Telangana High Court
Kandlakunta Srujan Mourya, vs The State Of Telangana, on 9 September, 2025
1 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.11439, 8658, 9032, 9965, 10531,
10927, 12206, 12338, 12819, 13221, 16653 and 18556
of 2025
% 09 --09--2025
# Paramesh Matta and others.
...Petitioners
$ The State of Telangana and others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Smt.B.Rachana Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel
representing Mohd.Baseer
Riyaz and others
^Counsel for Respondents : Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel representing
Sri.P.S.Rajasekhar, learned
Standing Counsel for TGPSC
and others.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1.2025 (5) SCC Online SC 719
2.2021 (4) SCC 631
3.2010 (6) SCC 614
4.2019 (20) SCC17
5.2020 (19) SCC 430
6.2021(16) SCC 217
7.2007 (3) SCC 720
8.1980 AIR SC 2141
2 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
9.2007 (1) SCC 603
10.SLP (Civil).No. 23141 of 2024
11.Civil Appeal No.13806 of 2024
12.1970 (1) SCC 613
13.2011 (8) SCC 497
14.2006 (8) SCC 381
15.2022 (8) SCC 713
16.2011 (12) SCC 85
17.2024 (7) SCC 262
18.2005 (13) SCC 749
19.1990 (3) SCC 157
20.2004 (6) SCC 786
21.2018 (2) SCC 357
22.2023 (17) SCC 147
23.2024 (9) SCC 743
24.2008 (4) SCC 619
25.2015 (1) SCC 493
26.1986 (4) SCC 566
27.2013 (1) SCC 524
28.2003 (2) SCC 132
29.2012 (1) SCC 157
30.1985 (4) SCC 417
31.1995( 3) SCC 486
32.2024 SCC Online 724
33.2003 (7) SCC 285
34.2021 (5) SCC 1
35.2022 SCC Online SC 1706.
3 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION Nos. 11439, 8658, 9032, 9965, 10531,
10927, 12206, 12338, 12819, 13221, 16653 and 18556
of 2025
Between:
Paramesh Matta and others
...Petitioners
The State of Telangana and others. ... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 09.09.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
_______________________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
4 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos. 11439, 8658, 9032, 9965, 10531,
10927, 12206, 12338, 12819, 13221, 16653 and
18556 of 2025
COMMON ORDER :
-
The issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the
same with regard to the conducting of Group-I mains
examinations from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 by the Telangana
Public Service Commission (TGPSC) i.e. 2nd respondent
(hereinafter referred as "Commission"), seeking different reliefs.
After hearing all the counsels, this Court is inclined to pass a
common order in all these writ petitions.
2. The primary issue involved in majority of the writ petitions is
with regard to questioning the evaluation method and several
irregularities, such as, procedural and evaluation (lack of
transparency, fairness, wrong doing, arbitrariness and deviating
the Rules) in conducting the examinations, which leads to filing of
these writ petitions. The action of the respondent authorities
undermines the sanctity of Group-I Mains Examination.
5 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
3. Heard Mrs.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Mohd.Baseer Riyaz, Sri M.Surender Rao, learned
Senior Counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju,
Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri G.S.Prasen, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri S.Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners.
4. Sri D.Ramulu, Sri T.R.V.S.S.S.Prasad, Shreyas Reddy,
Ms.Aravind Mathuri, M.S.anirudh Sadhu, Ch.Sravani, Sri
G.Bhasker Reddy, Smt.A.Anitha, Mr.D.Rama Krishna, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and they adopted the
petitioners' Senior Counsels arguments.
5. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the
Commission/TGPSC.
6. While the arguments are in progress, Sri. D.Prakash Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sriram Polali,
Sri.Dr.K.Lakshminarasimha and Sri Pudattu Amarender, learned
6 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents in
W.P.Nos.11439, 12206, 12819 and 13221 of 2025.
Submissions of Petitioners' Counsels.
Mrs.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri Mohd.Baseer Riyaz in W.P.No.11439 of 2025, submits as
follows :-
7. The Commission issued Notification No.02/2024, dated
19.02.2024, for Group-I Services notifying 563 vacancies in
different categories. All the petitioners were issued with hall
tickets for the Prelims Examination, which were held on
09.06.2024 and they have qualified the prelims examination.
However, the respondents have issued second hall tickets with
new hall ticket numbers to all the petitioners for mains
examination scheduled from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024.
8. In terms of letter No.134/Exams/Grp-I/2024, dated
01.10.2024 issued by the Secretary to the Commissioner of Police,
45 centres were allotted for the Mains examination. Subsequently,
the number of centres were increased 45 to 46 centres vide letter
dated 07.10.2024. After completion of the mains examination, the
7 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
results were released and the candidates were allowed to view
their individual subject wise marks in their respective logins
alone. The petitioners were allotted less marks when compared to
the other candidates, who were systematically lower in merit.
9. After announcement of the marks in the mains examination,
the petitioners came to know certain strange inconsistencies in
the results and the manner of conducting the examination. The
respondents' response clearly reflects the serious irregularities
committed by them. According to the respondents their own press
release, the petitioners came to know that the total candidates,
who appeared in the Mains examination were 21,075 (excluding
18 sports persons). However, very strangely, according to the
marks list of mains examination, which was issued by the
Commission on 30.03.2025, a total of 21,085 (excluding 18 sports
persons) candidates came to be listed, who seem to have received
their marks along with hall tickets. The respondents' Commission
has no answer to the irregularity as to how the number of
candidates increased, who appeared for the Mains examination,
have received their results suddenly by increasing ten (10)
candidates compared to the information provided by the
8 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Commission, which shows that the discrepancies and
irregularities were committed by the Commission while evaluating
the main papers. When a similar irregularity and disparity in the
conduct of Group-I examination was questioned earlier in
W.P.No.15811 of 2023, this Court cancelled the Group-I
Notification.
10. Two different hall ticket numbers were issued to the
candidates for Prelims and Mains examination. Owing to such
change in hall ticket numbers from Prelims to Mains, it is difficult
to trace the additional ten candidates whose hall tickets are
included in the General Ranking List (GRL) and the said
procedure is alien and new.
11. After announcement of the main examination results,
recounting option was provided to a candidate upon payment of
Rs.1,000/- for each subject. All the petitioners have applied for
recounting of marks.
12. A biased approach was being followed by allocating only
women to one centre and only men to other centre. For example,
Center Code Nos.18 and 19 were allotted to only women, whereas
9 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Center Code No.27 was allotted to only men. The biased allotment
of examination centres based on gender is against Articles 14 and
15 of the Constitution of India.
13. If the Commission has followed randomization in the
allotment of centers to candidates, then how only the male
candidates are allotted to one center and female candidates are
allotted to other center.
14. A total 46 main examination centres were allotted. Out of
the total centres, the candidates who appeared for mains
examination in few centres are part of top 500 ranks in the
General Ranking List (GRL) and the candidates who appeared in
few centres were awarded low marks and in few cases not even
single candidate is part of top 500 ranks. The answer scripts of
centre wise are given for evaluation without shuffling and the
answer scripts of one particular centre were allotted to liberal
examiner, who awarded marks liberally and the Centre where
none of the candidates are part of top 500 was evaluated by the
strict examiner. Therefore, no moderation technique was followed.
Hence, the entire evaluation was conducted without any
mechanism or without there being any criteria for awarding
10 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
maximum marks and minimum marks. The evaluation exercise
was carried out as per the whims and fancies of the examiners.
15. It is surprising to note that from the GRL the candidates
whose hall tickets are in continuance are given exactly same
marks. For instance, for hall ticket No.240902470 was given 253
and for hall ticket No.240902471 was also given 253. Further, in
respect of hall ticket No.240905306 was given 373.5 marks and in
respect of hall ticket No.240905307 was also given 373.5.
Similarly, for hall ticket No.240905438 was given 270.5 marks
and hall ticket No.240905439 was also given 270.5. Therefore, the
candidates with exact subsequent hall ticket are given identical
marks. Likewise, the same pattern of marks were given for 1369
candidates.
16. The evaluation of answers scripts commenced from
01.11.2024 and completed on 31.01.2025. After three days from
the last day of exams, the evaluation process was started without
there being any minimum training, which is a mandatory
requirement. During the said three months, the Commission is
supposed to have evaluated 21,085 theoretical answer scripts.
11 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Furthermore, the evaluation is claimed to have been done not
once, but allegedly two times.
17. The press note dated 13.03.2025 issued under the caption
"Steps taken for fair and transparent valuation of Group-I Services
Mains Answer Scripts" it is categorically mentioned that
"the chief examiners committee was formed for each subject
with minimum of two subject experts based on the specialization of
the subject area. Senior professors from reputed universities
across the country were identified as the members of the chief
examiner committee. These chief examiners/evaluators are also
involved in several UPSC examinations and evaluations. The
evaluators have been identified for all the subjects from reputed
universities/institutions across the country. All the evaluators are
the regular faculty from the universities/govt.
colleges/institutions."
18. The evaluators namely Dr. Vannala Ramesh retired in 2022
and Prof. Narasaiah Panjala retired from his duties at Dr. BR.
Ambedkar Open University were also part of the evaluation panel,
which is a straight violation to above said press note. Further,
Dr.M.A.Malik for Economics subject was engaged for evaluation.
The said Dr. Malik is a tutor in a private institution, coaching
aspirants for competitive exams at RC Reddy IAS study circle,
Hyderabad. Hence, the professor, who taught and trained for the
12 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
same examination, was allowed to evaluate the papers of his own
students and the same being analogous to one being the judge of
his own case.
19. The evaluators, who are not concerned with the respective
subjects, were appointed as evaluators. For instance, for Economy
and Development subject, which includes different topics such as
Indian Economy and Development, Telangana Economy and
Development and Environment Problems, Professors from
Economics branch were appointed, who can only evaluate the
topics relating to economy. However, the topic relating to
Development and Environment was also evaluated by the
Economy faculty, who has absolutely no knowledge about the
subject. Without appointing the evaluators according to the topics
for evaluation, the evaluation process was carried on, which led to
gross irregularities and inconsistencies leading to the very sanctity
of the examination and evaluation being in jeopardy. Similarly,
for evaluation of Telangana Movement and State Formation paper,
the professors from political science and history department were
engaged. Since two distinct groups of evaluators from the degree
college in History and political science dealt in evaluation work, it
13 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
leads to lack of uniformity in the marks pattern granted between
one centre to another centre that resulted in unfair and uneven
grading of answer scripts.
20. The questions framed in the mains examination paper are
analytical and far away from reach of evaluators, who have no
previous experience of evaluating competitive exams. The
evaluation was done without any expertise or minimum training.
Since evaluators are engaged and allotted subject irrelevant to
their expertise, significant harm has been caused to the
petitioners. In the absence of uniform mechanism for evaluating
answer scripts, the answer scripts of the petitioners and few
others have been strictly evaluated leading them to score low
marks.
21. The answer scripts evaluated in 90 days period and the
alleged two evaluation processes were carried out. All the
evaluations were conducted by the same evaluators, which is
another mistake on the part of the Commission. As per the GRL,
21,103 candidates have appeared in the mains examination. Each
candidate has appeared for six papers i.e., (21,103 x 6 = 1,26,618)
(total theoretical answer scripts). If 1,26,618 papers are evaluated
14 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
in ninety (90) days only once without second evaluation process,
per day 1,407 papers have to be evaluated. Such excessive work
load, led to compromise of the credibility of evaluation process
itself. Further, the said answer scripts are theoretical in nature
and each question was answered logically and analytically, which
required detailed examination by the experts. Even so, the
Commission completed such overloaded evaluation process within
a short period of time.
22. The evaluation of the essay paper was conducted by degree
college lecturers from various departments and due to their lack of
familiarity with the mode of essay type answers, the petitioners
were given less marks, whereas a few of the petitioners', who also
appeared for the UPSC Civil Services Examination for the very
same essay type answers secured higher marks i.e., 141 in UPSC
and only 41 in the present evaluation. Hence without having any
criteria to judge the answer, the scripts were evaluated leading to
disparity in the evaluation process.
23. The same evaluators scrutinized both Telugu and English
medium answers scripts, which lead to discrimination in granting
marks. The words and the reasoning prescribed in one language,
15 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
i.e., Telugu, may not reflect as it is to an evaluator having English
background, who is not conversant with the technicalities and the
technical usage of the Telugu language. This resulted in bias
against the Telugu medium candidates and led to minimal scores
from centres allotted to Telugu medium candidates. The
evaluators are selected without any selection process or proving
their expertise. The degree college professors are selected
randomly without considering their experience in evaluating
competitive answer scripts.
24. With regard to Urdu medium candidates, they are under the
zone of consideration in their respective category. The larger
discrepancy is found in the marks of the candidate having hall
ticket No.240938010, who secured the highest marks in essay
type answers with 97.5, despite having no material or books for
preparation under Urdu medium.
25. In terms of Sub-Clause 15.2 of Para No.15 captioned as
Memorandum of Marks in the notification, the respondents are
obligated to publish the provisional merit list on the commission's
website. However, no such publication is done and the candidates
were directly allowed to apply for recounting and later GRL was
16 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
issued without any prior provisional marks list even to compare or
contrast. Had such provisional merit list been issued, there would
be transparency in the selection process, so as to ascertain how
many candidates marks are reduced or increased after the re-
counting process. Further, the individual subject wise marks are
not disclosed publically. The respondents ought to have disclosed
subject wise marks like GRL, which would create transparency
and competitive platform for all the candidates.
26. The Commission issued press note on 13.03.2025 stating
the count of total candidates falling under 100 ranks prior to the
completion of recounting of answer scripts. As stated supra, the
marks of one of the candidate, who applied for recounting, one
candidate by namely Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy (Hall Ticket
No.240918702) also applied for recounting of mains answer sheet
and after declaration of final results after recounting, her marks
were reduced by a total of 60 marks. The similar treatment was
occurred in respect of some of the candidates. The candidates,
who are having difference of 0.5 marks, were placed with
differential ranks. However, the respondents have vaguely issued
press note without knowing such consequences.
17 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
27. Due to flaws in the evaluation process, there is no trust in
the Commission's evaluation process, as undeserving candidates
are at the top in the GRL and the deserving candidates like
petitioners are out of the zone of consideration. Since now the GRL
is published, the evaluation of only petitioners' answers scripts
would not suffice the cause. There is a need to start again the
entire exercise of revaluation and it is not known as to how many
candidates marks were added/reduced unfairly and drastically.
28. The petitioners sought information under RTI Act on
01.04.2025 seeking information with regard to criterion for
evaluation, Instruction to Evaluators, criterion for maximum
marks, double evaluation, third evaluation process, instructions
for correction of Telugu medium papers, model answer copies and
selection criterion for evaluators. No reply is given by the
Commission, as there is no such criterion or mechanism fixed
before evaluation of answer scripts. The petitioners lodged
grievance with the TGPSC requesting to re-evaluate the answer
scripts pertaining to Group-I. There is no reply by the
Commission.
18 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
29. The respondents are proceeding with the next stage of
recruitment process and invited the candidates for certificate
verification commencing from 16.04.2025. Therefore, if the next
level is completed huge loss will occur to the unsuccessful
candidates. Hence, the Court interference is required. Therefore,
the present Writ Petitions.
Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju in W.P.No.12819 of 2025 states as
follows :-
30. The Commission in the earlier Notification No.04/2022,
dated 26.04.2022, 503 vacancies are notified. In view of
cancellation of the said Notification, the present Notification
No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024 was issued for 563 vacancies.
31. In the Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024, in Para-
1.15 it gives details of the vacancies in 18 categories of posts
(PC.Nos.1 to 18). A total of 563 vacancies were shown in it. The 2nd
respondent clubbed 503 vacancies notified vide Notification
No.04/2022, dated 26.04.2022 and 60 vacancies for which the 1st
respondent accorded permission vide G.O.Ms.No.16, dated
19 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
03.02.2024. The Commission unauthorisedly without any power
and authority clubbed with 503 vacancies.
32. Permission granted by G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 03.02.2024 is
confined to those 60 vacancies only. As the persons in power and
the recruiting agency were interested in certain identified persons,
the Commission resorted to the cancellation of Notification
No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022, by web note dated 19.02.2024.
The deceptive and mischievous scheme started from 19.02.2024.
Through Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024 (Para 1.5), it
called upon the candidates of Notification No.04/2022 dated
26.04.2022 to apply 'afresh' for notification No.02/2024.
33. The Commission gave eligibility to the fresh applicants to
compete for the posts notified in Notification No.04/2022 dated
26.04.2022 by clubbing the past notification there in with fresh
vacancies. The fresh applicants (Most of them) were not eligible to
apply for the posts in Notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022
perhaps they did not acquire Graduation (Degree) even by
26.04.2022.
20 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
34. The petitioners have applied in pursuance of Notification
No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024. The Commission issued Press
Note dated 13.03.2025 stating that it has utilized the services of
351 evaluators for correcting seven (7) papers. It also published
the highest marks secured in each paper of the examination under
the heading of overall performance of 20,161 candidates.
35. The petitioners were astonished and shocked to see their
paper wise and total marks. The said marks do not reflect the
correct position. The petitioners have no iota of doubt about the
answers to the questions given by them. The answers of the
petitioners are impregnated with full particulars and details which
they should contain to say it in one line. The answers given by
them are complete in all material particulars.
36. In the present writ petitions, all the petitioners got low
marks against the expected marks. The contention of the writ
petitioners is that there is a mischief/mishandling/ wrong
handling of the evaluation by the Commission. The process
followed by the Commission for evaluation of answer scripts is
wholly defective and it does not meet the standards to
repose/instill confidence in the evaluation. Evaluation is neither
21 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
fair nor transparent. The Commission pursued their deceptive and
mischievous scheme and acted designedly from stage to stage and
thereafter, the 2nd respondent held the Preliminary Examination.
For evaluation of the total papers, 351/318 evaluators were
engaged for attending the evaluation from 01.11.2024 to
31.01.2025 is incorrect as they were engaged in phase wise
manner.
37. According to the Commission, it engaged the services of 48
Lecturers for correcting paper-2 (History, Culture & Geography)
and similarly different number of evaluators were engaged for
correction of different subjects, but the said number of evaluators
did not attend evaluation on every day from 01.11.2024 to
31.01.2025.
38. The evaluators appear to have not even bestowed five (5)
minutes of time for correcting even one answer script. Such
evaluation cannot be called as an evaluation at all especially in a
Competitive Examination of the cadre of Group-I Service. The
evaluation was unfair/non transparent and done to benefit the
selected/identified few on whom favours were sought to be
showered.
22 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
39. The candidates, who were assigned to appear from identified
centers secured 83% where as persons in other centers secured
17% out of total 618 ranks. The Commission marked favouritism
was shown in respect of female candidates from center Nos.18 and
19 and that the seating arrangement played a vital role for those
who secured higher marks i.e., persons sitting side by side or
behind each other.
40. The Urdu Medium candidate were awarded unprecedented
marks and landed top ranks, even though only nine (9) candidates
appeared for the examination, whereas for almost 8,000
Candidates appearing in Telugu Medium miniscule percentage.
The entire selection process from the issuance/inception of
Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024 till 1:1 as 563
vacancies are manipulated, manoeuvred and designed to favour a
few of the candidates.
41. The analysis of TGPSC Group-I Main Examination results
points to significant irregularities in the evaluation process,
casting serious doubt on the principles of fairness and uniformity.
Out of 618 top-ranked candidates, nearly 83% emerged from a
selected few centers. While the remaining centers accounted for
23 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
only 17%. This disproportionate success rate is alarming, since all
candidates wrote the same papers under identical conditions,
qualification percentages also showed dramatic differences-
ranging from as high as 76% in centers like 6, 18, 19, and 20 and
as low as 22%-38% in centers such as 38, 39, and 42. These wide
variations cannot be attributed to random fluctuations or merit
alone, and instead point toward a systemic issue of non-uniform
correction standards.
