The court upheld the validity of the merit list preparation process and ruled that the petitioner, due to lower merit, was not entitled to appointment as Librarian.

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. 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 172000