A candidate cannot challenge a selection process repeatedly through multiple petitions when they fail to meet the required merit and roster criteria, and once the tribunal has confirmed the validity of the selection, the principle of finality of litigation precludes further agitation of the same issues.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the impugned proceedings Rc. No.5846/A4/2014, dated. 20.12.2014 issued by the 1st respondent, basing on which the Tribunal closed the C.A. No. 1759/2014 in O.A.No.11330/2009, 20.01.2015, by declaring them as illegal and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher in Ranga Reddy District pursuant to DSC 2008 Notification, by filling the 18 vacancies out of 78 notified vacancies of PET in any Roster points meant for OC(General) i..е., 80, 82, 86 and 88 in accordance with his merit and roster, if necessary by modifying irregular appointments made in favour of less merit candidates keeping in view of the orders of Commissioner under Right to information vide Appeal No.10734/SIC-Dr.IA/2016, dt.18.05.2016, and to pass such….”

2. Heard Sri K. Naveen, party-in-person and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: -

(a) The 3rd respondent issued DSC-2008 notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for various teaching posts including, Physical Education Teachers. In Ranga Reddy district, a total of 78 posts of Physical Education Teachers have been notified. Being a local candidate from Ranga Reddy district, the petitioner appeared in the selection process for the post of Physical Education Teacher, i.e., the written examination, and secured a total of 44.50 with a district rank of 25.

(b) The respondents have made a selection for the post of PET on 16.10.2009; they initially decided to fill the 60 vacancies in the 1st batch from 16th Roster point to 72 (57+3) (excluding 3 backlog vacancies). The 3 backlog vacancies, i.e., Roster point No.8 for ST(W) backlog, Roster point No.37 (Ex-service man), and Roster point No.58 for ST(W), were not filled by the respondents. Only 57 vacancies have been filled by the respondents, leaving 3 backlog vacancies. The respondents notified a total of 78 vacancies for the post of Physical Education Teacher, but they have called only 60 candidates, leaving for counseling 18 leaving vacancies for PET. The respondents are bound to fill up the 78 vacancies in accordance with the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.161 Education (Ser.VI) Department, dated 06.12.2008.

(c) The petitioner, along with others, came within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of PET when the respondents filled the total of 78 vacancies. Hence, the petitioner along with others filed O.A.No.11330 of 2009 praying the Tribunal to declare that they are entitled for appointment to the post of P.E.Ts notified vacancies of 78 in DSC-2008 in Ranga Reddy District as per their merit, rank and roster as per General Rules with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in not publishing the selection list for total vacancies and publishing only 57 vacancies of P.E.Ts in DSC-2008 as illegal.

(d) The Tribunal, while allowing the O.A., on 22.03.2010, came to the conclusion that when there is a conflict between the guidelines issued and the relevant G.Os, the provisions shall prevail, i.e. rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.161, dated 06.12.2008 will now prevail and in view of the above Rule-16 sub-rule 6 of G.O.Ms.No.161 prevails over the guidelines issued. Accordingly, the Tribunal has already decided in Ο.Α., No:12485/2009, dated 05.03.2010, decla