42. The data further reveals specific patterns that strengthen the
suspicion of biased evaluation. A large number of candidates
scoring above 450 marks were concentrated in a few centers.
Several candidates seated side by side or within the same room
secured very similar and unusually high marks, indicating
potential lapses either in the evaluation process or in conducting
the examination. In addition, a significantly high proportion of
female candidates scored above 440 and 450 marks in the liberal
centers. Discrepancies were also noticed in the total number of
candidates who appeared for the Mains, when compared to official
data, which questions the integrity of the overall conduct of the
exam.
24 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
43. There is a huge variation in qualified candidates
percentage i.e.,
Highest Qualification Percentages:
Center 18 - 76%
Center 19 - 76%
Center 06 - 73%
Center 20 - 73%
Lowest Qualification Percentages:
Center 38 - 22%
Center 42 - 38%
Center 39 - 38%
44. The above percentage indicates a massive range of 54
percentage points between the highest and lowest performing
centers. The pattern consistently demonstrates a skewed
distribution favouring centers 18 and 19, raising legitimate
concerns over potential non-uniformity in evaluation standards
across examination centers. Such disparities across multiple
social categories suggest the need for an in-depth examination of
the evaluation practices at these centers to ensure fairness and
uphold the integrity of the competitive examination process.
45. The Group-I mains examination involved 21,103 candidates,
6 Papers (excluding English Qualified Paper) and corrections were
done twice and the total workload scaled up to an overwhelming
2,53,236 answer scripts based on evaluator data less than five
25 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
minutes per answer script assuming a full working day of eight
hours.
46. Every descriptive answer naturally requires qualitative
reading and marking and moreover double corrections were done
theoretically doubling the evaluator work load. Such unrealistic
evaluation speed is not just improbable but statistically and
operationally impossible without mechanically or template based
correction method this amplifies the suspension that bulk
evaluators shortcut were employed, compromising individual merit
of candidates.
Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri G.S.Prasen, learned counsel in W.P.No.12206 of 2025
continued the arguments apart from adopting the arguments of
other petitioners counsels and submitted as follows :-
47. In order to clear the doubts of the candidates, a press note
dated 13.03.2025 was issued. In the press note, the procedure
followed for valuation of answer paper booklets of Group-I services
mains examination was also specified. As per the said press note,
valuation of the mains answer paper booklets was done twice by
26 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
two different evaluators/examiners. The Chief Examiners
Committee was formed for each subject with a minimum two (2)
subjects experts. The said Chief Examiners have evaluated several
UPSC examination papers. All the evaluators are regular faculty
from the Universities/ Government Colleges/Institutions. After
completion of the valuation, data was finalized on 15.02.2025 and
as a measure of abundant caution, marks awarded were once
again scrutinized by the Commission without knowing the identity
of the individuals. Once the evaluation is undertaken by the
evaluators, the Commission has no role to scrutinize the marks
which may have led to manipulation of the marks awarded to
certain candidates also. It was also specified that the data was
finalized on 15.02.2025, whereas, the provisional marks were
declared on 10.03.2025. The manipulations might have been
undertaken in the process of scrutiny by the Commission during
the said period and led to several further irregularities in the
declaration of the provisional marks list of the Group-I Services.
48. The several representations have been made with regard to
the procedure adopted by the Commission in respect of evaluation
and the declaration of the results. A news item was also published
27 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
on 15.04.2025. In response to the same, the Public Service
Commission issued a letter requesting to publish rejoinder for the
news published on 15.04.2025 to the editors Sakshi News Paper,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in response to the news item published
on 15.04.2025, wherein, it was stated that consecutive candidates
getting same or nearby marks were common and that their
percentage is less than 1%. It was also stated in Para-2 of the said
letter. The evaluation was taken by unit of competent regular
faculty who are working in Universities and Government higher
educational institutions by following all the established protocols
and procedures. It was also stated that, Group-1 Mains
examination Center Nos.18 and 19 are in Veeranari Chakali
Illama Women's University (Koti Women's College) and since it is a
women's institution on the request of the management of the
institution, only women candidates have been allotted to the said
institution, as rest rooms are not separately available for both
genders. 25% of the total women candidates appeared through
these centers. The candidates also reflect to more or less same
proportion of the women successful candidates. It was also stated
that, 10 candidates have written the Group-I mains examination
28 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
in Urdu medium and out of which, only one (1) candidate is
figuring in 563 candidates list, which has been published for
calling of the candidates for certificate verification. There is always
a possibility of candidates from one center being more in selection
than compared to other centers.
49. The several web-notes and press-notes issued by the Public
Service Commission would show that there was no consistency in
the pattern of examination conducted, number of candidates
participated in the Mains Group-1 examination, number of centers
in which the examinations were conducted and the status of the
evaluators, whose services were availed for evaluation of the
answer scripts of the candidates. The entire process undertaken
by the respondents from the date of publication of candidates
eligible to write the mains examination till the declaration of
general ranking list of the mains examination is irregular. There
is a discrepancy with regard to the number of candidates, who
appeared for all the seven (7) papers. In the web-note dated
27.10.2024, it was notified that 21,093 candidates, which include
18 sports candidates appeared for all the examinations.
Thereafter, in the press-note dated: 13.03.2025, it was stated that
29 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
number of candidates who appeared in the mains examination are
20,161. In the General Ranking List (GRL), which was published
on 30.03.2025, the number of candidates, who appeared and
written the examination are 21,085. On 30.03.2025, the marks
list of all the candidates who appeared in the mains examination
were uploaded in the Commission's website who are figuring at
Sl.No.1 to 21,085. On the same day, the Commission has
published the general ranking list of mains examination upto the
rank of 12,622. Thus, there are variations in the number of
candidates who appeared for the mains examinations held from
21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners
are constrained to file the present Writ Petition invoking
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri S.Rama Mohan Rao in W.P.No.18556 of 2025 submitted as
follows :-
50. The Commission's admission itself reveals the adoption of a
procedure alien to its own frame work. Neither the Notification nor
the TGPSC Rules authorise double valuation and the "third
30 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
valuation" was also done by TGPSC as alleged in the counter-
affidavit in W.P. No. 9965 of 2025 and therefore, it is ultra vires.
Para Nos.17.1 and 18.1 of the Notification No.2/2024 require
public notice of changes, yet no notice was issued to the
candidates for double/triple valuation. The Commission's reliance
on UPSC practice is equally misplaced, as the UPSC follows only
single valuation.
51. When the law imperatively declares that where no statute,
rule, or notification authorises a second or third valuation of
answer scripts, the entire selection process is vitiated and that
rule applies to the present case. The double and triple valuations
carried out in the Group-1 Mains are illegal, and the entire
evaluation exercise is void. Such revaluation also violates the
express provisions of Notification No. 02/2024, whose terms are
mandatory and binding on the Commission and all candidates.
This unlawful procedure has gravely prejudiced the petitioners
and their answer scripts were subjected to undisclosed and
unauthorised re-marking. Now the final marks rest on an opaque
mechanism never contemplated by the governing framework, and
the respondents have been denied both transparency and the level
31 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
playing field guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, thereby casting doubt on the validity of the General
Ranking List and frustrating their legitimate expectation of a fair
assessment.
52. The Hon'ble Apex Court in one case identified examiner-
variability as the fundamental vice that can distort a descriptive-
answer examination. The Court noted the so-called 'hawk-dove
phenomenon', some assessors are habitually liberal, others
habitually strict, and each may still drift from the agreed yard-
stick even after an orientation meeting. When different examiners
value different batches of scripts, a candidate's fortunes turn on
the accidental identity of the examiner rather than on merit. To
eliminate this element of chance, the Court prescribed a
systematic equalisation mechanism called 'moderation', not mere
mathematical averaging. Moderation is a qualitative-cum-
quantitative process led by Head (or Chief) Examiner, who first
convenes all assessors to agree on uniform marking norms.
53. A striking disparity emerges in the treatment of Telugu-
medium candidates. Although 7,829 Telugu-medium aspirants
wrote the Mains examination, only a negligible fraction features in
32 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
the final list of 563 provisionally selected candidates. By contrast,
out of ten Urdu-medium candidates, who sat the Mains, one has
been selected an overall success rate exceeding 10%, whereas the
success rate for Telugu applicants is suppressed, but indisputably
under 1%. The Commission's own press note dated 13-03-2025
records the language-wise break-up of Mains participants as
English 12,323, Telugu 7,829, and Urdu 9, yet, it has refused the
RTI application filed requesting to disclose the evaluators assigned
to Telugu scripts. A subsequent letter dated 15.04.2025 confirms
that ten (10) Urdu-medium candidates took the Mains and one
candidate among them was qualified, while no equivalent
transparency exists for Telugu-medium outcomes, which is illegal.
54. The absence of competent Telugu evaluators, the English-
oriented marking blueprint, and the opaque centre-allocation
policy constitutes discriminatory treatment in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution and fatally undermine the credibility of the
evaluation process.
55. The results also reveal startling disparities across language
media. Although only nine candidates wrote the examination in
Urdu, several of them secured unprecedentedly high marks and
33 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
figured among the top ranks. By contrast, nearly 8,000 candidates
wrote the Mains in Telugu, yet their success rate is negligible.
Immediately, after the Mains concluded on 27.10.2024, Telugu-
medium candidates submitted a representation dated 29-10-2024
requesting fair evaluation of Telugu scripts, but the respondents
have neither acknowledged nor acted upon the said representation
till date. The Commission has published the list of Urdu-medium
candidates who were selected, while withholding any similar list
for Telugu-medium candidates. Such selective disclosure, coupled
with the unexplained awarding of exceptionally high marks to the
Urdu medium candidates, renders the respondents' conduct
arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional guarantees of
equality and fairness.
56. One among the most critical concerns regarding the
evaluation process of the Group-1 Mains Examination conducted
by the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC)
pertains to the absence of qualified, subject-specific evaluators,
which has seriously undermined the credibility, fairness, and
constitutional validity of the selection process. Multiple key papers
in the Mains examination were evaluated not by domain experts,
34 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
but by faculty members from unrelated disciplines, which not only
reflects institutional negligence, but also violates the principles of
natural justice.
57. The Commission seeks to blur the line between moderation
and scaling, using the terms interchangeably to justify its
procedure and it is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. By
conflating these categories, the Commission obscures its failure to
implement the rigorous, two-tier moderation process prescribed
for common papers and not only mischaracterises the binding
precedent in one of the recent judgment of the Apex Court but
also undermines the transparency and fairness that moderation is
intended to secure.
58. The respondent's Commission has admitted to the fact that
except for entering the marks in the OMR sheet, there is no trace
of marking or indication of evaluation on the answer scripts and
the reason given is because there is double evaluation, TGPSC did
not want the second evaluator to know the marking of first
evaluator. However, the method is against the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings. The Commission's deliberate
concealment of examiner identities, subject-wise marks and other
35 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
key examination data, relegated to sealed covers rather than
publicly displayed stands in clear violation of legal precedents and
the principle of transparency.
59. With regard to systemic bias against Telugu medium
candidates, renumbering of hall-tickets from Prelims to Mains and
the segregation of examination centres appear designed to corral
Telugu-medium candidates, centres such as 44, 35, 32 and 40,
reserved almost entirely for Telugu scripts, recorded markedly low
selection ratios. Chart shows Telugu-only centres (44, 35, 32, 40
etc.) with dismal selection ratios Vs. English-medium centres and
the Language-wise Results (TGPSC Group-I Mains) are :-
"Telugu: 8.48% - 50 selected out of 8,686 who appeared
English: 91% - 510 selected out of 12,389 who appeared
Urdu: 0.1% - 1 selected out of 10 who appeared"
60. The Commission failed to deploy suitably qualified Telugu
evaluators, so well-structured answers were undervalued.
Fourthly, despite a formal representation dated 29-10-2025
immediately after the Mains exams requesting a Telugu answer
key special instructions, and separate evaluators, the Commission
did not respond. Collectively, these practices have concealed a
36 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
success rate of less than one per cent for Telugu candidates, while
Urdu candidates enjoy a success rate above 10%.
61. Nearly 40% of candidates wrote in Telugu for Mains and
these candidates had already demonstrated their merit by clearing
the Preliminary examination ahead of more than four lakh
aspirants. However, when drawing comparisons with APPSC,
TGPSC hides the participation figure and highlights only the final
selection percentages. It also omits a crucial structural difference:
TGPSC's Group-I recruitment is a two-tier process (Prelims +
Mains), whereas APPSC follows a three-tier process. (Prelims +
Mains + Interview). By ignoring 40 % Telugu-medium participation
and the additional interview stage in APPSC, TGPSC presents a
skewed picture that masks the stark disparity in selection ratios
and further exposes a serious transparency deficit in its reporting.
62. With regard to dubious and manipulated marks list, the
Respondent's Commission asserts in its common counter (Para
76, page 45) that:
"As clarified above, the Web note dated 13.03.2025 contained the
details of candidates, who have qualified in English paper (which is
mandatory for evaluating the other answer scripts) ..."
37 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
63. The Commission is completely silent on the fact that
numerous candidates, who did not qualify the English language
paper nevertheless had all their other answer scripts evaluated
and their scores included in the published marks list of the Mains
Examination. A simple review of the total-marks list (filed with
material papers under Annexure P13 at Page No.213) reveals
multiple instances of candidates at Sl.Nos.27, 33, 46, 47, 57, 58,
59, 63, etc., who failed the English qualifier (Minimum 30% for
certain categories), but whose total marks secured out of Paper I
to Paper VI nonetheless appear a clear contradiction of the
Commission's own notification, which renders qualifying English
paper is a precondition for further evaluation as per own
admission of TGPSC in Para 76 of the additional common counter
affidavit. As the Commission has wilfully ignored this manifest
discrepancy, the entire total-marks list released cannot stand. If
passing English is a mandatory pre-condition for evaluating the
remaining papers, how do the aggregate scores of candidates who
failed English nonetheless appear in the total-marks list? By
including such unqualified candidates, the Commission has
breached its own notification, rendering the General Ranking List
38 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
illegal, procedurally infirm, and therefore, the same is liable to be
set aside in its entirety. Such a deviation not only violates the
principle of legitimate expectation, but also constitutes an
arbitrary exercise of discretion, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. Moreover, the said glaring inconsistency
leads to the inescapable conclusion that the total marks list is
fraught with fraud and manipulation.
64. Initially the Commission submitted written instructions in
the open Court on 16.04.2025. The Commission denied the
allegations of the petitioners counsel and opposed the granting of
interim order.
65. After hearing the matter both sides at length, this Court
passed the following interim order on 16.04.2025. The operative
portion of the order reads as follows :-
"......
In view of the urgency in the matter, the process of
certificate verification may go on. However, no appointment
shall be scheduled or conducted in this regard, till
finalization of the writ petition.
List on 28.04.2025 at 2.15 p.m."
39 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
66. Aggrieved by the same, the Commission has filed
W.A.No.487 of 2025 and the Division Bench of this Court disposed
of the said Writ Appeal on 30.04.2025 by observing as follows :-
"Since the impugned order is interlocutory in nature which can be
modified, nullified, discontinued etc., by the learned Single after
hearing both the sides and as the matter is admittedly listed today
at 2:15 P.M., we decline interference. However, considering the
nature of the matter where entire appointment is directed to be kept
in abeyance, we deem it proper, in the interest of justice, to request
the learned Single Judge to decide the question of interim relief
expeditiously, preferably, before commencement of the ensuing
summer vacation."
67. After disposal of the said Writ Appeal, the Commission has
filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 along with counter seeking to vacate the
interim order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.11439 of 2025. In their counter stated as follows:-
68. The averments in the writ petition are vague, frivolous and
baseless and are merely intended to stall the Group-I Services
recruitment. On 07.07.2024 in its website, the Commission has
published the details of all the candidates, who have been
shortlisted for Group-I Mains. In the Group-1 Mains hall tickets,
Prelims hall ticket number has been printed for all the candidates,
who have qualified for Group-1 Mains. Giving a continuous
40 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
sequence for hall tickets would be convenient for printing of OMR
sheets accompanying the answer scripts, distribution of the same
across the examination centers and also in the examination halls.
This plays a crucial role in verifying the candidates appeared, in
evaluation and also in consolidation of the data. This is a new set
of Hall tickets numbers given for Mains examination as was done
in the previous Group - 1 Notification Nos.15/2011 and 18/2011.
69. In order to serve an equal play ground, the Commission has
made multiple consultations to arrive at a conclusion in the
matter of selecting the test Centers. The logistics, amenities and
the human resources are arranged in a manner that reduces any
form of discrimination, which includes consideration of exclusive
spaces and special arrangements. Due to insufficient staff for
selection of test centres, the Commission dependant on District
Collectors and on their recommendation, the Commission finalized
the centres.
70. The Mains examinations between 21.10.2024 and
27.10.2024 were conducted only in the Districts of Hyderabad,
Ranga reddy and Medchal Malkajgiri that includes various
Commissionerate Jurisdiction (Hyderabad, Cyberabad and
41 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Rachakonda). Initially, 45 Test Centers were identified and in
respect of few centres, it was noticed that the strength allotted
needs to be reduced owing to the facilities and the ratio that is to
be maintained between candidates, rooms and the human
resources.
71. The Test Centre Code 21 i.e., (CVR College of Engineering)
initially the strength of 984 was proposed. However, a problem
was noticed in Test Centre Code 19 (Telangana Mahila
Viswavidyalayam) that Ground Floor is at higher elevation with
steps and PWD candidates cannot climb the steps. Hence, 87
candidates, who were allotted to Test Centre 19 were moved to
Test Centre Code 21 by reducing its strength from 984 to 787 to
accommodate 40 PWD with scribe candidates. Another, 43 PWDs
with scribe were allotted to Test Centre Code 39 (St. Peter's
Engineering College) by reducing its strength from 504 to 358 to
accommodate 43 PWD with scribe candidates. Despite initially
sending Letter No. 134/Exams/Grp-1/2024, on further
deliberations to avoid inconvenience to the candidates and 46 Test
Centres were finalized for conducting the Mains Examination. The
said exercise was taken up before the Hall Tickets were generated.
42 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
All Hall Tickets were generated only after thorough verification of
these types of issues and after finalization of Test Centres, the
data was processed for Hall Ticket generation and the same was
the back-end process before it reached to the candidates and
hence, the candidates are no way affected by these changes, as
the process took place well-before downloading the Hall Ticket.
72. The Commission had conducted the Group-I Mains
Examinations from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024. In this regard, the
Commission had published a web note on 27.10.2024 i.e., on the
last day of the exam when the examination was going on,
displaying the figures of the candidates, who appeared for the
Mains Exam.
73. When the exam is going on, the Chief Superintendents of all
exam centers have to manually obtain details of candidates
present from each of the examination halls and submit to the
Commission. The figures submitted by the Chief Superintendents
on the day of exam are subject to minor variation. The figure of
21,075 published in the web note categorically excluded two
categories i.e., 1. the Sports persons, who were allowed by this
Court by virtue of the orders in W.P.Nos.24113/2024,
43 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
25028/2024, 27932/2024, 27972/2024, 28046/2024,
28729/2024 and 28978/2024 and two candidates who did not
appear for all seven papers. After the completion of the
examination and after receiving the used and unused answer
Books along with hard copy Nominal Rolls, the same is compared
to check the correctness of present candidates with respect to the
Nominal roll and the OMR Answer Book to finalize the correct
attendance particulars. It is an established procedure at the
Commission to publish the tentative attendance figures obtained
on the go when the exam is in process and to publish the final
details after the evaluation is completed.
74. The Commission has released the list of candidates, who
have attended all seven papers on 30.03.2025 and hosted the
same on the official website, which has reflected a figure of
21,085. Initially, at the time of publishing the web note dated
27.10.2024, the statistics were based only on the figures
submitted by Superintendents of the exam centres. The accurate
figure is arrived only after the attendance records are procured
from the test Centers and the data is reconciled and consolidated
further.
