Telangana High Court
E.Shekhar Goud And 6 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 15 Others on 18 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 27787 OF 2019
O R D E R:
Petitioners filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the
arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional action of the 2nd
respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "TGSPSC"), in including, calling for
interviews and thereafter appointing certain candidates who had
admittedly committed material violations of the mandatory
instructions governing the conduct and evaluation of the Group-
II Services Examination. The said violations, particularly
scratching, tampering, erasing, and use of whiteners in Part-B
of the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets, go to the very
root of the integrity of the selection process and strike at the
foundation of merit and fairness which are the hallmarks of
public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India.
2. The case of petitioners is that the 2nd respondent
issued Notification No. 20/2015 dated 30.12.2015, inviting
Applications for recruitment to various posts under Group-II
Services in the State of Telangana. Subsequently, by
supplementary Notification No. 17/2016, dated 01.09.2016,
additional vacancies were notified, bringing the total number of
posts to 1032, distributed across 13 distinct categories of
services. The Notifications laid down the educational
qualifications, age limit and other eligibility criteria to be
satisfied by the candidates. Petitioners, being fully qualified and
eligible, applied pursuant to the said Notifications, appeared for
the written examination conducted by the 2nd respondent and
performed meritoriously therein.
2.1. It is stated, the said recruitment process was earlier
subjected to judicial scrutiny in a batch of writ petitions led by
Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017 filed by several candidates
aggrieved by the inclusion of ineligible candidates in the list
published by TGSPSC. It was contended therein that the
Commission, in disregard of its own examination instructions,
had included candidates who had committed serious
irregularities such as wrong bubbling, double bubbling, use of
whiteners, erasures, and tampering of OMR sheets. It was
further contended that such actions not only violated the
express terms of the Notification but also destroyed the sanctity
and secrecy of the examination, thereby vitiating the fairness of
the process.
2.2. It is further stated, in Writ Petition No. 18834 of
2017, after a detailed and comprehensive examination of the
entire recruitment process, the nature of irregularities alleged,
and the principles governing public recruitment, this Court
delivered a reasoned and authoritative judgment, categorically
holding that while the recruitment process as a whole could not
be annulled, candidates who had committed violations such as
tampering, erasures, and use of whiteners in Part-B of their
OMR sheets were mandatorily to be excluded from further
participation in the process. The operative portion of the said
order is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"100. CONCLUSIONS:
I. 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 mumber, 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 ofwhitener, before finalizing the list
of candidates for interview, the TSPSC shall physically verify the OMR
sheets to ascertain whether any of the candidates usedwhitener 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 ofthe stake holders, the State, the recruiting agency and the
candidates aspiring for publie 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
1) 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. vi) 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...."
2.3. The above directions, having attained finality, are
binding upon the 2nd respondent Commission, being in the
nature of mandatory directions issued in exercise of
constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The TGSPSC was, therefore, under a solemn legal obligation to
ensure strict compliance with the said directions and to exclude
all those candidates who had tampered with or used whiteners
in Part-B of their OMR answer sheets. However, contrary to the
binding ratio of the aforesaid judgment, the 2nd respondent,
with utter disregard to judicial discipline and procedural
fairness, had included and appointed several candidates who
were found to have committed acts of scratching, tampering,
erasing, or use of whiteners in Part-B of their OMR sheets.
Petitioners state that such inclusion is ex facie illegal and
resulted in manifest injustice to them. Petitioners, who were
found successful in the written examination, were included in
the 1:2 ratio list, were called for interviews on 16.07.2019,
25.07.2019, 30.07.2019, and 09.08.2019, and had every
legitimate expectation of appointment in accordance with merit.
However, their rightful claim has been defeated due to the
inclusion and appointment of candidates who stood disqualified
under the express judicial directions.
2.4. The action of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary, mala
fide, and contrary to the doctrine of equality enshrined under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It not only amounts to
non-compliance with the binding precedent of this Court but
also constitutes a clear case of discrimination against
petitioners, who have abided by the examination norms and
acted in good faith. The deliberate failure of TGSPSC to
implement the directions of this Court in letter and spirit has
vitiated the entire process of selection to the extent of inclusion
of such ineligible candidates.
3. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel
on behalf of Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for
petitioners and Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel
for the 2nd respondent.
4. In this context, it is relevant to notice that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan
High Court 1 has elaborated upon the settled principle that
"rules of the game" in public recruitment cannot be changed
midway or after the process is completed. It was held that the
(2024) INSC 847
sanctity of recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution is founded upon fairness, predictability, and
legitimate expectation. Any departure from declared norms, or
retrospective alteration of standards, would amount to
arbitrariness and violate the rule of law. The Hon'ble Court
observed that equality of opportunity and fairness in State
action are guaranteed rights, which are infringed if candidates
who are otherwise eligible and meritorious are excluded by the
employer's post facto deviation from the prescribed process. The
operative reasoning is as under:
" 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 in 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 to be guided by extraneous considerations."
