Telangana High Court
P. Prasanna Latha And 9 Others vs State Of Telangana And Another on 18 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 24377 OF 2019
O R D E R:
Petitioners filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the
arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional action of
the 2nd respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "TGPSC"), in issuing Provisional
Selection Notification dated 24.10.2019 pursuant to Group-II
Services Notification No. 20/2015 dated 31.12.2015 and
Revised Notification No. 17/2016 dated 01.09.2016, without
adhering to due process of law, in contravention of the binding
directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and its batch dated 03.06.2019,
thereby infringing the fundamental rights of petitioners
guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
2. The case of petitioners is that they are meritorious
candidates who appeared in Group-II Services Examination
conducted by the 2nd respondent on 11.11.2016 and 13.11.2016
for Papers I to IV, pursuant to the aforesaid Notifications.
Having secured merit in the written examination, they became
eligible for consideration in selection process. However, to their
utter shock and dismay, respondents, while issuing the
impugned provisional selection notification, included candidates
whose answer sheets were vitiated by tampering, overwriting,
erasures, and other violations of the prescribed instructions
contained in the Notification itself, thereby caused irreparable
prejudice to petitioners' legitimate right to fair consideration for
appointment.
2.1. It is stated, as per the express stipulations
contained in the recruitment Notification and examination
instructions, each OMR answer sheet was divided into three
parts: Part-A (personal details), Part-B (the middle portion
containing the actual answers), and Part-C (candidate's name
and invigilator's signatures). The Notification categorically
declared that any tampering, overwriting, erasure, or usage of
whiteners in any part of the OMR sheet would render it invalid
for evaluation. These conditions were not mere procedural
formalities but substantive safeguards meant to ensure
transparency, integrity and uniformity in evaluation. Despite
such mandatory conditions, the 2nd respondent, in a most
arbitrary and discriminatory manner, considered and evaluated
OMR answer sheets of several candidates who had committed
errors and manipulations in Part-B, which directly pertains to
performance evaluation, thereby distorting the merit structure
and prejudicing the rights of genuine candidates, including
petitioners. Such deviation from the prescribed rules and
procedure amounts to a colourable exercise of power, offending
the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16, and
violating the rule of law which forms part of the basic structure
of the Constitution.
2.2. Petitioners further state that earlier, in Writ Petition
No. 18834 of 2017, this Court, upon elaborate consideration,
had directed deletion of all the candidates who had committed
mistakes in Part-A, Part-B, and Part-C from selection list. The
said order was carried in appeal by the affected candidates in
Writ Appeal Nos. 1525 and 1527 of 2018 and batch, wherein the
Hon'ble Division Bench, after an exhaustive consideration of the
report of the Technical Committee dated 09.03.2017, held that
only mistakes in Part-A and Part-C, being peripheral and not
affecting the candidate's performance, could be ignored, but the
errors in Part-B - middle portion containing the answers could
not be condoned. The operative portion of the Division Bench
judgment is extracted hereunder:
" The Technical Committee in its report dated 09.03.2017
recommended that the mistakes that fell under the 1st and 3rd
categories could be ignored and the answer sheets of those candidates
could be evaluated, but the Technical Committee recommended to the
Public Service Commission not to evaluate the answer sheets of the
candidates who committed mistakes in the middle portion of the OMR
Sheet containing answers to 150 questions. Any tampering with the
performance of the candidates in the middle of the OMR Sheet cannot be
considered, and the established practice followed by the Commission in
the cases of striking off, usage of erasers and whiteners etc., may be
adopted in such cases strictly as any consideration affects the fairness
thereof by chances of other candidates."
2.3. Petitioners state that the said findings of the
Division Bench were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP (C) No. 16999 of 2019, thereby attaining finality.
Notwithstanding this clear judicial mandate, respondents, in
utter disregard of the said pronouncement, have once again
included candidates with errors in Part-B of the OMR sheets in
the provisional selection list dated 24.10.2019, thereby
undermining both judicial authority and the sanctity of the
recruitment process.
3. Respondents, in their counter affidavit filed through
the Additional Secretary and Nodal Officer (Legal), contend that
recruitment in question pertains to Group-II Services notified
under Notification Nos. 20/2015, dated 30.12.2015 and
17/2016, dated 01.09.2016, wherein 1032 vacancies in various
departments were notified. The selection process was conducted
strictly in accordance with law and in compliance with the
directions of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and its
batch dated 03.06.2019. The Commission asserts that it acted
bona fide and within the parameters of the judgment, report of
the Technical Committee dated 09.03.2017 and the
recommendations of the Sub-Committee constituted to
supervise compliance.
3.1. It is contended that the Hon'ble Division Bench,
while deciding Writ Appeals No. 1525 and 1567 of 2018 and
batch, recognized that the Commission had taken corrective
action by appointing a Technical Committee after noticing
lapses by invigilators and examination centre officials. It was
observed by the Division Bench that 'every institution like
Public Service Commission is obligated to take corrective
measures whenever the task assigned to them ends up in a
fiasco'. Relying upon this principle, the Commission asserts that
its subsequent course of action in re-evaluating OMR sheets
and preparing revised selection list was undertaken to remedy
administrative irregularities and cannot be characterized as
arbitrary or mala fide.
