Telangana High Court
Gajoji Srikanth vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 21 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION NOs.29390 AND 29717 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER :
Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one
and the same, both the Writ Petitions are being heard together
and are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not
evaluating Question Nos.67, 97, 100, and 109 of the question
paper preview dated 02.08.2024, issued on 26.09.2024, with the
correct answers to be assessed by subject experts and reference
books, and in not considering the petitioners' representations
dated 28.09.2024, 17.10.2024, and 18.10.2024 for inclusion of
their names at Serial Nos.26 and 55, respectively, in the list of
the selected candidates for the written test for the post of
Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, under Employment
Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024, these two Writ
Petitions have been filed. It is also to be noted that in Writ
Petition No.29390 of 2024, the petitioner is aggrieved by the
non-evaluation of Question Nos.67, 97 and 109, whereas in Writ
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
Petition No.29717 of 2024, the petitioner is aggrieved by the
non-evaluation of Question Nos.67, 97, 100 and 109. Except for
the additional grievance relating to Question No.100 in the latter
petition, the issue involved in both Writ Petitions is identical.
3. Heard Sri S.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government
Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in
response to Employment Notification No.02/2024 dated
15.05.2024 issued by respondent No.1 inviting applications from
eligible candidates for recruitment to executive and non-
executive posts, the petitioners applied for Executive Cadre post
serial No.1 i.e., Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade.
Subsequently, the petitioners appeared for the computer based
test held on 07.08.2024 with Hall Ticket Nos.221117100437 and
221112100443, respectively. Thereafter, the respondents
released the question paper preview dated 02.08.2024 on
26.09.2024. As per the preview, the petitioners secured 88 and
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
85 marks, respectively. However, upon verification, the
petitioners found that the answers to Question Nos.67 (ID
No.630680120673), 97 (ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID
No.63068093720), and 109 (ID No.63068079508) were incorrect.
Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to an additional three
and four marks, respectively, thereby enhancing their scores to
91 (88+3) and 89 (85+4). Therefore, the petitioners submitted
their objections on 28.09.2024 through e-mail.
(b) It is further submitted that on 08.10.2024, the
respondents released the online provisional merit list of qualified
candidates pertaining to the aforesaid notification, wherein the
petitioners were shown at Serial Nos.66 and 140 with 88 and 85
marks, respectively. It is contended that the petitioners belong
to BC-B and BC-A communities and that if three and four marks
are added to their respective scores, their totals would increase
to 91 and 89 marks, thereby placing their names at Serial
Nos.26 and 55 respectively. In such circumstances, the
petitioners are fully entitled to be considered for appointment on
merit to the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade.
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
Therefore, the petitioners submitted representations dated
28.09.2024, 17.10.2024 and 18.10.2024 to the respondents,
stating that the answers to Question Nos.67 (ID
No.630680120673), 97 (ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID
No.63068093720) and 109 (ID No.63068079508) in the question
paper preview dated 02.08.2024 were incorrect and requested to
review the same by subject experts, award the correct marks
and issue a revised merit list reflecting their placement at Serial
Nos.26 and 55 for selection to the post of Executive Cadre serial
No.1, Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. However, no
action has been taken by the respondents so far. Therefore, the
action of the respondents in not evaluating the questions and
not referring the same to the Expert Committee is illegal,
arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of
natural justice.
5. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents submits that the entire recruitment process
of Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024 was entrusted to
M/s. Educational Consultants (India) Limited (EdCIL), a Central
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
Public Sector Enterprise that conducts recruitment tests for
various Central and State Government organizations, pursuant
to the MoU dated 23.03.2024.
(b) The petitioners submitted their online applications
for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, and
were subsequently issued Call Letters bearing Hall Ticket
Nos.221117100437 and 221112100443 to appear for the
computer based test held on 07.08.2024. The response sheets
were displayed on 13.08.2024 and the objections from
candidates regarding the response sheet were accepted up to
15.08.2024 with 441 objections received for the post of
Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. This includes the
objections raised for Question Nos.67 (ID No.630680120673), 97
(ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID No.63068093720) and 109 (ID
No.63068079508).
(c) In this connection, M/s.EdCIL constituted a Subject
Expert Committee comprising the following members to examine
the objections received from the candidates:
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
Sl. Highest
Designation Experience Institution
No. Qualification
Government
Post
1. Lecturer 9 years Polytechnic College,
Graduate Pallakad, Kerala
Pandit Deendayal
Petroleum
Assistant
2. 10 years Doctorate University,
Professor Gandhinagar,
Gujarat
SGI Engineering
College, affiliated to
Assistant Post
3. 10 years Bikaner Technical
Professor Graduate University, Sikar,
Rajasthan
The above Committee was provided with the preliminary
key and the objections received, which were thoroughly
examined and reviewed. After detailed analysis and reference to
relevant literature, textbooks and materials, the Committee
suggested necessary corrections for the valid objections in the
preliminary key and the final key was displayed on 26.09.2024,
after incorporating the corrections suggested by the Expert
Committee. Subsequently, the provisional merit list for the post
of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, was published on
08.10.2024. Thereafter, the selected candidates were called for
certificate verification on 05.11.2024 and the candidates, within
the zone of selection, were issued appointment orders on
06.11.2024. The petitioners had secured 88 and 85 marks
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
respectively in the computer based test held on 07.08.2024 and
were placed at 66th and 140th ranks in the provisional merit list,
which fell short of the marks necessary for selection. It is also
submitted that the answers to Question Nos.67, 97, 100, and
109 were duly revised in the final key only after a detailed review
by the Expert Committee constituted by M/s. EdCIL. Therefore,
there are no merits in these Writ Petitions. Hence, learned
Special Government Pleader prays this Court to dismiss these
two Writ Petitions.
