ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….by calling for the records relating to any connected with Proceedings No. 465/RP/II/2017 dated 09.10.2023 and set aside the same holding it absolutely illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to appoint the Petitioner as Physiotherapist pursuant to the Notification No. 58/2017 dated: 08.11.2017 if necessary, by setting aside the appointment of the 5 th Respondent or in the alternate by creating a supernumerary post as held by Pradhans case or in any of the resultant or future vacancy in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as are deem-fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2) Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 and 3, Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, and Sri M.P.K. Aditya, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.4. Further, in view of the submission made by learned senior counsel, during the course of arguments, that he is not pressing the relief sought for in the present writ petition against respondent No.5, this Court has proceeded with the matter without waiting for respondent No.5 to respond. 3) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to BC-B Community and Zone-VI in terms of Presidential Order, and completed Physiotherapy in the year 2004. While so, respondent No.2 has issued Notification No.58/2017 dated 08.11.2017 proposing to fill up (6) posts of Physiotherapist. Subsequently, by way of publication of Addendum on 21.12.2017, (46) posts of Physiotherapist were added. Pursuant to the said notification, petitioner has applied. The notification contemplates the procedure for uploading application which is required to be properly filled up and there is no specification with regard to uploading of documents in terms of para 3 of the notification. Subsequently, the petitioner has appeared for the written examination and secured 334 rank with 35.467 marks. In the original notification, weightage was prescribed for government service. Subsequently, several corrigenda were issued whereunder weightage marks were provided, however, the petitioner is concerned only with the weightage of 10 marks for qualification since he did his Physiotherapy in the year 2004. Subsequently, the petitioner has appeared for the written examination and secured 334 rank with 35.467 marks. In the original notification, weightage was prescribed for government service. Subsequently, several corrigenda were issued whereunder weightage marks were provided, however, the petitioner is concerned only with the weightage of 10 marks for qualification since he did his Physiotherapy in the year 2004. 3.1) Learned senior counsel has further submitted that since there was ambiguity in the notification and the subsequent corrigenda, the final web note was published on 08.09.2023 with a liberty to submit any representation in case of any defect in uploading between 11.09.2023 to 13.09.2023. On enquiry, it was found that 10 marks were not added to the petitioner pursuant to uploading of qualification in terms of weightage of web note dated 28.02.2018. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 08.09.2023 once again enclosing his qualification certificate. As per the notification, the petitioner is required to hold all the original documents at the time of certification verification since there were several discrepancies and difficulties found by the candidates in uploading the documents which was also recognized by the respondents themselves. Further, this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.13079 of 2021 & batch, vide judgment dated 01.08.2022, took a judicial note of the said difficulty which was faced by the candidate and directed the respondents to consider their cases atleast in the unfilled vacancies since it is only a technical error. Apart from the same, even in terms of notification, the power to reject the candidature can be exercised only in three situations viz., firstly only when an error is found in the application; secondly when the originals were not submitted during the interview; and thirdly when the certificate is found to be false. In the instant case, the petitioner has secured 35.467 marks and if 10 marks are added, the marks would be 45.467 whereas the candidate belonging to BC (B) category of Zone-VI bearing No.1758000341, who secured 44.200 marks i.e. less meritorious than the petitioner, was appointed on 09.02.2024. Hence, the action of the respondents in selecting and appointing less meritorious candidate is nothing but illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . Hence, the action of the respondents in selecting and appointing less meritorious candidate is nothing but illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . 3.2) Learned senior counsel has further submitted that earlier, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.27229 of 2023 to direct the respondents to add 10 marks for qualification and consider his case for appointment wherein this Court vide order dated 29.09.2023 directed the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Subsequently, the respondents passed the impugned Memo No.465/RP.II/2017, dated 09.10.2023, i.e. after a lapse of 5 years, rejecting the case of the petitioner, which is absolutely erroneous on the face of it. Firstly, as the final web note was published on 08.09.2023 to check provisional list of qualification and service weightage and to submit objections. Secondly, on 13.09.2023 itself the petitioner has submitted representation along with requisite documents and thirdly even after rejecting the case of the petitioner, the respondents have considered and appointed a less meritorious candidate on 09.02.2024. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondents is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . 3.3) It is further submitted that three vacancies earmarked for physically handicapped and another vacancy in OC woman general in Zone-V are lying unfilled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court have repeatedly opined that in case of gross illegality committed by the Respondent and where merit has suffered due to such illegality committed, the department are required to compensate the same by accommodating the candidate in any of these vacancies or against the available vacancies. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Physiotherapist against the available vacancies and passing the impugned proceedings is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . Reliance has been placed on: 1) Aarav Jain vs. Bihar Public Service Commission , [ AIR 2022 SC 2525 ] 2) Vansh Prakash Dolas v. Ministry of Education and The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare , [AIR ONLINE 2024 SC 169] ; and 3) Common judgment dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.144 of 2023 & batch. 4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 29.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.27229 of 2023, the representation of the petitioner dated 13.09.2023 was examined and his case was rejected vide impugned Speaking Order on the ground that he has not uploaded his qualification certificate within the specified time period given by the Commission. Further, the Commission has called the candidates to upload their certificates and qualification certifies in July, 2018, itself, by issuing Press note in major newspapers as well as placing a web note in Commission’s web site and also sent personal SMS for information of the applicants. In spite of these repeated granting of time for uploading the certificates, the petitioner has failed to upload the qualification certificates within the time given by the Commission. Subsequently, when the Commission published service and qualification weightage marks on 06.09.2023 and called for objections if any from the candidates vide web note dated 08.09.2023 duly informing that the request for fresh uploading of certificates will not be accepted, the petitioner has submitted an objection representation for not adding qualification weightage marks to his written test marks. It is specifically contended that vide web note dated 08.09.2023 i.e. at the time of publication of service weightage and qualification weightage marks, the Commission has clearly stated that the request for fresh uploading of certificate will not be accepted. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered as he has not uploaded his qualification certificate within the time granted by the Commission and he was not awarded with any qualification weightage marks and the same was also informed to the petitioner vide Memo dated 07.10.2023. It is further contended that on the basis of the written examination held on 11.05.2018, the service weightage marks and qualification weightage marks and certificate verification were held on 27.09.2023 and 06.10.2023 for the post of Physiotherapist in TVVP and thereafter the provisional selection list of candidates was published on 03.02.2024. Subsequently, the commission vide web note dated 09.02.2024 has called for relinquishments from 06.02.2024 to 08.02.2024. As no candidates have given relinquishments, the same provisional selection list was published. Further, the petitioner, who belongs to BC-B category in Zone-VI, has secured the total marks of 35.167 whereas the candidate with Hall Ticket No.1758000341 belonging to BC-B category of Zone-VI has secured 44.200 marks. As no candidates have given relinquishments, the same provisional selection list was published. Further, the petitioner, who belongs to BC-B category in Zone-VI, has secured the total marks of 35.167 whereas the candidate with Hall Ticket No.1758000341 belonging to BC-B category of Zone-VI has secured 44.200 marks. As such, the petitioner could not get selection due to his lower merit. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that in respect of notification dated 09.02.2024, 48 posts were already filled up and four vacancies (PH-3 and BC-1) are left unfilled due to non- availability of further eligible candidates and the unfilled vacancies cannot fit to the petitioner as the same are reserved for PH & BC-E categories and the said unfilled vacancies shall be carried forward to the next recruitment as per Telangana State Recruitment Rules. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the record. 6) This Court in W.P.No.13079 of 2021 & batch dealt with the issue of additional weightage marks in respect of the notification No.57/2017, dated 08.11.2017, whereas the present Notification is 58/2017 of the even date i.e. 08.11.2017. Insofar as awarding of weightage marks, this Court in W.P.No.13079 of 2021 & batch, vide common order dated 01.08.2022, has held as under: “19. On a reading of Paragraphs-I, III, IV and VIII of the notification, in the opinion of this Court clear guidelines have not been given to upload documents along with the applications. Though, as contended by, TSPS, in PARA-1 at “IMPORTANT NOTE”, it was mentioned that details of the documents have to be kept already while uploading OTR applications, it does not clearly say that the documents have to be uploaded. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that PARA-I required only details to be furnished and not educational certificates and the details have been furnished by the petitioners. 20. Para – III at Step 11 says, required documents have to be uploaded. Para IV at Clause 6, inception “Important,” it was stated that claim of candidates with regard to date of birth, educational / technical qualification etc., is subject to verification. Again in Para VIII (4), it was stated that the candidates have to produce original documents and other particulars on the date of verification. 21. Para IV at Clause 6, inception “Important,” it was stated that claim of candidates with regard to date of birth, educational / technical qualification etc., is subject to verification. Again in Para VIII (4), it was stated that the candidates have to produce original documents and other particulars on the date of verification. 