1. Appeal against direction to fill fallout vacancies from merit list without carrying forward to next recruitment. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 330
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J., G.M.Mohiuddin, J.
The Telangana Residential Education Institutions Recruitment Board - Appellant
Versus
P.Thikkaiah and others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.70 of 2026
Decided On : 10-03-2026
Important Points
In multiple selection processes, vacancies arising because candidates qualify for multiple posts should be filled by operating the merit list downwards, regardless of rules prohibiting waiting lists, to uphold the ethos of public employment and prevent the frustration of the recruitment process.
Subject
Service Law - Public Employment / Recruitment
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.309
ANDHRA PRADESH PANCHAYTS RAJ ACT: S.169(3), S.169(4), S.195(3), S.195(4), S.243
ANDHRA PRADESH DIRECT RECRUITMENT FOR POSTS OF TEACHERS SCHEME OF SELECTION RULES: R.16
ANDHRA PRADESH PANCHAYTS RAJ ACT: S.169(3), S.169(4), S.195(3), S.195(4), S.243
ANDHRA PRADESH DIRECT RECRUITMENT FOR POSTS OF TEACHERS SCHEME OF SELECTION RULES: R.16
Headnote
(A) Government Orders on Recruitment - G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 22.02.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.544 dated 04.12.1998 - Selection against resultant vacancies - Fallout vacancies due to non-joining or relinquishment - Distinction between single recruitment process and multiple selection processes - Operating merit list downwards to fill vacancies versus carrying forward vacancies to the next recruitment cycle. (Paras 8-11)
(B) Public Employment - Ethos of providing employment to eligible and meritorious candidates - Interpretation of rules should not lead to leaving a large number of vacancies unfilled, as it would frustrate the purpose of the recruitment process. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
A recruiting agency issued several notifications for various posts. Many candidates were selected for multiple posts across different notifications. Since candidates could join only one post, approximately 1800 vacancies remained unfilled. The agency decided to carry these vacancies forward to the next recruitment cycle, citing a government order that dispensed with the system of waiting lists. The affected candidates approached the court seeking appointment by operating the merit list downwards.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the government order prohibiting waiting lists was designed for single selection processes to avoid anomalies. In the present case, involving multiple selection processes for different posts where the same candidates qualify for multiple roles, a strict interpretation would lead to a large number of vacancies remaining unfilled. This differs from cases involving single recruitment processes where vacancies arise after the issuance of final appointment orders.
Issues: Whether a recruiting agency must operate a merit list downwards to fill vacancies created when candidates are selected for multiple posts across different notifications, or whether such vacancies must be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle.
Ratio Decidendi: The prohibition on waiting lists and the requirement to carry forward fallout vacancies apply after appointment orders are issued and a candidate fails to join or relinquishes the post. Where vacancies persist because candidates are selected for multiple posts in separate processes and not all appointment orders are issued, the merit list should be operated downwards to ensure eligible and meritorious candidates are employed and the recruitment process is not frustrated.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
(B) Public Employment - Ethos of providing employment to eligible and meritorious candidates - Interpretation of rules should not lead to leaving a large number of vacancies unfilled, as it would frustrate the purpose of the recruitment process. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
A recruiting agency issued several notifications for various posts. Many candidates were selected for multiple posts across different notifications. Since candidates could join only one post, approximately 1800 vacancies remained unfilled. The agency decided to carry these vacancies forward to the next recruitment cycle, citing a government order that dispensed with the system of waiting lists. The affected candidates approached the court seeking appointment by operating the merit list downwards.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the government order prohibiting waiting lists was designed for single selection processes to avoid anomalies. In the present case, involving multiple selection processes for different posts where the same candidates qualify for multiple roles, a strict interpretation would lead to a large number of vacancies remaining unfilled. This differs from cases involving single recruitment processes where vacancies arise after the issuance of final appointment orders.
Issues: Whether a recruiting agency must operate a merit list downwards to fill vacancies created when candidates are selected for multiple posts across different notifications, or whether such vacancies must be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle.
