Telangana High Court

Dachepaili Deekshit Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 18 November, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

              WRIT PETITION No. 20832 OF 2019

O R D E R:

Petitioners filed this Writ Petition to declare the

result notification for interviews dated 21.06.2019 in respect of

Notification Nos. 20/2015 and 17/2016 issued by the 2nd

respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission as

arbitrary, illegal and contrary to even the Division Bench

judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and batch and by

nullifying the same, direct preparation of fresh list by deleting

all those OMRs. where Part - B was tampered /

scratched/erased/whitenered or otherwise dealt with.

2. The case of petitioners is that the 2nd respondent,

in exercise of its powers as the recruiting authority, had issued

Notification No.20/2015 dated 30.12.2015 inviting Applications

for recruitment to various posts under Group-II Services.

Subsequently, Supplementary Notification No.17/2016 dated

01.09.2016 was issued, adding further vacancies, thereby

bringing the total number of notified posts to 1032 across

thirteen categories of posts. Petitioners, being eligible and

qualified candidates belonging to BC category, applied for the

said posts and participated in the written examination. Though

one of the petitioners found place in the selection list, remaining

petitioners, despite being more meritorious, were pushed

downward in the final merit list due to the unlawful inclusion of

candidates whose OMR sheets were tainted and who had

violated the explicit examination instructions prescribed by

Telangana State Public Service Commission itself.

2.1. The issue relating to conduct of recruitment process

and evaluation of OMR sheets pursuant to Notification Nos.

20/2015 and 17/2016 had earlier been the subject matter of

detailed adjudication before this Court in Writ Petition No.18834

of 2017 filed by one Sri V. Ramachandra Reddy and others. The

said Writ Petition questioned the inclusion of candidates, who

had committed violations such as wrong bubbling, double

bubbling, non-bubbling, use of whiteners or erasers, or

tampering of OMR sheets. After an elaborate hearing and

detailed analysis of the record, by a well-reasoned judgment,

this Court, while upholding the validity of recruitment

notification itself, issued comprehensive and binding directions

to State Public Service Commission to ensure fairness,

transparency and accountability in the recruitment process. It

was further held that all the candidates who had tampered or

used whiteners or erasers on their OMR sheets were liable to be

excluded from further consideration and directed the

Commission to physically verify such OMR sheets to ensure that

only eligible candidates were retained for the process of

certificate verification and interview. The operative portion of

the order Writ Petition No.18834 of 2017 is extracted hereunder

for ready reference:

"100. CONCLUSIONS:

1. There is no infirmity in the selection process to conduct recruitment to Group II service pursuant to recruitment notification No.20 of 2015 dated 30.12.2015, per se to hold that selection process is vitiated.

Selection process cannot be held as vitiated merely because the OMR sheets of few candidates who have committed errors such as, wrong bubbling, no bubbling or double bubbling of the information relating to Roll number, question paper booklet number, used Whiteners/ used Erasers were evaluated. Such candidates are identifiable and can be separated. The candidates who have committed such mistakes can be excluded and rest of the selection process can be continued.

2. The candidates who have committed errors in bubbling, such as wrong bubbling, no bubbling or double bubbling of the information relating to Roll number, question paper booklet number, centre code etc used whiteners/ used Erasers, shall be excluded from consideration for certificate verification process in the ratio of 1: 3 and for subjecting them to interview in the ratio of 1: 2. TSPSC may continue selection process after excluding the candidates referred to above.

3. Exclusion of few questions, change of answers in revised final key and prescribing more than one option as valid do not vitiate the selection process on that ground.

4. TSPSC shall exclude Question No. 111 of Paper III: CD series and question No.93 of paper IV: CD series. This is in addition to questions already excluded.

5. TSPSC shall treat option No. 3 in question No.113 of Paper IV: CD series only as valid answer.

6. TSPSC shall re-evaluate the merit of candidates after excluding Question No. 111 of Paper III: CD series and question No.93 of paper IV:

CD series and treating Option '3' only as the correct answer to Question No. 113 of Paper IV: CD series to arrive at the final list of candidates for certificate verification in the ratio of 1: 3.

7. For the questions which are deleted, only those candidates who have attempted the said questions should be awarded marks.

8. As substantial number of candidates are to be excluded and two additional questions are to be deleted and for one question answer changes, there is no certainty as to who would be in the final list of candidates called in the ratio of 1:3 for certificate verification. Therefore, the contention of special Government Pleader that petitioners are not in the zone of consideration even after excluding some candidates and that petitioners have not suffered legal injury and therefore no adjudication is required on various contentions urged is stated to be rejected.

