Telangana High Court
Saravva Lingala vs Osmania University on 23 June, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33771 OF 2024
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
"... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction one more particularly in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus"
declaring the action of the Respondents in declaring the Petitioner as "Not Qualified" in TG-SET 2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to rectify the Petitioner's marks by recording 54 marks in Paper-I, 98 marks in Paper-II, and a total aggregate of 152 marks and consequently declare her as "Qualified" and pass ..."
2. Heard Mr. Mettu Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Mallipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned standing counsel for Osmania University, appearing for respondents, and perused the material on record.
3. It is submitted that as per the National Education Policy 1986, the Government of India has introduced a concept of State 2 Eligibility Test (SET) to provide avenue for candidates to qualify for the post of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in regional languages and subjects unique to respective States. The State Government has announced holding of TG-SET 2024 during 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st August 2024 for determining the eligibility of Telangana students to the posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in the Universities and Colleges of Telangana. Accordingly, respondent No.1 - Osmania University issued notification on 04.05.2024 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to apply for TG-SET examination.
4. It is submitted that online applications were commenced on 14.05.2024 and the petitioner applied for Physical Education and she was issued Hall Ticket bearing No.4304030046. The examination had two papers Paper - I and Paper - II, each containing 50 questions and each question carrying two (2) marks, totalling to 200 marks. The qualification criteria was the candidate should appear for both the papers and should have secured at least 40% aggregate marks in both the papers taken together for General (Unreserved) Category and 35% for the reserved category i.e., OBC, SC, ST etc. 3
5. It is submitted that TG-SET was conducted on 11.09.2024. Petitioner appeared for the examination and the provisional key was released by respondents on 24.09.2024. As per the provisional key, the petitioner secured 54 marks in Paper - I and (27 questions correct) and 98 marks in Paper - II (49 questions correct) aggregating to 150 (sic. 152) marks. When petitioner checked the final result of TG-SET which was declared on 16.11.2024, she was shocked, as the result showed 52 marks in Paper - I and 98 marks in Paper - II and she was declared "Not Qualified".
6. It is submitted that the petitioner immediately applied for response sheet and found that as per the key published by the respondents and the response sheet, she has secured 54 marks in Paper - I and 98 marks in Paper - II. However, in the result it is wrongly shown as 52 marks in Paper - I and 98 marks in Paper - II.
7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, in which it has been stated that as per the final key, the petitioner is "Not Qualified". Petitioner's representation dated 20.11.2024 was 4 forwarded to the service provider i.e., M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Private Limited; they verified the final key and submitted necessary information on 03.12.2024, which was uploaded in the official website on the same day evening. The answers to all the questions were decided by subject expert and the Certificates Verification is a continuous process, as intimated in the speaking order dated 05.12.2024.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute herein is regarding marks not being awarded to the petitioner for question No.50 of Paper - I. The answer to question No.50 is option No.1. However, in the official key, the answer is shown as option No.2 or 3 or 4 which is apparently incorrect.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner appeared in the Shift - 1 (morning session) and in her question paper the disputed question was shown at Sl.No.50. In the Shift - 2 (afternoon session) the same disputed question is shown at Sl.No.85, wherein, the answer is shown as option No.1. The question No.85 of Shift - 2 (afternoon session) is placed on record 5 and the copy of same is served on the learned standing counsel for Osmania University, appearing for respondents.
10. Learned standing counsel for respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 wherein it was held as under:
" 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate -- it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. ...
32. ...
33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the learned Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and 1 (2018) 2 SCC 357 6 as decided by this Court on several occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible. ... "
It is submitted that speaking order dated 05.12.2024 was passed by the expert committee by considering the objections of the petitioner, and it was rejected. There are no merits in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.
11. The preliminary and final key for Shift-1 (Morning Session) and final key for Shift-2 (Afternoon Session) are shown below:
Shift-1 (Morning Session) Shift-2 (Afternoon Session) PHYSICAL EDUCATION PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PRELIMINARY KEY FINAL KEY FINAL KEY
50.The most effective 50.The most effective 50.The most effective means means of citizens means of citizens of citizens control over control over control over administration is...
administration is... administration is... 1. Election 1. Election 1. Election
2. Pressure Groups 2. Pressure Groups
2. Pressure Groups
3. Advisory 3. Advisory 3. Advisory committees committees committees 4. Public Opinion
4. Public Opinion 4. Public Opinion Petitioner has chosen option No.1. In the speaking order dated 05.12.2024 passed by respondent No.3, it is stated that the petitioner has calculated total marks based on preliminary key which was later corrected by the appropriate committee; due to a technical error in the subject of Physical Education, the preliminary 7 key was uploaded instead of final key, but later it was replaced by the final key; as per the final key the answer for Question ID No.26544815424 is option No.2 or 3 or 4 and not 1; the final key has been subsequently uploaded in the website for information of the candidates; there was no error in calculating and deciding final marks based on the correct and final key.
12. In the opinion of this Court, the question No.50 bearing Id No.26544815424 is a basic and simple question and option No.1 is the correct answer. The question does not need any expertise. In fact the preliminary key was correct and final key was wrong. The judgment in Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, there is no explanation forthcoming from the respondents as to how the same question at Sl.No.85 of the Shift - 2 (Afternoon session) shows that option No.1 is the correct answer. Respondents cannot apply different yardsticks for same question in different sessions. The correct answer in both the sessions should be the same. It is not the case of respondents that the same question has wrong answer in the Shift - 2 (Afternoon Session). Thus, the action on the part of 8 respondent authorities in not awarding marks to the petitioner for question No.50 bearing ID No.26544815424 is arbitrary, improper and unsustainable.
13. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, directing respondent authorities to rectify the marks of the petitioner in Paper No.1 by adding two (2) marks, thereby, correcting the petitioner's marks to 54 in Paper No.1 and 98 in Paper No.2, total aggregating to 152 marks, thereby, declaring the petitioner as "Qualified" in TG-SET 2024, and consequently, permit the petitioner for certificates verification in Physical Education subject of TG-SET 2024. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J June 23, 2025.
MS