ORDER : (PULLA KARTHIK, J.) Seeking to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Librarian (School) in Residential Educational Institutions Societies, pursuant to Notification No.20 of 2017, dated 14.04.017, duly operating the Merit List downwards, based on his merit and BC-A social status, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2) Heard Sri G. Satyanarayana Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for respondents 2 and 3, and Sri S.Bhupal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents 4 and 5. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Zone-VI and BC-A community and completed B.Sc. in the year 2010 from Osmania University and also passed B.Li.Sc. from Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Open Univsersity, in the month of January, 2016. While so, he responded to the notification No.20 of 2017, dated 14.04.2017, issued by the respondents inviting online applications for the posts of Librarian (School) in Residential Educational Institutions Societies. He was also issued with hall ticket, appeared the written tests held from 17.09.2017 and 18.09.2017. As he was qualified in the written test, he was called for web options and certificate verification in 1:2 ratio. Accordingly, he exercised his web options on 28.05.2018 and attended for certificate verification on 30.05.2018. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, respondent No.1 has prepared a common merit list for Zone-V and Zone-VI by mixing the candidates of both the zones, which is defective. Separate lists have to be prepared for each zone for the purpose of recruitment. Some of the candidates who secured less merit were included in Open Category and candidates who secured more merit were included in reserved category, contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab , [ 1995 (2) SCC 745 ] Further, when single category post of Librarian is notified, calling web options itself is contrary to the Rules and Procedure, due to which, several ineligible candidates were considered for appointment in other zones, ignoring the fact that those candidates can be considered against 20% open quota only. Therefore, the entire selection process is vitiated and the merit list is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the entire selection process is vitiated and the merit list is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that rather the respondents ought to have operated the Merit List downwards by duly following the dicta settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen v. Telangana , [ 2017 (14) SCC 797 ] and ought to have appointed the petitioners and similarly situated persons who are next meritorious candidates, as per their merit and social status, and by following Rue 6(A) of Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules, as per the adjudication of this Court in W.P.Nos.20232 and 20273 of 2017 wherein this Hon’ble Court vide common order dated 06.09.2018 has directed the respondents to follow Rule 6 (A) of the Rules in respect of appointment to the posts of TGTs (Science) and the same was also confirmed in W.A. Nos.1494 and 1524 of 2018, dated 22.11.2018. Similarly, in W.P.Nos.29737, 37892 and 37921 of 2018 and 836 of 2019, this Court directed respondent No.1 therein to follow Rule 6(A) of the Rules and finalize the selections accordingly and the same was also confirmed in W.A. Nos.511 of 2021 vide order dated 31.12.2021. 4) Learned counsel has further contended that in the case on hand also, respondent No.1 has appointed 115 candidates in Zone-VI and still there are 37 vacancies on Zone-VI. Yet, respondent No.1 has not operated the merit list downwards and appointed the next meritorious candidates against those 37 vacancies and the same is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, respondent No.1 had appointed two candidates with hall ticket Nos.1720001325 and 1720003839 vide proceedings dated 07.10.2023 pursuant to the order dated 05.12.2022 passed in W.A. No.826 of 2019. In the judgment dated 05.12.2022, it was stated that 10 vacancies were available pursuant to Advertisement/Notification dated 14.04.2017, but those 10 vacancies pertain to physically handicapped category. After the relinquishment was obtained by respondent No.1, the selection list was published and therefore the question of any vacancies arising out of relinquishment does not arise. Duly recording the said submission, the Division Bench has disposed of the Writ Appeal directing to consider the case of the appellants therein against the resultant vacancies on account of relinquishment in the category to which they belong. Duly recording the said submission, the Division Bench has disposed of the Writ Appeal directing to consider the case of the appellants therein against the resultant vacancies on account of relinquishment in the category to which they belong. Therefore, the learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is also similarly entitled for appointment against the existing vacancies caused due to relinquishment or otherwise, by operating the Merit List downwards on par with the candidates who were appointed vide proceedings dated 07.10.2023. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to issue suitable directions to respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner as Librarian (School) in the left over existing vacancies based on his merit and social status. 