9. As the committee of senior advocates opined that the OMR machine reader was not recognizing the use of whitener, before finalizing the list of candidates for interview, the TSPSC shall physically verify the OMR sheets to ascertain whether any of the candidates used whitener to change the answers in Part -B and personal particulars in Part-A and exclude candidates who have used whiteners. The proceedings of such verification should be conducted in the presence of Member-Secretary and two members of the TSPSC; should be video graphed; and be stored at least for a period of six months after finalization of selections.

10. If any candidate applies for verification of his OMR sheet, images of such candidate's manual verification of OMR sheet be captured and furnished to him/her.

101. Before parting with this case, Court deems it necessary to make following observations. Whenever recruitment is taken up, Court is flooded with litigation on various aspects, about eligibility criteria, which include educational qualifications, equation of qualifications, age, social status, creamy layer and local candidature claim in terms of Presidential order: parameters of evaluation of OMR sheets; prescribing answers, short listing of candidates; and final merit list. There is lack of transparency in all these aspects leading to doubts in the minds of

candidates, compelling them to seek legal remedy. The litigation is not helping any of the stake holders, the State, the recruiting agency and the candidates aspiring for public employment

102. Transparent procedure shall be the hallmark of selection to public employment. It is high time the TSPSC undertakes through review of procedures and shall put in place transparent mechanism, few of which are mentioned here under:

i) A fully functional web site which shall contain the Service Rules which regulate recruitment in general, relevant provisions of the Presidential Order and special rules which govern particular post;

ii) Through revision of questions and appropriate answer before they are finally identified.

iii) Clear instructions on bubbling of circles and carrying of prohibited instruments and firm policy on issue of evaluation of OMR sheets of candidates who have committed such errors be put in place.

iv) Awareness campaign be put in place to enlighten candidates the importance of bubbling the circles and consequences of errors committed by them and/or use of prohibited instruments. PSC can explore possibility of hosting a video on website on bubbling aspects.

v) The Chief Superintendents and Invigilators be given proper training on various aspects of conducting examination. A video can be made to demonstrate to them and also hosted on the website vij Preliminary key be notified soon after the examination is conducted

vii) After preliminary key is published and objections are called, a through and proper review of questions and answers be undertaken and finalise the key answers. TSPSC shall not indulge in changing the answers again and again.

viii) Video graphing of entire process of evaluation of OMR sheets in addition to taking the images and preserving the images.

ix) Publishing the merit list containing all details of candidates on the web site including names, hall ticket number, social status, local candidate status, marks secured, educational qualifications with option to all candidates to search for the information required and to download the matter.

x) Strictly follow procedure to conduct selections and to prepare final merit list as per TSPSC Procedure Rules, particularly Rule 6-A.

xi) Create a web-based platform to clear all doubts to candidates/to redress grievance on any issue and minimize the candidates visiting the office of TSPSC...."

2.2. It is stated, the said judgment laid down the

binding principle that any candidate who tampered, erased or

used whiteners on their OMR sheet, particularly in Part-B which

contains answers, must be excluded from further stages of

selection. Respondent No. 2 further directed to ensure physical

verification of all such OMR sheets and to exclude the offending

candidates before proceeding to the interview stage and that

this Court had also observed that transparency and procedural

fairness were to be the cornerstones of public recruitment and

had issued wide-ranging directions to prevent recurrence of

irregularities and ensure that sanctity of competitive

examinations is maintained.

2.3. It is further stated that against the aforesaid

judgment of the learned Single Judge, several Writ Appeals were

preferred by the aggrieved candidates; one among them being

Writ Appeal No.1667 of 2018 and batch, which was heard and

disposed of by a Division Bench. The Division Bench, while

upholding the essential reasoning of the learned Single Judge,

clarified that Telangana State Public Service Commission could

condone certain minor clerical or technical mistakes committed

in other parts of the OMR sheets, but the finding regarding

tampering of Part-B, portion concerning answers, remained

undisturbed. The Division Bench did not extend any benefit to

those candidates who had tampered Part-B or used whiteners to

alter their answers.

2.4. Petitioners further state that such conduct on the

part of the Commission amounts to altering the evaluation

standards after the conclusion of the recruitment process. This

practice has been expressly condemned by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in its recent authoritative judgment in Tej Prakash

Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court 1, wherein the well-

established principle that "the rules of the game cannot be

changed midway or after the game is played" was affirmed. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any alteration in recruitment

norms or evaluation criteria after commencement of completion

of the process offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and

is constitutionally impermissible.