5. The Hon'ble Court further clarified that the
principle of "legitimate expectation" flows from fairness in
administrative action and obligates public authorities to act
predictably and transparently. It held that:
" Candidates participating in a recruitment process have
legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non-
arbitrary. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is founded on the
principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with
individuals."
6. The ratio decidendi of Tej Prakash Pathak is that
once the recruitment process commences, neither eligibility
criteria nor evaluation procedure can be altered. The Court
harmonized its earlier decisions in K. Manjusree v. State of
A.P. 2 and State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha 3,
holding that while the State may ensure higher standards in the
interest of efficiency, it cannot retrospectively impose new
qualifications or tolerate procedural violations once the process
has started. The Hon'ble Court, speaking through Justice Manoj
Misra, categorically held as under:
" The decision in K. Manjusree does not proscribe setting of
benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process but mandates
that it should not be set after the stage is over, in other words, after the
game has already been played."
7. TGSPSC, despite judicial directions from this Court
in the earlier Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017, deviated from the
prescribed evaluation and verification process by including
candidates whose OMR sheets were tampered or whitened acts
that directly contravene the "rules of the game" and destroy
fairness in competition. TGSPSC's action amounts to
retrospective alteration of standards and constitutes a violation
(2008) 3 SCC 512
(1974) 3 SCC 220
of Articles 14 and 16, as held by the Supreme Court in Tej
Prakash Pathak.
8. Upon careful consideration of the submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds substantial
force in the contentions of petitioners. The record clearly
discloses that TGSPSC did not fully implement the directions in
Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017 regarding exclusion of
candidates who had used whiteners or tampered with Part-B.
The purported verification process conducted by the
Commission is perfunctory, mechanical, and lacks
transparency. The justification offered by respondents that
errors were minor and did not affect the fairness of the process
is wholly untenable in view of the express language of the earlier
judgment, which mandates exclusion of such candidates.
9. This Court is therefore, of the considered view that
the sanctity of a public recruitment examination is sacrosanct
and cannot be compromised on grounds of convenience or
expediency. The rule of law demands that all authorities,
particularly constitutional bodies like TGSPSC, act within the
four corners of legality and abide by the judicial directions with
utmost fidelity. Non-compliance with judicial orders not only
undermines the authority of this Court but also erodes the
public trust in the fairness of competitive examinations.
Accordingly, it is held that inclusion of candidates who have
indulged in tampering, scratching, erasing and use of whiteners
in Part-B of the OMR sheets is contrary to the binding judgment
of this Court, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. TGSPSC has acted in disregard of judicial
directives and has thereby denied the petitioners their lawful
entitlement.
10. This Court further relies on the principles
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash
Pathak that any alteration of the evaluation procedure or
selective relaxation of the disqualification parameters after
commencement of the recruitment process strikes at the core of
transparency and equal opportunity. The ratio enunciated
therein that "State action must conform to valid, relevant, and
transparent principles alike to all similarly situated candidates"
fully supports petitioners' grievance that inclusion of tampered
OMR candidates constitutes arbitrary deviation from a
judicially- settled recruitment framework.
11. In light of these binding precedents, this Court has
no hesitation in holding that TGSPSC's conduct amounts to a
clear case of violation of the "rules of the game doctrine, as
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash
Pathak and by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017
and batch. The principle that the process must be fair,
transparent and in accordance with pre-declared norms, stands
violated. This Court further observes that the constitutional
principles of equality, fairness and transparency in public
employment are not mere formalities but binding obligations on
the part of the State and its instrumentalities. Any deviation
therefrom shall invite strict judicial scrutiny and appropriate
consequences in law.
12. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned action of the 2nd respondent in calling for interviews
and appointing Respondent Nos. 3 to 16, who have been found
to have committed scratching, tampering, erasing, and use of
whiteners in Part-B of their OMR sheets, is declared illegal,
arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. The said appointments are hereby quashed and set
aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to forthwith recast the
provisional selection list by excluding all such disqualified
candidates and to include petitioners, in accordance with their
merit, for appointment to the respective posts in Group-II
Services. The entire exercise shall be completed within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. This Court further directs that TGSPSC shall,
henceforth, ensure strict adherence to the recommendations
made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017 in
paragraph 102 of his judgment, particularly relating to
maintenance of transparency, physical verification of OMR
sheets, video-recording of evaluation and publication of all
relevant details on its official website to ensure accountability
and to restore public confidence in its functioning. No costs.
14. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
18th November 2025
ksld
