ORDER :

1. These writ petitions were earlier disposed of by common order dated 14.02.2019. Subsequently, pursuant to the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.279, 277 and 275 of 2019, dated 08.04.2019, and the judgment in W.A.No.286 of 2019 dated 09.04.2019, these writ petitions are again heard and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Sri P. Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.29737, 37892 and 37921 of 2018; S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.836 of 2019; Sri D. Balakishan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Public Service Commission; learned Advocate General for the State and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the impleaded respondents in W.P.No.29737 of 2018.

3. All the petitioners have responded to the notification dated 14.04.2017 for the posts of Librarian (schools) in Residential Educational Institution Societies. In all, 256 posts of Librarian were notified in the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society and Mahatma Jothiba Phule Telangana Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society. The petitioners submit that they have fared decently well in the selections and they were short-listed in the ratio of 1:2. The grievance of the petitioners is that out of 256 posts of Librarian notified, 104 posts were notified in Zone V and 152 posts were notified in Zone VI.

4. So far as W.P.Nos.29737, 37892 and 37921 of 2018 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the respondents have prepared a common Merit List for both the Zones i.e., Zone-V and Zone-VI and contended that the action of the respondents in preparing a common Merit List for both the Zones is arbitrary. Learned counsel further stated that the respondents have prepared a defective select list by mixing up the candidates of Zone-V and Zone-VI and, as per the Presidential order, each Zone is a separate unit for the purpose of recruitment, therefore, preparing a common Merit List for two Zones is contrary to the Presidential order. It is further contended that some of the candidates who have secured less merit were included in open category and the candidates who have secured more merit were included in the reserved category and the respondents ought to have shown the meritorious reserved category candidates in open category and the less meritorious candidates should have been shown against reserved category.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that in respect of BC-B category in Zone-VI, out of total 8 posts notified for women, 3 posts were filled up in Open Category, instead of 2. It is also submitted that meritorious Backward Class women candidates should have been shown against open category and the resultant vacancies in the Backward Class should be offered to next meritorious BC candidates.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the Public Service Commission has called for web options for selecting Zones, which is contrary to the Rules and Procedure in a single cadre post, and by resorting to web options, many candidates were eligible in the other Zones even though they were not entitled for consideration in the other Zones and for this glaring errors, the entire selection process vitiates and will have cascading effect on the entire selection process. On this ground, the learned counsel contended that the entire merit list be set aside and appropriate orders be passed in the writ petitions directing the respondents to prepare a separate list for each Zone.

7. 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