2.5. It is the further case of petitioners that facts and

circumstances of the present Writ Petition squarely attract the

2024 INSC 847

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej

Prakash Pathak. The said decision has comprehensively

reaffirmed the constitutional principle that rules of the game

cannot be changed mid-way through or after the game has been

played, and that any such deviation in the process of public

employment offends the equality clause enshrined under

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2.6. In Tej Prakash Pathak, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court considered a situation where selection authority altered

the standards of evaluation after commencement of the

recruitment process. The Court, after examining a catena of

earlier precedents including K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra

Pradesh 2 and State of Haryana v. Subash Chander

Marwaha 3, held that transparency, fairness, and adherence to

pre-declared norms are the bedrock of constitutional

recruitment. The Court further held that the rule against

arbitrariness forbids the State or any public authority from

modifying eligibility conditions, benchmarks, or evaluation

standards once the process has commenced or concluded.

2.7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while delineating the

doctrine against post facto modification, held that prohibition on

(2008) 3 SCC 512

(1974) 3 SCC 220

changing rules midstream is a logical corollary of the equality

mandated in Article 14 and the guarantee of equal opportunity

under Article 16. The relevant portion of the judgment is

extracted hereunder:

" 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 gives effect to the concept of equality in all matters relating to public employment. These two Articles strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid and relevant principles alike to all similarly situated and not guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations."

"Candidates participating in a recruitment process have a legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non-arbitrary. The doctrine of legitimate expectation recognises that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure."

"The criterion for selection is not to be changed after completion of the selection process. The Selection Committee may fix minimum marks either for written examination or interview, but if such minimum marks are fixed, it must be done before commencement of the selection process. What is impermissible is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process when the entire selection proceeded on a different basis."

"The appointing authority, in absence of rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and may set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process, but if any such benchmark is set, it must be stipulated before the commencement of the process. If the benchmark or cut-off is fixed

after the stage is over, it would amount to changing the rules of the game, which violates Article 14."

2.8. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the above case directly and unequivocally applies to the

present matter. Petitioners state that in Writ Petition No. 18834

of 2017, this Court categorically directed Telangana State Public

Service Commission to exclude from selection process all the

candidates who had committed irregularities such as wrong

bubbling, double bubbling, or who had tampered or used

whiteners/erasers on their OMR answer sheets, particularly in

Part-B of the examination booklet. Despite such clear judicial

directions, Public Service Commission, while publishing the

final result notification dated 21.06.2019, unilaterally altered

the operative parameters of evaluation by including candidates

who had admittedly tampered or whitened Part-B of their OMR

answer sheets. This inclusion represents a post facto relaxation

of disqualification criteria that had already been judicially

settled.

2.9. Applying the said principle to the present case, it is

evident that Public Service Commission, having already

undertaken recruitment under a judicially-determined

framework, could not retrospectively alter or relax the standards

to include candidates previously disqualified on account of

tampering of OMR sheets. Such inclusion represents an

impermissible post facto change, thereby vitiating the entire

process. Petitioners therefore, state that the conduct of the

Public Service Commission is wholly arbitrary, illegal and

unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it amounts to clear violation

of the binding judicial directions issued by this Court in Writ

Petition No. 18834 of 2017, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Division

Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1667 of 2018 and batch. By including

candidates who had admittedly tampered or used whiteners on

Part-B of their OMR sheets, respondent No.2 has, in effect,

altered and relaxed the evaluation standards after conclusion of

the recruitment process, thereby changing the very Rules of the

game midstream, in direct contravention of the doctrine laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak.

Such arbitrary deviation from judicially-prescribed norms not

only undermines the sanctity of a fair and transparent selection

process but also infringes Petitioners' fundamental rights

guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by

depriving them of fair, equal and merit-based consideration

under the previously settled criteria.

2.10. However, it is stated, while publishing the final list

dated 21.06.2019 in the ratio of 1:2, Respondent No. 2 included

even those candidates who had themselves admitted before this

Court in Writ Appeal No. 1667 of 2018 to have tampered or

altered Part-B of their OMR sheets. Inclusion of such names,

including those of Kranthi Kumar Maddhi (H. No. 2009097333),

Ameen Reddy P. (H. No. 2007022847), Chinthakuntla Shailaja

(H. No. 2008040598) and P. Ashok Kumar (H. No. 2009127643),

in the list of candidates shortlisted for interview is in direct

violation of the judgments of both the learned Single Judge and

the Hon'ble Division Bench. Petitioners further apprehend that

there are several more such ineligible candidates, estimated to

be around fifty, who have been wrongly included in the said list

by virtue of the respondent's arbitrary and negligent actions.

