ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the entire action of the respondents in issuance of impugned Memo No.477/RP-II/2017, dated 16-11-2024 wherein it was stated that there were 893 unfilled vacancies, which were subsequently notified through the Medical and Health Services Recruitment Board (MHSRB) via Notification No.03/2022, dated 30.12.2022, and that all posts were filled through selection on 27.01.2024, leaving no vacancies under Recruitment Notification No.57/2017 is illegal, arbitrary, contemptuous, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently pleased to set aside the impugned Memo No.477/RP-II/2017, dated 16.11.2024 and direct the respondents to award weightage marks of ten percent (10%) by duly taking the criteria of date of publication of results of academic qualification instead of taking date of appearance of the BSC (Nursing) examination as law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in its Judgment reported in 2017 (2) ALB 736 (DB) and direct them to keep one post of Staff Nurse vacant and to pass…” 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No.6536 of 2021 challenging the action of the respondents therein in reducing the educational qualification weightage marks awarded to him pursuant to Notification No.57/2017 dated 08.11.2017 relating to recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse. This Court, by an order dated 13.08.2024, directed the respondents therein to award weightage marks of 7 to the petitioner and to consider his case for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse in accordance with his merit against any unfilled vacancy available pursuant to Notification No.57/2017 dated 08.11.2017. In purported compliance with the said order, respondent No.4 issued the impugned Memo dated 16.11.2024 stating that no vacancies are available under Notification No.57/2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. In purported compliance with the said order, respondent No.4 issued the impugned Memo dated 16.11.2024 stating that no vacancies are available under Notification No.57/2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel representing M/s. Chillaw Advocates and legal Consultants, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Public Service Commission, appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri M.P.K. Aditya, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, appearing for respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is highly improper and misleading that respondent No.4 has addressed a letter dated 31.08.2024 to respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the indenting departments to furnish the vacancies, if any, under Recruitment Notification No.57/2017. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, vide letters dated 28.09.2024 and 04.09.2024 respectively, informed that there were 893 unfilled vacancies and all those vacancies have been notified through respondent No.5 vide Notification No.03/2022 dated 30.12.2022. However, respondent No.4 filed its counter-affidavit before this Court in W.P. No.6536 of 2021 on 19.07.2024, making no mention whatsoever of any subsequent recruitments. Had such crucial information been disclosed, the petitioner would have impleaded the necessary parties and sought appropriate relief, which by now would have been effectively implemented. Hence, the deliberate suppression of this material fact, which is crucial for adjudication, reflects a lack of seriousness in the proceedings, thereby wasting the precious time of the judiciary. It is further submitted that in view of the conduct of the respondents, it is just and necessary to impose costs to prevent such deliberate misrepresentations in the future and to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings. It is further submitted that one of the contention of the petitioner in the aforesaid notification is that the notification is not finalized nor have posting orders been issued. It is, therefore, understood that the number of vacancies is more and the number of qualified candidates is less. Therefore, following the principle of reckoning the date of appearance in the examination for awarding educational qualification weightage, as laid down by this Court, the petitioner’s claim may be considered without causing prejudice to anyone. Therefore, the impugned memo dated 16.11.2024 issued by respondent No.4 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice. 5. Therefore, following the principle of reckoning the date of appearance in the examination for awarding educational qualification weightage, as laid down by this Court, the petitioner’s claim may be considered without causing prejudice to anyone. Therefore, the impugned memo dated 16.11.2024 issued by respondent No.4 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 had issued recruitment Notification No.57/2017 dated 08.11.2017 for filling up 1196 posts of Staff Nurse by way of direct recruitment, comprising 1115 posts in respondent No.2 – Director of Public Health and Family Welfare and 87 posts in respondent No.3 – Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad. Subsequently, an addendum was issued enhancing the total number of notified posts to 3311. It is further submitted that, in compliance with the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. No.6536 of 2021, respondent No.4 issued the impugned Memo dated 16.11.2024, informing the petitioner that his selection could not be considered on the ground that the unfilled vacancies under Notification No.57/2017 had already been carried forward to the next recruitment, in terms of G.O. Ms. No.81 dated 22.02.1997 and G.O. Ms. No.544 dated 04.12.1998. Accordingly, it is contended that Notification No.03/2022 was issued by respondent No.5, pursuant to which all such carried-forward vacancies were filled. It is further submitted that as the recruitment process for the post of Staff Nurse is presently being undertaken by respondent No.5 and not by respondent No.4, respondent No.4 examined the matter and concluded that no further action could be taken by it in respect of the petitioner’s claim. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 submits that, in compliance with the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. No.6536 of 2021, respondent No.4 issued Memo dated 16.11.2024, informing the petitioner that it was not possible to consider his case for appointment as the unfilled vacancies under Notification No.57/2017 had already been carried forward to the next recruitment cycle, in terms of G.O. Ms. No.81 dated 22.02.1997 and G.O. Ms. No.544 dated 04.12.1998. It is further submitted that, accordingly, Notification No.03/2022 was issued by respondent No.5 and all such carried-forward vacancies were filled. No.81 dated 22.02.1997 and G.O. Ms. No.544 dated 04.12.1998. It is further submitted that, accordingly, Notification No.03/2022 was issued by respondent No.5 and all such carried-forward vacancies were filled. It is contended that, out of 3311 posts of Staff Nurse, 2418 posts were filled, while the remaining 893 posts remained unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates in certain reserved categories in respondent Nos.2 and 3 departments. It is also submitted that the vacancies which remained unfilled on account of non-availability of eligible candidates in the respective categories were handed over by respondent No.4 to the concerned departments/units and were carried forward to the subsequent recruitment cycle, to be filled only by candidates belonging to those very categories. Candidates belonging to other categories cannot claim over such vacancies, as the same would amount to violation of the reservation policy. It is further submitted that the same principle applies to unclaimed or non-joining vacancies, which are required to be notified afresh in accordance with Rule 6 and G.O. Ms. No.81 dated 22.02.1997. Since all 893 unfilled vacancies were carried forward due to non-availability of eligible candidates in the respective categories, the question of issuing appointment orders in favour of the petitioner does not arise. Moreover, the recruitment process has been concluded and the selected candidates have already joined duty. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned Memo dated 16.11.2024 and also seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to award educational qualification weightage of ten percent (10%) by reckoning the date of publication of results of the academic qualification, instead of the date of appearance in the B.Sc. (Nursing) examination, as laid down by this Court in its judgment reported in 2017 (2) ALB 736 (DB). However, the issue with regard to awarding educational qualification weightage to the petitioner already has been categorically decided by this Court in W.P. No.6536 of 2021, vide order dated 13.08.2024, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to re-examine that aspect in the present Writ Petition. However, the issue with regard to awarding educational qualification weightage to the petitioner already has been categorically decided by this Court in W.P. No.6536 of 2021, vide order dated 13.08.2024, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to re-examine that aspect in the present Writ Petition. The limited and pivotal issue that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether the impugned Memo dated 16.11.2024 is valid and sustainable in law. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to examine the matter only to the extent of the legality and validity of the impugned Memo dated 16.11.2024. 9. On perusal of the record, it is evident that Notification No.57/2017 was issued by respondent No.4 on 08.11.2017 for recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse, wherein the selection process was based on merit in the written test (70 marks) and experience (30 marks). The written test was conducted on 11.03.2018, following which the merit list and the list of candidates for Certificate Verification in the ratio of 1:2 were published on 07.11.2020 and 17.02.2021 on the official website of respondent No.4. Subsequent to the publication of list of Certificate Verification, respondent No.2 revised service weightage marks for certain candidates. In addition, 53 corrections were carried out to rectify technical errors. Accordingly, the merit list was revised. Based on the revised merit list, shortlisted candidates were called for Certificate Verification from 25.02.2021 to 05.03.2021 at respondent No.3’s office (TGSPSC, Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally). Further, a web note was issued by respondent No.4 on 04.05.2021 regarding changes in service weightage marks. Thereafter, respondent No.4 published a revised selection notification after relinquishment by selected candidates, wherein it was categorically clarified that the revised provisional selection list was issued only after receiving relinquishments. It is also significant to note that, as per the web note, respondent No.4 had issued notification for filling up 3311 vacancies of Staff Nurse in respondent Nos.2 and 3 departments. Out of these, 2418 vacancies were filled, while the remaining 893 vacancies remained unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates in respective communities and zones. It was also made clear in the said web note that as per G.O. Ms. No.81 dated 22.02.1997 there shall be no waiting list and the unfilled vacancies are required to be carried forward to the next recruitment/notification. 10. It was also made clear in the said web note that as per G.O. Ms. No.81 dated 22.02.1997 there shall be no waiting list and the unfilled vacancies are required to be carried forward to the next recruitment/notification. 10. On a careful examination of the record, it is evident that the impugned Memo dated 16.11.2024 merely reflects the factual position regarding the unfilled vacancies under Notification No.57/2017. As per the web note dated 04.05.2021, out of 3311 sanctioned posts of Staff Nurse, 2418 posts were filled, while the remaining 893 vacancies remained unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates in specific reserved categories and zones and as per G.O. Ms. No.81 dated 22.02.1997, these unfilled vacancies cannot be claimed by candidates from other categories and are required to be carried forward to the subsequent recruitment/notification. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that the respondents have suppressed material facts in the counter-affidavit is contrary to the material available on record. The petitioner should have been vigilant in reviewing the information available on respondent No.4’s website instead of blaming the respondents for facts that were already publicly accessible. 11. Moreover, it is evident that the recruitment process for the post of Staff Nurse is currently being conducted by respondent No.5. Further, in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P. No.6536 of 2021, respondent No.4 has no authority to select the petitioner for the carried-forward vacancies. Admittedly, the 893 unfilled vacancies under Notification No.57/2017 were carried forward to the subsequent recruitment, which was notified by respondent No.5 vide Notification No.03/2022 dated 30.12.2022. All such posts were filled on 27.01.2024 and consequently, no vacancies remain under Notification No.57/2017. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion and the material available on record, it is clear that the impugned Memo dated 16.11.2024 reflects the factual position regarding the unfilled vacancies under Notification No.57/2017. Since all 893 carried- forward vacancies were subsequently filled through Notification No.03/2022 by respondent No.5 on 27.01.2024, no vacancies remain available for consideration under the said notification. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim for appointment or reconsideration of educational qualification weightage is unsustainable. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.