Ratio Decidendi: The prohibition on waiting lists and the requirement to carry forward fallout vacancies apply after appointment orders are issued and a candidate fails to join or relinquishes the post. Where vacancies persist because candidates are selected for multiple posts in separate processes and not all appointment orders are issued, the merit list should be operated downwards to ensure eligible and meritorious candidates are employed and the recruitment process is not frustrated.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- public employment
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General
For the Respondent: Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel for Ms. Goda Rama Lakshmi, Sri S.Bhoopal Reddy
For the Appellant :Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General
For the Respondent: Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel for Ms. Goda Rama Lakshmi, Sri S.Bhoopal Reddy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant Board argued for carrying forward vacancies as per G.O.Ms.No.81; petitioners sought merit list operation downward. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Multiple notifications led to same candidate being selected for multiple posts, leaving 1800 vacancies unfilled. (Para 8 , 18 )
4. G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997 applies only after appointment orders issued; not to multi-recruitment selection process. (Para 10 , 11 , 19 )
5. Writ appeal dismissed; direction to fill vacancies from merit list upheld. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. When does G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997 apply to recruitment vacancies?
It applies only after appointment orders are issued and a candidate fails to join, not during the selection process. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Can merit list be operated downwards for fallout vacancies in multiple recruitment processes?
Yes, when same candidate is selected for multiple posts, fallout vacancies can be filled from merit list downward. (Para 8 , 10 , 18 )
8. Can large number of vacancies remain unfilled based on G.O.Ms.No.81 interpretation?
No, such interpretation frustrates public employment purpose and goes against ethos of providing jobs. (Para 11 , 19 )
9. Does G.O.Ms.No.81 apply to a single recruitment process or multiple notifications?
It was issued for a single selection process; different rules apply to multiple concurrent recruitment processes. (Para 8 , 10 )
JUDGMENT :
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ.
Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General appears for the appellant.
Mr. Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel for Ms. Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 122.
Mr. S.Bhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.127 to 129.
2. In the present appeal, the direction of the learned writ court to operate the merit list downwards and fill up all the fallout vacancies for appointment of eligible candidates to various posts such as Lecturer/Physical Director/Librarian in Degree Colleges (Notification No.1/2023), Junior Lecturers/Physical Directors/Librarians in Junior Colleges in Residential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.2/2023), Post Graduate Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.3/2023), Librarian (School) in Residential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.4/2023), Physical Director (School)/Physical Director Grade-II in Residential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.5/2023) and Trained Graduate Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies (Notification No.9/2023), dated 05.04.2023 without carrying forward the same to the next recruitment notification within a period of six months has been assailed.
3. According to the writ petitioners, since a considerable number of applicants had been selected to more than one post, only one vacancy would be filled up and other vacancies to which the same candidate has been selected would remain vacant. This has been lost sight of by the appellant Board resulting in other candidates in the merit list to approach the writ court. The recruiting agency have relied upon G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998, as per which, in a recruitment year, after the selection of candidates and after issue of appointment order, if the candidates failed to join duty within the stipulated period, that vacancy shall be carried forward to the next recruitment year. The system of preparing waiting list for fallout vacancies had been done away with. But said principle would not be applicable to the present case, where number of posts at different levels of hierarchy had to be filled up. On application of the said principle, 1800 vacancies remained unfilled. Though the petitioners were called for certificate verification as per 1:2 ratio, they could not make up for eventual selection for issuance of appointment orders on account of application of that principle.
4. The appellant Board defended its decision to carry forward the unfilled vacancies. It referred to paragraph V of the notification which declared that there would be no waiting list as per G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997. Unfilled and non-joining vacancies will be carried forward to next recruitment. In the earlier recruitment, some candidates denied to relinquish and joined lower post instead of higher post as per their convenience. The examinations have been conducted for different posts with different standards, though the petitioners may be possessing qualification for all the types of posts. The provisional selection list was notified when the selection process was completed. The recruitment board has carried forwards the fallout vacancies as per G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997. The learned writ court had observed that the judgment in writ appeal No.511 of 2021 squarely supported the contention of the petitioners. The learned Division Bench in the said writ appeal had observed that if a vacancy is unfilled on account of non-joining of a person in whose favour appointment order was issued, the next person in the waiting list should be appointed against the vacancy. In cases where persons have joined and left thereafter, then the particular vacancies have to be carried forward to the next recruitment.
5. In the case of the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board vs. Narimetla Vamshi (Civil Appeal No.4735 of 2022, dated 23.11.2022), which was relied upon by the pe
