Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 169 (TS)

Pendem Narendar v. State of Telangana

2025-03-21

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. In this Writ Petition, petitioner challenges the action of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) in not considering his case against any unfilled vacancies that arose due to non-implementation of Rule 6-A for candidates who got impleaded in Writ Petition No. 29737 of 2018, as per the directions dated 23.08.2008 and the impugned revised selection notification No. 20 of 2017 dated 14.04.2017 thereby affecting the legitimate right of petitioner to be considered for appointment in his turn on the basis of merit. 2. This Court in similar circumstances, while dealing with Writ Petition No. 29737 of 2018 and batch, by a common order dated 23.07.2019, directed respondents to follow Rule 6-A of the Rules to such of those candidates who got selected in the selection list other than those who are impleaded as party respondents in Writ Petition No.29737 of 2018. Now petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to select and appoint him as per merit against any resultant vacancies due to the non-joining of the impleaded respondents in the above Writ Petition. 3. In the counter filed by the 2nd respondent Public Service Commission, it is stated that pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No. 29737 of 2018 and batch, they have obtained relinquishment from non-impleaded candidates (115) from 26.07.2019 to 30.07.2019 and 30 candidates have given their relinquishments wherein 23 got selected as Librarian in Degree and Junior colleges and 7 candidates got selection in other posts; accordingly, a fresh selection list was drawn for the post of Librarian (School) and placed the final results on Commission’s website on 27.08.2019 superseding the selection notification dated 14.08.2018 and thereafter, appointment orders were also issued to the selected candidates. It is stated petitioner was not selected due to his low merit even after seeking relinquishments from the candidates. 4. According to 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. 5. 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. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajasekhar appearing for learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC submits that there is no procedure / rule which allows TGPSC to seek relinquishments again and again and the same is against the whole spirit of Rule 6-A. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, in Writ Petitions No. 20232 of 2018 and 4995 of 2019, this Court observed that until and unless Rule 6-A of TSPSC Rules of Procedure is followed and if recruitment process proceeds further and appointment orders are issued, and at that time, if a candidate does not report pursuant to the said appointment order, then, the question of considering the next meritorious candidate would not arise and the resultant vacancy will have to be tagged on to the next notification. In view of the same, it is submitted that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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.” 10. 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. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner 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. 12. 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. 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. 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”. 13. 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”. 13. At this juncture, it is also to be seen that this Court in similar circumstances, dealing with the 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. 14. In these circumstances, in view of the judgment in Narimetla Vamshi’s case , this Court is of the opinion that petitioner’s case deserves consideration against any resultant vacancies due to non-joining of impleaded candidates in Writ Petition No. 29737 of 2018. 15. 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. 16. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to select and appoint petitioner as per his merit against the resultant vacancies, if any due to non-joining of the impleaded candidates in Writ Petition No. 29737 of 2018 to the post of Librarian (school) in Respondents 3 and 4 Societies under Notification No. 20 of 2017, dated 14.04.2017.No costs. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.