Case: Munja Praveen And Ors. Etc.Etc Vs. State Of Telangana And Ors. Etc.Etc

officers. The fall out vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non joining etc. of selected candidates shall be notified the next recruitment." 11. According to us, the High Court has totally misconstrued the above G.O.Ms. The portion of the G.O.Ms. quoted above clearly lays down that there shall be no waiting list and the selection shall be made equal to the number of posts notified. The purpose was that the vacancies arising due to people leaving the posts must be filled up by subsequent selection and not on the basis of a waiting list. It was clarified that after selection of the candidates and after issue of appointment orders, if the candidate fails to join within the stipulated period, that vacancy should be notified again. This portion of the G.O.Ms. admits of only one interpretation that after appointment order is issued and the person appointed does not join, then the vacancy cannot be filled up on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downwards. This is also clear from clause 9 of the G.O.Ms., which also clarifies that fall out vacancies due to relinquishment or non-joining of the selected candidates may be notified in the next recruitment. This obviously means that the clause will apply after issue of letter of appointment. There can be no relinquishment and non-joining unless an appointment letter is issued.12. The position before us is totally different. As pointed out earlier, some of the candidates, who got selected in more than one of the Corporations, were called for verification of their certificates. No appointment order had been issued till this stage. In the meantime, the State issued a clarification, as set out in the letter dated 01.06.2016, relevant portion of which reads as under: ".......I am to invite attention to the above subject and reference cited and inform the Government after careful examination of the matter hereby relaxes the provision, as a special case under the circumstances, of calling for the candidate on basis for verification of certificates as contained in their notifications as one time option and permits the TRANSCO, TS SPDCL and TS NPDCL to fill up the left over notified (advertised) vacancies of Assistant Engineers of their respective utility duty operation the merit list downwards for each category by following other rules prescribed in their respective notification...." 13. We see nothing wrong in this letter. In fact, this is in consonance with the G.O.Ms. dated 22.02.1997. The State and the Corporations have supported the case of the appellants. Their stand is that a large number of posts are lying vacant and if fresh selection have to be made, the filling up of the posts shall be delayed. We may also note that the original writ petitioners are obviously below the appellants in the merit list. They cannot be selected in this selection even if the merit list is operated downwards. They cannot be permitted to urge that persons, who are more meritorious than them should not be selected and fresh selection should be made. When the entire G.O.Ms. of 1997 is read as a whole, it is amply clear that it will have application only after appointment orders are issued and the posts not filled up after issue of appointment letters shall be notified in the next recruitment.14. Even otherwise also, we are of the view that this is the only logical way to interpret the G.O.Ms. The G.O.Ms. obviously has been issued, keeping in mind a single selection process. Here, we are dealing with a multiple selection process for different Corporations. The more brilliant candidates were selected in more than one of the Corporations. They obviously cannot join in more than one Corporation. Therefore, if the top four candidates have been selected in all four Corporations, they could only join one of the Corporations and twelve posts would remain vacant, if the interpretation given by the High Court is accepted. This would lead to a position where large number of vacancies would not be filled up.15. On a conjoint reading of clause 8 and 9 of the G.O.Ms. dated 22.02.1997, we are clearly of the view that this was not the purpose of the G.O.Ms. According to us, the G.O.Ms. would come into operation only after appointment letters were issued and, therefore, if a person, who is at number one position, goes to one of the Corporations and is given the appointment letter, he may not go to other three Corporations for verification of the certificate. That does not mean that the first post in all the Corporations should now lie vacant. 16. We may also add that the High Court did not note an earlier Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Government of A.P. & Others v. Ms. Bhagam Dorasanamma & Another (W.P. No.24944 of 2013), wherein the High Court had correctly interpreted the G.O.Ms. in the following manner: "19. The process of recruitment starts from the date of notifying the vacancies and attains finality with the act of issuing appointment order, offering the post to the selected candidate. In the absence of reaching the said finality of issuing appointment order in respect of subject vacancy, the question of either relinquishment or non-filling of the same does not arise. The interpretation sought to be given by the authorities for denying appointment to the applicant/1st respondent herein is contrary to the very spirit and object of service jurisprudence and we find total lack of justification on the part of the petitioner authorities and such action undoubtedly tantamounts to transgression of Part III of the Constitution of India in the event of testing the same on the touchstone of Article 16 of the Constitution of India." 17. Normally, the aforesaid judgment should have been followed, but no reference has been made to the same in the impugned judgments.18. We are also of the view that the Government was justified in issuing the letter dated 01.06.2016 in the larger public interest.