6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by
learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the material
available on record.
7. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners had
applied for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade,
pursuant to Employment Notification No.02/2024 dated
15.05.2024 and were subsequently issued Call Letters bearing
Hall Ticket Nos.221117100437 and 221112100443 to appear for
the computer based test held on 07.08.2024. The response
sheets for the said test were displayed on 13.08.2024 and the
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
candidates were given an opportunity to submit objections
regarding the preliminary answer key up to 15.08.2024. A total
of 441 objections were received for the post of Management
Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, which includes Question Nos.67 (ID
No.630680120673), 97 (ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID
No.63068093720) and 109 (ID No.63068079508).
8. In this regard, M/s. EdCIL, a Central Public Sector
Enterprise entrusted with conducting the entire recruitment
process pursuant to the MoU dated 23.03.2024, had constituted
a Subject Expert Committee to examine the objections raised by
the candidates. The Expert Committee was provided with the
preliminary answer key and all the objections received from the
candidates. The Committee undertook a detailed examination
and review of the objections, referring to relevant literature,
textbooks and study materials to ensure accuracy. Based on its
thorough analysis, the Committee suggested necessary
corrections to the valid objections identified in the preliminary
key. The details of the objections received on the preliminary
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
key and the action taken in respect of Question Nos.67, 97, 100,
and 109 are as follows:
Obj
ecti
Ques
Answer in ons Action Answer in
tion Question ID Reference
Preliminary Key Rec Taken Final Key
No.
eive
d
Answer Control Systems
630680467667 630680467669 Engineering, Author:
67 630680120673
3 key
(4) Norman S. Nise,
changed Publication: Wiley
Answer Control Systems
630680401163 630680401165 Engineering, Author:
97 630680103226
24 key
(3) Norman S. Nise,
changed Publication: Wiley
Answer Control Systems
630680363576 630680363575 Engineering, Author:
100 63068093720
5 key
(1) Norman S. Nise,
changed Publication: Wiley
A Course in Electrical
Answer and Electronic
630680308071 630680308072 Measurements and
109 630680308071
3 key Instrumentation, A.K.
changed Sawhney, 19th
Edition, Page 352
9. Thereafter, the final answer key incorporating the
corrections recommended by the Expert Committee was
published on 26.09.2024. Following this, the provisional merit
list for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, was
published on 08.10.2024 and the candidates who fell within the
zone of selection were called for certificate verification on
05.11.2024, and the appointment orders were subsequently
issued on 06.11.2024.
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
10. Here, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to certain
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down the law on
the role of Expert Committees in examination and recruitment
matters:
11. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and
we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions.
They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or
scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the
authority conducting the examination may permit it;
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;
(2018) 2 SCC 357
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
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.
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul
Singh 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the
candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is
incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally
apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to
show that the key answer is wrong. The constitutional courts
must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be
reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the
key answers. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court
recommended a system of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
2 (2018) 7 SCC 254
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions
and no marks be assigned to such questions.
13. As far as the present case is concerned, even before
publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got
the key answers moderated by two Expert Committees.
Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26-member Committee
was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise
the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in
2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that
these Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for
which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the
role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate
demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the
face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh
the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then
come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is better or
more correct.
14. In the present case, we find that all the three questions
needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has
noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by
certain textbooks. When there are conflicting views, then the
court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are
not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they
must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their
jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts."
(emphasis supplied)
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
(iii) In Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 3, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Expert Committee,
constituted for validation of the answer key, had examined all
the objections raised by the appellants and had provided
satisfactory clarifications. The Commission accepted the Report
of the Expert Committee and revised the results accordingly. The
Court held that the recommendations of the Expert Committee,
once accepted by the Commission, are to be implemented.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, in the instant case, it is
evident that the issues raised in respect of Question Nos.67, 97,
100 and 109 were thoroughly examined and addressed by the
Expert Committee constituted for the purpose. The final answer
key and provisional merit list were published only after careful
scrutiny and correction by the experts, strictly in accordance
with the rules, regulations and procedures governing the
examination. The petitioners, having secured 88 and 85 marks
respectively in the computer-based test, were placed at 66th and
140th ranks in the provisional merit list, which were insufficient
3 (2018) 8 SCC 81
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
for selection. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
recruitment process was conducted following all the prescribed
procedures and under expert scrutiny, ensuring fairness and
transparency.
13. As consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran
Vijay Singh's case (1 supra), Rahul Singh's case (2 supra),
and Richal's case (3 supra), the Courts must exercise restraint
in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters and
should intervene only in cases of patent, glaring or material
errors, which are not present in the instant case. In view of the
above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no
merits in these two Writ Petitions and are liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, these two Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ
Petitions shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 21.11.2025
TMK
PK,J
wp_29390 & 29717_2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION NOs.29390 AND 29717 OF 2024
Date : 21.11.2025
TMK
