THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.15811 OF 2023
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in taking steps to cancel the Group-I examination conducted on 11.06.2023 pursuant to the Notification No.04/2022 dt.26.04.2022 without obtaining the biometrics of the candidates during the examination and by issuing OMR sheet without mentioning the hall ticket number and the photograph of the candidates in spite of the written representation of the petitioners dt.13.06.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondent to conduct re- examination of the Group-I examination held on 11.06.2023 and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the respondent issued Notification No.04/2022 dt.26.04.2022 for recruitment to the posts of Group-I service officers in the State of W.P.No.15811 of 2023 2 Telangana. The petitioners being eligible for the same were preparing for competitive examinations and claimed to have undergone coaching for appearing in the Group-I and Group-II services recruitment examinations. It is submitted that pursuant to the Notification dt.26.04.2022, the Group-I examination was held on 16.10.2022 forenoon. However, due to leakage of question paper, the said examination was cancelled and re-examination was conducted on 11.06.2023. The Notification dt.26.04.2022 contained general instructions to the candidates and one of the instructions was that the candidates have to report to the examination venue at least 30 minutes before the commencement of examination, to record their photo image/thumb impression on biometric system. The hall tickets were issued to the petitioners for the examination to be conducted on 16.10.2022 and the biometrics of the candidates were taken. However, in the hall ticket issued for the examination to be conducted on 11.06.2023, the said instruction was omitted. On the ground that the biometrics of the aspirants were not obtained during the examination, and apprehending that the examination was not conducted in a transparent and fair manner, the petitioners and others submitted a W.P.No.15811 of 2023 3 representation dt.13.06.2023 to the Chairman of the respondent Service Commission and a request was made to cancel the examination held on 11.06.2023 and to conduct re-examination in this situation. When the respondent has not taken any action on their representation, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.
3. Sri Aloori Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri B.Narsing and Ms. Haseena Sultana Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out several omissions on the part of the respondent in the conducting of the examination on 11.06.2023. He pointed out that the instruction to the candidates 'to report to the examination venue at least 30 minutes before commencement of the examination, to record their photo image/thumb impression on biometric system' has not been followed by the respondent and further that in the hall tickets issued for the examination to be held on 16.10.2022, there was a security feature which will allow the TSPSC to verify the identity and also to check impersonation of any candidate, but in the hall tickets issued for the examination conducted on 11.06.2023, the said instruction has been removed thereby giving an opportunity to the candidates to impersonate in the examination. It is submitted that in the earlier W.P.No.15811 of 2023 4 examination, the candidates were advised not to apply any external material like Mehandi, Ink, Tatoos, etc., on their hands/feet in order to take the biometric image/thumb impression of the candidates. He further submitted that the OMR sheets issued by the respondent did not contain the photograph of the candidate and the hall ticket number, whereas in the OMR sheets in the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, they contain the photograph as well as the hall ticket number to avoid any chance of impersonation.
4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a reply affidavit and also a Memo along with certain other documents in support of their above contentions.
5. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out certain omissions, such that in the Nominal Rolls Reports of certain Centres, the signature of only one Invigilator is available as against the other Centre, where the signatures of both the Invigilators are available. He further pointed out that the signatures of the candidates are not tallying with their signatures on the photo affixed on their hall tickets. He thus W.P.No.15811 of 2023 5 submitted that the respondent has not taken care or has not taken any security measures to check any impersonation by any of the candidates. It is submitted that the respondent has not been careful enough to conduct the examination in a transparent and fair manner. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the application of one particular candidate, K.Nandini/Y.Nandini and her OMR sheet to demonstrate that her signatures on the photo and hall ticket did not match with her signature in the OMR sheet. Similar is the case of another candidate by name Bharath Naroju in the application and his signature on the Nominal Rolls. He has also furnished copies of the hall tickets issued for the examination to be held on 16.10.2022 which contained the monogram of the thumb impression of the concerned candidates which was the security measure to check the impersonation of the candidates. He submitted that as per his instructions, the Invigilators have not personally taken the signatures of each of the candidates after verification with the photograph, but have given the Nominal Roll Sheet to the first candidate in the row and after his signature, the first candidate would pass it on to other candidates for their signatures and the Invigilator would collect it from the last candidate and thus, there is W.P.No.15811 of 2023 6 no verification by the Invigilator about the identity of the candidate before obtaining his signatures. He further submitted that according to the counter filed by the respondent, the signatures were obtained after conducting of the examination and not prior to writing of the examination. Further, he also referred to the Web Note dt.28.06.2023, wherein it is mentioned that the Preliminary Test (objective type) for Group-I Services was conducted on 11.06.2023 in OMR mode in 33 districts of Telangana State; that the digital copies of 2,33,506 Scanned OMR Sheets of the candidates who attended the examination would be displayed on the Telangana State Public Commission's official website on 28.06.2023. It is also mentioned that earlier the number of candidates who attended the examination were reported at 2,33,248 based on preliminary reports dt.11.06.2023. He submitted that the TSPSC has acted in a very casual manner in reporting the number of candidates who have appeared for the examination and no reasons have been given as to why the difference has arisen in both the reports. He therefore submitted that the respondent has not taken care to conduct the examination in a free, fair and transparent manner and therefore, the examination held on 11.06.2023 should be cancelled and re-examination should be directed W.P.No.15811 of 2023 7 to be conducted. He submitted that the candidates have been preparing for this examination for the past several years and because of the indifferent and careless attitude of the respondent, the future of the genuine candidates would suffer.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. G. Hemalathaa and another 1 in support of his contention that the instructions issued by the Telangana State Public Service Commission (in short, 'Commission') are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with and that strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance. He submitted that whenever the Commission felt necessary to change the directions/instructions, it would issue an addendum/corrigendum to the Notification as was done in respect of Group-IV Services (Notification No.19/2022) making certain modifications. A copy of the same is filed before this Court along with a memo dt.12.07.2022. He submitted that no such addendum was issued in the case of Group-I Notification. 1 (2020) 19 SCC 430 W.P.No.15811 of 2023 8
7. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that all the necessary steps have been taken to safeguard and conduct the examination in a free, fair and transparent manner. He submitted that all necessary steps were taken to prevent any impersonation by the candidates. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments in the counter affidavit, wherein the steps taken by the respondent have been enumerated in support of his contention. In respect of the omission or deviation in case of one of the candidates, i.e., K.Nandini/Y.Nandini, he submitted that on enquiries made, it is learnt that the maiden name of the candidate was Yarrabojju Nandini, but since by the time of submission of her application she was married, and therefore, she has signed on the photograph as K.Nandini by using her married surname, but in the examination hall, on the advice of the Invigilator, she has signed as Y.Nandini. A copy of her marriage certificate dt.29.01.2021 is filed in proof of her change of surname. He submitted that the petitioners have not made any allegations of any impersonation by any candidate and except for non-compliance with certain instructions, such as taking the biometrics of the candidates prior to the examination, the W.P.No.15811 of 2023 9 petitioners have not pointed out any other deficiency. He submitted that the instructions in the notification are for the candidates to follow for successful holding of the examination in a free and fair manner and they cannot be challenged by the candidates on non-compliance of only one of the instructions by the respondent and that such non-compliance will not invalidate the entire examination. He further submitted that the respondent would adhere to or follow the directions of this Court in the forthcoming examination, if so advised.
8. With regard to the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. G. Hemalathaa and another (1 supra), the learned Advocate General submitted that it is distinguishable on facts. It is submitted that in the said case, it is the candidates who did not follow the instructions of the Commission and not vice versa and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case before this Court.
