Munja Praveen And Ors. Etc.Etc. vs State Of Telangana And Ors. Etc.Etc.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10583-10585 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S). 36057-36059 OF 2016]

MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC. ... Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.ETC. ETC. ... Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10586 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S). 36194 OF 2016]

M. SREEDHAR & ORS. ... Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF TELANGANA REP. THR. PRL. SECRETARY AND ORS. ... Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2017.08.17 16:27:31 IST Reason:

Applications for impleadment are allowed.

2

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated

29.08.2016 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court

dismissed the writ appeals filed by the present appellants and

upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ

petitions.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that various electric

supply and generation companies in the State of Telangana viz.,

Telangana State Transmission Company Limited, TSTRANSCO,

Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

(TSNPDCL), Telangana State Southern Power Distribution

Company Limited (TSSPDCL) and Telangana State Generation

Company (TSGENCO), hereinafter referred to as the

‘Corporation(s)’, issued separate advertisements inviting

applications for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and

Assistant Engineer (Civil). The applications were invited online.

All but one of the advertisements provided that there will be no

waiting list as per G.O.Ms. No. 81, General Administration (Ser.

A) Department, dated 22.02.1997. Selection was to be based only 3

on the basis of written examination. Thereafter, on the basis of

merit drawn, community wise, the candidates were to be offered

selection.

5. All the tests were conducted at about the same time and the

result was that the more brilliant candidates found their names

in the select list of more than one Corporation. Many candidates

were selected in more than one Corporation being high up in the

merit list. On 01.06.2016, clarification was issued by the

Government of Telangana that the Corporations were free to fill

up the left over notified (advertised) vacancies by operating the

merit list downwards for each category.

6. After this clarification was issued, the private respondents

(original writ petitioners) filed two writ petitions. Their main

challenge was that in terms of G.O.Ms. dated 22.02.1997, which

was incorporated in the advertisement, there was to be no waiting

list and, hence, there was no question of operating the merit list

downwards. According to the original writ petitioners, all the

posts lying vacant would have to be filled up in the subsequent

selection process. The High Court held that since in the 4

advertisement the G.O.Ms. No. 81 was specifically referred to and

it was mentioned that there would be no waiting list, the

Corporations could not be permitted to operate the merit list

downwards and the vacancies, if any left, would have to be filled

in the subsequent selection process. The Court also held that the

letter dated 01.06.2016 relaxing the provision, is contrary to the

earlier notification and, therefore, quashed the same.

Consequently, the writ court allowed the writ petitions.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, writ appeals were filed by

the candidates, who would have been selected if the merit list was

permitted to be applied downwards. These writ appeals were

dismissed and, hence, the present appeals.

8. We have heard learned senior counsel/learned counsel for

the parties. At the outset, it may be noted that TSNPDCL had

issued advertisement for filling up 164 vacancies, TSGENCO had

issued advertisement for filling up 856 vacancies, TSSPDCL had

issued advertisement for 201 vacancies and TSTRANSCO issued

an advertisement to fill up 206 posts. The examinations were

conducted by these Corporations on 08.11.2015, 14.11.2015, 5

22.11.2015 and 29.11.2015 respectively. The results were

declared almost simultaneously in which many of the candidates

got selected in more than one Corporation. This led to a situation

where the candidate selected in more than one Corporation

exercised his or her prerogative to produce certificates for

verification of qualification, caste etc. before one Corporation.

Since the applications had been invited online, the certificates

had to be produced after the written test was conducted.

9. It appears that faced with a situation where many posts

would have remained vacant, the Corporations asked for a

clarification from the State Government, which resulted in the

letter dated 01.06.2016.

10. Since the judgment of the High Court is based on G.O.Ms.

No. 81 dated 22.02.1997, we may deal with the said G.O.Ms. in

detail. In the said G.O.Ms., the practice of having a long waiting

list has been deprecated. We have carefully gone through the

G.O.Ms. concerned. This G.O.Ms. has been issued in certain

peculiar circumstances. It appears that a common test was held

for a number of services comprised in Group-I, which includes 6

Deputy Collector, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Commercial

Tax Officer, Regional Transport Officers, District Panchayat

Officers, District Registrar etc. Obviously, people higher up in

merit chose to occupy the more coveted posts of Deputy Collector,

Deputy Superintendent of Police etc. A waiting list was also

prepared. The waiting list started after the last selected

candidate i.e. if the post of District Registrar was the least coveted

post, the waiting list would start after this post. If some

candidates higher up in the merit list did not join one of the

higher posts then the person next in the waiting list would be

offered appointment. This led to an anomalous situation where a

person having very high marks would get the post of Deputy

Superintendent of Police but a person much below him in the

merit list but at Serial No. 1 or 2 of the waiting list would be

appointed to the post of Deputy Collector because some person

had not joined the post of Deputy Collector and there was a

vacancy in the said service. Those selected candidates who had

joined on the less coveted services, say Assistant Account Officer,

District Registrar etc. claimed that before offering the posts to

those on the waiting list, they should be permitted to change their

service. This led to a large number of cases being filed and it is in 7

this context that the G.O.Ms. was issued. Reliance has been

placed by the appellants on Paras 8 and 9 of the G.O.Ms.,

relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“8............According to these rules, in a recruitment year, against number of notified vacancies, selection shall be made only to the equal number of posts notified and there shall be no waiting list. In other words, in a recruitment year, after selection of the candidates and after issue of appointment orders, if the candidate fails to join duty within the stipulated period that vacancy shall be notified again in the next recruitment year, this alienates the system of preparing waiting list for fall out the vacancies..........

