ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. In this Writ Petition, petitioner challenges the action of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) in undertaking appointments to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (Urdu) under Notification No. 53 of 2017, dated 21.10.2017 without calling for relinquishments from the selected candidates as per mandatory Rule 6-A of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules, thereby resulting in unfilled vacancies due to unwillingness of such selected candidates, affecting petitioner’s right to appointment downwards in the merit. 2. According to Sri A. Suresh, learned counsel for petitioner, as per Rule 6(A) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules, if any selected candidate does not take up the offer of appointment, then the same has to be offered to the next meritorious candidate in the order of merit. Admittedly, in the instant case, TGPSC has not followed the said Rule, thereby many of the notified posts are lying vacant, submits learned counsel. 3. The Recruiting Agency - TGPSC issued various Notifications for filling up of vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects, Secondary Grade Teachers in English and Telugu Media, Hostel Welfare Officers in Grade-II in the hostels run for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, Language Pandits and School Librarians. The selection process in respect of all the above posts include written examination, certificate verification in the ratio of 1:2 and eventual selection in the ratio of 1:1 for one to get selected to the posts, referred to supra. Though all the Notifications were independently issued by TGPSC and selection process conducted separately, results of the written examination were declared proximately close to one another. As can be seen from the list of posts for which selection process took place, general educational qualifications required for the posts notified are by and large common, but the hierarchy and the place of work would be one of the crucial factors for the candidates to take a call where they find their names in the list of selected candidates suitable for certificate verification. To elaborate this point a little further, it would be necessary to state that a Trained Graduate Teacher is definitely superior to a Secondary Grade Teacher; similarly, a Librarian in a Junior College is superior to a Librarian in the School. To elaborate this point a little further, it would be necessary to state that a Trained Graduate Teacher is definitely superior to a Secondary Grade Teacher; similarly, a Librarian in a Junior College is superior to a Librarian in the School. Insofar as Hostel Welfare Officers are concerned, the Hostels run for the Scheduled Tribe candidates in scheduled areas would normally be preferred by candidates belonging to the said group as their possibilities of transfers would be far and few and therefore, a person who is selected both for a BC Hostel and SC Hostel would definitely not prefer to participate in the further process of selection in respect of posts to which they would be given a second preference. The recruitment procedure is regulated by the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules. The system of maintenance of wait list is dispensed with and PSC is required to prepare the merit list to the extent of vacancies notified only. For any reason, selected candidates do not join in the post offered to him or after joining the post, he leaves the employment, the said vacancies go to the next recruitment. However, the fact remains that many times, candidates do not join the post to which they are selected or though they join the post, leave the employment immediately thereafter. This can be for various reasons. To obviate this contingency and to avoid candidate in the select list not joining the post after his selection, PSC is required to follow procedure prescribed by Rule 6(A), which reads as under: “ 6-A: Notwithstanding anything contained in ad hoc Rule issued in G.O.Ms.No. 544, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 04.12.1998, any candidate whose name has been included in a selection list in a direct recruitment prepared by the Commission, on enquiry by the Commission, may relinquish his claim for appointment in writing in the proforma prescribed by the Commission. The Commission shall thereupon remove the name of such candidates from the selection list and select any other candidate according to rules. The Commission shall thereupon remove the name of such candidates from the selection list and select any other candidate according to rules. The candidate whose name has been so removed from the selection list shall be informed of such removal by the Commission and shall have no right for the said appointment in future with reference to the said selection: Provided this provision is applicable only when a single category of posts is notified in a notification and not applicable to a notification where multiple categories of posts are notified. However, it shall be ensured that the list shall not be operated for any additional vacancies indented by the Government Departments. The selection list for the purpose of selecting candidates in place or relinquished candidate/candidates shall be operated only till the next notification is issued or for a period of one year, whichever is earlier.” As required by Rule 6(A), only after the final merit list is drawn, willingness of candidates should be enquired to by the PSC and if the candidates expressed their unwillingness, their names should be excluded from the final merit list and to that extent, add the name of next meritorious candidate, draw the select list and forward the same to the appointing authority. The relinquishment is voluntary, and no body can force a candidate to relinquish even if he is selected to more than one post. Proviso to Rule 6(A) is applicable only when a single category of posts is notified in a notification and not applicable to a notification where multiple categories of posts are notified. However, it shall be ensured that the list shall not be operated for any additional vacancies indented by the government. The selection list for the purpose of selecting candidates in place of relinquished candidates / candidates shall be operated only till the next notification is issued or for a period of year, whichever is earlier. 