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
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.
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
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
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
(2018) 2 SCC 357
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
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
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