44 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
75. The Commission vide web note dated 10.03.2025 accepted
online requests for re-counting between 10.03.2025 and
24.03.2025, which is immediately after the release of marks
subject wise in the individual logins of the candidates. The
Commission has received a representation along with enclosures
dated 01.04.2025 on 02.04.2025 from one Ms. Bommu Poojitha
Reddy alleging a discrepancy of marks in Group I examination
after the recounting process with a request to rectify her marks.
She alleged a reduction in total marks obtained by her by 60
marks between original marks and the recounted marks. The
Commission has considered the representation and verified with
the records present with the Commission. The Commission could
see no change in the marks allotted to Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy
as against the allegation of the said candidate. (After direction of
this Court, the petitioner's counsel impleaded the Ms.Bommu
Poojitha Reddy and later she filed a counter affidavit disclosing
her inability to continue in the writ petition as a respondent.)
76. The District Administration and the College authorities of
the Test Centres bearing Code Nos.18 and 19 have requested the
Commission to allot only women candidates for the Group-I
45 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Mains, as it is a women's Institution. They have stated that due to
the non-availability of separate toilets for men, it would be
appropriate to allot only women candidates to their institution. It
is not just the Test Centres 18 and 19 had exclusively women
candidates but also Test Centre bearing Code No. 05 (Government
Degree College for Women, Begumpet), also requested to allow
only women candidates and for this test center also only women
candidates have been allotted for writing Group - I Mains exams.
77. The allegation that the candidates who wrote the exam in
the Test Centers 18 and 19 are high is not correct. From Test
Centre 18, only 5.41% of the candidates, who have written the
exam from the center have been picked up for certificate
verification and only 4.12% of candidates from test center 19 have
been picked up for certificate verification. Since the Test Centres
18 and 19 could accommodate more candidates unlike all other
test centres, it is logically possible that proportionate outcome is
relatively more. However, a correlation is drawn based on the
number of centres, its capacity and the women candidates to
verify the proportionate outcomes for all the Test Centres, where
the Mains examination is conducted. The study of the above data
46 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
does indicates that the Test Centres, which had a relatively large
capacity, did reflect a proportionately large percentage and
percentiles of measures in several aspects. Further, the pickup
percentage for the certificate verification from the Test Centres is
5.41% and 4.12%, which is not an abnormal percentage. A similar
pick up percentage is also witnessed in few other centres
evidently. Hence, it is incorrect to state that is an irregularity and
inconsistency.
78. The Commission has always adhered to the standard
procedures and guidelines in evaluating the answer scripts.
Myriads of subjectivities and probabilities cannot be dragged into
the horizon of a rational inference or an allegation as presented by
the writ petitioners, based on which, it is wrong to state that there
is an endemic selection and thereby is an irregularity and
inconsistency. The allegation of irregularity cannot stand because
the subsequent candidates obtained similar marks. The marks
obtained by each of the persons, who is placed in a sequence, is
verified by the Commission and even though some candidates,
who were given hall ticket numbers consecutively have secured
same marks. All of them have secured different marks in each of
47 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
the seven papers and it is only the grand total, which is same for
some of the candidates. In any recruitment exam, where large
number of candidates writes the exam, it is very common for
many candidates to secure same marks and it is because of this
reason, the Commission has published the tie break clause in the
Group - I Recruitment Notification.
79. It is incorrect to state that the evaluation procedure adopted
by the Commission is faulty. The Commission has conducted the
Group-1 (Mains) examination (Conventional/Descriptive type)
from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024, for candidates, who have
successfully cleared the Group-1 Preliminary Test held on
09.06.2024. This examination was part of the selection process to
fill up the vacancies under Notification No.2 of 2024, dated
19.02.2024. The Mains exam comprised a qualifying paper and six
main common papers. The General English paper was purely
qualifying test, set at the X-Class standard, and its marks were
not considered for ranking. The six main common papers are as
follows:
"Paper-I: General Essay
Paper-II: History, Culture, and Geography
48 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Paper-III: Indian Society, Constitution, and Governance
Paper-IV: Economy and Development
Paper-V: Science & Technology and Data Interpretation
Paper-VI: Telangana Movement and State Formation
(Each paper carries 150 marks totalling 900 marks)"
80. The TGPSC issued a press note on 13.03.2025, giving clarity
and confidence regarding the evaluation process, stating as
follows :-
"The valuation of Answer scripts commenced on
01/11/2024 and completed on 31/01/2025.
Following is the procedure that was followed for
valuation of Answer Paper Booklets of Group-l Services Mains
exam:
The Main Answer script contains 3 parts. i) The
preprinted candidates' details. ii) The 2nd and 3rd part contains
the part where marks are awarded by the examiner.
ii) Before the valuation process is started, the OMR
Barcode Sheet which contained candidates' details part is
detached and cannot be seen by the examiner or any other person
at any point of time.
iii) Double valuation of all Answer scripts is
mandatory.
iv) The valuation of Mains Answer Paper Booklet was
done twice by two different Valuators/Examiners. After completion
49 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
of first valuation, the Part containing the marks awarded by the 1st
valuator is detached and proceeded for 2nd valuation."
81. The writ petitioners contentions regarding the press note
and their misinterpretation of the evaluation of papers and the
appointment of unqualified examiners for evaluation are totally
hypothetical, vague, and baseless, it is stated that the
Commission, with utmost care and diligence has conducted
Group-1 (Mains) examination (Conventional/ Descriptive type),
and utmost care has been taken in evaluating the answer scripts
of candidates. The Experts, having domain knowledge in the
respective subjects, were engaged in the evaluation process, and
the marks awarded by the examiners were thoroughly verified. No
information can be revealed or was revealed as to who evaluated
the papers. The GRL was released on 30.03.2025, only after
completing the entire process, making the writ petitioners claim
unfounded.
82. The evaluators are very much within the permitted
consideration and as the word 'regular' only excludes the 'private
teaching persons' and to be construed only in that manner to only
exclude as the purposive interpretation adopted here is to
50 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
accommodate an expertise, who could evaluate the papers that
requires high standards of knowledge and vast experience in the
relevant disciplines and other ancillary subjects emanating. The
principle "Expression Unius Est Exclusio Alterius" may be adopted
for a purposive interpretation of the word in the phrase of the web
note published. The Commission prioritizes transparency and
accountability at each and every stage of the examination and
hence to ensure high standards of accountability, the Commission
has categorically excluded the Private faculty getting involved in
the entire process of evaluation.
83. The term "regular faculty" does not exclude retired faculty
members. It is a standard practice across Public Service
Commissions to engage retired faculty members to evaluate the
answer scripts. Moreover, the Press Note dated 13.03.2025 was
issued after the evaluation process was over in the interest of
transparency and disclosure. The same cannot be interpreted to
retrospectively impose obligations upon the respondent with
respect to the examination/ evaluation which already stood
completed.
51 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
84. With regard to Dr. M.A.Malik, who is working in Government
Degree Colleges since 2010, himself declared that he has not been
involved in any private coaching for competitive exams after
entering Government Service. The violations as alleged by the
petitioners are merely based on speculations and apprehensions
without any substantial evidence.
85. The contention of the writ petitioners that the Commission
has concealed every stage of the recruitment process, including
the evaluation procedure, is wholly incorrect. A detailed Press
Note, dated 13.03.2025, titled "Steps taken for fair and
transparent valuation of Group-1 Services Mains Answer Scripts,"
was released in the public domain, comprehensively outlining the
entire evaluation methodology followed by the Telangana Public
Service Commission (TGPSC).
86. The Commission also made public the exact number in
evaluators assigned to each subject, clearly demonstrating that
subject experts were meticulously chosen from reputed
institutions, including senior professors and regular faculty with
extensive experience in UPSC and academic evaluations.
52 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Subject Subject Name Number of
Code evaluators
P4 Economic and Development 38
P5 Science and Technology 21
P6 Telangana Movement and 40
Formation
87. In order to bolster transparency, Chief Examiner
Committees were constituted for each paper, comprising at least
two subject specialists of national repute. Valuation was carried
out in adherence to strict confidentiality protocols. The marks
were awarded on designated barcode sheets without revealing
candidate identity and were subject to scrutiny by the
Commission post-valuation, again without disclosing candidate
details. Following these rigorous measures, final integration of
barcode data was carried out and provisional marks were
published in candidates' login portals on 10.03.2025.
53 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
88. There is no evidence whatsoever that the same evaluators
evaluated both Telugu and English medium papers or that bias or
language-based discrimination occurred. The Commission had
taken adequate care to assign evaluators well-versed in the
respective mediums, including Telugu, English, and Urdu, to the
corresponding answer scripts. The evaluators engaged were all
qualified subject experts, with academic and teaching experience,
and many of them were senior faculty from government degree
colleges and universities with proven domain knowledge.
Allegations that UPSC essay marks should serve as a benchmark
for this examination are misplaced, as the evaluation schemes,
scope, and rubric differ between the two examinations and
therefore, seeks to vacate the interim order passed by this Court.
89. The Commission also filed additional counter affidavit on
25.06.2025 stating that there has been no recruitments to Group-
1 Cadre in Telangana after 2011 Notification i.e., from even prior
to the formation of the State of Telangana. In such circumstances,
the State administration is suffering from dearth of competent
officers at the Group-1 level, which includes vacancies for 45
Deputy Collectors, 115 Deputy Superintendents of Police, 48
54 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Commercial Tax Officers, etc. The present Writ Petitions have been
filed by the disgruntled candidates with the intention of stalling
the recruitment process.
90. It is further stated that a challenge to the same Main Exam
has already been dismissed by this Court vide its order dated
25.04.2025 in W.P.No.12431 of 2025 with costs and against the
said order, W.A.No.589 of 2025 is pending. The said order dated
25.04.2025 constitutes resjudicata and it is impermissible for the
petitioners to continue to agitate the very same issue before this
Court for a second time. The petitioners have not approached this
Court with clean hands and therefore, the present writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
91. The Commission, being a Constitutional body, is empowered
to draw its own procedures for conducting recruitment
examinations, and there is no requirement for the respondent to
align its practices with UPSC. Rule 3(xi), Telangana Public Service
Commission Rules states as follows :-
"A decision as to the following shall be taken by the Commission
in respect of all selections made by them:
(i) Whether any candidate possesses the prescribed
qualifications for the post;
55 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
(ii) the basis on which the marks should be awarded;
(iii) the minimum of marks for inclusion in the selection list;
(iv) the manner in which the practical examination, physical
efficiency test or any other test or examination is to be
conducted and
(v) any other matter incidental to the selection".
92. The Commission issued a Web Note dt.16.08.2024 making
Sample Answer Booklets available to the candidates. The sample
Answer Booklet includes a reference to both Prelims Hall Ticket
Number and Mains Hall Ticket Number. Similarly, through Web
Note dt.09.10.2024, the candidates were instructed to download
Hall Tickets for Mains Examination one week before the
commencement of the examination. The Mains Hall Ticket for each
candidate contains pre-printed Hall Ticket Numbers for both the
Prelims and Mains Examination.
93. The candidates were notified well in advance (in August
2024) that there would be two separate hall ticket numbers for the
Preliminary and Mains Examination. The petitioners did not object
to the same before or even after the Main Examination conducted
in October 2024. They waited till the declaration of the final
results on 30.03.2025, which shows that the petitioners are not
aggrieved by the process, but rather by the outcome.
56 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
94. There would be a difference between the total candidates
calculated on the basis of list of absentees provided "on the go" on
the day of the exam, and the final figures arrived at after thorough
reconciliation. In the present case, there is a difference of 17
candidates between the first figure and the final figure. None of
the 17 candidates, who were inadvertently marked as absent in
the absentees list have been figuring in the final list of candidates,
who have been shortlisted for certificates verification. Therefore,
the purported increase in numbers has not caused any prejudice
to the petitioners.
95. Regarding use of Biometrics, the petitioners have contended
that since the Commission collected biometric data of all the
candidates on each day of the examination, it should have
published accurate figures of attendance compiled in real time
from biometric data, instead of tentative figures. In this regard, it
is submitted that the primary purpose of capturing biometric data
is not for attendance, but for authentication of the identity of each
candidate and prevention of impersonation. The process of
Capturing of Biometric Data cannot be used for real time
attendance count, as the Commission does not permit availability
57 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
of internet in any of the test centres, keeping in view the potential
dangers to the integrity of the examination process.
96. The process of capturing of Biometric Data of candidates
during the mains examination was explained. The said process
clearly indicates the purpose of collection of biometric data is to
capture/authenticate the identify of each candidate at every stage
of the recruitment process and prevent impersonation and other
malpractices. It cannot be used for real-time attendance figures.
97. With regard to Randomisation and allocation of Test
Centres, there was biased allocation of Centres to candidates and
certain Centres performed significantly better than others. The
petitioners alleged that the same has happened since Answer
Scripts from these Centres went to lenient evaluators. Centre Nos.
18 and 19 are cited as constituting 14.8% of the total candidates
in the top 500. Allocation of centres exclusively to women (and
certain centres to just men) has been alleged to show lack of
randomization.
98. For the above said allegation, the Commission has explained
the process of randomisation for allocation of test centres. The
58 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
contention of the Commission is that there is no manual
intervention in allocation of candidates to the Test Centres and
generation of the Hall Tickets for the candidates of Group-I Mains
examination. The allegation of the writ petitions that selectively
assigned candidates to particular test centres is totally false and is
completely baseless.
99. As per the evaluation process, the respondent Commission
divides the Answer Booklets from one Test Centre for each paper
into smaller bundles after anonymising the Answer Booklets. The
bundles containing anonymous answer booklets are distributed
amongst evaluators on random basis, without any discretion.
Therefore, the allegation of the petitioners that candidates at
certain centres performed better because their Answer Scripts
were sent to a lenient evaluators is contrary to the record and
speculative. Moreover, there are several evaluators for each paper.
Therefore, it cannot be that all evaluators for each paper were
lenient.
100. The petitioners seek to mislead this Court by presuming
wrong doing merely on the basis that candidates with consecutive
hall ticket numbers secured the same marks. They have
59 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
concealed the material fact that various other candidates secured
the same marks, as the adjacent candidates. Three candidates
who appeared from the same exam centre (Centre No.11) having
hall ticket numbers 240911068, 240911097 and 240911138 have
secured high ranks. Securing of marks depends upon individual
merit of each candidate. Since the candidates are allotted to the
Test Centres on random basis, the uniform distribution of merit
across all Test Centres cannot be expected. However, it is
incorrect to allege that it is suspicious for the top rankers to come
from a same centre. The candidates were placed in different rooms
in the same Test Centre No.11 and there is no possibility of any
irregularity that could creep in while the entire examination
process is under CCTV surveillance.
101. The petitioners in W.P.No.11439/2025 have deliberately
relied upon forged Memorandum of Marks of one candidate (Ms.
Bommu Poojitha Reddy) claiming that her marks were reduced by
60 after recounting, and accordingly her rank fell from 130 to
1700. There has been no change in her marks after recounting as
elaborated in counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.11439/2025. After
60 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
discovering the act of forgery, the respondents undertook the
following actions:
"On 15.04.2025, the Commission has issued Show Cause
Notice to Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy vide Memo. No: 89/Group-
1/2024 based on fabricated marks memo submitted by her to the
Commission through a representation.
On 22.04.2025, the Commission preferred a Complaint to PS
Cyber Crimes highlighting the act of forgery, and FIR No.758/2025
was registered at Cybercrime PS of Hyderabad City Police against
Ms.B. Poojitha Reddy inter alia for the offence of forgery.
Investigation against Ms. B. Poojitha Reddy has been
concluded and a Chargesheet has been filed before the Ld. XII Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally for offences under Sections 66
r/w 43 of the IT Act and Sections 335, 353(1)(b) & (c), 353(2), 337,
61(2) and 62 of the BNS. During the course of investigation by
Police, it has been clearly established in the forensic examination of
the digital records retrieved from the laptop, tablet, phone and other
electronic gadgets belonging to Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy that the
marks memo submitted by the Petitioners in the Hon'ble High Court
has been edited and forged. During the course of investigation, it
was further established that Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy did a
series of conversations with ChatGPT for PDF editing tools and
techniques, downloaded and used PDF editors to edit the original
marks memo."
102. The Writ Petitions deserve to be dismissed solely on the
ground that the petitioners have approached this Court while
placing reliance upon forged documents with full knowledge. The
61 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
petitioners placed reliance on the purported reduction in the
marks of Ms. B.Poojitha Reddy to support their claim of
wrongdoing in the evaluation process. The Commission in its
counter-affidavit, pointed out that the same was tampered with
and there is no reduction in her marks. Despite the same, the
petitioners in W.P. No. 11439/2025 (while placing the FIR on
record) have continued to rely upon the marks of Ms.B.Poojitha
Reddy to support their claim and have stated in their reply
affidavit that the allegations of fabrication have been leveled
without any tangible evidence. This shows the mala fide conduct
of the petitioners, who have approached this Court with unclean
hands and have sought to mislead this Court.
103. With regard to the evaluation method and evaluators, the
evaluation process starts with the conduct of Chief Examiners'
committee meetings to finalize the Answers Keys, Schemes for all
papers including award of marks, conduct of controlled/mock
evaluation including briefing and training of the evaluators. This
was undertaken before the commencement of actual evaluation of
the Answer Scripts.
62 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
104. All the evaluators engaged in the assessment of answer
scripts were duly trained/ briefed by the Commission. Prior to
being entrusted with evaluation duties, each evaluator was
subjected to a process of consistency assessment to ensure
adherence to the approved Scheme of Evaluation. Only those
evaluators who met the prescribed standards of consistency and
reliability were permitted to undertake evaluation work.
Evaluators for Urdu and Telugu medium scripts were trained on
par with their English medium counterparts. They underwent the
same training modules and consistency assessments before being
permitted to evaluate answer scripts. The Scheme of Evaluation
was uniformly applied across all mediums without deviation.
Furthermore, the majority of evaluators were retained across all
phases of the evaluation process in order to ensure continuity,
standardization, and fairness. The Scheme of Evaluation was
followed strictly and uniformly throughout all phases of
evaluation, without deviation and accordingly, due diligence was
exercised at every stage.
105. The petitioners have relied upon Press Note, dated
13.03.2025, which stated that all evaluators "are the regular
63 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
faculty from the universities/govt. colleges/ institutions" and
alleged that two retired faculty members have been used as
evaluators. The list of evaluators are confidential to ensure
fairness and anonymity. The petitioners, who are already in
government service, have abused their office to secure the list of
evaluators and the letters addressed by the Commission to
Commissioners of Police and have filed the same along with the
Writ Petitions. The Commission reserves its right to initiate
appropriate legal action against the petitioners for illegally
procuring documents and using them in the present proceedings
as per Rule 3(xii) of the Telangana Public Service Commission
Rules of Procedure.
106. The evaluation is anonymous, and the evaluators do not
know the identity of the candidates, whose papers they are
evaluating. Therefore, there can be no possibility of favoritism or
bias.
107. The allegations with regard to the third evaluation, there is
no separate bar code for the third evaluation slip, while the slips
for the first and second evaluation (on the first page of the Answer
64 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Booklet) carry unique bar codes. This has been alleged to render
the third valuation subject to manipulation.
108. Since all papers are evaluated twice (as stated above),
provisions have been made on the first page itself for the two
evaluations. However, the third evaluation (which is necessary
only in a few cases) is provided for on the third page of the Answer
Booklet. The Sample Answer Booklets were published on
16.08.2024.
109. The first page of the Answer Booklet contains three parts: (i)
details of the candidate, (ii) a table for first evaluation (which is
signed by valuer, chief examiner and scrutinizer) and (iii) a similar
table for the second evaluation. The first part is removed prior to
sending the paper for first evaluation, in order to ensure that the
paper is anonymized. After obtaining the first evaluation and its
scrutiny, and prior to sending the paper for a second evaluation,
the portion containing the reference to the first evaluation is
removed. This is done to ensure that the second evaluation is
independent and uninfluenced by the first evaluation. Third
evaluation, if necessary, is conducted by removing all three parts.