4. However, it shall be ensured that the list shall not be operated for any additional vacancies indented by the government. The selection list for the purpose of selecting candidates in place of relinquished candidates / candidates shall be operated only till the next notification is issued or for a period of year, whichever is earlier. 4. Earlier, the Learned Single Judge who heard this batch of cases, disposed the same by a common order dated 24.06.2021, which reads as under: “9 This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the 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 WP No. 7117 of 2020 dated 11.08.2020 and WP No. 4495 of 2019 dated 11.6.2019 and as confirmed vide judgments dated 03.07 2019 in WA. No. 551 of 2019 these writ petitions can be disposed of directing the public service commission and the State Government to fill 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 had to be tagged on to the next notification and the vacancies which are still lying vacant even after issuance of appointment orders, those vacancies have to be filled up strictly by following Rule 6(A) of Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules and the same should be offered to the next meritorious candidates in order of merit.” 5. Aggrieved by the said common order, TGPSC preferred Writ Appeal No. 533 of 2021 and batch. By judgment dated 26.10.2021, Writ Appeals were disposed of setting aside the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge. The Division Bench had remanded the matter to deal with each and every individual Writ petition, in order to give a finding of fact whether Rule 6(A) of the Rules has been complied with or not. The Division Bench, taking into consideration Rule 6 which provides that in case a candidate does not joint pursuant to issuance of appointment order, the fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment, observed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the said statutory provision. It is on remand, arguments have been advanced in respect of individual cases. 6. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 (Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v Narimetla Vamshi) . Attention of this Court was drawn to the following paragraph: “ 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.” Learned counsel submits that from the above referred judgment and portion extracted supra, the defence projected by TGPSC is unsustainable and contrary to law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, appearing on behalf of Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC contends that respondents have strictly followed Rule 6(A) of the Rules and some of the vacancies, which were relinquished by the persons appointed in those vacancies, have to be tagged on to the next recruitment notification only and those unfilled vacancies cannot be filled up by the next meritorious candidates in the order of merit. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petitions. 8. In the light of the arguments advanced on both the sides, it is to be seen that in Munja Praveen v. State of Telangana , [ (2017) 14 SCC 797 ] , while interpreting the concept of ‘fall out vacancies’, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining, it has been opined that the appropriate interpretation of the GOM would be that after the appointment order is issued and the appointed person does not join, then the vacancy cannot be filled in on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downward. Based on the said judgment, in Narimetla Vamshi’s case , it has been held that ‘if a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment, he has not done what was required to be done by him and it cannot be construed as a vacancy arising which has to be carried forward to the next recruitment process. 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. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda v State of Karnataka , [ (1992) 1 SCC 28 ] . This judgement was paraded to buttress the contention that petitioners alone would have to be considered for the vacancies and the respondents cannot frustrate the fruits of the litigation to petitioners on the ground that there could be / are candidates more meritorious than petitioners. In the said judgment, it is held as under: “ In view of the fact that the appointments under the impugned Rules were made as back as in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached the Tribunal for relief, the case of other candidates cannot be considered as they never approached for redress within reasonable time. We are thus inclined to grant relief only to the present appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time. We are thus inclined to grant relief only to the present appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the State Government has already framed new rules, and as such we do not find it necessary to quash the Rules under which the present selections were made as they are no longer in existence”. 9. At this juncture, it is also to be seen that this Court in similar circumstances, dealing with the same notification, in Writ Petitions No. 20232 and 20273 of 2018, directed the Commission to strictly abide by the mandate of Rule 6(A) and make an enquiry with the rest of the candidates who figured in the said selection list and in the event any such candidates indicate their willingness to relinquish their selection as TGTs (Science), the Commission shall remove his / her name in the selection list and include the name of the next candidate in terms of merit. Challenging the said order, Writ Appeals No. 1494 of 2018 and 1524 of 2018 were filed by the Commission. The said Writ Appeals were disposed of confirming the directions of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the Commission published the revised final selection list dated 03.07.2020 and 22.04.2020. 