Telangana High Court
Bokku Sujatha And 14 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 18 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 26883 OF 2019
O R D E R:
Petitioners filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the
arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional procedure adopted by the
2nd respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as 'TGSPSC'), in the process of
re-evaluation and publication of results for recruitment to
Group-II Services pursuant to Notification No.20/2015, dated
30.12.2015 and Supplementary Notification No.17/2016, dated
01.09.2016. They contend that the entire re-evaluation and
finalization of results culminating in the notification dated
24.10.2019 is contrary to the binding directions issued by the
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and batch, as
well as the recommendations of the Technical Committee
constituted by the Commission.
2. The case of petitioners is that the 2nd respondent in
the guise of implementing the Division Bench's judgment dated
03.06.2019, acted contrary to its true intent and spirit, by
evaluating answer sheets of candidates who had admittedly
tampered or used whiteners and erasers in Part-B of the OMR
answer sheets, thereby vitiating the selection process and
causing grave prejudice to meritorious candidates like
petitioners.
2.1. The factual matrix leading to filing of this Writ
Petition is not in dispute. The 2nd issued Notification
No.20/2015 dated 30.12.2015 and Supplementary Notification
No.17/2016 dated 01.09.2016 inviting Applications for 1032
posts in thirteen categories under Group-II Services. petitioners,
being fully eligible in terms of educational qualifications and
other criteria, applied for the posts, appeared for written
examination conducted on 11.11.2016 and 13.11.2016, and
qualified. The written test comprised four papers, each carrying
150 marks, and was followed by an interview carrying 75
marks, making the total marks 675. Selection was to be made
on the combined performance of candidates in the written
examination and interview.
2.2. Petitioners state that the OMR answer sheet used
for the examination was divided into three parts - Part-A
containing personal details of the candidate, Part-B containing
answers to 150 questions, and Part-C requiring the candidate's
name and signature. The instructions printed on OMR sheet as
well as in the notification explicitly warned candidates not to
use whiteners, erasers, blades or to make any kind of
overwriting or tampering, and that any such act would result in
automatic disqualification. During the conduct of examination,
certain mismatches were reported between the question booklet
codes and the OMR answer sheets, particularly in Paper-I. To
resolve the issue, the 2nd respondent constituted a Technical
Committee comprising experts from the field, by proceedings
dated 06.12.2016. The Technical Committee, after a detailed
examination of the problem, submitted a report on 09.03.2017.
The Committee observed that confusion had arisen mainly due
to the mistaken belief among candidates and invigilators that
question booklet number must correspond to OMR number. It
recommended that while minor mismatches in Part-A could be
condoned, the Commission must strictly not evaluate OMR
answer sheets where candidates had tampered Part-B - the
portion containing answers to 150 questions-by scratching,
erasing, or using whiteners. The Committee emphasized that
such acts destroyed the integrity of the answer sheet and
rendered it incapable of reliable evaluation.
2.3. Petitioners further state that relying upon the report
of the Technical Committee, several candidates, including one
V. Ramachandra Reddy and others, approached this Court in
Writ Petition No.18834 of 2017 and batch, contending that the
2nd Respondent had included disqualified candidates who had
committed such errors in evaluation process. The learned Single
Judge, by judgment dated 12.10.2018, allowed the said Writ
Petitions and held that candidates, who had committed errors
such as wrong bubbling, double bubbling or used whiteners or
erasers must be excluded from further consideration. The 2nd
respondent was also directed to physically verify OMR sheets
and exclude candidates who had tampered Part-B before
finalizing the selection.
2.4. Aggrieved thereby, several Writ Appeals including
Writ Appeal No.1525 of 2018, were filed and by a common
judgment dated 03.06.2019, the Division Bench partly modified
the Single Judge's order. The Division Bench observed that the
Technical Committee's report dated 09.03.2017 and the
recommendations of the Sub-Committee, were valid and
binding. The Division Bench, in paragraph 51 of its judgment,
specifically recorded that the Technical Committee had
recommended not to evaluate answer sheets of candidates who
had committed mistakes in the middle portion of the OMR
sheet, i.e. Part-B containing answers to 150 questions. The
Bench further observed that the Commission could correct
errors of a clerical or mechanical nature in Part-A, but not those
involving tampering or rewriting in Part-B. The operative
direction of the Division Bench was that the 2nd Respondent
must proceed strictly in accordance with the Technical
Committee's recommendations.
2.5. Petitioners assert that contrary to the above
directions, the 2nd Respondent evaluated answer sheets of
candidates who committed tampering and used whiteners in
Part-B. and included them in the final selection list published
on 24.10.2019. They further contend that Technical
Committee's recommendations were confined to Paper-I where
mismatches occurred, but the 2nd Respondent erroneously
extended re-evaluation process to all four papers, including
those where no discrepancies had been reported. It is alleged
that this action was taken to favour certain candidates and that
the 2nd Respondent acted beyond the scope of the judicial and
technical directions. It is further contended that the 2nd
Respondent has not disclosed the criteria or methodology
adopted for such re-evaluation, thereby violating transparency,
fairness and equality of opportunity guaranteed under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. In its counter, the 2nd respondent - Commission
categorically denied each and every allegation made by
petitioners, asserting that they acted strictly in accordance with
law and the binding directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court dated 03.06.2019 in Writ Appeal No.1525 of 2018
and batch, as well as the recommendations of the Technical
Committee constituted by it. It is their specific stand that entire
process of re-evaluation and finalization of results was
undertaken in a transparent, uniform and scientific manner,
and that there was no deviation from the judicial or technical
framework prescribed for the purpose.