9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the respondent has issued Notification No.04/2022 dt.26.04.2022 and one of the instructions to the candidates W.P.No.15811 of 2023 10 in the said Notification is to appear in the examination centre 30 minutes in advance in order to enable recording of the biometrics. Having given the instructions, the respondent was required to follow its own instructions and in the examination held in the first instance, i.e., on 16.10.2022, it did follow the instructions. However, the respondent did not follow the said instructions in the examination held on 11.06.2023. The said instruction did not find place in the hall ticket and was thus not followed on the day of the re-examination. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent has not cancelled the Notification, but has only cancelled the examination and has issued hall tickets for the examination held on 11.06.2023 pursuant to the notification dt.26.04.2022 and therefore, the instructions given in the subject Notification have to be followed even for the examination held on 11.06.2023. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in the case of Group IV examination, when the Commission intended to change the above condition, it issued an addendum, but no such addendum was issued by the Commission in respect of Group-I examination. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to non-compliance of the instructions given by the respondent itself, the examination has to be set aside.
W.P.No.15811 of 2023 11
10. The respondent in its counter affidavit has enumerated the measures taken by it for conducting of examination in a fair and transparent manner and the steps taken by them. The contentions in the counter affidavit are as follows:
"6. The grievance of the Petitioners is regarding alleged inadequate measures relating to the verification of the identity of the candidates who appeared for the Group I Examination. At the outset, it is submitted that the Commission has put in place several measures to ensure that there is no possibility for impersonation of a candidate. The Commission had ensured that a Multi-Level security is put in place to see that there is no possibility of any person impersonating any candidate. The said measures are as under:
7. Posting of identification officer system was introduced. The photo on hall ticket and photo on valid Government identity card of the candidates was cross checked and after establishing the identity with the candidates photo and particulars, the candidates were allowed to enter the premises. The Identification officers were deputed for the first time with a view to arrest the possibility of a candidate without proper credentials entering the examination venue. Frisking is undertaken separately for male and female candidates at the venues by the police personnel and staff deployed by the venue authorities.
8. Further, another multi-level checking was also performed when the candidates occupied their seats after going through the verification at the entrance. The invigilators in every room inspected and re-verified the candidates against their photo and signature in the Hall Tickets, Nominal rolls, and valid government ID proof. Only W.P.No.15811 of 2023 12 after ensuring that the pre printed photos in the Nominal roll are identical with the face of the candidate and matched with the signatures of the candidate on the Hall Ticket, they were allowed to appear for the examination. Only after the invigilator is satisfied with the identity of the candidate, he will sign on the candidate's OMR sheet. Candidates without valid Government ID or Hall Tickets were not allowed to appear for the examination and were stopped at the entry gate itself. The candidates signature is also obtained at the bottom of the OMR sheet. The candidate is mandated to write his name by himself.
9. It is also pertinent to submit here that, allotment of the candidates to the venues were done randomly and allotment of invigilators to each room in the venues was done by the Chief Superintendents by draw of lots in the venue, just before the commencement of examination.
10. Random checking of identity was also performed by flying squads who are Government officials not below the rank of Gazetted officer.
11. Therefore it is clear that there were sufficient cross checks in relation to the identity of the candidates and in so far as the Group I Examination held on 11/06/2023, all the measures as narrated above had been scrupulously followed.
12. In relation to the averment of the Petitioners regarding the particulars of the candidates on the Hall Ticket, it is pertinent to submit here that the particulars of the candidate in the Hall Ticket and Nominal Rolls are pre printed from the data already uploaded by the candidates in their One Time Registration (OTR) including photo and signature."
W.P.No.15811 of 2023 13
11. As regards the contention of the petitioners that the Commission has not supplied pre-printed OMR sheet with hall ticket number and photo, it is submitted as under:
"13. Regarding the contention of the petitioners that the Commission has not supplied pre-printed OMR with Hall Ticket number and photo, as such there are chances of manipulation, it is submitted that, since the inception of TSPSC, pre-printed / name- based / photo-based OMRs were never supplied in any examination. The OMR sheets shall be recognised with its unique Barcode and it will be matched with the bubbled Hall Ticket number and question Booklet number filled in by the candidates themselves leaving no scope for manual intervention in evaluation of the OMR sheets. The candidate writes his name in capital letters and affixes his signature at the bottom of the OMR sheet. Similarly, the Invigilator affixes his signature after establishing the identity of the candidate thoroughly. This is the standard practice which is time tested and followed even by the UPSC. Printing of Hall ticket details on the OMR sheets has its own limitations in terms of confusion that may arise in the venue on account of varied reasons. Even one incident of handing over absentee's OMR to the next person would have cascading effect in the entire examination room. Considering these kinds of possibilities and other logistics issues, the blank OMR sheets are given to the candidates with instructions to fill their hall ticket numbers. Filling up the Hall Ticket Number by the candidates themselves, would ensure that there is no confusion in the exam hall just before the examination begins."