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. We have heard learned senior counsel/learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, it may be noted that TSNPDCL had issued advertisement for filling up 164 vacancies, TSGENCO had issued advertisement for filling up 856 vacancies, TSSPDCL had issued advertisement for 201 vacancies and TSTRANSCO issued an advertisement to fill up 206 posts. The examinations were conducted by these Corporations on 08.11.2015, 14.11.2015, 22.11.2015 and 29.11.2015 respectively. The results were declared almost simultaneously in which many of the candidates got selected in more than one Corporation. This led to a situation where the candidate selected in more than one Corporation exercised his or her prerogative to produce certificates for verification of qualification, caste etc. before one Corporation. Since the applications had been invited online, the certificates had to be produced after the written test was conducted.9. It appears that faced with a situation where many posts would have remained vacant, the Corporations asked for a clarification from the State Government, which resulted in the letter dated 01.06.2016.According to us, the High Court has totally misconstrued the above G.O.Ms. The portion of the G.O.Ms. quoted above clearly lays down that there shall be no waiting list and the selection shall be made equal to the number of posts notified. The purpose was that the vacancies arising due to people leaving the posts must be filled up by subsequent selection and not on the basis of a waiting list. It was clarified that after selection of the candidates and after issue of appointment orders, if the candidate fails to join within the stipulated period, that vacancy should be notified again. This portion of the G.O.Ms. admits of only one interpretation that after appointment order is issued and the person appointed does not join, then the vacancy cannot be filled up on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downwards. This is also clear from clause 9 of the G.O.Ms., which also clarifies that fall out vacancies due to relinquishment orof the selected candidates may be notified in the next recruitment. This obviously means that the clause will apply after issue of letter of appointment. There can be no relinquishment andunless an appointment letter is issued.12. The position before us is totally different. As pointed out earlier, some of the candidates, who got selected in more than one of the Corporations, were called for verification of their certificates. No appointment order had been issued till this stage. In the meantime, the State issued a clarification, as set out in the letter dated 01.06.2016, relevant portion of which reads asam to invite attention to the above subject and reference cited and inform the Government after careful examination of the matter hereby relaxes the provision, as a special case under the circumstances, of calling for the candidate on basis for verification of certificates as contained in their notifications as one time option and permits the TRANSCO, TS SPDCL and TS NPDCL to fill up the left over notified (advertised) vacancies of Assistant Engineers of their respective utility duty operation the merit list downwards for each category by following other rules prescribed in their respective notification....We see nothing wrong in this letter. In fact, this is in consonance with the G.O.Ms. dated 22.02.1997. The State and the Corporations have supported the case of the appellants. Their stand is that a large number of posts are lying vacant and if fresh selection have to be made, the filling up of the posts shall be delayed. We may also note that the original writ petitioners are obviously below the appellants in the merit list. They cannot be selected in this selection even if the merit list is operated downwards. They cannot be permitted to urge that persons, who are more meritorious than them should not be selected and fresh selection should be made. When the entire G.O.Ms. of 1997 is read as a whole, it is amply clear that it will have application only after appointment orders are issued and the posts not filled up after issue of appointment letters shall be notified in the next recruitment.14. Even otherwise also, we are of the view that this is the only logical way to interpret the G.O.Ms. The G.O.Ms. obviously has been issued, keeping in mind a single selection process. Here, we are dealing with a multiple selection process for different Corporations. The more brilliant candidates were selected in more than one of the Corporations. They obviously cannot join in more than one Corporation. Therefore, if the top four candidates have been selected in all four Corporations, they could only join one of the Corporations and twelve posts would remain vacant, if the interpretation given by the High Court is accepted. This would lead to a position where large number of vacancies would not be filled up.15. On a conjoint reading of clause 8 and 9 of the G.O.Ms. dated 22.02.1997, we are clearly of the view that this was not the purpose of the G.O.Ms. According to us, the G.O.Ms. would come into operation only after appointment letters were issued and, therefore, if a person, who is at number one position, goes to one of the Corporations and is given the appointment letter, he may not go to other three Corporations for verification of the certificate. That does not mean that the first post in all the Corporations should now lie vacant.Normally, the aforesaid judgment should have been followed, but no reference has been made to the same in the impugned judgments.18. We are also of the view that the Government was justified in issuing the letter dated 01.06.2016 in the larger public interest.