MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 17-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 8 S.C.R. 867 
MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10583-10585 of 2017) 
AUGUST 17,2017 
[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 
A 
B 
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 appoi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.