Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1574 (TS)

Kambalapalli Mahendra v. State of Telangana

2025-11-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, G.M.MOHIUDDIN

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Madiraju Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for appellant; Mr. Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents No.1 and 3 and Mr. P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Public Service Commission appearing for respondent No.2. 2. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2025, passed in W.P.No.16580 of 2024, by the appellant/writ petitioner. 3. The learned writ court did not accede to the prayer of the writ petitioner to issue a direction upon the respondents to consider his candidature for the post of Drug Inspector, which fell vacant upon non-joining of one candidate out of two vacancies earmarked for Scheduled Caste (SC) category, though petitioner was the third ranker as per the merit list. The recruitment process was conducted by the Telangana State Public Service Commission (for short ‘the Commission’) in pursuance of Notification No.21 of 2022 dated 08.12.2022, for 18 vacancies (5 in Multizone-I and 13 in Multizone-II). 4. The learned writ court distinguished the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Munja Praveen v. State of Telangana , (2017) 14 SCC 797 . The petitioners therein had sought for a direction upon the official respondents not to offer appointment by operating the merit list downwards due to non-joining of selected candidates, in terms of the direction vide issued by the Government of Telangana letter dated 01.06.2016. The matter travelled upto the Apex Court. Civil Appeal Nos.10583-10585 of 2017 were allowed with a direction upon the Corporations to fill up the posts as directed in the letter dated 01.06.2016, and in the light of Clauses 8 and 9 of G.O.Ms.No.81 General Administration (Ser.A) Department dated 22.02.1997, rendered by the Apex Court. 5. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned writ court held that unlike Munja Praveen ’s case (supra), no such direction was issued in the present case for further appointments. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved, has preferred this appeal. 6. During pendency of this appeal, respondent No.3- Director General, Drugs Control Administration, was directed to produce the appointment order of the SC candidate having hall ticket No.2211700654, who reportedly did not join, resulting in a vacancy of the post earmarked for SC category, to which the petitioner claims appointment. 7. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved, has preferred this appeal. 6. During pendency of this appeal, respondent No.3- Director General, Drugs Control Administration, was directed to produce the appointment order of the SC candidate having hall ticket No.2211700654, who reportedly did not join, resulting in a vacancy of the post earmarked for SC category, to which the petitioner claims appointment. 7. An affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 stating vide that the Commission has letter dated 26.02.2024, communicated the unit list of provisionally selected candidates for recruitment to the post of Drug Inspector in vide Drug Control Administration Notification No.21 of 2022. In furtherance thereof, appointment orders were issued to 18 candidates in the unit list of provisionally selected candidates for recruitment to the post of Drug Inspector in Drug Control Administration. Out of 18 candidates, 17 candidates have reported as Drug Inspectors and one candidate- Sri M.Mahesh Babu has not reported despite receipt of order of appointment. The same was also informed to the Commission on 24.05.2024. The Commission has also taken a stand that it has not recommended any waiting list of candidates. 8. It is further submitted in the affidavit that training has been imparted to all the 17 Drug Inspectors in two phases. The appointment order dated 04.11.2024 of Sri M.Mahesh Babu is enclosed to the affidavit. Clause 5 of the appointment order stipulates that the candidate should submit physical fitness certificate duly obtained from the civil surgeon, original educational qualification certificates, technical qualification certificates, age and community etc certificates ., before reporting to duty for verification. Clause 7 thereof stipulates that the candidate will have to execute an agreement bond that he will serve the Department for not less than three years after completion of training. Clause 8 thereof stipulates that if the candidate fails to do so, he will have to refund the Government, the pay and allowances or any remuneration received by him in addition to the amount spent by the Government on his training. Clause 12 thereof stipulates that if the candidate does not join the post within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the appointment order, the offer of appointment shall be treated as automatically cancelled and the name of the candidate shall be deemed to have been omitted from the list of approved candidates. 9. Clause 12 thereof stipulates that if the candidate does not join the post within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the appointment order, the offer of appointment shall be treated as automatically cancelled and the name of the candidate shall be deemed to have been omitted from the list of approved candidates. 9. The affidavit also contains a letter dated 24.05.2024, issued by the Director General, Drugs Control Administration to the Secretary, Telangana State Public Service Commission, which states that appointment orders were issued to 15 out of 18 selected candidates as Drug Inspectors and appointment orders could not be issued to three selected candidates as Model Code of Conduct had intervened and one selected candidate- Sri M.Mahesh Babu has not reported as Drug Inspector in the Department within the stipulated joining period. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commission has submitted today that no indent for undertaking recruitment for any further vacancies has been received by the Commission as recruitment board has been constituted. 11. In this factual context, the issue under consideration is, if non-joining of a candidate, who has been offered appointment, resulted in the post remaining vacant, whether such post should be carried forward for future recruitment or should be filled up by the next candidate in the merit list. 12. In our considered opinion, and in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and another v. Narimetla Vamshi , Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 since one of the appointed candidate- Sri M.Mahesh Babu had not gone through the process of recruitment even though offer of appointment was issued subject to medical fitness and submission of original copies of certificates as mentioned in the offer of appointment, the vacancy arising due to his non-joining should be offered to the next candidate as per merit list in the category which remained vacant instead of being carried forward to the next recruitment process. The Apex Court in Narimetla Vamshi (supra) has opined as under: “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). The Apex Court in Narimetla Vamshi (supra) has opined as under: “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.” 13. We feel that the consequences arising out of the non-joining of an appointed person frustrate the recruitment process conducted by the Commission as per the indents supplied by the parent department in a particular cadre. The eligible and meritorious persons may become over-aged by the time the next recruitment process is initiated, and they would be denied appointment though they were ranked next in line in the same recruitment process, but could not be offered appointment on account of non-joining of the candidate despite an offer of appointment. Such an interpretation of the terms and conditions of the recruitment process would frustrate the very purpose for which it is being carried out. A situation can be considered where a person after joining the post resigns or for any other reason including cancellation of his appointment leads to creation of a vacancy. Such a vacancy could be carried forward for the next recruitment process as the incumbent had joined the post and no more vacancies remained to be filled. A situation can be considered where a person after joining the post resigns or for any other reason including cancellation of his appointment leads to creation of a vacancy. Such a vacancy could be carried forward for the next recruitment process as the incumbent had joined the post and no more vacancies remained to be filled. However, in a situation like the present, the opinion rendered by the Apex Court in Narimetla Vamshi (supra) would squarely apply. 14. We are, therefore, of the opinion that if, in the merit list, the petitioner ranks next to the last selected candidate in SC category, the vacancy of Drug Inspector, which has remained unfilled due to non-joining of the appointed candidate-Sri M.Mahesh Babu, should be offered to the petitioner for appointment subject to his fulfillment of other eligibility conditions and production of certificates as prescribed in the said notification. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 21.03.2025, passed in W.P.No.16580 of 2024 is set aside. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed in the manner indicated above. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.