2.11. Petitioners further state that Public Service

Commission, without conducting the mandatory physical

verification of OMR sheets and without differentiating between

minor errors and deliberate tampering, extended the benefit of

the Division Bench judgment indiscriminately to all the

candidates, thereby condoning even the most serious acts of

manipulation. Respondent have thus not only misinterpreted

the scope of the Division Bench's decision but also acted in

contemptuous disregard of the spirit and substance of the

binding judicial directions. This act of the respondent amounts

to a deliberate dilution of the integrity of recruitment process

and undermines the faith of the public in the sanctity of

competitive examinations.

2.12. It is stated further by Petitioners that the entire

process adopted by respondent is arbitrary, discriminatory and

unsustainable in law. Inclusion of tainted candidates, who had

admittedly tampered their OMR sheets, nullifies the principle of

meritocracy and violates the rights of petitioners under Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court in Writ Petition No.

18834 of 2017, emphasizing exclusion of tampered OMR sheets

and physical verification, aimed at ensuring fairness,

transparency and legitimacy in recruitment. Respondent No.2's

deviation from these directives has rendered the entire process

vulnerable to judicial interference. This Court's words that

"transparent procedure shall be the hallmark of selection to

public employment" resonate profoundly in the present case, as

the respondent's opaque and arbitrary approach has produced

precisely the kind of confusion and injustice which the earlier

judgment sought to prevent.

3. The case of Respondent No.2 is that the present

Writ Petition is misconceived, untenable and not maintainable

either in law or on facts, as the issues raised by petitioners

stand concluded by the binding judgments of this Court and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is urged that legality and validity of

recruitment process to Group-II Services, which forms the very

subject matter of this Writ Petition, has already been

comprehensively adjudicated by the Division Bench of this

Court in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and batch vide judgment

dated 03.06.2019, and that the said judgment has been upheld

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upon dismissal of S.L.P. (Civil)

Diary No.23878 of 2019 and S.L.P. (C) No.16999 of 2019 on

22.07.2019. it is therefore, stated that the present proceedings,

which seek to reopen and re-agitate the settled issues, are an

abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed at the

threshold.

3.1. It is further contended that the Commission has

acted strictly in compliance with the directions issued by the

Division Bench, which had modified certain portions of the

order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

No.18834 of 2017. It is stated that paragraphs 100.1, 100.2 and

100.9 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which

directed the Commission to undertake physical verification of

OMR sheets and to exclude candidates who had used whiteners

or erasers, were expressly set aside by the Division Bench. The

Hon'ble Division Bench, while analysing the material placed

before it, including the reports of the Technical Committee and

the Sub-Committee constituted by the Commission, observed

that the alleged discrepancies were not attributable to any mala

fide conduct of the candidates but were primarily result of

administrative lapses on the part of invigilators in certain

examination centers. It is asserted that the Division Bench,

recognizing the bona fides of the Commission, accepted the

corrective measures taken by the Commission and authorized it

to proceed with the recruitment process based on the Technical

Committee report dated 09.03.2017, which had been prepared

after a scientific review of the scanning and evaluation

procedure.

3.2. It is contended that the Commission, being a

constitutional recruiting authority, acted within its jurisdiction

and in discharge of its statutory duty while implementing the

recommendations of the Technical Committee and the directions

of the Hon'ble Division Bench. In pursuance thereof, the

Commission prepared and published the final merit list in the

ratio of 1:2 for interviews on 21.06.2019, following an

automated, technology-driven process of OMR evaluation,

entirely free from manual interference. It is submitted that the

OMR answer sheets were evaluated through a fully

computerized scanning system using fixed threshold values for

bubble density, thereby ensuring uniformity, accuracy, and

transparency. The software automatically invalidates questions

where multiple bubbles or insufficient markings are detected,

leaving no scope for subjective discretion or human error.

Hence, the allegation of arbitrary inclusion of tampered OMRs is

devoid of substance.

3.3. It is further contended that the contention of

petitioners that candidates who had used whiteners or erasers

were wrongly included is factually incorrect and legally-

untenable. They deny that any candidate who had altered Part-

B of the OMR sheet was deliberately retained or favoured. It is

stated, the so called "tampering" relied upon by petitioners is

nothing but misinterpretation of minor technical irregularities,

which were already identified and accounted for by the

Technical Committee and accepted by the Hon'ble Division

Bench as not warranting disqualification. The Commission has

uniformly applied the same evaluation standards to all

candidates and has maintained parity and fairness throughout

the process.