5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that pursuant to the notification No.20/2017, dated 14.04.2017, petitioner has applied, appeared for written examination and subsequently participated in certificate verification in the ratio of 1:2. It is further contended that as against 256 vacancies notified, 145 vacancies were notified against Girls Institutions for which only female candidates are eligible. Out of the remaining 111 vacancies notified in Boys Institutions, 49 vacancies were notified against ‘Women category’ and only female candidates are eligible for those vacancies. Therefore, the balance 62 vacancies were notified against general category for which both male and female are eligible. Out of those 62 vacancies, the petitioner, being a male candidate and belonging to Zone-VI and BC-A community, is eligible to compete only against 26 vacancies (4 OC (general) unreserved vacancies of Zone-V + 19 OC (general) vacancies of Zone-VI + 4 BC-A(G) vacancies of Zone-VI). Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a general ranking list of all the candidates in order of merit and called the candidates for certificate verification in 1:2 ratio from the merit list. Further, while drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.P.No.763, GA (SPF-A)D, dated 15.11.1975, he contended that the post of Librarian in REIS is a multi cadre post though the vacancies are in different departments in different institutions within the departments and in different zones. Hence, the post of Librarian in the schools of REIS does not come under single category post, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the post of Librarian in the schools of REIS does not come under single category post, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.1) As regards preparation of a common merit list for both the zones, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the said action of the Commission was upheld by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. Nos.29737 of 2018 & batch vide order dated 23.07.2019. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is unsustainable. Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that due selection procedure was strictly followed by the Commission in the present case duly following the Rule of Reservation of State and Subordinate Service Rules. Further, as per the procedure, after filling up the vacancies of unreserved category, the local vacancies of all categories (including Open Category) will be filled up. In other words, the candidates of BC/SC/ST communities will also be selected against OC-local vacancies along with OC candidates. If the OC vacancies are filled purely with OC candidates then there is no possibility for the candidates of BC/SC/ST categories in the selection list against OC local vacancies. 5.2) Insofar as the contention of the petitioner as regards web options is concerned, though the notification is only for the post of Librarian (School) recruitment, there are two societies viz., Social Welfare Societies and BC Welfare Societies in Zone-V & Zone-VI and two gender based institutions are available in each zone and all are notified together. Therefore, the Commission has prepared a common merit list and sought for post preferences/web options, which is legal, valid and justified. Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that though 17 petitioners were impleaded in W.P.No.29737 of 2018, but they did not join even though orders were passed in their favour. Out of those 17 non-joining vacancies, 1 vacancy falling under OC(General) un-reserved of TSWREIS Boys Institution in Zone-V was filled as per the orders in W.A. No.836/2019 as the said candidate was in merit. As such, only one non-joining vacancy in the category of OC-G-L of TSWREIS-Boys Institution in Zone-VI is available. But, 20 meritorious candidates are available in the merit list above the petitioner herein, suitable for selection against the said vacancy and there is no BC-A (G) vacancy in Zone-VI. Due to his low merit, the petitioner did not get selection either in UR vacancies or in Local vacancies. But, 20 meritorious candidates are available in the merit list above the petitioner herein, suitable for selection against the said vacancy and there is no BC-A (G) vacancy in Zone-VI. Due to his low merit, the petitioner did not get selection either in UR vacancies or in Local vacancies. Hence, it is not possible to select the petitioner by operating the merit list downwards. It is further contended that the Commission does not maintain any waiting list and all the unfilled vacancies will be carry forwarded for the next notification. Similarly, as per G.O.Ms.No.81, GAD, dt.22.02.1997, and as per Rule 6 of TSPSC Rules of Procedure, all non-joining vacancies of selected candidates are to be notified in the next recruitment. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 7) As can be seen from the material on record, the issues raised by the petitioners regarding (1) preparation of common merit list for Zone-V and VI by mixing the candidates of both Zones, (2) Implementation of Rule 6-A of TSPSC Rules, and (3) inclusion of some of the candidates, who secured less merit, in the open category and some candidates, who secured more merit, were included in the reserved category, in respect of the very same notification No.20/2017, were already dealt with in W.P.No.29737 of 2018 & batch and decided by this Court vide common order dated 23.07.2019, upholding the action of the Commission. 