3.2. Respondents further assert that, in strict
compliance with the Division Bench judgment, the Commission
excluded candidates who had violated the prescribed
instructions and published a revised list of qualified candidates
on 27.11.2018 for certificate verification. Thereafter, the process
of interviews was conducted from 01.07.2019 to 27.08.2019,
and final results were declared on 24.10.2019. Its action is
entirely in conformity with the binding directions of this Court
and that there is no deviation in the implementation of the
Technical Committee's report. It is contended that the very
issues now raised by petitioners were the subject matter of
challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary
No. 23878 of 2019 and SLP (C) No. 16999 of 2019, wherein
identical allegations were made against the Commission,
including the contention that candidates who had committed
tampering and used whiteners in Part-B of the OMR sheets were
included in the list. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, after
hearing both the sides, was not inclined to interfere and
dismissed the SLPs. vide orders dated 22.07.2019. Thus, it is
stated, the matter has attained finality and that the present
Petition, being based on identical grounds, is barred by
principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata.
3.3. Respondents, on the contrary, state that evaluation
of OMR sheets is purely mechanical and system-driven, leaving
no scope for human discretion. The scanning system reads
density of the bubbles and marks are awarded automatically
based on threshold density levels. Any deviation, such as double
bubbling or erasures, is detected and automatically nullified by
the system. Minor dots or smudges which are below the
detection threshold are ignored by the machine and does not
amount to tampering. The Commission emphasizes that there is
no manual intervention in the evaluation process, therefore, the
allegations of favouritism or selective consideration are wholly
baseless. It is contended that directions of the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017 regarding physical
verification of OMR sheets (para 100.9 of the said judgment)
were expressly set aside by the Division Bench. Hence, the
Commission was prohibited from engaging in any manual
verification and was required to rely exclusively on automated
evaluation. Accordingly, petitioners' demand for re-verification
or deletion of candidates based on alleged OMR discrepancies is
contrary to the express judicial mandate of the Division Bench.
3.4. Respondents further state that the final selection
list was declared on 24.10.2019, and the unit lists were
communicated to the appointing authorities on 02.11.2019. At
this advanced stage, any interference with the selection process
would not only cause administrative chaos but also inflict
undue hardship upon the successful candidates, who have been
awaiting appointment orders for several years. The Commission
points out that recruitment process has already undergone
multiple rounds of litigation and has been under judicial
supervision since 2017, therefore, reopening the matter now
would defeat the principle of finality and adversely impact
thousands of aspirants.
4. Petitioners filed a detailed reply denying the
untenable averments contained in the counter. They specifically
contended that the 2nd respondent's reliance on Technical
Committee's report to justify its deviation from mandatory OMR
norms constitutes a blatant act of arbitrariness. They placed
reliance upon the authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalatha1,
wherein it was held that any relaxation in violation of
mandatory instructions would amount to laying down bad law.
It was further observed that even orders passed under Article
142 of the Constitution cannot confer benefits contrary to
statutory or mandatory provisions. The ratio laid down therein
squarely applies to the present case.
4.1. Petitioners have further relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veerendra Kumar Dubey v.
Chief of Army Staff 2, wherein it was held that unregulated or
unguided exercise of power without adherence to the prescribed
procedure would offend Article 14 of the Constitution. It is
stated, the 2nd respondent, by selectively applying its own rules
and exercising discretion in favour of certain candidates, has
acted with manifest arbitrariness and discrimination, which
strikes at the very root of equality. They further rely upon the
observations of the Constitution Bench in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India 3, where it was held that arbitrariness is the
antithesis of equality and that Article 14 ensures fairness and
(2020) 19 SCC 430
(2016) 2 SCC 627
(1978) 2 SCR 621
reasonableness in every State action. They also draw strength
from the principle enunciated in D.S. Nakara v. Union of
India 4, wherein it was held that classification must not be
arbitrary but based on an intelligible differentia having a
rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
4.2. Petitioners state that TGPSC, being a constitutional
body entrusted with the duty of ensuring fairness,
transparency, and merit in public employment, cannot act as an
instrument of injustice. The Supreme Court in UP State Law
Officers Association v. State of UP 5 held that every public
authority is a trustee of the power vested in it and must act in
the larger public interest to protect the principles of merit and
equal opportunity. Any deviation therefrom constitutes an
abuse of trust. Reliance is also placed upon the recent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was
reaffirmed that recruitment process commences with the
issuance of advertisement and ends with filling up of vacancies,
and that eligibility conditions and selection methodology cannot
be altered midway unless expressly permitted by statutory
rules. The said decision, reaffirming K. Manjusree v. State of
AIR 1983 SC 130
Law Finder Doc ID 25317]
Andhra Pradesh 6, squarely applies to the present facts, where
respondents altered evaluation criteria through administrative
discretion in the midst of recruitment. Furthermore, petitioners
assert that selection of less meritorious candidates in preference
to more meritorious ones constitutes violation of Articles 14 and
16, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anmol Kumar
Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand [Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of
2021, dated 18.02.2021], wherein it was observed that
'appointment of persons with lesser merit ignoring those who
have secured more marks would be violation of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution'.