3.1. It is stated, following the judgment of the Division
Bench, it had no discretion to act independently or in a manner
inconsistent with the Court's directives, therefore, strictly
adhered to the spirit and letter of the said judgment. The
Commission, being a constitutional body entrusted with
conducting competitive examinations for public employment, is
bound to act in accordance with the established procedures and
that it had taken great care to ensure compliance at every stage.
They undertook a comprehensive review of the entire evaluation
process to eliminate possible discrepancies and to ensure that
no ineligible candidate was included.
3.2. It is further contended that re-evaluation of OMR
answer sheets was done through an advanced automated
scanning system based on optical density recognition, and that
no manual interference was permitted at any stage of the
process. The Commission explains that scanning software used
by it is designed to recognize only valid marks within a fixed
tolerance level and automatically disregard any smudges, faded
markings, or faint impressions that do not conform to the pre-
set threshold. Therefore, according to them, the apprehension
expressed by petitioners that OMR sheets of candidates who
used whiteners or committed tampering were evaluated is
wholly misconceived and unfounded.
3.3. The 2nd respondent further avers that, to ensure
uniformity and consistency in the recruitment process, the
same procedure was uniformly applied to all four papers of the
written examination. The Division Bench's judgment did not
confine the scope of re-evaluation only to Paper-I, and that the
Commission, in its administrative wisdom, decided to extend
the uniform mechanism to all papers to maintain equality
among all the candidates. The Commission submits that any
deviation in the treatment of different papers would have led to
claims of discrimination and fresh litigation, which it sought to
avoid. It is also contended that before undertaking
re-evaluation, the Commission consulted technical experts and
sought clarifications from the software service provider to
ensure that procedure was error-free and consistent with the
Technical Committee's recommendations. All the candidates
who were affected by re-evaluation exercise were given equal
opportunity and that the process was conducted in a fair and
impartial manner. According to them, there was no instance of
any candidate being favoured or prejudiced and the allegations
of arbitrariness made by petitioners are baseless and motivated.
3.4. The 2nd Respondent No. 2 relies on the fact that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 22.07.2019
dismissed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Diary No.23878 of
2019 filed by certain unsuccessful candidates challenging the
Division Bench's judgment. This order of the Supreme Court
lends finality to the issues already decided, hence, petitioners
cannot seek to reopen matters that stand concluded. It is
therefore, urged that the present Writ Petition is not
maintainable and is barred by the principle of res judicata,
inasmuch as the subject matter and the issues raised herein
have already been adjudicated by the competent courts.
3.5. This respondent also contends that petitioners
failed to demonstrate any mala fides or procedural impropriety
in the manner of re-evaluation. They have not produced any
specific evidence showing that candidates who used whiteners
or tampered their OMR sheets were actually included in the
final list. Mere surmises and conjectures, it is argued, cannot
form the basis for judicial interference with a large-scale
recruitment process involving more than a thousand posts. It is
asserted that every stage of selection was conducted in
accordance with statutory procedure, and that judicial
interference in such matters must be exercised with
circumspection and restraint.
3.6. The 2nd Respondent emphasizes that recruitment of
this magnitude involves complex administrative and technical
procedures and that it is neither practicable nor legally-
permissible for this Court to substitute its judgment for that of
an expert body. The Commission, being an independent
constitutional authority, possesses the requisite institutional
competence to regulate the modalities of evaluation and to
adopt uniform standards, provided its decisions are not
arbitrary or mala fide. It is contended that no such arbitrariness
or mala fide intention has been established in the present case.
It is also stated, the selection process, culminating in
publication of final list dated 24.10.2019, has already been
acted upon, and several candidates have since been appointed
to public posts. Any interference, at this belated stage, it is
argued, would disturb settled appointments, cause
administrative chaos and adversely affect public interest. It is
thus pleaded that the doctrine of finality and administrative
stability must apply, and that Writ Petition should be dismissed
on that ground alone.
3.7. It is finally contended that petitioners, having
participated in the process without protest and awaited results,
are estopped from questioning the same after they were found
unsuccessful. They cannot approbate and reprobate, and that
their conduct disentitles them from equitable relief under Article
226 of the Constitution. For all these reasons, the 2nd
Respondent prays that Writ Petition be dismissed as devoid of
merit, as the entire selection process was conducted fairly,
lawfully, and in accordance with the judgments of this Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Heard Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for
petitioners and Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel
for TGPSC.
5. After hearing both the parties and upon careful
consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that the
central issue for determination is whether the 2nd Respondent
had acted in contravention of the binding directions of the
Division Bench and the Technical Committee's
recommendations by evaluating and including candidates who
tampered Part-B of the OMR answer sheets.
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 1, which reaffirms that public
(2024 INSC 847)
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."
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
impugned action of the 2nd respondent-TSPSC 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. No costs.
11. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
18th November 2025
ksld
