B.Prashanth vs Telangana State Public Service ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2661 Tel

      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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

(2020) 19 SCC 430 W.P.No.15811 of 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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