MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                           [2017] 8 S.C.R. 867


                MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC.                             A
                                    v.
           STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 10583-10585 of 2017)
                           AUGUST 17,2017                                  B
         [MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.)
            Service Law - Selection - Advertisements issued by various
    corporations for certain posts provided that there will be no waiting
     list as per GO.Ms. dt. 22.02.1997 - Some candidates found their C
    names in the select list of more than one corporation - Clarification
     dt. 01.06.2016 issued by respondent-State that corporations were
    free to fill up the left over advertised vacancies by operating the
     merit list downwards - -Writ petitions by private respondents
    contending that in terms of GO.Ms. dt. 22.02.1997 there was to be
   ·no waiting list and, hence, there was no question of operating merit D
     list downwards and thus, all the posts lying vacant should be filled
   . by new selection process - Writ petitions allowed by High Court - .
    Held: High Court totally misconstrued GO.Ms dt. 22.02.1997
  · inasmuch it was issued keeping in mind a single selection process -
     The purpose was that the vacancies arising due to people leaving E
     the posts must be filled up by subsequent selection and not on the
  . basis of waiting list - However, the present matter concerns with
     multiple selection process - Some candidates were selected in more
     than one Corporation and they obviously could not have joined in
     more than one Corporation - This would lead to a position where
     large number of vacancies would not be filled up - This was not the F
    pupose of the said GO.Ms - Further, the said GO.Ms clarified that
     the same was applicable only after issue of appointment orders -
     However, in the instant case the candidates who were selected in
     more than one Corporation were called for verification of their
    _certificates ...:. No appointment order was issued till this stage - In G
     the meantime, State issued clarification dt. 01.06.2016- Government
·_ justified in issuing clarification dt. 01.06.2016.
        Allowing the appeals, the Court
        HELD: 1.1 The GO.Ms. dated 22.02.1997 deprecated the
  practice of having a long waiting. After having carefully gone            H
                                    867
868            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A     through the said GO.Ms. it is clear that the said GO.Ms. was
      issued in certain peculiar circumstances. It appears that a
      common test was held for a number of services comprised in
      Group-I, which includes Deputy Collector, Deputy Superintendent
      of Police, Commercial Tax Officer, Regional Transport Officers,
B     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.
C     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
D     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
 E     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 this context that the GO.Ms. was issued. [Para 101 [872-
       E-H; 873-A-B]
          1.2 The High Court had totally misconstrued the said
 F GO.Ms. It clearly laid 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 the candidates and after issue of appointment orders, if the
 G candidate fails to join within the stipulated period, that vacancy
   should be notified again. This portion of the GO.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
 H merit list downwards. This is also clear from clause 9 of the
      MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS_. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF                      869
             TELANGANA AND ORS. ETC.

G.O.Ms., which also clarifies that f;iJI out vacancies due to A
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. [Para 111 (873-G-H; 874-A-BJ
                                                                     B
       1.3 The position in the present case is totally different.
Some of the candidates, who got selected in more than one of the
Corporations, were called for verification of their certificates. No
appointment was issued till that stage. In the-meantime, the State
issued a clarification, as set out in the letter dated 01.06.2016.
[Para 121 [874-C)                                                    C
       ·1.4 There is nothing wrong in this letter. In fact, this is in
 consonance with the GO.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 D
 delayed. It is also noted 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 E
 selection should be made. When the entire GO.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. [Para 131 [874-F-HJ
                                                                       F
       1.5 Even otherwise also, this is the only logical way to
 interpret the GO.Ms. The GO.Ms. Dated 22.02.1997 obviously
 was issued, keeping in mind a single selection process. Here,
 the matter concerns 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         G
 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.
                                                                       H
870            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A     This would lead to a position where large number of vacancies
      would not be filled up. [Para 14) [875-A-B]
             1.6 On a conjoint reading of clause 8 and 9 of the GO.Ms.
      dated 22.02.1997, it is clear that this was not the purpose of the
      GO.Ms. Thus, the GO.Ms. would come into operation only after
B     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
C     vacant. [Para 15) [875-C-D)
            Government ofA.P & Ors v. Ms. Bhagam Dorasanamma
            & Am: (Decision of A.P. High Court in W.P No. 24944
            of 2013) - approved.
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 10583-
D     10585of2017.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2016 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and the State of
      Andhra Pradesh in WA No. 748 of2016, 770 of2016 and 932 of2016
                                     WITH
E
            Civil Appeal No. 10586 of2017.
            D. Mahesh Babu and C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Advs. for the
      Appellants.
            P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Kr. Tyagi, Mis. Venkat Palwai Law
 F    Associates, Ms. Nidhi, Annam D. N. Rao, A. Venkatesh, Rahul Mishra,
      Sudipto Sircar,Arjun Krishnan, Sravan Kumar, D. Mahesh Babu, Rishi
      Raj, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. Applications for impleadment are
 G allowed.
            2. Leave granted.
            3. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated
      29.08.2016 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
 H
       MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF                             871
      TELANGANA AND ORS. ETC. [ DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