4.3. Thus, petitioners contend that the impugned action
of the 2nd respondent is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of
the constitutional guarantees of equality, fairness and
reasonableness. It represents a clear case of non-application of
mind and disregard of binding judicial precedent. The 2nd
respondent, being a public authority, is duty-bound to maintain
transparency and impartiality in its functioning and cannot
adopt a "pick and choose" method that defeats the object of
merit-based recruitment.
(2008) 3 SCC 512
5. Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel for
petitioners and Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondents.
This Court, upon careful examination of the
pleadings and the documents placed on record, finds that
primary grievance of petitioners revolves around inclusion of
candidates who committed mistakes in Part-B of the OMR sheet
despite the earlier Division Bench judgment.
6. It is to be seen, the Division Bench, in paragraph 51
of its judgment dated 03.06.2019, unequivocally accepted the
Technical Committee's finding that answer sheets containing
tampering in the middle portion (Part-B) should not be
evaluated. The Bench's direction that the Commission should be
guided by the report of the Technical Committee dated
09.03.2017 is not open to expansive interpretation. The said
report, when read as a whole, imposes an absolute bar on
evaluating answer sheets that have been altered, scratched or
whitened in the answer portion. Thus, the 2nd respondent's act
of evaluating such answer sheets is a clear departure from the
judicially-approved procedure.
7. The justification offered by the 2nd respondent that
automated scanners differentiated between permissible and
impermissible marks, cannot be accepted. The use of automated
machines cannot override express judicial and technical
prohibitions. Where tampering is visually evident, the
Commission's failure to exclude such answer sheets amounts to
violation of principle of fairness in public recruitment. This
Court is fortified in its reasoning by the authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash
Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court 7, which reaffirms that public
employment must conform to the constitutional guarantees of
equality and fairness. The Supreme Court held as under:
" Courts have consistently frowned upon tinkering with the
rules of the game once the recruitment process commences. This has
crystallized into an oft-quoted legal phrase that 'the rules of the game
must not be changed mid-way or after the game has been played.'"
The Apex Court further observed that:
" The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through
the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against
arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 16 is
only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined
in Article 14. In all its actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a
transparent manner."
(2024 INSC 847)
In paragraph 65, the Court clarified:
" Once an Expert Body, such as the Public Service
Commission, constituted a Technical Committee of Academic Experts to
examine the issues and once such a Technical Committee had
recommended the evaluation of answer sheets of candidates who had
committed errors in bubbling the circles in the First Part of the answer
sheets, the scope of the inquiry to be undertaken by the Court is just to
find out whether the Public Service Commission acted bona fide and
whether their decision was arbitrary or unfair. If so tested on these
parameters, the corrective action taken by the Public Service
Commission cannot be found fault with."
8. Applying the above principles, it is evident that the
2nd respondent's discretion extended only to those limited errors
concerning Part-A (mechanical or clerical) as permitted by the
Technical Committee and judicial directions. The Commission
had no authority to evaluate or include answer sheets where
candidates had committed tampering or used whiteners in Part-
B, which strikes at the very core of the examination's integrity.
The Commission's action in extending re-evaluation process to
all papers, rather than confining it to Paper-I where mismatches
were reported, is also found to be arbitrary and ultra vires.
9. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion
that the 2nd Respondent had violated the letter and spirit of the
Division Bench's judgment and acted beyond its lawful powers.
Its actions have resulted in manifest injustice to petitioners,
who abided by the rules and were entitled to fair consideration.
In conclusion, this Court holds that re-evaluation and
publication of results by the 2nd Respondent through
Notification dated 24.10.2019 are vitiated by arbitrariness,
illegality and non-compliance with judicial directions. Inclusion
of candidates, who have tampered Part-B of OMR answer sheets
is declared illegal, void and unconstitutional.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
provisional selection notification dated 24.10.2019 is set aside.
The 2nd respondent is directed to re-evaluate and finalize the
selection strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1525 of 2018 and the
recommendations of the Technical Committee dated
09.03.2017, and to issue appointment orders to the eligible
candidates within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
10.1. The 2nd respondent is further directed to ensure,
henceforth, that evaluation of OMR sheets in all the
recruitments is conducted in strict conformity with the notified
instructions, and that adequate transparency measures,
including physical verification, videography, and record
preservation, are implemented to prevent recurrence of such
irregularities. The Commission is also cautioned to scrupulously
adhere to the binding judicial directions of this Court as well as
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in all future recruitment exercises,
failing which serious view shall be taken. No costs.
11. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
18th November 2025
ksld