W.P.No.15811 of 2023 14
12. Thus, it is seen that the respondent claims to have taken proper and sufficient measures to prevent malpractice or impersonation of the candidates. The sufficiency or otherwise of such measures cannot be decided in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is proven that in spite of all these measures, the impersonation of some of the candidates has taken place. There is no specific allegation of such an act by any person, but it is contended that the lapses gave an opportunity for impersonation. It is true that the deficiencies are pointed out in the case of some of the candidates, the details of which have been furnished by the respondent itself, to demonstrate laxity on the part of the respondent. The slight differences in the signatures of one or two candidates seem to have been not detected at the time of the examination. This Court finds that no complaints have been received from any of the candidates other than the petitioners herein about the deficiencies in conducting of the examination on 11.06.2023. It is also pertinent to note that it is a preliminary examination which was held on 11.06.2023 and a further subjective examination is to be held, i.e., the mains examination which would be the determining factor for the selection. Therefore, this Court W.P.No.15811 of 2023 15 has to now consider whether to cancel the preliminary examination of Group-I Services held on 11.06.2023 in view of the above deficiencies particularly not following the instructions for obtaining Biometrics of the candidates.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. G. Hemalathaa and another (1 supra) has held that the instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory in respect of the candidates appearing for the examination and thus have the force of law and have to be complied with strictly. It was held that strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance. It was further held that the High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot modify/relax the instructions issued by the Commission.
14. From the above, it is noticed that the compliance with the instructions issued by the Commission are both directory and mandatory for both the Commission as well as the candidates and the Commission was entitled to change the instructions if it chooses to do so, but if it intended to change the instructions, it could have done so by issuing an W.P.No.15811 of 2023 16 addendum as was done in the case of Group IV Examination. Having failed to do so, it has to follow the instructions mandatorily. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that prelims is only a screening test and that even if certain candidates could get through due to alleged deficiencies/laxities in the conduct of examination, they would have to face the Mains Examination, is also not acceptable for the reason that all the successful candidates in the prelims would not be allowed for the Mains Examination, but would be allowed in the ratio of 1:50 in the order of their merit in the Preliminary Examination. This may result in some of the meritorious candidates being excluded from the Mains Examination. It is noticed that a large number of the candidates have appeared for the Preliminary Examination held on 11.06.2023 and are preparing for the Mains Examination, which would be the deciding examination for the aspirants. Therefore, to prevent any injustice being caused to them, this Court is inclined to cancel the Group-I Preliminary Examination conducted on 11.06.2023 and to direct the respondent to re-conduct the Preliminary Examination by implementing all the general instructions issued in the Notification including Biometric without any exception. This Court would fail in its W.P.No.15811 of 2023 17 duty if it does not express its displeasure about the way the respondent has filed the counter affidavit without taking care to verify the details of the candidates who appeared for the examination. The Web Note is dated 28.06.2023, wherein it is mentioned that the number of candidates who have appeared for the examination is 2,33,506 as against the earlier report of 2,33,248, but in the counter affidavit which is filed on 12.07.2023, it is mentioned that 2,33,248 candidates only have appeared for the examination. Thus, the respondent does not appear to be careful either in conducting the examination or in correlating the data of the candidates who appeared for the examination for Group-I services in spite of its importance and its impact on the candidates appearing for the examination.
15. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 23.09.2023 Svv