However, the Answer Book has a stitched part running on one
65 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
side and is untearable and undetachable. The stitched part of the
answer script has the Barcode running along with Answer Scripts.
This part of the Answer Script containing Barcode remains
undetached even after the OMRs for first and second evaluation
are detached. Owing to the Barcode on the stitched portion of the
Answer Script, the third evaluation form can still be identified with
the same bar code given on the Answer Script. The third valuation
form also has the provision for signatures of Valuator, Chief
Examiner and Scrutinizer. The OMR/Valuation Form is scanned
after each evaluation in the interest of integrity of the evaluation
process. Since the third Valuation Form has the signatures of the
evaluator, Chief Examiner and scrutinizer, there is absolutely no
scope for any manipulation. Hence it is a false allegation that the
3rd evaluation is exposed to manipulation as it does not have bar
code attached.
110. With regard to allegation of non-publication of Provisional
Marks List, paragraph 15.2 and 15.3 of Notification No. 02/2024
states as follows:
"15.2 The marks list of Main Examination (total marks) of all the
candidates will be displayed on the Commission's website.
However, Paper wise Memorandum of Marks of all candidates
66 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
can be accessed in their respective Logins for a period of one
week
"15.3 Request for recounting of marks will be considered for
Conventional Type (Written) only within 15 days after the
publication of Provisional Marks List on payment of Rs. 1000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for each paper through online
payment only."
111. The petitioners in W.P.No.12206/2025 alleged that the total
marks of all candidates were not published contrary to Paragraph
15.2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.11439/2025 and 12819/2025
alleged that the Commission is erred by not publishing a list of all
candidates reflecting their Provisional Marks, contrary to
Paragraph 15.3. In compliance of Paragraph 15.3, the Commission
issued a Web Note, dated 13.03.2025, informing candidates that
the Provisional Marks have been uploaded on their respective
login accounts and can be accessed by logging into the
Commission's website. Paragraph 15.3 did not mandate
publishing one consolidated list of all candidates reflecting the
total provisional marks obtained by them. It only mentioned
publishing 'provisional marks list', which was published on the
respective account of each candidate. There is no reason for
publishing one consolidated list containing provisional marks of
67 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
all candidates, given that it is provisional in nature and only
concerns the specific candidate. The final list reflecting total
marks of each candidate after the completion of the process of
recounting was published on the website, in compliance with
Paragraph 15.2.
112. With regard to the other allegations in the writ petitions, it is
submitted that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.11439 of 2025 and
12819 of 2025 alleged that the petitioners' marks did not reflect
their performance and persons lower in merit scored higher
marks. The petitioners also alleged that certain candidates
secured much higher marks in UPSC than in the present exam.
The candidates' subjective dissatisfaction with their result cannot
be a ground to cancel an examination or direct re-evaluation. The
subjects tested in UPSC are different from the subjects tested in
the present examination, and moreover the performance of
candidates may also vary from exam to exam. Therefore, there is
no guarantee that a candidate who performed well in UPSC will
necessarily perform well in the present examination.
113. The petitioners in W.P.No. 11439 of 2025 further alleged
that the list of shortlisted candidates along with demographic
68 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
details were published in the Press Note dated 13.03.2025 i.e.,
prior to recounting. In response, it is submitted that the Press
Note was issued in the interest of transparency and was based on
the provisional results (which were subject to variation after
recounting).
114. The petitioners in W.P.No. 11439 of 2025 further allege that
no "moderation/scaling" of marks was carried out in the present
examination. The 'moderation' or 'scaling' is a method that enables
rationalization of grand totals in favour of few disciplines/subjects
and is dependent on the pattern and scheme of that examination.
It is adopted in examinations, at the discretion of recruiting
bodies, which involve multiple optional subjects. However, no
such moderation is required in the Group-1 examination because
all papers are mandatory, and all candidates take the very same
exams.
115. The petitioners in W.P.No.12819/2025 have alleged that the
decision to cancel Notification No.04/2022, dated 26.04.2022 vide
the present Notification No.02/2024 dt.19.02.2024 (notification
for the present examination) was unauthorized. They further
alleged that permitting candidates who were not eligible in 2022 to
69 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
write the present examination is illegal. In this regard, the
Preliminary Examinations conducted pursuant to Notification
No.04/2022 were cancelled by the respondent on one occasion
and set-aside by this Court on the second occasion. Thereafter,
the Commission issued the present Notification as new vacancies
had emerged. The Commission has the power to cancel a
notification and eligibility is required to be assessed at the time of
issuance of the notification. The said issue was already challenged
before this Court and this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
refused to intervene in the matter by dismissing the challenge.
116. It is further submitted that W.P.No.13221 of 2025 has been
filed by the petitioners seeking re-evaluation of Answer Scripts.
The same is contrary to Rule 3(ix)(d) of the Telangana Public
Service Commission Rules, which states that:
"Re-evaluation of Answer sheets shall not be entertained under
any circumstances. However, recounting of marks will be
considered within 15 days from the date of publication of
results."
117. It is further submitted that paragraph No.15 of the
Notification No. 02/2024 only permitted recounting and not
re-evaluation, in conformity with Rule 3(ix)(d). Therefore,
70 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
W.P.No.13221/2025 is liable to be dismissed. There is no reason
to re-evaluate the Answer Script of the petitioner therein alone. It
is settled law that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation in
the relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim or demand re-
evaluation.
118. The evaluation process and scheme of evaluation is
uniformly followed for all three language answer scripts and the
relevant competent subject experts in the respective languages
were engaged for evaluation. The petitioners have levelled baseless
allegations that there was a discrimination and bias against
Telugu medium candidates in award of marks, which led to their
minimal scores. The petitioners have not produced any supporting
data to support the same and it is purely based on assumptions. A
comparison with the selection of Telugu Medium candidates in
Andhra Pradesh Group-1 Examination reveals that the figures
from both States are broadly similar. Hence, it is a baseless and
false allegation that the Telugu Medium candidates were
discriminated and awarded less marks.
119. The allegation of bias that Urdu medium candidates were
favored is baseless, as it is evident from the numerical assessment
71 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
that only one Urdu candidate was picked up for Certificate
verification, out of the ten (10) Urdu medium candidates who
appeared in the examination. The allegation that without proper
material in Urdu medium, it was impossible for Urdu candidates
to score top mark in the Essay paper is frivolous. The Commission
has taken proper care to accommodate the evaluators from all
accommodated media for evaluation including the subject experts
who hold an expertise in that field.
120. The petitioners have also alleged that the Commission vide
Press Note dt.15.04.2025 declared that ten (10) persons from
Urdu medium appeared for all seven papers in the Mains
Examination, while web-note dated 13.03.2025 reflects nine (09)
Urdu medium candidates. As clarified above, the Web Note dated
13.03.2025 contained the details of the candidates, who have
qualified in English paper (which is mandatory for evaluating the
other answer scripts) suggesting that only nine (09) Urdu medium
candidates have qualified in the English Paper. The petitioners are
deliberately misinterpreting the figures published by the
Commission at various intervals and raising speculative
allegations.
72 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
121. In W.P.No.12819 of 2025 it is alleged that manually entering
marks into individual boxes for each question, sub-totaling and
thereafter computing the grand total. The petitioners alleged that
there is a high possibility of manual errors. It is submitted that
scrutinizers are engaged to obviate the said possibility. A
scrutinizer checks whether the evaluator has valued each question
and whether the sub-totaling and totaling is accurate. There is
also provision for recounting of marks on the request of the
candidates. Therefore, the Commission has taken adequate
measures to ensure that there are no errors in the manual
process.
122. It is settled law that this Court should not interfere with
results of examinations. The petitioners have utterly failed to even
build a case of violation of any legal right. The petitioners must
approach this Court with clean hands. The petitioners relying
upon forged documents, despite dismissal of another Writ Petition
challenging Group-1 Mains Examination/Evaluation Process on
similar grounds by this Court cannot benefit from the exercise of
its extraordinary powers of this Court.
73 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
123. It is further submitted that the present Writ Petitions are
frivolous and lack of substantial evidence and they have been filed
belatedly by the candidates (after finding out the result). The
present litigation is nothing, but an attempt of disgruntled
candidates to stall the selection process for Group-1 services.
Therefore, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and the same are
liable to be dismissed, as they are neither maintainable in law or
on facts.
124. Learned Additional Advocate General filed counter affidavit
on behalf of respondent No.1 stating that though there are no
averments and allegations against the respondents, since the
appointment of the selected candidates is stayed, the present
counter is warranted. He also submitted that the allegations
made by the petitioners are vague, baseless and without any
substance. The petitioners have approached the Hon'ble Court
after taking final examination and after declaration of final results
with unclean hands and the same is impermissible and also held
that it is settled law that in matters of recruitment courts should
be slow and cautious while dealing with the recruitment process
adopted by the recruitment agencies. In the instant case, except
74 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
vague allegations no substantial allegations made out. Hence, the
writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Reply to the Commission's submissions :-
125. All the petitioners counsels filed reply to counter affidavit
and made the following submissions:-
Ms.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior counsel stated as
follows :-
126. A specific irregularity was raised in W.P.No.12431 of 2025,
which is presently under appeal vide W.A.No.589 of 2025.
Absolutely there is no connection, similarity or even a modicum of
proof that res judicata allegedly as claimed by the 2nd respondent
would apply. The 2nd respondent is once again trying to evade and
has not taken up the responsibility of explaining all the
irregularities pointed out with evidence and trying to browbeat
this Court on the point of res judicata. It is well settled law that
the principle of res-judicata applies only where the same cause of
action, between the same parties, has already been adjudicated on
merits in the earlier litigation.
75 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
127. W.P.No.11439 of 2025 was instituted well before
W.P.No.12431 of 2025, and the two petitions are distinguishable
on their facts. In paragraph No.6 of the order in W.P.No.12431 of
2025, this Court observed that the candidate whose marks are
alleged to have been reduced is not a party to that petition and as
learned Standing Counsel confirmed, has neither filed any
grievance nor made any representation to the TGPSC.
128. Issuance of Separate hall tickets for Preliminary and Mains
examinations germane to Irregularities. Para 1.6 of Annexure VI
of the Notification stipulates that 'no separate application is
needed for the Main Examination. The application submitted for
the recruitment is only considered up to the finalization of
selection'. Point 20 of the instructions printed on the Preliminary
examination Hall Ticket further stipulated that a digital copy of
the candidate's OMR answer sheet would be made available in the
candidate's login, and that the Hall Ticket together with the
Question Paper Booklet must be preserved until the recruitment
process is finally concluded for any future communication. These
provisions presuppose a unified application process in which the
same candidate identifier (i.e., Hall Ticket number) remains
76 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
constant from Prelims through Mains and the final selection.
However, TGPSC departed from this requirement and issued fresh
Hall Ticket numbers for the Mains, reportedly using undisclosed
parameters such as medium of writing (Telugu or English),
gender, age group, and various reservation categories, including
social, disability, and sports quotas. None of these segmentation
criteria was mentioned in the Notification or explained in any
subsequent press release, rendering the change opaque and
discriminatory.
129. Pursuant to Rule 3(xi)(v) of the Telangana Public Service
Commission Rules of Procedure, the respondent is claiming that it
can do whatever it wants including randomly and without any
prior intimation or the reason for the same, come up with the
change of hall tickets midway through the examination process,
simply for the sake of 'their administrative convenience', which
itself resulted in the massive irregularities that have surfaced
throughout the conduct of the Mains examination and the
evaluation of results itself, as the candidates have absolutely no
manner or process of confirming or cross verifying their results
leading to the clandestine irregularities, where the hall tickets
77 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
themselves were selectively issued specifically to facilitate selective
allocation of centres, which is clear from the manner of evaluation
and the results that have been evidenced by this Court.
130. Para No.17.1 of the Notification states that the candidates to
follow the Commission's website for all updates, including any
changes or modifications and Para No.18.1 allows respondent
No.2 to alter conditions during the recruitment process, provided
such changes are duly informed to all the concerned.
131. Web note dated 16.08.2024 was allegedly issued by the
Commission making sample answer booklets available to the
candidates, in no way 'shows', 'announces' or even 'states', the
fact that there would be two independent and completely different
hall ticket numbers generated and issued to the candidates for the
Mains examination, simply for the sake of their 'administrative
convenience'. The discrepancy in the numbers of candidates, who
wrote the Mains Examination without final reconciliation of
numbers, is suspicious pointing out the malafide intentions.
132. In the first counter filed by the 2nd respondent in
W.P.No.11439 of 25 states that 'Hence it is reiterated that after
78 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
reconciliation of the OMR sheets Nominal rolls etc., the final figure
arrived is 21,085...'. When the petitioners demanded about the
discrepancy in numbers from 21,093 to 21,103 to 21.110
(including 18 sports candidates) the 2nd respondent conveniently
answered that when the petitioners asked about the discrepancy
of the numbers actually coming upto 21,110, i.e., the results of
the candidates, whose marks were withheld, pursuant to the
orders of this Court, not being included in the 'total count' at least
showing about the withholding in the said tabulation. The
additional counter affidavit in Page No.18 states that:
".....Therefore, it is likely that there would be a difference between
the total candidates calculated on the basis of list of absentees
provided "on the go" on the day of the exam, and the final figures
arrived at after thorough reconciliation. In the present case, there is
a difference of 17 candidates between the first figure and the final
figure."
133. Pertinently, none of the 17 candidates who were
inadvertently marked as absent in the absentees list have been
figuring in the final list of candidates, who have been shortlisted
for certificate verification. Therefore, the purported increase in
numbers has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners....." It is
pertinent to note that there is no explanation as to when these 17
79 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
candidates are marked as absent in the absentees list, then how
the attendance jumped to 21,110 and if their OMRs were also
scanned and total number arrived at are 21,110 as per the
statement of the 2nd respondent, then how could they have been
marked absent. When their own documents and webnotes show
the discrepancy, there is no plausible explanation for the same.
134. The 2nd respondent itself is contradicting in the very same
page of the additional counter affidavit, wherein at one instance it
claims that "...Thereafter, these figures are tallied with the
consolidated biometric data obtained at the time of the examination
each day. A copy of a sample Nominal Roll is annexed herewith as
Annexure R-7..." at Page No. 17 of the additional affidavit and then
in the following Para at Page No.18 contradicts and claims that
apparently ".....The process of Capturing of Biometric Data cannot
be used for real time attendance count, as the Commission does not
permit availability of internet in any of the test centers, keeping in
view the potential dangers to the integrity of the examination
process.".. The 2nd respondent is clearly confused itself and is
deluding this Court into accepting this irrational contradiction as
to how would they now accepted fact of Biometric data was not
80 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
used for attendance was allegedly 'reconciled with manual and
very easily subject to subterfuge manual Nominal Rolls'.
Therefore, the very premise of the 2nd respondent although
regurgitated ought to be rejected in full, as the entire process of
examination is now questionable given that there are suspicious
entries and exits, deliberate fudging of numbers, candidates
unaccounted for with no final tally forthcoming to this date.
135. Once again contradicting itself, the 2nd respondent has
stated in its Webnote, dated 21.06.2024, in Annexure-Il at Point
No.5 as follows :-
"......The system of Biometric attendance involving capturing
fingerprints and photographs of each candidate has been
effectively implemented with the help of one biometric invigilator
for every 160 candidates, while all the biometric invigilators have
been trained across 897 centers in handling standalone
Tabs/Biometric devices....."
136. The acceptance of bio metric for attendance, when their own
Web note specifically states that in accordance with the earlier
order of this Court, biometric was supposed to be implemented for
the purpose of attendance. The respondents have violated their
own notifications, webnotes and are providing nonsensical,
81 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
rational reasons for not reconciling the bio metric attendance to
this date.
137. The test centre allocation was random and category-
agnostic, implying equal opportunity for all candidates. However,
its own data shows highly skewed selection outcomes across
centres, which is statistically improbable under a truly random
and fair process.
TGPSC's claim Finding
Allocation was based on randomly Disproportionate success rates at
generated numbers, specific centers
category-agnostic
No bias based on candidate 22 centers had 0-9 selections:
identity or center 1 center had 12.6% of total selections
Candidates were distributed in If so, selection rates should be more e
serial of random numbers distributed statistically
138. The concept of sampling variability and random allocation
may result in some natural variation in candidate distribution and
success rates across Test Centres. However, the magnitude of
disparity observed in the present case, wherein approximately
twenty-two out of forty-six centres recorded single-digit or zero
selections, while one centre alone accounted for an extraordinary
12.6% of the total selections, far exceeds the range of variation
reasonably attributable to chance or normal sampling variability.
82 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
139. The Commission has not provided any statistical evidence,
analysis, or data to substantiate that such an extreme clustering
of successful candidates at certain centres falls within the bounds
of expected randomness. In the absence of such proof, the claim
that randomness alone explains the disproportionate distribution
remains unsubstantiated and unsatisfactory.
140. In para No.29, the Commission states that it merely divides
one test centre's booklets into smaller bundles for evaluation,
without any inter-centre mixing or randomized coding. While the
Commission states that "several evaluators" marked each paper, it
gives no details as to how many scripts evaluator seen, how cross-
checking was organized or how leniency was detected and correct.
Without a valid moderation mechanism (as prescribed by law),
mere numerical plurality of evaluators does not eliminate the risk
of coordinated or institutional bias. The said procedural gap
undermines the anonymity and impartiality that UPSC's system
secures, exposing TGPSC's process to centre-based identification
and potential favouritism.
141. In the present case, 654 candidates forming 327 consecutive
Hall Ticket pairs have obtained exactly identical marks, which is
83 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
statistically implausible under a fair and independent evaluation
system.
142. With regard to defamatory allegations of forgery of
Memorandum of Marks by Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy, the
Commission is aware about the representation of Ms.Poojitha
Reddy dt.01.04.2025 requesting to verify her marks as they were
reduced by 60 marks, pursuant to a recounting applied by her.
Hence, the representation and the marks memorandum were
public records that were known to the petitioners at similar times.
The Commission's claims or allegations of forgery that albeit
defamatory in nature lack any kind of credibility or evidence as
the Commission only initiated the alleged disciplinary action and
the criminal actions including the registering of FIR and the filing
of the Charge sheets only after filing of the present W.P.No.11439
of 2025.
143. Neither second stage nor third stage evaluations are
mentioned or provided pursuant to the Notification itself and were
subsequently informed in an adhoc manner, pursuant to various
webnotes. It is unbelievable that seven papers each of
approximately 21,000 candidates was evaluated twice and in
84 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
certain instances subjected to third evaluation upon there being
an alleged variation of 15% just within three months. It is
pertinent to note the absence of OMR bar code for the 3rd
evaluation itself is enough to throw the entire examination process
into question owing to the fact that there is a clear probability of a
manual intervention, when an alleged 3rd evaluation is required
that is neither accountable and clearly susceptible to
manipulation or change.
144. The Press-note dated 13.03.2025 clearly states that "regular
faculty from the universities/government colleges/institutions"
which by no stretch of imagination be equated to anybody,
including retired faculty having taught or left government
employment more than 20 years back. Therefore, the retrospective
or not 'regular faculty' clearly does not include retired faculty, who
have no knowledge of the present status of the academia or the
stage at which the given course over which the subject expert is
expected to have expertise.
The Commission in Para No.51 of the additional Counter
stated as follows :-
85 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
"...The Commission has engaged subject specific experienced faculty
of universities and govt., Degree colleges for the group-I Mains
evaluation work. Degree college faculty teach both the English and
Telugu medium graduation students and are competent enough to
evaluate the Group-I..."