8) As regards, common merit list, relevant portion of the order dated 23.07.2019 reads as under: “Learned Advocate General appearing for the State had contended that Zone-wise merit lists have been prepared and every effort has been made to ensure that the Rules are strictly adhered to and, to demonstrate this, the learned Advocate General has pointed out the separate selected candidates lists of Zone V and Zone VI, which are filed at page No.10 of the material papers filed along with I.A. No.5 of 2018, and contended that the contention of the petitioners that a common Merit List has been prepared for both the Zones is totally incorrect. This Court, after hearing the submissions of the parties, has specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to give some illustrations as to how the respondents have violated the Rules in preparing the selected lists, but the learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any illustrations, except stating that BC-B Women candidates have secured more marks than the candidates selected in the open category. This Court is of the view that Women reservation has to be applied horizontally, but not vertically. If the selected lists consist of required number of percentage for Women, then it should not be touched. Even in respect of other issues, learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any illustrations as to violation in preparing the selected lists. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere…” 9) Likewise, as regards Rule 6-A of the Rules, relevant portion of the common order dated 23.07.2019 reads as under: It would be important to note Rule 6(A) of the Rules, which reads as follows: “Rule 6(A) : Notwithstanding anything contained in adhoc 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 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 of relinquished candidate/candidates shall be operated only till the next notification is issued or for a period of one year, whichever is earlier. 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 of relinquished candidate/candidates shall be operated only till the next notification is issued or for a period of one year, whichever is earlier. A perusal of the above Rule would make it clear that the Public Service Commission must enquire from the candidates who are selected as to whether there are willing to relinquish their claim for appointment in writing in the proforma prescribed by the Commission and if any of the candidates relinquish their claim for appointment, the same should be filled up by the next meritorious candidate. So, the said Rule makes abundantly clear it has to be followed at the time of preparing the select list. The contention of the learned Advocate General that Rule 6-A of the Rules would be made applicable to a notification where multiple categories of posts are notified, is not correct. This Court is of the considered view that the said contention is contrary to the proviso to Rule 6(A) of the Rules, which makes it abundantly clear that it is applicable only when single category of posts is notified in the notification and not applicable to the notification where multiple categories of posts are notified. Since only single category of posts of Librarian is notified in the instant case, the respondents are bound to follow Rule 6(A) of the Rules and the issue was set at rest in W.P.Nos.20232 and 20273 of 2018 dated 06.09.2018, which was confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1494 and 1524 of 2018, dated 22.11.2018. Therefore, the respondents are directed to follow Rule 6(A) of the Rules in the select list, which was already prepared, by offering relinquishment option to the selected candidates. However, since the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1494 and 1524 of 2018, dated 22.11.2018, has already held that the respondents 8 to 119 who figured in the selection list of 264 candidates need not be disturbed, as they have already indicated that they are not willing to relinquish their selection, by extending the same yardstick, the impleaded respondents in W.P.No.29737 of 2018 need not be disturbed, as they are also not willing to relinquish their selection. However, in respect of other selected candidates is concerned, the Public Service Commission shall follow Rule 6(A) of the Rules and finalise the selections accordingly.” 10) Now, the only issue left for determination in this writ petition is operating the merit list downwards. 11) A perusal of the record also discloses that after filling up of the vacancies notified in Notification No.20/2017, dated 14.04.2017, one vacancy falling under OC-General unreserved in TSWREIS Boys Institution in Zone-V was filled up as per the orders of this Court in Writ Appeal No.836 of 2019 as per merit and only one non-joining vacancy in the category of OC-General of TSWREIS Boys Institution in Zone-VI, to which the petitioner belongs to, is available. Further, admittedly, the petitioner belongs to BC-A category and secured 188 marks with 254 rank. Admittedly, only one vacancy is available in OC-General category of Zone-VI, but there are 20 candidates in the ranking list who are more meritorious than the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for i.e. to direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment, due to his low merit. 12) For the afore-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.