3.4. It is also contended that reliance placed by

petitioners on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Tej Prakash Pathak's case is misplaced and inapplicable to

the facts of the present case. The said judgment pertains to a

situation where selection authority altered the prescribed

criteria midway through the recruitment process, whereas in the

instant case, there has been no alteration of criteria or

evaluation method. On the contrary, the Telangana State Public

Service Commission merely implemented the judicial directions

of the Hon'ble Division Bench and the findings of expert

committees constituted under its supervision. The respondents

thus submit that there has been no "change of rules of the

game" as alleged, but rather a lawful adherence to the judicially

settled procedure intended to rectify administrative irregularities

and ensure equal treatment of candidates.

3.5. Respondent No.2 also contended that this Writ

Petition suffers from gross delay and laches, inasmuch as

interviews were completed between 01.07.2019 and 27.08.2019,

and the final results were published on 24.10.2019, leading to

further administrative processes for appointment. Any

interference with recruitment process at this belated stage

would cause grave administrative inconvenience, disrupt the

appointment of meritorious candidates, and create unnecessary

uncertainty in public employment. It is therefore, emphasized

that the Commission has acted bona fide, without malice or

discrimination and adhered to every judicial and technical

guideline to uphold the sanctity of the selection process. It is

therefore, stated that the allegations of arbitrariness, illegality,

or discrimination are wholly-unfounded. The impugned result

notification dated 21.06.2019 was issued strictly in accordance

with the binding judgment of the Division Bench dated

03.06.2019 and in faithful compliance with the

recommendations of the Technical Committee and Sub-

Committee constituted by the Commission. It is thus prayed

that Writ Petition, being devoid of merit and an attempt to

unsettle settled issues, be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. Heard Dr.P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for

petitioners as well as Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing

Counsel for the Commission.

5. This Court finds considerable merit in the

contentions advanced on behalf of petitioners. The record clearly

discloses that Respondent No. 2 while issuing the impugned

final result list dated 21.06.2019, had acted in blatant disregard

of the binding judicial directions issued by this Court in Writ

Petition No.18834 of 2017 and as affirmed by the Hon'ble

Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1667 of 2018 and batch. The

learned Single Judge had categorically held that all the

candidates who had tampered, erased, scratched or used

whiteners on their OMR sheets, particularly in Part-B thereof,

must be excluded from further stages of selection process. The

Division Bench, while affirming the said principle, only

permitted condonation of minor clerical errors in other parts of

the OMR sheet but did not dilute the embargo on tampered

OMRs. However, the Commission, while preparing the final list,

had deliberately included the names of candidates who had

admittedly tampered with their OMR sheets, thereby violating

the spirit and mandate of the judicial orders governing the

process.

6. This Court is also fortified in its view by the

authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Tej Prakash Pathak, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court

reiterated that 'the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-

way or after the game is played'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

further emphasized that once recruitment process has been

initiated under declared or judicially-settled standards, any

subsequent alteration or relaxation of those standards offends

the constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness under

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The ratio of the

said judgment squarely applies to the present case, as the

Telangana State Public Service Commission, having already

undertaken recruitment under a judicially-determined

framework, could not have retrospectively altered the

disqualification criteria so as to include candidates whose OMR

sheets were previously held tampered.

7. Such conduct of Respondent No. 2 - Telangana

State Public Service Commission amounts to not only willful

disobedience of judicial directions but also violation of the rule

against arbitrariness and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

Inclusion of tainted candidates destroys the transparency and

fairness expected in public employment, undermines

meritocracy and erodes public confidence in the sanctity of

competitive recruitment. Accordingly, this Court holds that the

impugned result notification dated 21.06.2019 issued by the 2nd

Respondent, insofar as it includes candidates whose OMR

answer sheets were tampered, erased, scratched or whitened, is

arbitrary. illegal, and unconstitutional and is liable to be set

aside.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The

impugned result notification dated 21.06.2019 is hereby

quashed and set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to recast

the final merit list strictly in accordance with the directions

issued in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017, by excluding all the

candidates whose OMR sheets, particularly Part-B, were

tampered, erased, scratched or whitened and to complete the

process of finalization of a fresh merit list and publication of

results within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

8.1. The 2nd respondent is further directed to ensure

that process of physical verification of OMR sheets is

undertaken under the direct supervision of senior officers of the

Commission in accordance with the safeguards enumerated by

this Court in earlier orders, including video documentation of

the verification process, preservation of the footage, and

publication of the revised merit list in a transparent manner

accessible to all candidates.

8.2. The 2nd Respondent is cautioned to scrupulously

adhere to the binding judicial directions of this Court and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in all future recruitment exercises,

failing which serious view shall be taken for any deviation

therefrom. No costs.

9. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

18th November 2025

ksld