145. The Commission is deliberately does not care that 'learning'
or 'educating a technical course in a specific language/medium is
very different requiring acquired learning and teaching abilities in
that specific language from merely being conversant in the said
language. The 2nd respondent's admission clearly underwrites the
fact that the petitioners doubted all along that evaluations in
Telugu and Urdu were done hastily by evaluators, who do not
understand the technical nuances of the language and they were
asked to evaluate, leading to grave injustice being meted out to
candidates who had written their Mains examination in Telugu or
Urdu.
146. One Dr.M.A.Malik was only one of the several evaluators,
who continued to have allegiance with a private coaching
institution. The fact of his continued association not in tandem
with the 2nd respondent's guidelines as stated on 13.03.2025 was
only brought to the notice of this Court and therefore, trying to
compare writing books for a Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Open university
86 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
with writing for RC Reddy Publications is nothing short of trying to
compare and normalise apples with oranges. Both are not the
same, however, the respondent is desperately trying to prove
otherwise. As far as his declaration is concerned, this Court is
already seized the books that the said evaluator has written for RC
Reddy Publications.
147. With regard to third evaluation, it is specifically submitted
that it is not just the barcode, but the absence of a bubbling of
marks provision given to the prior two evaluations, subject and
susceptible to OMR reading that is absent from the 3rd evaluation.
In its explanation, the 2nd respondent has not explained as to how
the marks for the 3rd evaluation are determined and placed
without manual intervention, when there is no bubbling of the
said marks or variation between the 1st and 2nd evaluation
arrived at by the 3rd evaluator. The 2nd respondent merely states at
Para No.64 that "...owing to the barcode on the stitched portion of
the Answer Script, the third evaluation form can still be identified
with the same barcode given on the Answer script".
148. The Commission for reasons best known to it and for
obvious malicious reasons chose 'not to publish' the provisional
87 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
marks listing completely blind siding doubly, so the aspirants by
firstly coming up with an irrational explanation for the suspicious
introduction of a completely different hall ticket for the Mains
examination, preventing candidates/petitioners from reviewing or
verifying any competing details, and then competing the process of
deception by not even publishing the provisional marks list, which
would have enabled candidates to atleast know where they were
and where they stood pursuant to recounting vis-à-vis their own
marks and especially and specifically everybody else's competing
marks.
149. The moderation is the established legal precedent set by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and reiterated the same by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various judgements, wherein it was
categorically held that inter-examiner intra-subject moderation is
mandatory to address the aspect of inter-examiner variation in
descriptive examinations involving common subjects for all
candidates. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly explained that
while moderation is the method, which is to be used for common
subjects, scaling is used for optional subjects, which are not
common to all.
88 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
150. The Hon'ble Supreme Court identified "examiner-variability"
as the fundamental vice that can distort a descriptive-answer
examination. The Court noted the so-called hawk-dove
phenomenon, some assessors are habitually liberal, others
habitually strict, and each may still drift from the agreed yard-
stick even after an orientation meeting. When different examiners
value different batches of scripts, a candidate's fortunes turn on
the accidental identity of the examiner rather than on merit. To
eliminate this element of chance, the Court prescribed a
systematic equalisation mechanism called moderation, not mere
mathematical averaging. Moderation is a qualitative-cum-
quantitative process led by Head (or Chief) Examiner who first
convenes all assessors to agree on uniform marking norms, then
samples top, middle, and random scripts from every examiner
after valuation, re-marks a subset himself, and finally applies a
calibrated upward or downward adjustment adding or deducting a
fixed number or percentage to the entire batch of any "strict" or
"liberal" examiner. Where the candidate load is very large, such
process check continues through additional tiers of oversight,
89 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
moving from Head-Examiner to Chief-Examiner, until uniformity
is achieved.
151. The absence of moderation renders the evaluation process
arbitrary and violative of the principles of fairness and equality
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The Commission's
attempt to justify the Telugu-medium success rate by comparing it
to a recent Andhra Pradesh recruitment selectively rather than to
its own previous exercise in 2017 under 2011 notification is a
flawed "apples to oranges" comparison. Moreover, while the
Commission has publicly disclosed the number of successful
Urdu-medium candidates in its rejoinder press note, dated
15.04.2025, it has withheld the corresponding Telugu-medium
figures in a sealed cover. Such selective disclosure is contrary to
the guarantee of equality and the requirement of transparency.
152. At one instance on 15.04.2025, the Commission states that
10 persons of Urdu medium appeared and then previously on
13.03.2025 vide Web Note they claim that nine persons appeared
for the same, and when questioned in the open court, the 2nd
respondent is now spinning the story that the petitioners are
deliberately misinterpreting the facts and that the former is only of
90 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
people who apparently qualified English examination. It is
frightening to realise how much further the 2nd respondent is
willing to push with its fiction about speculative allegations when
every single one of them are rooted in facts from their own
documentation and the same has not been explained. Further, the
Commission stated as follows :-
".... The Web Note dated 13.03.2025 contained the details of the
candidates, who have qualified in English paper (Which is
mandatory for evaluating the other answer scripts)".
153. As per the above statement, it is mandatory for a candidate
to secure qualifying marks in the compulsory English Paper in
order for their remaining papers to be evaluated. However, as
observed from the Marks list of Main examination, which is
published on 30.03.2025, it has come to light that the authority
has evaluated the answer scripts of candidates, who failed to
qualify the compulsory English Paper, thereby disregarding the
said mandatory requirement. The said action not only undermines
the sanctity and fairness of the examination process, but also
constitutes an arbitrary and unequal treatment of candidates, in
direct contradiction to the principles of natural justice and the
91 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
rules framed by the authority itself and casts doubts on
authenticity of entire marks list.
154. Though the Commission is vehemently harping on its
constitutional authority, but fails to provide any details or
explanations, especially considering its dubious past and the
malpractices in recent years, which led to the cancellation of
several notifications, including two related to the Group-1
examination.
155. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel in his reply
submitted that the Public Service Commission has issued the web
note on 27.10.2024 stating that 21,093 candidates have appeared
for all examinations. After the Web Note dated 27.10.2024, the
Respondent Commission is silent with regard to the number of
candidates appeared. Only in the Press Note, dated 13.03.2025, it
was stated that the total candidates appeared are 20,161.
Thereafter, the Commission has published the marks secured by
the candidates with their respective Hall Tickets numbers,
wherein the total number of candidates were displayed as 21,085.
Thus, the contention that there are minor variations in number of
candidates participating in the examination is incorrect and it
92 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
would show that the Commission has violated the procedure
required for conducting the main examination inspite of the
specific observations of this Court on earlier occasion that a doubt
is caste with regard to the number of candidates who participated
in the examination and the methodology adopted by the
invigilators is not in conformity with the standards of the
examination.
156. The Public Service Commission referred to the Press Note
dated 13-3-2025 with regard to the procedure followed in
valuation of answer paper booklets of Group-1 service main
examination. In the said press note, it is stated that certain
individuals and organizations are spreading misinformation
without going into all the details pertaining to the Group-1 mains
provisional marks declared by the Public Service Commission on
10.03.2025. The said Note would clearly show that the Public
Service Commission has not adhered to the conditions specified in
the Notification.
157. The Commission did not publish the total marks of the
candidates in its website. That itself would give scope for the
93 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
irregularities and only to cover up the irregularities, they issued
the Press Note, but the details were not uploaded in the website
even on 13.03.2025. It is stated that the valuation of the main
answer paper booklet was done twice by two different
Valuators/Examiners.
158. After completion of the first valuation, the part containing
the marks awarded by the 1st valuator is detached and proceeded
for the 2nd valuation, is not specified in the Notification No.2/2024
or at any time before conducting of the main examination.
Further, the Public Service Commission referred to Rule 3 (ix) (d)
of the Commission's Rules and Procedure. The Public Service
Commission Rules and procedure were published in Telangana
Gazette dated 14-11-2018. Rule 3 specifies the procedure in
conducting the competitive examination for direct recruitment to
the posts. The said procedure in Rule 3 does not contemplate for
valuation of main answer scripts to be done by two different
valuators/examiners. On the other hand, Rule 3 (ix) (d) specifies
that the request for revaluation shall not be entertained and
therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the Public Service
Commission not to undertake the revaluation once the valuation
94 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
is undertaken by the examiners. Therefore, the procedure now
demonstrated is in violation of the Rules and the procedure
notified by the Public Service Commission.
159. The model answer booklet uploaded in the website few days
before the written examination contains the instructions to the
candidates. Even in the said instructions, there is no reference of
conducting of evaluation of answer scripts by more than one
evaluator. Even in the first sheet, though reference to details of
Part-I contains the pre-printed candidates details, Part-II and
Part-III contains the details where the marks are awarded by the
examiner. Even in the said booklet, there is no reference how the
answer script will be evaluated by more than one examiner.
Therefore, the averment that the double valuation of all answer
scripts is mandatory, is neither specified in the notification nor
published in the Commission's Rules and Procedure notified in
the Telangana Gazette dated 14.11.2018.
160. There is no other procedure required to be adopted by the
Public Service Commission in respect of main answer booklets of
the candidates. Therefore, the double evaluation is not
95 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
contemplated under Rules. It is the specific case of the petitioners
herein that the Respondent Commission had no role in
scrutinizing the marks through the second valuator is specific,
which remain unrebutted.
161. The Commission has no role in re-evaluating the answer
scripts to arrive at the marks secured by the candidates. No rule
or procedure has been shown or demonstrated in the counter
affidavit that the Commission has power to undertake the
valuation of main answer booklet by two different evaluators or
examiners. Further, the Public Service Commission has filed the
counter affidavit in W.P. No. 9413 of 2025 through the very same
deponent, wherein it was stated that the average of the first and
second marks list were considered as the final merit list. If there is
a deviation of 15% of the total marks of the particular papers
between the marks awarded in the two valuations (Val-I & Val-II)
that answer scripts is subjected to a third valuation. Thus, the
procedure adhered to by the Public Service Commission is
contrary to the statutory Rules and the Notification.
96 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
162. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in one case held that if the law
requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it
must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner,
then it would have no existence in the eye of law. The Rules and
procedure do not provide for second valuation or revaluation
except recounting of marks. Therefore, the second or double
revaluation is contrary to law. Therefore, no adherence to Rule 3
(ix) of the Rules and Procedure, would show that the entire
exercise is nullity and not existence in the eye of law.
163. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in a catena of decisions,
where it is not possible to find out the irregularity with reference
to the specified candidates, the entire selection has to be set aside.
Admittedly, in the case on hand, double valuation or in other
words, evaluation of marks by two different evaluators/examiners,
or 3rd valuation of the answer scripts are irregular, since the very
evaluation of answer scripts is in contravention of Rule 3 (ix) (d) of
the Rules. There is no possibility of identifying the meritorious
candidates and others. Thus, the procedure adopted is lead to the
elimination of meritorious candidates.
97 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
164. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the sanctity of
the selection process comes under a cloud held that, recruitment
to public services must command public confidence. The conduct
of evaluation by more than one evaluation, which is not permitted
by the Rules, would demonstrate that there is a possibility of
eroding faith on the process of valuation of answer scripts of
Group-I (Mains) Examination, thereby, the persons who are
deserving and qualified are denuded an opportunity to face the
oral interview and get selection. Thus, as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various cases, the entire procedure of
evaluation of marks is liable to be set aside and the selection
process stands unreasonableness and violation of Rules.
165. With regard to allocation of Centre Code Nos.18 and 19, the
details furnished in the counter affidavit, out of 6,396 women
candidates, 1,497 candidates have written the examination from
the said two centres. In the Centre code No.5,669 women
candidates have written the examination. Thus, out of 6,329
women candidates appeared in 17 centres, 2,166 candidates were
accommodated only in three centres and they constitute as per
98 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
the details furnished in Para Nos.20 to 24, 9.63% of the 563 posts,
in the ratio of 1:1, who were called for certificate verification.
166. The details of Telugu Medium candidates and percentage of
the Telugu medium candidates selected for the post in the ratio of
1:1 were also not furnished. It would clearly demonstrate that the
Telugu medium students were deprived of selection unjustly by
evaluating the answer scripts by more than one
evaluator/examiner.
Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel in his reply
submitted as follows:-
167. The Hall Ticket number is not merely a logistical tool, but a
critical identifier for tracking a candidate's journey throughout the
multi-stage selection process. Issuing a new Hall Ticket number
for the Mains stage breaks audit trail, making it impossible for an
independent observer candidate, or court to verify whether a
candidate who appeared in the Mains had actually qualified in the
Prelims. It is particularly concerning because the Mains results
and marks were not published publicly, and name-wise selection
99 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
lists were withheld and it would lead to further obscuring
transparency.
168. The technical convenience of data collation cannot override
constitutional mandates of fairness, equality, and accountability
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. No public
explanation or notification was issued by TGPSC in advance
regarding this change, thereby violating the doctrine of legitimate
expectation.
169. The respondent's assertion in the counter affidavit that
separate hall ticket numbers were also issued in previous Group-I
recruitments under Notification Nos.15/2011 and 18/2011 is
factually incorrect. Under Notification No. 15/2011, the Group-I
Mains examination conducted in 2012 by the erstwhile Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) retained the same
Hall Ticket number from Prelims to Mains. Subsequently,
following the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh,
separate Group-I Mains re-examinations were conducted by
TGPSC and APPSC in 2016, pursuant to the directions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that process, a detailed list of
100 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
qualified candidates for Mains was published in advance, the list
included both the candidate names and original Preliminary
examination Hall Ticket numbers, and the same ensured full
traceability and transparency, enabling public and judicial
verification.
170. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submits that no arbitrary or opaque re-numbering was done in
the name of convenience. No pick-and-choose centre allocation
occurred. Rather, the Hall Tickets for Mains were issued strictly in
accordance with the Prelims-qualified list, thereby preserving a
transparent, fair, and auditable trail from Prelims to Mains and
final selection. Even if such a practice was followed once or
sporadically, it cannot be deemed a precedent to justify a non-
transparent and irregular practice in the present recruitment
process. Constitutional recruiting agencies like UPSC and APPSC
follow a uniform Hall Ticket number throughout all stages.
ensuring complete traceability, auditability and fairness. even if
such a practice was followed once or sporadically, it cannot be
deemed a precedent to justify a non-transparent and irregular
practice in the present recruitment process. Constitutional
101 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
recruiting agencies like UPSC and APPSC follow a uniform Hall
Ticket number throughout all stages. The petitioners reiterate that
merely mapping Prelims and Mains Hall Ticket numbers internally
and submitting them to the Hon'ble Court post-facto does not cure
the fundamental defect of public non-disclosure and candidate-
level unverifiability. Moreover, the non-random and opaque
allotment of candidates to specific centres (e.g., exclusive
placement of select women candidates in Koti Women's College)
further proves the practical misuse of the Hall Ticket reissuance
system for selective segregation, possibly by medium, gender, or
reservation category.
171. The centres predominantly assigned to Telugu medium
candidates have shown alarmingly low selection rates, while
centres associated with English medium candidates reflected
disproportionately higher ranks. This post-exam outcome
disparity substantiates the claim that bias may have influenced
the evaluation process based on centre-wise tagging or other
undisclosed factors.
102 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
172. The claim that no centre's scripts were evaluated by a single
evaluator is irrelevant, as the problem lies not in single-evaluator
allocation, but in the lack of standardization, absence of
moderation, and pattern-based bias in scoring. Over 1,500
instances of identical scores and decimal marks were identified in
close numerical Hall Ticket sequences and 68 candidate pairs with
consecutive Hall Ticket numbers received identical marks, which
is statistically improbable in descriptive evaluation. The said acts
strongly support the petitioners' contention that the evaluation
process was not only opaque and inconsistent but also possibly
manipulated or algorithmically tampered, in clear violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
173. The Commission's claim that only subject matter experts
were appointed as evaluators is refuted by its own conduct and
record, including absence of any publicly released list of appointed
evaluators and their qualifications. RTI responses indicating that
several Chief Examiners did not possess UPSC evaluation
experience, contrary to the claims made by the Commission in its
press note dated 13.03.2025. The appointment of economics
faculty to evaluate Paper-V (which included environment to
103 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
evaluate Paper-VI (covering Telangana Movement and state
formation), despite these falling outside their core subject
expertise. Furthermore, it has come to light that some evaluators
themselves appeared for Group-I Prelims and failed, raising
serious conflict of interest concerns. Research scholars and PG
students from institutions like JNTU Hyderabad were engaged in
the evaluation process without any formal authorization
experience in public service commission recruitment processes.
Ultimately, the unqualified or unauthorized individuals were
permitted by the Commission to evaluate scripts without prior
sanction. No moderation or scrutiny mechanism was
implemented despite large-scale double/triple evaluations.
174. The claim that evaluators were well-versed in Telugu and
subject experts were engaged across all mediums are
unsupported by any evidence. Despite repeated demands and RTI
applications, the Commission has failed to disclose the number,
qualifications, or subject expertise of the evaluators appointed for
each paper and medium. The RTI replies reveal that many
evaluators lacked UPSC evaluation experience, contradicting
Commission's official press note dated 13.03.2025.
104 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
175. There is no data has been provided to confirm that Telugu-
medium scripts were assessed by Telugu language and subject
experts. The mass underperformance of Telugu medium
candidates especially from specific centres suggests either
evaluator mismatch or bias in the evaluation process. The same
evaluation blue print and answer keys used for English medium
scripts were reportedly applied to Telugu scripts without
necessary linguistic adaptation, which is pedagogically
inappropriate and discriminatory.
176. The low selection ratio of Telugu-medium candidates
compared to English-medium candidates, despite both appearing
for the same examination and having access to the same syllabus
raises serious doubts about linguistic fairness and evaluator
competence. This cannot be dismissed as "speculative"; it is
statistical evidence of disproportionate outcomes, pointing to
systemic failure.
177. The Commission's assertion that no evidence exists with
regard to evaluators handling both Telugu and English scripts. If
the Commission has not disclosed the evaluator assignment
105 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
records, how can it assert what evidence exists or not? The
burden lies with the Commission to prove that evaluators were
linguistically and academically matched to the scripts they
assessed.
178. The Commission has not explained why Telugu-medium
candidates were overwhelmingly clustered in specific centres of
selections. This disparity when compared with significantly higher
outcomes from centres dominated by English-medium scripts,
demonstrates outcome-based discrimination, regardless of
intention.
179. The evaluators were "senior faculty from government
colleges" with "proven domain knowledge" is unsubstantiated. On
the contrary, RTI replies/ confirm that the evaluators did not have
any prior UPSC evaluation experience contrary to the claims made
by Telangana Public Service Commission. Some evaluators were
already retired personnel. Some evaluators were reportedly those
who had failed the Group-I Prelims, raising conflict of interest
concerns. There was no publicly known selection or vetting
process for appointing evaluators.
106 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
180. A bias or discrimination can be systemic, implicit, or result-
oriented. Thousands of Telugu medium candidates were
eliminated from the final list. Mass patterns of identical marks
were awarded to candidates with numerically close hall ticket
numbers indicates a statistical anomaly not random coincidence.
181. The Commission has misrepresented the facts by claiming
that 318 evaluators worked continuously for 90 days to evaluate
the Group-I Mains answer scripts and the said assertion is
factually incorrect and misleading. In the instant case, the
evaluators were engaged in batches, not simultaneously. Each
batch was typically called for a limited period of approximately 15
days, as is clearly evidenced by the Proceedings dated 02.12.2024
(File No.CCEAC/SPL/6/2024) issued by the Commissioner of
Collegiate Education. The actual number of evaluators working at
any given time was far lower than 318, and the duration of
engagement was significantly shorter than claimed by the
Commission. Official records and internal communications
confirm that the average time allotted to evaluate each answer
script was approximately five minutes. Such an accelerated
evaluation rate is grossly inadequate for assessing descriptive,
107 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
analytical responses expected in a high-stakes, conventional type
examination like Group-1. The said unrealistic workload and time
pressure imposed on evaluators severely compromised the quality,
consistency, and objectively of the evaluation process, thereby
undermining the credibility of the final marks awarded.