9. Therefore, the Government, after careful examination has agreed with the proposal of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and accordingly direct that hence forth the list of the candidates approved/selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall be equal in the number of vacancies only including those for reserved communities categories notified by the unit officers.

The fall out vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non joining etc. of selected candidates shall be notified the next recruitment.”

11. According to us, the High Court has totally misconstrued

the above G.O.Ms. The portion of the G.O.Ms. quoted above

clearly lays down that there shall be no waiting list and the

selection shall be made equal to the number of posts notified.

The purpose was that the vacancies arising due to people leaving

the posts must be filled up by subsequent selection and not on

the basis of a waiting list. It was clarified that after selection of 8

the candidates and after issue of appointment orders, if the

candidate fails to join within the stipulated period, that vacancy

should be notified again. This portion of the G.O.Ms. admits of

only one interpretation that after appointment order is issued and

the person appointed does not join, then the vacancy cannot be

filled up on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit

list downwards. This is also clear from clause 9 of the G.O.Ms.,

which also clarifies that fall out vacancies due to relinquishment

or non-joining of the selected candidates may be notified in the

next recruitment. This obviously means that the clause will apply

after issue of letter of appointment. There can be no

relinquishment and non-joining unless an appointment letter is

issued.

12. The position before us is totally different. As pointed out

earlier, some of the candidates, who got selected in more than one

of the Corporations, were called for verification of their

certificates. No appointment order had been issued till this stage.

In the meantime, the State issued a clarification, as set out in the

letter dated 01.06.2016, relevant portion of which reads as under:

“.......I am to invite attention to the above subject and reference cited and inform the Government after 9

careful examination of the matter hereby relaxes the provision, as a special case under the circumstances, of calling for the candidate on basis for verification of certificates as contained in their notifications as one time option and permits the TRANSCO, TS SPDCL and TS NPDCL to fill up the left over notified (advertised) vacancies of Assistant Engineers of their respective utility duty operation the merit list downwards for each category by following other rules prescribed in their respective notification....”

13. We see nothing wrong in this letter. In fact, this is in

consonance with the G.O.Ms. dated 22.02.1997. The State and

the Corporations have supported the case of the appellants.

Their stand is that a large number of posts are lying vacant and if

fresh selection have to be made, the filling up of the posts shall be

delayed. We may also note that the original writ petitioners are

obviously below the appellants in the merit list. They cannot be

selected in this selection even if the merit list is operated

downwards. They cannot be permitted to urge that persons, who

are more meritorious than them should not be selected and fresh

selection should be made. When the entire G.O.Ms. of 1997 is

read as a whole, it is amply clear that it will have application only

after appointment orders are issued and the posts not filled up

after issue of appointment letters shall be notified in the next

recruitment.

10

14. Even otherwise also, we are of the view that this is the only

logical way to interpret the G.O.Ms. The G.O.Ms. obviously has

been issued, keeping in mind a single selection process. Here, we

are dealing with a multiple selection process for different

Corporations. The more brilliant candidates were selected in

more than one of the Corporations. They obviously cannot join in

more than one Corporation. Therefore, if the top four candidates

have been selected in all four Corporations, they could only join

one of the Corporations and twelve posts would remain vacant, if

the interpretation given by the High Court is accepted. This

would lead to a position where large number of vacancies would

not be filled up.

15. On a conjoint reading of clause 8 and 9 of the G.O.Ms. dated

22.02.1997, we are clearly of the view that this was not the

purpose of the G.O.Ms. According to us, the G.O.Ms. would come

into operation only after appointment letters were issued and,

therefore, if a person, who is at number one position, goes to one

of the Corporations and is given the appointment letter, he may

not go to other three Corporations for verification of the

certificate. That does not mean that the first post in all the

Corporations should now lie vacant.

11

16. We may also add that the High Court did not note an earlier

Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in

the case of Government of A.P. & Others v. Ms. Bhagam

Dorasanamma & Another (W.P. No.24944 of 2013), wherein the

High Court had correctly interpreted the G.O.Ms. in the following

manner:

“19. The process of recruitment starts from the date of notifying the vacancies and attains finality with the act of issuing appointment order, offering the post to the selected candidate. In the absence of reaching the said finality of issuing appointment order in respect of subject vacancy, the question of either relinquishment or non-filling of the same does not arise. The interpretation sought to be given by the authorities for denying appointment to the applicant/1 st respondent herein is contrary to the very spirit and object of service jurisprudence and we find total lack of justification on the part of the petitioner authorities and such action undoubtedly tantamounts to transgression of Part III of the Constitution of India in the event of testing the same on the touchstone of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.”

17. Normally, the aforesaid judgment should have been followed,

but no reference has been made to the same in the impugned

judgments.

18. We are also of the view that the Government was justified in

issuing the letter dated 01.06.2016 in the larger public interest. 12

19. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeals, set

aside the judgments of the Division Bench and learned Single

Judge of the High Court and consequently dismiss the writ

petitions. The Corporations may fill up the posts as directed in

the letter dated 01.06.2016 and in the light of the interpretation

of clause 8 and 9 of G.O.Ms. given by us.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

....................................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR)

....................................J. (DEEPAK GUPTA)

New Delhi August 17, 2017