the writ appeals filed by the present appellants and upheld the judgment A
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 ofTelangana viz., Telangana
 State Transmission Company Limited, TSTRANSCO, Telangana State
 Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSNPDCL), Telangana B
.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 ofAssistant 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 C
 G.O.Ms. No. 81, General Administration (Ser. A) Department, dated
 22.02.1997. Selection was to be based only 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 D
 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 ofTelangana
·that the Corporations were free to fill up the left over notified (advertised) E
.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 F
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 advertisement the G.0.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 G
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.
                                                                               H
872            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A            7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, writ appeals were filed by the
      candidates, who would have been selected ifthe 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
B 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, 14.11.2015,22.11.2015and29.l1.2015
C 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
D the applications had been invited online, the certificates had to be produced
  after the written test was conducted.
             9. lt 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.
 E        10. Since the judgment of the High Court is based on G.0.Ms.
   No. 81dated22.02.1997, we may deal with the said G.0.Ms. in detail.
   In the said G.0.Ms., the practice of having a long waiting list has been
   deprecated. We have carefully gone through the G.0.Ms. concerned.
   This G.0.Ms. has been issued in certain peculiar circumstances. It
 F appears that a common test was held for a number of services comprised
   in Group-I, which includes 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.
 G The waiting list started after the last selected candidate i.e. ifthe 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
 H
      MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF                             873
     TELANGANAAND ORS. ETC. { DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

having very high marks would get the post of Deputy Superintendent of A
Police but a person much below him in the merit list but at Serial No. I
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 B
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 this context
that the GO.Ms. was issued. Reliance has been placed by the appellants
on Paras 8 and 9 of the GO.Ms., relevant portion of which reads as
follows:                                                                     C
      "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, ifthe candidate D
      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         E
       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    F
       notified the next recruitment."
       11. According to us, the High c;ourt has totally misconstrued the
above GO.Ms. The portion of the GO.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 G
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 the candidates and after issue of appointment orders, ifthe
candidate fails to join within the stipulated period, that vacancy should
be notified again. This portion of the GO.Ms. admits of only one H
874            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 8 S.C.R. ·


A 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 GO.Ms., which also clarifies that fall out
  vacancies due to relinquishment or non-joining of the selected candidates
B 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
C 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 careful examination of the
D           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
 E          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.0.Ms. dated 22.02.1997. The State and the Corporations
 F 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,
 G who are more meritorious than them should not be selected and fresh
   selection should be made. When the entire GO.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.
 H
      MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF                         875
     TELANGANA AND ORS. ETC. [ DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

        14. Even otherwise also, we are of the view that this is the only A
logical way to interpret the GO.Ms. The GO.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 '
                                                                          B
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 0 .Ms. dated C
.22.02.1997, we are clearly of the view that this was not the purpose of
 the GO.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 D
 for verification of the certificate. That does not mean that the first post
 in all the Corporations should now lie vacant.
       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 &                E
Another (W.P. No.24944of2013), wherein the High Court had correctly
interpreted the GO.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 F
       ofreaching 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/
        l" respondent herein is contrary to the very spirit and object of
       service jurisprudence and we find total lack ofjustification on the G
       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 sanie on the touchstone ofArticle
        16 ofthe Constitution oflndia."
                                                                          H
876            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A            17. Nonnally, 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.
         19. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeals, set
B 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 GO.Ms. given
  by us.
c           Pending application( s), if any, stand( s) disposed of.


      Divya Pandey                                                    Appeals allowed.