182. With regard to allotment of only women candidates, TGPSC
has not placed on record any requisition letter or official
communication from the college authorities requesting that only
women candidates be allotted to the said centres. In the absence
of any documentary evidence, such a claim cannot be accepted as
a valid justification. Even if such a request had been made,
allotting only women candidates to a specific centre without
following the principle of randomization amounts to a pick-and-
choose approach, which severely compromises the fairness,
transparency, and integrity of the examination process.
Randomization of centers is a key safeguard to prevent bias or
preferential treatment, and any deviation must be backed by
demonstrable necessity, due process, and verifiable records, all of
which are conspicuously absent in the present case.
108 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
183. The petitioners strongly refutes the Commission's assertions
in Paragraph 39 of counter affidavit and submits that the lack of
transparency surrounding the third evaluation process raises
serious doubts about the fairness, consistency, and integrity of
the entire Mains answer script evaluation. Unlike the first and
second evaluations, which are governed by a standardized system
involving the use of barcodes, and the bubbling of marks on a
designated OMR section to ensure secure and traceable recording
of marks, the third evaluation process does not follow the same
standardized format. Specifically, the column for third evaluation
in the answer script does not contain a pre-printed barcode,
unlike the first two. There is no designated space for bubbling
marks in the third evaluation section. The Commission's own
claim that a barcode sheet is "attached when required" introduces
discretion and irregularity, allowing for the possibility of manual
entry of marks, which is highly susceptible to error, manipulation,
or selective tampering.
184. The Commission has not disclosed how many answer scripts
were subjected to third evaluation, not explained the criteria for
selecting scripts for third evaluation, not published any detailed
109 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
procedure or internal guideline governing the third evaluation
methodology and not clarified how discrepancies (if any) between
the three evaluations were resolved.
185. In the absence of the said crucial details, there is a real and
reasonable apprehension that the third evaluation process was
non-uniform, opaque, and vulnerable to abuse. The concern is
heightened if a significant number of selected candidates belong to
the group whose scripts underwent third evaluation, since they
may have been subject to different evaluation standards, and their
scores may have been recorded without the same safeguards used
in the double evaluation system. Therefore, the Commission's
reliance on an ad hoc and non-transparent third evaluation,
particularly that lacks barcode integration and standardized mark
recording, violates the principles of natural justice, equal
treatment, and procedural fairness under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
186. After granting the interim order, the successful candidates
filed implead petitions by way of I.As. The said IAs were allowed
on 07.07.2025 counters also filed.
110 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
The submissions of the unofficial respondents:
Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri Sriram Polali, submitted as follows :-
187. Pursuant to Notification dated 09.04.2025, the proposed
respondents have attended the certificate verification held on
16.04.2025, 17.04.2025, 19.04.2025, 21.04.2025 and
22.04.2025. The proposed respondents have been called for
certificate verification as they have secured ranks in the merit list
of candidates for the main examination and they are entitled for
appointment, subject to verification of the certificates and
ancillary requirements W.P.No.12819 of 2025 has been filed for
the sole purpose of stalling the selection process for Group-I
services without any substantial evidence.
188. It is settled law that this Court in exercise of its power of
judicial review usually does not interfere with the selection
process undertaken by an expert body that too a Constitutional
body like the Respondent No.2. The only exception to this rule is
where there is a case of malfeasance (wrong doing), inherent
arbitrariness, violation of statutory rules or systemic irregularities.
111 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
In the present case, none of the exceptions have been clearly
averred, and in any case demonstrated with sufficient evidence.
None of the allegations in the writ petition meet any of the
aforesaid thresholds/parameters required for interference by this
Court. Therefore, no interference with regard to the impugned
selection process is called for. Since it delays the selection process
and leads to uncertainty, which adversely affects the public
interest.
189. When a writ petition avers arbitrariness and violation of
Article 14, it is for the petitioners to substantiate the same with
cogent evidence. In fact, one of the para of the writ affidavit makes
it clear that the main grouse of the petitioners is that the result of
the main examination was not as per their own subjective
assessment of their performance. This is practically the subjective
feeling of any candidate, who has made serious efforts for a
competitive examination but could not unfortunately get through.
However, such subjective assessment and consequent
disappointment cannot be the reason for challenging the
examination process itself, thereby jeopardizing larger public
112 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
interest and the interest of successful candidates, who have also
put serious efforts.
190. The decision conveyed by web note dated 19.02.2024 to
cancel the earlier notification No.4/2022 and to club those seats
with the subsequent 60 vacancies that arose subsequently is
perfectly legal. No violation of any statutory rule or Constitutional
provision on account of such an exercise has been spelt out by the
petitioners except for baldly alleging that it was without power or
arbitrary. In any event, the challenge to the cancellation of the
earlier notification has already been rejected by this Court in two
rounds of litigation earlier in order dated 15.10.2024 in
W.P.No.21239 of 2024 and batch and order dated 26.12.2024 in
W.P.No.26038 of 2024 and batch. It is not open for the writ
petitioners to agitate the same issue again. Moreover, having
participated in the recruitment process, it is not open for the
petitioners to challenge the cancellation of the earlier notification
and the validity of the present notification.
191. There is no constitutional or statutory bar against
candidates, who have graduated after the issuance of Notification
No. 4/2022 in participating in the present impugned notification.
113 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Para 18 of the recruitment notification gives wide power to
Respondent No.2 in respect of all aspects of the recruitment and
selection process. The petitioners have not even spelt out how
there is an "irregularity" in the recruitment process, leave alone
proving that, it goes to the root of the legality/propriety of the
selection process. The attempt to correlate the increase in the
number of candidates declared to have written the main
examination with this change in hall tickets is a convoluted
attempt and does not, in fact, convey any causation between the
two events.
192. Web note dt.27.10.2024, i.e. on the last day of the main
examination, declared the number of candidates, who have
appeared for the main examination, was 21,093 (including sports
quota candidates), whereas in the web note released on
30.03.2025, it was stated to be 21,085 (excluding sports quota
candidates). They state that there is a mismatch of candidates.
193. Firstly, the petitioners ought to first explain how variation in
the number of candidates declared to have written the main exam
is an irregularity. Secondly, no further fact or material would
corroborate this decimal increase to any larger irregularity has
114 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
been either averred or proved. Thirdly, the web note dated
27.10.2024 itself makes it clear that the number indicated therein
was collected from the chief superintendents of exam centres on
the go and is subject to minor variation. None of the petitioners
had challenged this caveat in the web note nor did they seek the
actual number of declared candidates right upto the release of the
final merit list. Clearly this allegation is an afterthought and a
desperate attempt to make out a ground to somehow challenge the
recruitment process, realising that there is none. Fourthly,
respondent No.2 has given a rational explanation for the variation,
which is inconsequential, in the declared number of candidates in
its counter affidavit. Thus, there is no substance in this ground
raised by the petitioners,
194. The petitioners have alleged that the allotment of centers
with code numbers 18 and 19 to women and code number 27 only
to men is in violation of Article 14 and 15. However, absolutely no
averment has been made as to how it has led to discrimination
against or disadvantage in any manner to candidates of the other
sex. In fact, no averment has been made as to what is the right
under law for either males or females to have their presence in
115 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
every single center. An allegation of violation of Article 14 has to
be averred cogently and proved with supporting material and it
cannot be a mere bald declaration.
195. Randomization itself can also lead to allotment of only
women or men to a particular center or it may lead to just one
man and all women in a particular center, so on and so forth.
Merely because such an event happens does not imply that the
recruitment process is somehow vitiated. Moreover, even if a
conscious decision is taken to allot only men or women to a
particular center for any reason, that itself does not mean that
there is no randomization because even the exercise of
randomization can be carried out among all men or all women, as
the case may be.
196. Respondent No.2 in its counter affidavit has attributed the
reason allotting only women to centers with code numbers 18 and
19 as the problems association with lack of proper toilet facility for
men in these centers. The allegation of certain candidates were
identified to be favoured in also an bald allegation without
producing any evidence. To substantiate the allegations made by
the writ petitioners, no evidence has been produced.
116 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
197. The petitioners alleged that evaluation process was irregular
on account of the fact that in certain "identified" centers having
code numbers 18, 19, 27 and 28, secured very high number of top
ranks. It is alleged that 83% of ranks upto 618 (those who scored
above 450 marks) were from these centers. It is also alleged that
76% of qualification percentages are from centers 18 and 19. They
have also alleged that in some centers, the number of selected
candidates has been very low and even zero. According to the
petitioners, this is because answer sheets from these centers went
to liberal examiners and the answer sheets in other centers went
to strict examiners.
198. The petitioners' contentions are bereft of merit for the
following reasons. Firstly, particular centers getting higher
number of top ranks and particular centers getting low or zero top
ranks is a probability in any competitive exam and is not itself a
reason to doubt the examination or the evaluation process.
Secondly, particular centers getting higher number of top ranks is
not itself an adequate or sufficient indicator that there was no
uniform standard of evaluation by evaluators or that there was no
proper moderation. It is equally possible that even with reasonably
117 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
uniform standard of evaluation by evaluators and proper
moderation, some centers can end up getting higher number of
top ranks and some centers getting zero top ranks. Thirdly, what
is relevant to be noted is not the percentage of ranks in the top
500 (or those who secured above 450 marks) that a particular
center has got, but the percentage vis-à-vis the number of
candidates who appeared in that particular center. As explained in
the counter affidavit of the Commission, the percentage of
candidates who got top ranks out of the total who appeared in
centers with code Nos.18, 19, 27 and 28 was actually a miniscule
5.41%, 4.12%, 5.25% and 3.46%. It is comparable to the total
average of all centers, which is 2.59% (i.e. 546 out of 21085+18).
Fourthly, it ought to be borne in mind that a center which has
higher number of candidates in attendance has a higher
probability of having higher number of top ranked candidates,
which is also suggested by the Commission in its counter affidavit.
199. Insofar as the allegation regarding disparity in the number of
women candidates, who have been selected is concerned, where
some centers have given higher numbers compared to others, this
118 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
is again a mere statistical possibility. The petitioners' allegations
are simply based on surmises and conjectures.
200. There is no mention that a provisional merit list will be
published and again, after recounting, another list will be
published. Respondent No.2 has published once marks list of
final examination on 09.04.2025, in compliance with para 15.2.
Thus, there is no right vested in the petitioners to seek a
provisional merit list. Thus, there is no right vested in the
petitioners to seek a provisional merit list. There is no illegality
committed by respondent No.2.
201. Any competitive examination in India is bound to have an
evaluation process which is cumbersome and that itself is not
sufficient to infer that there were definite errors in the evaluation
process. In fact, even if there are some errors which are inevitable
when human element is involved, it would not by itself go to the
root of the matter, so as to invalidate the entire examination
process. Further, respondent No.2 in its counter affidavit has
denied that there is no space in the answer sheet for the third
evaluation marks to be written. Thus, the allegation is untenable.
119 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
202. The averment that same evaluators scrutinized both Telugu
medium and English medium papers is a bald allegation without
any proof. Similarly, the averment that evaluators were selected
without evaluating their expertise is also a bald allegation with no
material in support of it. Similarly, the allegation of bias in favour
of Urdu medium candidates is also not supported by any material.
203. The evaluators were inexperienced or persons without
accountability is not based on any foundation whatsoever even in
pleadings in the writ affidavit. No foundational pleadings have
been set out in respect of the prayer seeking scaling,
standardisation and moderation. In any event, the evaluation
process has been set out in detail by respondent No.2 in its web
note dated 13.03.2025, where evaluation is done by two
evaluators, with a provision for further evaluation if needed. That
itself takes care of moderation. Chief Examiners Committees
constituting experts takes care of standardization. Insofar as
scaling is concerned, it need not be resorted to when the same set
of papers are given to all the students as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
120 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
204. The petitioners having participated in the selection process
without any demur at any stage, now come forward to challenge
the selection process after knowing that they are not going to get
selected, which is impermissible.
Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel appearing for the
unofficial respondents stated as follows :-
205. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the
proposed respondents are adversely affected and their interest is
jeopardized as they are awaiting for issuance of appointment
orders. They have studied for several years and waiting for the
employment and after being successful in the selection process of
Group-I, it is being stalled at the behest of the Petitioners, who
filed the writ petition on untenable grounds, without making the
affected parties as party respondents to the Writ Petition.
Therefore, the proposed respondents are constrained to file the
Implead Petition as well as the counter affidavit. The present Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, on the ground of
non-joinder of necessary parties, since the petitioners filed the
Writ Petition without impleading the successful candidates, who
are within the zone of consideration for appointment.
121 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
206. The petitioners raised several grounds alleging that several
discrepancies and irregularities were found during the selection
process of Group-I examination. The petitioners are unsuccessful
and not within the zone of consideration in the selection process
and having observed that they have secured less merit in the
selection process, raised several grounds which are baseless,
unfounded, without any material basis and rationale and further
there is no legal basis for the averments made by them in the Writ
Petition. The interim order passed in W.P.No.11439 of 2025 is
adversely affecting their interest to the extent of not being
appointed despite their merit in the selection process, which is
nothing but taking away their right to livelihood, which is
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
therefore, it is contrary to Article 21 apart from violation of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed.
207. The law is against the petitioners as they are seeking
revaluation of answer scripts by mentioning certain irregularities.
Neither the recruitment notification nor the rules permit the
revaluation of answer scripts and the law is well settled on this
122 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
issue. The law is also well settled on the ground that the process
of recruitment may not be stalled at the interlocutory stage as it
affects the livelihood of large number of unemployed youth, who
have been studying hard for years and waiting for employment
and the same issue was discussed in several decisions in the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
208. The petitioners are not within the zone of consideration for
appointment and they are unsuccessful candidates and as the
proposed respondents are in merit, the selection process ought to
have been proceeded further and their appointments should not
be stalled at the behest of some persons, who have no legal basis.
This Court ought to have seen that the proposed respondents have
also processed very same recruitment process as to that of the
petitioners and at no point of time, they have noticed any
deviations and with their hard work they could succeed in the
selection process. Therefore, the contentions raised by the
petitioners are baseless, hypothetical and without any material
proof. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
209. Dr.K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the
unofficial respondents whose appointments have been stalled
123 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
despite their lawful and meritorious selection. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that judicial review of public
examination is limited to situations where there is clear proof of
illegality, fraud or violation of statutory rules.
210. With regard to lack of transparency in evaluation
procedures, the petitioners contended that no provisional merit
list was released prior to the GRL and that the process lacked
scaling or moderation mechanisms. They failed to demonstrate
how the absence of these features constitutes a violation of rules
or resulted in prejudice. Moreover, none of them have shown a
breach of the evaluation guidelines notified by TGPSC in the
recruitment notification.
211. With regard to OMR Format and third valuation
implementation, it is stated that a recurring theme is the claim
that the design of OMR answer booklets did not allow sufficient
space for third valuation. The petitioners state that third valuation
may not have been uniformly applied. However, none of the
petitioners have produced their own answer scripts or cited a
specific instance where third valuation was required, but not
conducted. Despite not alleging any personal procedural violation,
124 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
many petitioners conclude with sweeping prayers for re-evaluation
of all answer scripts, judicially monitored assessment under UPSC
supervision, or cancellation of the entire examination. These are
disproportionate remedies sought without proof of mala fide, fraud
or systemic failure.
212. None of the petitioners have provided their hall ticket
number, the marks awarded to them, or their position in the
General Ranking List. Nor have they produced their own answer
scripts or demonstrated any irregularity in the evaluation of their
papers. Without disclosing their individual performance or
pointing to any deviation in their own case, the petitioners cannot
sustain a challenge to the selection process. This fundamental
omission renders the writ petitions vague and speculative. The
Commission has adhered to the selection methodology notified in
advance and no deviation from the established rules has been
shown by the petitioners.
213. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the process of
awarding marks is within the exclusive domain of academic
experts. Courts cannot substitute their own assessment for that of
evaluators, nor can they order re-evaluation unless there is a
125 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
statutory right to such relief. The recruitment rules applicable to
TGPSC do not provide for re-evaluation, and the petitioners'
demand is legally unsustainable. Evaluation protocols adopted by
an expert commission deserve deference in judicial review.
214. The law is well settled that an examination cannot be
cancelled or set aside in its entirety unless there is clear and
compelling evidence of pervasive malpractice or institutional
failure. The petitioners have not even alleged and established any
such systemic fraud. The Supreme Court has cautioned against
granting drastic remedies like re-conduct of examinations unless
the integrity of the process stands wholly vitiated.
215. The petitioners appear to be motivated by a desire to reopen
the entire selection process on the basis of generalized
dissatisfaction. They contain no concrete proof of procedural
breach or legal infirmity. The wide-ranging reliefs sought-such as
cancellation of selection, re-exam under UPSC, or universal re-
evaluation are grossly disproportionate to the nature of the
grievances alleged.
126 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
216. None of the petitioners have established any specific injury
to themselves. None of the petitioners have disclosed their hall
ticket number, the marks secured by them, the rank obtained, or
even a copy of their answer script. The petitioners rest entirely on
statistical graphs, centre-wise assumptions, and generalized
dissatisfaction. Such speculative averments without individual
pleading or documents are legally unsustainable. In this aspects
in one of the judgment the Apex Court observed that candidate's
subjective expectations do not give rise to a justiciable claim.
217. The TGPSC conducted the evaluation in a structured
manner strictly in accordance with the recruitment notification.
Double valuation was implemented for all descriptive papers by
independent evaluators. Answer scripts were barcoded and
anonymized, ensuring that neither centre, gender, nor candidate
identity influenced the process. Third valuation was invoked
wherever the variation between two evaluators crossed the notified
threshold. The procedures adopted by TGPSC are consistent with
accepted standards and were disclosed in advance. The petitioners
have not demonstrated any deviation from these norms in their
individual cases.
127 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
218. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that
academic evaluation is the domain of expert bodies and is not
subject to judicial scrutiny except in cases of demonstrable mala
fide or statutory violation. In the said aspects, the Hon'ble Apex
Court repeatedly observed that courts must not interfere with the
sanctity and academic assessment.
219. The recruitment process involving over 563 vacancies and
more than 3,00,000 candidates cannot be invalidated merely
because a few candidates are dissatisfied or perceive anomalies.
The Supreme Court has held that cancellation of an entire
examination must be a last resort and only when the process is
vitiated by fraud, leakage, or proven illegality. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
220. The Commission has demonstrated transparency at every
stage of the recruitment process, including evaluation and
publication of results. The stay order has been adversely affected
candidates, who have worked hard and are awaiting appointment
orders, causing unnecessary delays and hardship.
128 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
221. The interveners adopt all the above objections and rely upon
the comprehensive counter filed by TGPSC in W.P.No.11439 of
2025 for purposes of defending the integrity of the selection
process and seeking vacation of the interim order therein, which
adversely impacts the finalization of appointments in the present
case as well.
Analysis of case laws and findings of the Court:
Analysis of case laws submitted by all the counsels:
Mrs. B.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior counsel, to
substantiate her arguments, relied upon the following case laws:-
222. The allegation is that the several gross irregularities and
illegalities occurred by the Commission while evaluating the
answer scripts. In support of her arguments, she relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs.
Baishakhi Bhattacharya Chatterje and Others 1.
223. The case pertains to 2016 West Bengal School Commission
had issued a notification for regional and State Level Selection
Tests, before the results were declared writ petition is filed against
(2025 SCC online SC 719)
129 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
the State's failure to grant age relaxation. The case went to
Supreme Court finally concluded with multiple reliefs. While
deciding the above case, several observations were made by the
Apex Court with regard to cancellation of the examinations and
held at Para.7 as follows:-
7. This Court in several cases has examined the question when the
entire selection process should be struck down in case of
irregularities. It will be apposite to refer to some of the decisions as
the ratio and reasoning, in our opinion, is clear and does not suffer
from contradictions. In Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service
Selection Board (DSSSB)25, this Court observed that determining
when the examination process is vitiated by irregularities requires
an in-depth fact-finding inquiry. The answer lies in examining
whether the irregularities were systemic enough to undermine the
sanctity of the process. In some cases, the irregularities may
border on or even constitute fraud, which severely damages the
credibility and legitimacy of the process. In such cases, the only
option is to cancel the result entirely. These are situations where it
is difficult to separate the tainted from the untainted participants,
and the irregularities are widespread, indicating a malaise or
fraud that has corrupted the process. On the other hand, there are
cases where only some participants have committed irregularities.