10. The grievance of petitioner in this case is the 2 nd respondent failed to follow Rule 6-A of TGPSC Rules of Procedure in cases of single category post notified. The 2nd respondent published the selection notification of Secondary Grade Teacher Urdu Medium giving list of provisionally-selected candidates for appointing showing only hall ticket numbers on 19.01.2019 while recruitment to higher posts such as School Assistant, Post Graduate Teacher, etcetera, were also undertaken out of which several persons who are also in the zone of consideration for the present post are already selected for other posts. Petitioner is stated to have submitted representations dated 22.01.2019, 11.02.2019 and 14.09.2019 to call upon relinquishments from the next available candidates in the merit list, but the 2 nd respondent undertook appointments without following the Rule of Reservation. 11. Per contra, the case of the 2nd respondent Commission is that if relinquishments have to be sought for from the candidates for all the possible posts where common candidates exist, it will require finalization of selections to all the posts simultaneously. 11. Per contra, the case of the 2nd respondent Commission is that if relinquishments have to be sought for from the candidates for all the possible posts where common candidates exist, it will require finalization of selections to all the posts simultaneously. It is not possible always as all the recruitment process through various stages of recruitment process with some hurdles/ problems. Similarly, if relinquishments have to be sought mandatorily for every post, none of the selection lists can be finalised until all the recruitment reaches final stage of result declaration. It is stated, this Court in Writ Petition No. 20232 of 2018, on which petitioner places reliance, has categorically observed that relinquishment is voluntary and nobody can force a candidate to relinquish even if he is selected to more than one post. Provision in Rule 6A of the Rules of Procedure is intended only to obviate the contingency of any post remained unfilled, more particularly when selection is held simultaneously to various posts, candidates are eligible to compete to various posts so notified and their names are included in more than one merit list and if the option is called, the candidate may opt out any one of those posts and therefore, the other candidates can be included in the merit list. By following this procedure, the PSC only ensures that entire merit list sent to various categories of posts do not contain the same name in more than one post. In view of the above, it is clear that when selections are held simultaneously to various posts, and where candidates are eligible to compete to various posts so notified and their names are included in more than one merit list and if the option is called, the candidate may opt out any one of those posits, therefore, the other candidates can be included in the merit list. It is also stated, the qualification for the post of SGT (Urdu) is not similar to any other post of TRT since the above qualification should be pursued in Urdu medium only. As such, there is no scope for the candidates who have been selected for other TRT post and to be selected to the SGT (Urdu) post simultaneously as there is no similarity in qualifications for the post of SGT (Urdu) and any other TRT posts notified. As such, there is no scope for the candidates who have been selected for other TRT post and to be selected to the SGT (Urdu) post simultaneously as there is no similarity in qualifications for the post of SGT (Urdu) and any other TRT posts notified. As such, there is no possibility for the candidates who have been selected for the post of SGT (Urdu) and other TRT post. It is also stated that results were published for the posts of Secondary Grade Teacher (Urdu) well before the Court orders dated 30.08.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 419of 2019 i.e on 19.01.2019 and Unit list of selected candidates was forwarded to the School Education Department on 20.03.2019 for issue of appointment orders and it is learnt that the Department issued appointment orders to the selected candidates long back. Now petitioner is challenging the selection procedure after lapse of almost 1 ½ years. Further, there may be unfilled posts due to non-availability of eligible candidates in a particular category or community and such unfilled vacancies have to be filled by the candidates who belong to that particular category or community only by carrying forward to the next recruitment, hence, considering the candidates who belong to other category other than the left over vacancies is not possible which is against the rule of reservation. 12. Be that as it may. In view of the judgment in Narimetla Vamshi’s case , this Court is of the opinion that petitioner’s case deserves consideration. 13. Further, in the judgment in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted relief only to the appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the judicial fora in time. Same principle is liable to be extended in the present case as well, in view of the fact that it is only petitioner, who knocked the doors of this Court for redressal of grievance on the principles which are in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Narimetla Vamshi’s case (supra). For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 14. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 14. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The 2 nd respondent is directed to select and appoint petitioner as per merit against the unfilled / unclaimed vacancies by removing the names of the candidates who could have relinquished to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (Urdu Medium) under Notification No. 53 of 2017, dated 21.10.2017. No costs. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.