21. On a close reading of the above paragraphs of the notification, it is the opinion of this Court that the instructions/ guidelines given to the candidates do not clearly say that the copies of documents have to be uploaded along with the applications. Even assuming that the documents are uploaded, then also it is subject to verification before final selection is made. All the petitioners furnished details of their academic / service qualification not only in their applications but also in their representations made pursuant to the orders of this Court. When representations were considered, in all fairness the respondents ought to have informed the petitioners to submit relevant documents, if not submitted earlier. When the petitioners were permitted to submit representations, the respondents cannot be allowed to take a stand that the petitioners have not availed opportunities given by TSPSC. The disposal of representations cannot be an empty formality. 22. According to the petitioners, there are several unfilled vacancies and there are no clear instructions to the candidates in uploading the documents. Thus, rejection of the application of the petitioners merely because they have not uploaded certificates is arbitrary and unreasonable. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that most of the petitioners belong to lower social and economic strata of the society. It is stated that many of the petitioners do not have latest software systems, scanners, etc. As contended by Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, it cannot be denied that many of the petitioners have submitted applications through Mee-Seva centers and the persons operative such centers are also not well equipped with technology and most of them are self- employed persons eking out their livelihood by running these centers. There was every possibility of technical errors in uploading the documents. Further, many of the petitioners were made to understand on reading of the notification that uploading of service/academic qualification was not necessary. There was every possibility of technical errors in uploading the documents. Further, many of the petitioners were made to understand on reading of the notification that uploading of service/academic qualification was not necessary. In such scenario, in the opinion of this Court, depriving the opportunity of public employment to the petitioners merely because they have not uploaded the documents either for technical reasons or due to misunderstanding the instructions given to the candidates, would be unjust and arbitrary.” and thereby allowed the writ petitions while setting aside the impugned orders therein and also directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners therein for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse pursuant to the said notification by verifying their original academic and service qualification certificates within a period of three weeks. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.144 of 2023 & batch vide common judgment dated 21.03.2023 has confirmed the findings of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13079 of 2021 & batch vide common order dated 01.08.2022 and the Division Bench has also directed Commission to consider the cases of the writ petitioners therein in the unfilled vacancies provided they are coming within the zone of consideration and having requisite qualification to hold the post of Staff Nurse. 7) From the above, as held by this Court, it is apparent that clear guidelines were not given to upload the documents along with applications in respect of notification No.57/2017. Undisputedly, the present notification No.58/2017 was also issued on the same day i.e. 08.11.2017. A perusal of the Notification No.58/2017 dated 08.11.2017 also contains similar guidelines, which were dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.13079 of 2021 & batch. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the guidelines to upload the documents along with applications are not clear also in respect of notification No.58/2017. Further, though the Writ Petition is filed challenging the appointment of respondent No.5, during the course of arguments, the learned senior counsel relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has confined the prayer and not pressed the relief sought against respondent No.5. 8) Here, it is relevant to state that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aarav Jain’s case (referred supra) has held as under: “ 12. 8) Here, it is relevant to state that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aarav Jain’s case (referred supra) has held as under: “ 12. Another submission advanced on the behalf of the appellants is that the requirement to submit the originals is neither related to qualification or eligibility and in any case before appointment or during the course of probation a verification and vigilance report is always obtained by the State. Therefore, non-furnishing of the original certificate at the time of interview cannot be held to be mandatory or in other words nothing turned upon it. Even if the original certificates/documents were not submitted at the time of interview, the Government would still be getting a vigilance/verification check carried out. 13. Upon such submissions, it has been submitted that the decision of the Commission rejecting their candidature was per se illegal, unwarranted, unreasonable and too harsh. All the eight appellants who were duly qualified and duly selected have been deprived of their appointment as judicial officers. Admittedly, all the appellants had secured more marks than the last selected candidate in their respective category. It is further submitted that even the High Court committed an error in dismissing their petitions. 14. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of BPSC and the State that they could not relax any of the condition which were mentioned in the advertisement or their brochure or the interview call letter at different stages. Any such relaxation would amount to not following their own prescribed procedure which was not within their domain. It is also submitted that the appellants knowing fully well the condition regarding submission of the original certificates/documents at the time of interview having failed to do so, their candidature was rightly rejected. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the respective argument we are of the considered view that the rejection of the candidates was improper, unjustified and not warranted. We have also taken note of the fact that there are vacancies available, which if filled up by meritorious candidates would only be an asset for the institution helping in disposal of cases pending in huge numbers. 16. The next aspect which needs to be considered is with respect to the adjustment of eight appellants against the vacancies of Advertisement No. 6 of 2018. 16. The next aspect which needs to be considered is with respect to the adjustment of eight appellants against the vacancies of Advertisement No. 6 of 2018. Insofar as the five candidates of the unreserved categories are concerned, namely, Mayank Kumar Pandey, Aarav Jain, Ashish Chandra, Siddharth Sharma and Sanjay Kumar Mishra (according to the State five vacancies are available), they may be adjusted against these vacancies. The issue now remains with respect to the three candidates belonging to EBC, SC and BC category. For these three candidates, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State may either adjust them against future vacancies which we are told are available at present or the State may borrow three posts from future vacancies, one each in respective categories for Advertisement No. 06 of 2018. This would amount to varying the vacancies of the said advertisement which power always vests in the employer. We further leave it to the wisdom and discretion of the State to deal with the above aspect either in the manner mentioned above or any other mode which it may deem fit in order to accommodate the three appellants belonging to the EBC, SC and BC categories.” 9) Similarly, in Manoj Kumar v. Union of India , [ AIR 2024 SC 1265 ] has considered the concept of restitutive relief and observed that concomitant duty of the Constitutional Court is to take reasonable measures to reinstate the injured which is the overreaching Constitutional purpose. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: “23. The inherent difficulty in bridging the time gap between the illegal impugned action and restitution is certainly not rooted in deficiencies within the law or legal jurisprudence but rather in systemic issues inherent in the adversarial judicial process. The protracted timeline spanning from the filing of a writ petition, service of notice, filing of counter affidavits, final hearing, and then the eventual delivery of judgment, coupled with subsequent appellate procedures, exacerbates delays. Take for example this very case, the writ petition was filed against the action of the respondent denying appointment on 22.05.2017. The writ petition came to be decided by the Single Judge on 2401.2018, the Division Bench on 16.10.2018, and then the case was carried to this Court in the year 2019 and we are deciding it in 2014. Take for example this very case, the writ petition was filed against the action of the respondent denying appointment on 22.05.2017. The writ petition came to be decided by the Single Judge on 2401.2018, the Division Bench on 16.10.2018, and then the case was carried to this Court in the year 2019 and we are deciding it in 2014. The delay in this case is not unusual, we see several such cases when our final hearing board moves. Appeals of more than two decades are awaiting consideration. It is distressing but certainly not beyond us. We must and we will find a solution to this problem.” 10) Similarly, in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [AIROnline 2017 SC 434] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the issue of wrongful denial of admission in a medical course, and propounded the theory of ‘restitutive justice’ by holding as under: “13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission in MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under: 13.1 That in a case where candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the court concerned to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest. 13.2 Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time schedule prescribed – 30th September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time, i.e., within one month from 30th September, i.e., cut off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any Admission in the same year beyond 30th October ……………..” 11) In the instant case also, at the time of arguments, this Court has directed the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 to get instructions as to whether any vacancies are available as on date. In turn, he has produced a letter dated 09.09.2025 stating that the clear vacancies, available as on today, are six. 12) Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the common order dated 01.08.2022 in W.P.No.13079 of 2021 & batch, as confirmed by the Division Bench in common judgment dated 144 of 2023 & batch, dated 01.08.2022, and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be faulted for not uploading the certificates as the instructions in the notification are not clear. 13) Further, in the instant case, the petitioner has secured 35.467 marks and passed his degree in BPT in the year 2021. Therefore, as per para VIII of the Notification, he is entitled for 10 marks towards service weightage. Hence, his marks would be 45.467 marks whereas the last selected candidate under BC-B category has secured 44.000 marks. 13) Further, in the instant case, the petitioner has secured 35.467 marks and passed his degree in BPT in the year 2021. Therefore, as per para VIII of the Notification, he is entitled for 10 marks towards service weightage. Hence, his marks would be 45.467 marks whereas the last selected candidate under BC-B category has secured 44.000 marks. 14) For the afore-mentioned reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Courts in the judgments referred supra, this Court is of the view that it is appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Physiotherapist in the available (6) vacancies, without reference to impugned rejection order dated 09.10.2023. 15) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.