In such cases, it may be possible to segregate the wrongdoers from
those who adhered to the rules. The innocent should not suffer for
the actions of the wrongdoers. By segregating the guilty, the
selection process for the untainted candidates can proceed to its
logical conclusion. This aligns with the principle of equality of
opportunity under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, as well
130 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
as the fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution,
which mandates a fair, equitable, and reasonable process. Care
must be taken to ensure that the innocent are not unfairly
penalized alongside the wrongdoers by cancelling the entire
process. To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally would
violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it would involve treating
un-equals equally. The innocent should not be punished for faults
they did not commit. Finally, while the decision of the recruiting
body is subject to judicial control, the body must retain a measure
of discretion.
18. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India36, this Court observed
that a holistic view must be adopted by assessing the extent of
unfair means used and whether it is possible to separate the
tainted candidates from the untainted ones. The court must ensure
that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the
material on record, including investigative reports, supports this
conclusion. There must be at least some evidence for the court to
reach such a conclusion. However, the standard of evidence need
not be unduly strict. Specifically, the material on record need not
point to a single, definitive conclusion that malpractice occurred at
a systemic level. Nevertheless, there must be a real possibility of
systemic malaise, as reflected in the material before the court.
224. In the above case, the Apex Court observed certain
principles for cancellation of examination with regard to the extent
of unfair in evaluation and undermines the integrity of the entire
selection process. The Commission adopted evaluation method
certain procedure irregularities support the petitioner's
allegations.
131 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
225. There is no transparency and fairness in the conducting of
examination. To support her arguments, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate
Service Selection Board and others 2, wherein the Apex Court
held as follows :-
"A. Broad contours of the litigation
2. This judgment visits a familiar conundrum in service
jurisprudence. The constitutional values which under gird Articles
14 and 16 mandate that selection processes conducted by public
authorities to make recruitments have to be fair, transparent and
accountable. All too often, human fallibility and foibles intrude into
the selection processes. Selection involves intense competition and
there is no dearth of individuals who try and bend the Rules to
gain an unfair leap in the race. Irregularities in the process give
rise to misgivings over whether the process has denied equal
access to all persons. The sanctity of the selection process comes
under a cloud. The detection of individual wrongdoing by
candidates may result in action being taken to exclude those
whose credentials or performance is tainted. But when the entire
process is tainted, the authority in charge of conducting it may
decide to cancel the selection as a whole. Judicial review is then
invoked to challenge the decision to cancel the entire process. The
guiding principles have evolved over the past five decades as new
challenges emerged and novel attempts to suborn the legitimacy of
recruitment processes have come to the fore. The Delhi High Court
in the present case upheld the view of the Central Administrative
Tribunal ("Tribunal") that the cancellation of the entire process was
invalid but it confined the relief to six candidates who had moved
the proceedings before the Tribunal in the first instance. Like other
cases of its genre, this batch of appeals calls the court to balance
two competing considerations: the need to preserve public
confidence in and the sanctity of selection to public posts and the
requirement of observing fairness to candidates who invest time
and resources in attempting to clear through a selection. Both
(2021 (4) SCC 631)
132 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
these considerations have a constitutional foundation going
beyond service and administrative law principles. The issue has
travelled to the court for resolution and the path ahead requires us
to revisit and evolve the law on the subject.
F. The position in law
35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not re-invent the wheel.
Over the last five decades, several decisions of this Court have
dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an
examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the
issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have
taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the
process. There are cases which border upon or cross-over into the
domain of fraud as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy
of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the spectrum
where the authority conducting the examination or convening the
selection process comes to the conclusion that as a result of
supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its
legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a
decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-
finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of mal-
practices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has
taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the
tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large scale
irregularities including those which have the effect of denying
equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive
of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process. At the
other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participants
in the process who appear at the examination or selection test are
guilty of irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to
segregate persons who are guilty of wrong-doing from others who
have adhered to the Rules and to exclude the former from the
process. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrong-doing
should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be
involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrong-doers, the
selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass
muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion.
This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a
principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the
constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and
reasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts
subject to the norm of equality of opportunity Under Article 16(1) is
a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a
fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the
recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence
of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes
illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate
133 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
persons who have indulged in mal-practices and to penalise them
for their wrong-doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of
their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint. To treat the
innocent and the wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to
the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be
contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated
equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and
reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The
decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control
subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must
have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with
law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process.
Now it is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes
appropriate to advert to the precedents of this Court which hold the
field.
66. Recruitment to public services must command public
confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public
functions associated with the functioning of the Government.
Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation
may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not
specifically be found to be involved in wrong-doing. But that is not
sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination
where the nature of the wrong-doing cuts through the entire
process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the
examinations which have been held for recruitment. Both the High
Court and the Tribunal have, in our view, erred in laying exclusive
focus on the report of the second Committee which was confined to
the issue of impersonation. The report of the second Committee is
only one facet of the matter. The deputy Chief minister was
justified in going beyond it and ultimately recommending that the
entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the findings
which were arrived at in the report of the first Committee. Those
findings do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal found any
fault with those findings. In this view of the matter, both the
judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable."
226. With regard to the judicial review in the case on hand
learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of
134 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Chairman All India Railway Recruitment Board and Another
Vs. K. Shyam Kumar and Others 3 held as follows:-
"22 judicial review conventionally is concerned with the question of
jurisdiction and natural justice and the court is not much
concerned with the merits of the decision but how the decision was
reached. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for civil
Service (GCHQ case) the House of Lords rationalised the grounds
of judicial review and ruled that the basis of judicial review could
be highlighted under three principal heads, namely, illegality,
procedural impropriety and irrationality. Illegality as a ground of
judicial review means that the decision maker must understand
correctly the law that regulates his decision-making powers and
must give effect to it. Grounds such as acting ultra vires, errors of
law and/or fact, onerous conditions, improper purpose, relevant
and irrelevant factors, acting in bad faith, fettering discretion,
unauthorised delegation, failure to act, etc. fall under the heading "
illegality". Procedural impropriety may be due to the failure to
comply with the mandatory procedures such as breach of natural
justice, such as audi alteram partem, absence of bias, the duty to
act fairly, legitimate expectations, failure to give reasons, etc".
227. The above case is supporting the allegations of the
petitioners counsel such as the Commission while conducting the
examinations there are several irregularities, procedural
impropriety and irrationalities taken place. In such situation, the
(2010 (6) SCC 614)
135 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
judicial interference is required. These three things lead to filing
of the present writ petitions.
228. Rejecting the Commission submissions with regard to
maintainability that after having failed, challenging the selection
process by the petitioners is not correct. The learned Senior
Counsels Sri. G.Vidya Sagar and Mrs. B. Rachana Reddy relied
upon the judgment in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahani v. State of
Bihar 4, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: -
15. Furthermore, before beginning analysis of the legal issues
involved, it is necessary to first address the preliminary issue. The
maintainability of the very challenge by the appellant has been
questioned on the ground that she having partaken in the selection
process cannot later challenge it due to mere failure in selection.
The counsel for the respondents relied upon a catena of decisions
of this Court to substantiate his objection.
16. It is well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a
candidate from challenging the selection process after having
failed in it as iterated by this Court in a plethora of judgments
including Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12
SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256] , observing as follows: (SCC
p. 584, para 16)
"16. We also agree with the High Court [Manish Kumar
Shahi v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321 : (2008) 4 PLJR
(2019) 20 SCC 17)
136 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
93] that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing
fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva
voce test, the appellant is not entitled to challenge the criteria or
process of selection. Surely, if the appellant's name had appeared
in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging
the selection. The [appellant] invoked jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found
that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the
Commission. This conduct of the appellant clearly disentitles him
from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit
any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."
The underlying objective of this principle is to prevent candidates
from trying another shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse
wherein every disgruntled candidate, having failed the selection,
challenges it in the hope of getting a second chance.
17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as
the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process
only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In
a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory
rules and discriminating consequences arising there from, the
same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has
partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its
violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may
not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the
provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the
selection process."
229. In the case on hand also, the petitioners are questioning the
deviation of Commission's own principles, rules and conditions.
137 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Whenever deviation taken place, the candidates can approach the
Court.
230. With regard to violation of instructions to applicants, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND
OTHERS Vs. G. HEMALATHAA AND ANOTHER 5, wherein the
Apex Court held as follows:
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The
Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having
the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict
adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of
paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the
Instructions issued by the Commission.
231. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the Commission has failed to maintain fairness and
purity in the examination process. To support her contention, she
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Tamil Nadu and another v. A.Kalaimani and others 6, wherein
the Apex Court held as follows: -
(2020) 19 SCC 430)
((2021) 16 SCC 217)
138 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
15. In Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat (2017) 13
SCC 621 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 80] , this Court held : (SCC pp. 628-
29, para 21)
"21. Purity of the examination process -- whether such examination
process pertains to assessment of the academic accomplishment or
suitability of candidates for employment under the State -- is an
unquestionable requirement of the rationality of any examination
process. Rationality is an indispensable aspect of public
administration under our Constitution. The authority of the State to
take appropriate measures to maintain the purity of any
examination process is unquestionable. It is too well settled a
principle of law in light of the various earlier decisions of this Court
that where there are allegations of the occurrence of large-scale
malpractices in the course of the conduct of any examination
process, the State or its instrumentalities are entitled to cancel the
examination. This Court has on numerous occasions approved the
action of the State or its instrumentalities to cancel examinations
whenever such action is believed to be necessary on the basis of
some reasonable material to indicate that the examination process
is vitiated. They are also not obliged to seek proof of each and every
fact which vitiated the examination process."
16. May be, the candidates who had a chance of being selected and
appointed as Lecturers in the Government Polytechnic Colleges on
the basis of the results of the written examination would be
inconvenienced due to another examination being conducted but a
serious doubt entertained by the Board about the magnitude of the
manipulation in the examination has to be given due weightage.
232. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that with regard to the evaluation methodology, the
139 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Commission has failed to evaluate the answer scripts in a proper
manner. The Commission has not followed the moderation
method. In support of her contention, she relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh and Anr. V.
U.P.Public Service Commission, Allahabad 7, wherein the Apex
Court held as follows: -
"These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have
been filed by the unsuccessful candidates who appeared in the
examinations conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission ('Commission for short) for recruitment to the posts of
Civil Judge (Junior Division).
23. When a large number of candidates appear for an examination,
it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of
the answer- scripts. Where the number of candidates taking the
examination are limited and only one examiner (preferably the
paper-setter himself) evaluates the answer-scripts, it is to be
assumed that there will be uniformity in the valuation. But where a
large number of candidates take the examination, it will not be
possible to get all the answer-scripts evaluated by the same
examiner. It, therefore, becomes necessary to distribute the answer-
scripts among several examiners for valuation with the paper-setter
(or other senior person) acting as the Head Examiner. When more
than one examiner evaluate the answer-scripts relating to a subject,
the subjectivity of the respective examiner will creep into the marks
awarded by him to the answer- scripts allotted to him for valuation.
Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the answer-
scripts. Inevitably therefore, even when experienced examiners
((2007) 3 SCC 720)
140 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
receive equal batches of answer scripts, there is difference in
average marks and the range of marks awarded, thereby affecting
the merit of individual candidates. This apart, there is 'Hawk- Dove'
effect. Some examiners are liberal in valuation and tend to award
more marks. Some examiners are strict and tend to give less marks.
Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding marks. Even
among those who are liberal or those who are strict, there may be
variance in the degree of strictness or liberality. This means that if
the same answer-script is given to different examiners, there is all
likelihood of different marks being assigned. If a very well written
answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre answer-
script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre answer-script may be
awarded more marks than the excellent answer-script. In other
words, there is 'reduced valuation' by a strict examiner and
'enhanced valuation' by a liberal examiner. This is known as
'examiner variability' or 'Hawk-Dove effect'. Therefore, there is a
need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the
Examiners so that the effect of 'examiner subjectivity' or 'examiner
variability' is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner
subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic
method of moderation is as follows :
(i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the Head
Examiner for the subject. He is selected from amongst senior
academicians/scholars/senior civil servants/Judges. Where the
case of a large number of candidates, more than one examiner is
appointed and each of them is allotted around 300 answer-scripts
for valuation.
(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one
examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the
examiners is held soon after the examination. They discuss
thoroughly the question paper, the possible answers and the
141 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
weightage to be given to various aspects of the answers. They also
carry out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions. The
sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed by the Head
Examiner and variations in assigning marks are further discussed.
After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the
norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the examiners are
required to complete the valuation of answer scripts. But this by
itself, does not bring about uniformity of assessment inter se the
examiners. In spite of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to
deviate from the expected or agreed norms, as their caution is
overtaken by their propensity for strictness or liberality or erraticism
or carelessness during the course of valuation. Therefore, certain
further corrective steps become necessary.
(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the Head
Examiner conducts a random sample survey of the corrected
answer scripts to verify whether the norms evolved in the meetings
of examiner have actually been followed by the examiners. The
process of random sampling usually consists of scrutiny of some top
level answer scripts and some answer books selected at random
from the batches of answer scripts valued by each examiner. The
top level answer books of each examiner are revalued by the Head
Examiner who carries out such corrections or alterations in the
award of marks as he, in his judgment, considers best, to achieve
uniformity. (For this purpose, if necessary certain statistics like
distribution of candidates in various marks ranges, the average
percentage of marks, the highest and lowest award of marks etc.
may also be prepared in respect of the valuation of each examiner.)
(iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted by each
examiner, the Head Examiner may confirm the award of marks
without any change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms,
or suggest upward or downward moderation, the quantum of
142 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
moderation varying according to the degree of liberality or strictness
in marking.In regard to the top level answer books revalued by the
Head Examiner, his award of marks is accepted as final. As
regards the other answer books below the top level, to achieve
maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the awards
are moderated as per the recommendations made by the Head
Examiner.
(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been erratic or
careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasible to
have any standard moderation, the answer scripts valued by such
examiner are revalued either by the Head Examiner or any other
Examiner who is found to have followed the agreed norms.
(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the examiners
are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examiner to assess
the work of all the Examiners. In such a situation, one more level of
Examiners is introduced. For every ten or twenty examiners, there
will be a Head Examiner who checks the random samples as above.
The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief
Examiner to ensure proper results.
The above procedure of 'moderation' would bring in considerable
uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute
uniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where
there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve
maximum uniformity."
233. In the present case, the Commission has taken different and
contradictory stands. In their own additional common counter
affidavit in para No.70, they said that moderation is not required
143 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
in Group-I examinations and on the same issue, while arguing the
matter before the Court submitted that the Commission fully
followed the moderation methodology. The very same Commission
submitted their arguments and when the Court raised objection
with regard to the key, the Commission replied that the key will be
provided only in the objective type and since it is a descriptive
type, there is no key. All the evaluators are experts in evaluating
the English, Telugu medium papers. The action of the
Commission reflects with the above observations that they have
not followed any method in proper manner.
234. The very same case is relied on by the learned Senior
Counsel Sri M.Surender Rao and submitted that "in the absence
of a moderation or scaling mechanism to balance inter evaluator
disparities, the result stands vitiated by arbitrariness and unequal
treatment". In the present case, the Commission failed to put in
place any moderation, standardization or uniform evaluation
matrix, despite involving multiple evaluators, double evaluation,
and multi phase assessment under different chair persons leading
to unbalanced and inconsistent marking and also the Counsel
brought to the notice of the Court that the Commission's own
144 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
affidavit (para-70 of additional common counter) states that
moderation was "not required", because all papers are mandatory,
at in the Court it claims full compliance with SANJAY SINGH's
case (supra). This contradiction confirms that no genuine
moderation was done. The average - only method treats the
candidates unequally and violates the Constitutional guarantees
of fairness and equality rendering the entire evaluation arbitrary
and void.
Sri. M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel to support his
arguments relied upon the following case laws:-
235. With regard to fairness, learned Senior Counsel relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr.J.P.Kulshreshtha
and Others Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University and Other 8,
wherein the Apex court held as follows :-
10. We may dispel two mystiques before we debate the real
issued. Did the selection committee act illegally in resorting to the
interview process to pick out the best ? We think not. Any
administrative or quasi judicial body clothed with powers and left
unfettered by procedures is free to devise its own pragmatic, flexible
and functionally viable processes of transacting business subject, of
course to the basics of natural justice fair play in action,
(AIR 1980 SC 2141)
145 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
reasonableness in collecting decisional materials, avoidance of
arbitrariness and extraneous considerations and otherwise keeping
with in the leading strings of the law. We find no flaw in the
methodology of `interviews.' Certainly, cases arise where the are of
interviewing candidates deteriorates from strategy to stratagem and
undetectable manipulation of results is achieved by remote control
tactics masked as viva voce tests. This, if allowed, is surely a
sabotage of the purity of proceedings, a subterfuge whereby legal
means to reach illegal ends is achieved. So it is that courts insist, as
the learned single Judge has, in this very case, suggested on
recording of marks at interviews and other fair checks like
guidelines for marks and remarks about candidates and the like. If
the court is skeptical, the record of the Selection proceedings,
including the notes regarding the interviews, may have to be made
available. Interviews, as such, are not bad but polluting it to attain
illegitimate ends is bad. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when
be wrote.
"So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral
means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as
wrong, or even more, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends."
236. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the examiners who make the valuation of answer
papers should be well-equipped for the job. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
146 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
President Board Of Secondary Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr 9,
wherein the Apex Court held as follows :-
"It has to be ensured that the Examiners who make the valuation of
answer papers are really equipped for the job. The paramount
consideration in such cases is the ability of the Examiner. The Board
has bounden duty to select such persons as Examiners who have
the capacity, capability to make valuation and they should really
equipped for the job."
237. The Hon'ble Supreme court in D.Suvankar's case (supra),
laid down three mandatory safeguards for any evaluating
authority:
I. Subject-specific competence - only examiners "really equipped
for the job" may value answer scripts, and each must belong to
the same discipline as the paper assessed.
II. Consistency of marking - wide inter-examiner variation erodes
credibility; the system myust prevent a situation where "for the
same answer one candidate gets higher marks than another."
III. Judicially reviewable duty - If an examining body fails to
ensure those safeguards, courts may interfere despite the normal
restraint in valuation matters.
238. TGPSC's Group-I Mains process violates each principle.
First, the evaluator lists filed by the Commission show no
(2007 (1) SCC 603
147 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
dedicated sociology faculty for Paper III (Indian Society), no
Environmental-science specialists for Paper IV, no domain experts
for Telangana Movement (Paper VI) and no domain-wise panel for
the six-section General Essay; several assessors are degree-college
lecturers or long-retired teachers with no advanced work in the
subjects they marked. This squarely violates Suvankar's mandate
that "care should be taken to see that the examiners ... belong to
the same faculty," and reduces the exercise to a "mockery of the
system of valuation.".
239. In the present case, all the three safeguards while evaluating
the answer scripts deviated by the Commission.
240. In MANDEEP SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND
ORS 10, the Apex Court held as follows :-
"18. Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution, inter alia, states that
the State Public Service Commission "shall be consulted on all
matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for
civil posts". The provision appears to be mandatory as the words
"shall be consulted" suggest. All the same, the learned counsel for
the respondents would rely on a 1957 Constitution Bench decision
of this Court in State of U.P v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava 1957 SCC
(SLP (civil) No. 23141 of 2024)
148 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
OnLine SC 4 which had laid down that the provision is not
mandatory but merely directory.
