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 pet