senior counsel representing Smt. Goda Rama Lakshmi, 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 Lakshmi, 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 3 rd paper was independently conducted for all the posts as it related to their respective subjects for which the recruitment is to be held. 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 3 rd 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 3 rd 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 25 th , Junior Lecturer on 16 th and Degree Lecturer on 15 th 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 4 th March. 10. In so far as Trained Graduate Teachers, Junior Lecturers and Degree Lecturers are concerned, appointment orders were issued on 4 th 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. 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 3 rd 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. 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. 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 3 rd 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. 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 others , 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.