ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. In this Writ Petition, petitioner challenges the action of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) in not following Rule 6-A of the Rules of Procedure dated 23.12.2015 while selecting eligible candidacies to the posts of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II under notification No. 7 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 and undertaking selection and appointment to the said post in terms of the impugned selection notification dated 30.12.2019 without removing double selected candidates who are also in the selection list under notification No. 8 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 thereby resulting in several unfilled vacancies, affecting petitioner’s right to be considered for appointment lower down in the merit list in his turn as arbitrary and illegal. 2. According to Sri Goda Shiva, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Goda Ramalakshmi, 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 Senior 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. 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 Senior 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. However, it is also observed that public employment is an important source of employability for young people in the country and an interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded 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 similar 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 22.04.2021. 10. The grievance of petitioner is that he applied for the post of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II pursuant to the notification No. 7 of 2018, dated 30.01.2018; appeared for the written examination and his name was included in the listed candidates for certificate verification in 1:3 ratio and certificate verification was also done. A web note was also released on 30.11.2019 directing the provisionally-selected candidates to offer relinquishment if they desire so on the link provided on the TSPSC website on or before 03.12.2019. It is stated, the procedure adopted by the 2 nd respondent is not in tune with the procedure contemplated under the Rules; no enquiry was made in writing from the selected candidates as per Rule 6-A. Some candidates have offered relinquishment on line and several did not. Against the few candidates who have offered relinquishment, candidates who were next meritorious were added but further enquiry in writing from the candidates and seeking relinquishment was not done. Against the few candidates who have offered relinquishment, candidates who were next meritorious were added but further enquiry in writing from the candidates and seeking relinquishment was not done. As a result, the impugned selection list contains candidates who are also in the selection list under notification No. 8 of 2018 thereby depriving petitioner’s right to be considered for the post as per merit and eligibility. Petitioner, therefore, is stated to have made several representations to the respondents on 20.12.2019, 27.12.2019, 02.01.2020 and 03.03.2020 to verify the double selected candidates and consider his case as per merit, but respondents have not replied as yet. 11. On the other hand, the case of the 2nd respondent Commission is that they sought relinquishment for the Notification No. 7 of 2018 from 30.11.2019 to 03.12.2019 and for the Notification No. 8 of 23018, from 30.11.2019 to 03.12.2019; 28 candidates have relinquished in their post for notification No. 8 of 2018 and 38 candidates vide Notification No. 7 of 2018 and in the place of the said candidates, the next meritorious candidate were selected and the revised provisional selection list was published on 30.12.2019 for both the notifications. It is further stated that the Commission filled up 216 vacancies out of notified 219 under the Notification No. 8 of 2018 and remaining 3 vacancies were kept unfilled due to non- availability of eligible candidates in HH(W)(L). The Commission has filled up 73 vacancies out of notified 87 under the Notification No.7 of 2018 and four vacancies were kept unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates in PH category and 10 vacancies were reserved in Nalgonda District in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 05.11.2019 in Writ Petition No. 5047 of 2018. As petitioner does not belong either to Nalgonda District or PH category, there is vacancy available in petitioner’s category BC-D in Khammam District. 12. Be that as it may. In view of the judgment in Narimetla Vamshi’s case , this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 2 nd respondent to consider the candidature of petitioner as per his merit. 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. 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. The 2 nd respondent is directed to select / appoint petitioner in the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II pursuant to notification No. 7 of 2018, dated 30.01.2018 as per merit against the unfilled /unclaimed vacancies, if any. No costs. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.