55. In Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
10 SCC 388, this Court laid down the general principle that State
action should be grounded in sound principles and should not be
unpredictable or without basis. This Court noted as follows:
"27. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only
be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any
affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of
discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias,
favouritism and nepotism. The decision should be made by the
application of known principles and rules and in general such
decision should be predictable and the citizen should know where
he is, but if a decision is taken without any principle or without any
rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the
decision taken in accordance with the rule of law (vide S.G.
Jaisinghani v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1427] , AIR p. 1434,
para 14 and Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corpn.
[(1988) 1 SCC 166 : AIR 1988 SC 157] )." (Emphasis provided) .
241. The above case law is supporting the arguments of the
counsel for the petitioners with regard to conducting the
examinations in a fair manner and there is a discrimination in
finalizing the result.
242. While denying the submissions of the respondents counsel
with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions, the
149 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
petitioners counsel relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e., RAMAVATAR SINGH YADAV Vs. THE
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 11, the 3 Judges
bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that High Courts in the
country are guardians of Fundamental Rights & constitution and
should not mechanically dismiss writ petitions seeking
enforcement of fundamental rights on the ground of 'delay and
laches', without considering all relevant factors.
243. In the present case respondents opposing the filing of writ
petitions on the ground of delay the facts remains that while
certificate verification is announced the petitioners approached
this court. Hence the contentions of the respondents cannot be
taken up.
244. While denying the submissions of the respondents counsel
with regard to the res judicata, the petitioners counsel relied upon
the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Daiswal and others Vs. Dossibai
N.B.Jeejeebhoi 12, with regard to res judicata in the above case
(CIVIL APPEAL No.13806 OF 2024)
(1970 (1) SCC 613)
150 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
took the view that the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the
domain of procedure and a decision on an issue of law will be res
judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, if
the cause of action of the subsequent proceedings be the same as
in the provisions proceedings, but not when cause of action is
different.
245. In the present case initially this court granted interim
direction on 16.04.2025 thereafter some of the candidates filed
W.P.No..12431 of 2025 and the same was came up before another
bench and the same was dismissed on 25.04.2025. By connecting
the same to this case Commission argued before this court once
writ petition is already dismissed and the present case is liable to
be dismissed on the ground of res judicata cannot be accepted.
246. While denying the submissions of the respondents counsel
with regard to the evaluation process, the petitioners' counsel
submitted that there is no indication of evaluation in the answer
scripts, is contrary to law. While supporting his arguments, the
learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of
151 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay 13. He also submitted that
under similar circumstances, this Court has repeatedly applied
that ratio. Dr.P.Kishore Kumar (2016 SCC ONLINE hyd 364)
Dr.J.Kiran Kumar (and the Division Bench Ruling W.A.No.757 of
2019 reiterated once again in W.P.No.27869 of 2021, as a binding
precedent. Here by contrast, the total obliteration of the mark
trial frustrates the very "vigour of evaluation" that these
authorities deem mandatory. In the said case, the Supreme Court
held that every examinee has a "legitimate expectation" that his
answers will be looked at appreciated and evaluated and that the
resulting markings constitute disclosable "information". In the
present case, there is no marking in any answer scripts. Hence,
the above judgment supports the contention of the petitioners.
Sri. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel to support his
arguments relied upon the following case laws:-
247. With regard to legitimate expectation, failure in fairness in
action, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the
(2011 (8) SCC 497)
152 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Apex Court in RAM PRAVESH SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF
BIHAR AND OTHERS 14, wherein the apex court held as follows:
"15. What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right.
It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily
flow from a promise or established practice. The term 'established
practice' refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain
conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The
expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and
valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or
random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be
a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as
such. It is a concept fashioned by courts, for judicial review of
administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the
requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action,
as a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. In
short, a person can be said to have a 'legitimate expectation' of a
particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an
authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and
consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such
expectation in the normal course. As a ground for relief, the efficacy
of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above 'fairness in
action' but far below 'promissory estoppel'. It may only entitle an
expectant: (a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation
is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In
appropriate cases, courts may grant a direction requiring the
Authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. A
legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle
the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of
the expectant or any other valid or bonafide reason given by the
(2006) 8 SCC 381
153 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the 'legitimate
expectation'.
16. In Union of India v. Hindustan Development
Corporation [1993 (3) SCC 499], this Court explained the nature
and scope of the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' thus :
"For legal purposes, the expectation cannot be the same as
anticipation. It is different from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can
it amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right. However
earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be and
however confidently one may look to them to be fulfilled, they by
themselves cannot amount to an assertable expectation and a
mere disappointment does not attract legal consequences. A pious
hope even leading to a moral obligation cannot amount to a
legitimate expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be
inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an
established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence.
Again it is distinguishable from a genuine expectation. Such
expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protectable. Every
such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify into a right
and therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional
sense."
17. This Court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the
principle of legitimate expectation:
" it is generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the
applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the
doctrine of legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to right of
a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a
promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine
does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the
administrative authorities as no crystallized right as such is
154 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not
require the fulfillment of the expectation where an overriding public
interest requires otherwise. In other words where a person's
legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision
then decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation
by showing some overriding public interest. Therefore even if
substantive protection of such expectation is contemplated that
does not grant an absolute right to a particular person. It simply
ensures the circumstances in which that expectation may be
denied or restricted. A case of legitimate expectation would arise
when a body by representation or by past practice aroused
expectation which it would be within its powers to fulfil. The
protection is limited to that extent and a judicial review can be
within those limits. But as discussed above a person who bases
his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first
instance, must satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has
locus standi to make such a claim. In considering the same several
factors which give rise to such legitimate expectation must be
present. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be
arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. If it is a
question of policy, even by way of change of old policy, the courts
cannot interfere with a decision. In a given case whether there are
such facts and circumstances giving rise to a legitimate
expectation, it would primarily be a question of fact. If these tests
are satisfied and if the court is satisfied that a case of legitimate
expectation is made out then the next question would be whether
failure to give an opportunity of hearing before the decision
affecting such legitimate expectation is taken, has resulted in
failure of justice and whether on that ground the decision should
be quashed. If that be so then what should be the relief is again a
matter which depends on several factors."
155 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
248. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submits that the Commission failed to follow its own Rules and
Regulations. In support of his contention, the learned Senior
Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KRISHNA
RAI (DIED AS PER LRS) AND OTHERS Vs. BANARAS HINDU
UNIVERSITY (THROUGH REGISTRAR) AND OTHERS 15, wherein
the Apex Court held as follows:
32. Further in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
Customs (preventive), Jamnagar8, it has been laid down that there
can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires something to be
done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner,
and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence
in the eye of the law. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is as
follows:-
"18. The Tribunal's judgment has proceeded on the basis that even
though the samples were drawn contrary to law, the appellants
would be estopped because their representative was present when
the samples were drawn and they did not object immediately. This
is a completely perverse finding both on fact and law. On fact, it has
been more than amply proved that no representative of the
appellant was, in fact, present at the time the Customs Inspector
took the samples. Shri K.M. Jani who was allegedly present not only
stated that he did not represent the Clearing Agent of the appellants
in that he was not their employee but also stated that he was not
present when the samples were taken. In fact, therefore, there was
no representative of the appellants when the samples were taken.
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 713)
156 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
In law equally the Tribunal ought to have realized that there can be
no estoppel against law. If the law requires that something be done
in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, and if not
done in that manner has no existence in the eye of law at all."
249. To support his arguments that the Commission has not
followed their own Rules, the learned Counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in BEDANGA TALUKDAR Vs
SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS 16, wherein the apex court
held as follows :-
29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it
is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all
appointments to public office have to be made in conformity
with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there
must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being
shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be
conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection
procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned
in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained.
There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the
advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a
power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if
power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be
mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the
Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the
power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This
would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become
eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to
(2011) 12 SCC 85)
157 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement
without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality
contained in Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
250. In the case on hand, for Group-I, the Commission issued
Notification with certain Rules and Regulations and the same has
to be followed. Being a Constitutional body, they have to follow the
Rules of procedure. Surprisingly, both are not followed in a
proper manner.
251. With regard to maintainability, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
ABHIMEET SINHA AND OTHERS Vs. HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT PATNA AND OTHERS 17, wherein the Apex
Court held as follows:
35. At the outset, it is apposite to address the issue of the
maintainability of the writ petitions. It is argued by Mr. Gautam
Narayan and Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan learned counsel that
after having participated in the recruitment process, the writ
petitioners having not succeeded, cannot turn around and
challenge the recruitment process or the vires of the Recruitment
Rules. It is submitted that all candidates knew about the
prescription of minimum marks for viva voce, well before the
selection process commenced and the principle of estoppel will
operate against the unsuccessful challengers. On the other hand,
(2024) 7 SCC 262)
158 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners argued that
the principle of estoppel would have no application when there
are glaring illegalities in the selection process. Further, estoppel is
not applicable when the arbitrariness affects fundamental rights
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
36. As argued by the learned counsel for the High Courts, the legal
position is that after participating in the recruitment process, the
unsuccessful candidates cannot turn around and challenge the
recruitment process. However, it is also settled that the principle of
estoppel cannot override the law. Such legal principle was
reiterated by the Supreme Court in Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai Vs.
Union of India, where it was observed as under:
"17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as
the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process
only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In
a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory
rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same
cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in
it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any
manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus
to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of
the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection
process."
Sri. K. S. Murthy Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners to support his arguments relied upon the following
case laws:-
159 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
252. With regard to the procedural lapses of the Commission and
in the interest of student community, merit should not be
casualty. Supporting his arguments, the learned counsel relied
upon the GURUNANAK DEV UNIVERSITY Vs. SAUMIL GARG
AND OTHERS and the very same principle applied in MANISH
UJWAL Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND SARASWATHI
UNIVERISTY 18, wherein it is stated as follows:
"11 What is paramount is the interest of the student
community. Merit should not be a casualty. We feel that the
interests of the students would be adequately safeguarded if we
direct the appellant University to revaluate the answers of the
aforesaid eight questions with reference to the key answers
provided by CBSC and the University of Delhi which are same
and not with reference to the key answers provided by the
appellant University".
253. Learned counsel for the petitioners contradicting the
arguments of the Commission with regard to the following Rules
and Regulations supporting his arguments, the counsel relied
upon the Apex Court judgment in N.T.DAVIN KATTI VS.
KARNATAKA PSC 19. In the similar contention, relied upon
another judgment of the Apex Court in INDER PRAKASH GUPTA
(2005 (13) SCC 749)
(1990 (3) SCC 157)
160 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Vs. STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS 20, wherein it was held as
follows:
"28.The Jammu & Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted)
Services Recruitment Rules, 1979 admittedly were issued under
Section 124 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution which is in
pari materia with Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said
Rules are statutory in nature. The Public Service Commission is a
body created under the Constitution. Each State constitutes its
own Public Service Commission to meet the constitutional
requirement for the purpose of discharging its duties under the
Constitution. Appointment to service in a State must be in
consonance with the constitutional provisions and in conformity
with the autonomy and freedom of executive action. Section 133
of the Constitution imposes duty upon the State to conduct
examination for appointment to the services of the State. The
Public Service Commission is also required to be consulted on the
matters enumerated under Section 133. While going through the
selection process the Commission, however must scrupulously
follow the statutory rules operating the field".
254. Contradicting the issuance of two hall tickets, to
support his arguments, he relied upon the judgment in
HEMALATHAA's case (supra). In the said Judgment, it is
stated as follows :-
"8. We have given our consideration to the submissions made
by the learned senior counsel for the respondent. The instructions
(2004 (6) SCC 786)
161 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
issued by the Commission are mandatory. Having the force of law
and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the
terms and conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance.
Hence, the Commission if not followed the rules, conditions which
has given in the notification and the gazette. It amounts to deviating
the rules and conditions of the Notification gazette."
255. Learned Counsel for the petitioners opposing the contentions
of the respondents with regard to revaluation relied upon the
Judgment in RAN VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 21. In the said case three
evaluations of the answer sheets of, more than 36,000 candidates
who took the examination for recruitment as Trained Graduate
Teachers way back in January 2009. In the said judgment, the
Apex Court held as follows:
"30.1 If a statute, Rule of 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 rationalization"
(2018 (2) SCC 357)
162 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been
committed;"
256. In the present case also, there is no fair evaluation. Due to
lack of integrity in evaluation process, injustice was done to the
major Telugu medium candidates. Hence, the above judgment is
supporting the contentions of the petitioners' counsel with regard
to re-evaluation.
To support their arguments, the Commission (TGPSC) relied
upon the following case laws.
257. In TAJVIR SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF
JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS 22, has given proposition
that the Courts generally avoid interfering in the selection process
of public employment, recognizing the important of maintaining
the integrity of the selection process, as it involves high degree of
expertise and discretion.
258. It is further stated that the candidates, having taken part
in the selection process without demur or protest, cannot
challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The
(2023) 17 SCC 147)
163 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
only exception to such waiver is existence of mala fides on part of
the selected board.
259. In the above case, the contention of the petitioners is that
the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria
enshrined in the Advertisement Notice dated 05.05.2008 was
recast vide a corrigendum dated 12.06.2009 without any
justifiable reason.
260. In the case on hand, there is no corrigendum and in the
Notification itself the Commission stated that the candidates have
to regularly follow the Commission's website to know the changes
and the modification in the said examination time to time, but the
Commission did not follow their own condition. Therefore, the said
case is not applicable to the case on hand.
261. In VANSHIKA YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 23
has given proposition that it is settled law that the cancellation of
an examination is justified only in cases where the sanctity of the
exam is found to be compromised at a systemic level. Cancellation
can be ordered only if it is not possible to separate the tainted
(2024) 9 SCC 743)
164 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
candidates from untainted ones. In this case, court examined the
success rates from certain centers (where malpractice was alleged)
and found no abnormality. The leak of the question paper was not
found to be systemic or widespread.
262. In the case on hand, there is no leakage of question papers,
but sanctity of exam is found to be compromised and therefore,
the above case is not applicable to the case on hand.
263. In SADANANDA HALO AND OTHERS Vs. MOMTAZ ALI
SHEIKH AND OTHERS 24, has given proposition that the validity
of recruitment cannot be judged on the basis of microscopic
details and the courts cannot assume investigatory role. The High
Court did not have any tangible evidence regarding the process
being farcical except the self-serving statement made by the
unsuccessful candidates.
264. In the above case, the learned Single Judge conducted
investigatory role by calling for records of candidates participated
in interview and appointing a committee for scrutinizing the said
(2008) 4 SCC 619)
165 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
records and relying upon such findings of the scrutinizing
committee.
265. In the instant case, there is no investigation with regard to
conducting of the examination or that the Court did not appoint
any committee for scrutinizing the records, but the action of the
Commission is reflecting unfairness and malafides. Therefore, the
above case is not applicable to the case on hand.
266. In PRADEEP KUMAR RAI AND OTHERS Vs. DINESH
KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS 25 has given proposition that
acquiescence by participation and challenge to selection process
after participating in interview and declaration of adverse result,
held, is not maintainable. Once candidates had participated in
selection process without raising objections, they cannot be
allowed to challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful
and either candidates should not have participated in the
interview or they should have challenged the procedure
immediately after interviews were conducted.
267. In the above case, there was preliminary written
examination, Main written examination and interview and there is
(2015 11 SCC 493)
166 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration
of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that
time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found
themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview and
the same cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate
and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not
have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or
they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were
conducted.
268. In the case on hand, there is no question of delay and the
process is not yet finalized and when the Commission called for
Certificate Verification, the petitioners questioned the Group-I
examinations. Therefore, the above case is not applicable to the
case on hand.
269. In STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Vs. NANDLAL JAISWAL
AND OTHERS 26 and RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE
LIMITED 27, has given proposition that the allegations of malafides
need proof of high degree and that an administrative action is
presumed to be bonafide unless the contrary is satisfactorily
(1986) 4 SCC 566)
(2013) 1 SCC 524
167 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
established. Wherever allegations of mala fides are made, it is
necessary to give full particulars of such allegations and to set out
material facts specifying the particular person against whom such
allegations are made.
270. In the above cases, the observation of the Apex Court is that
the interference of the Courts in India is only on limited grounds,
such as, illegality or patent material irregularity in the
constitution of the selection committee or its procedure vitiating
the selection or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc.
271. In the case on hand, the Commission has not followed the
procedure stipulated in the Notification and violated their own
Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the above cases are not
applicable to the case on hand.
272. In JASVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF J & K
AND OTHERS 28 has given proposition that no specific allegation
of any mala fides or bias against the Board for selection or anyone
in the Board nor any such pleas substantiated. The observations
by High Court that there was conscious effort made for bringing
(2003) 2 SCC 132)
168 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
some candidates within the selection zone cannot be said to be
justified.
273. In the above case, the candidates approached the Court after
completion of the appointments. But, in the present, the
appointments are not at all finalized, only the qualified candidates
list was announced and that the certificate verification is under
process. Therefore, the above case is not applicable to the case on
hand.
Unofficial Respondents relied upon the following case laws.
Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel in support his
submissions relied upon the following:
274. As per the Judgment of the Apex Court in SANCHIT
BANSAL Vs. JOINT ADMISSION BOARD 29, submits that when a
bonafide procedure is adopted to achieve the purpose of the exam,
which is uniform and non-discriminatory, it is not arbitrary or
malafide.
275. In the above case, with regard to judicial interference in the
selection process, particularly with regard to the definition or
(2012) 1 SCC 157)
169 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
arbitrariness, allegations of malafies, and the principle that
subsequent disclosure of details by the authority pertaining to the
selection process does not, by itself, vitiate the process.
276. In the case on hand, whatever procedure adopted and
followed by the Commission did not explain anywhere in the
Notification or the web notes or by way of corrigendum and that
the procedure followed by the Commission itself is illegal.
Therefore, the above case is not applicable to the case on hand.
277. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial
respondents submits that mere suspicion of arbitrariness or mala
fides is not enough to set aside the selection process and it must
be proved. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ASHOK KUMAR YADAV
Vs. STATE OF HARYANA 30 and MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF J &
K 31.
278. In the case on hand, the Commission has adopted two hall
ticket methods where it is not there in the Rules (one is for prelims
and another one is for mains). The Commission has not published
(1985) 4 SCC 417)
(1995) 3 SCC 486)
170 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
the provisional marks where specifically mentioned in the
Notification as point No.15.2 total marks list will be published in
the Commission's web site, but the same was not published. It
reflects the Commission deviated their own method. Therefore, the
above case would not support the case of the unofficial
respondents.
279. By relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in
Deependra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. 32 and Sanchit Bansal's
case (supra), the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Courts
will not generally interfere with the selection process because it is
a specialized exercise undertaken by an expert body. No statutory
rule is violated and that Rule 3(ix) is also not violated.
280. In the instant case, the Commission has violated their own
Rules and Regulations and therefore, the Court can interfere with
the selection process, where there are violation of statutory rules
and malafies or arbitrariness. Therefore, the above case would not
support the submission of the unofficial respondents.
281. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial
respondents submits that even if any lapses are pointed out, the
(2024 SCC Online 724)
171 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Court shall first see the internal checks and balances put in place
by the Commission to satisfy itself and not straight away interfere
with selection process. In support of his contentions, he relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in RAN VIJAY SINGH's case
(supra).
282. He further contended that TGPSC has explained the reason
for change in number of centres and difference in numbers of
candidates. It has explained the procedure for counting and cross-
checking attendance. It has explained the apparent anomaly in
high number of selections from centres 18 and 19 and the method
adopted to allocate students to test centres by randomization.
Thus, the mechanisms adopted by TGPSC make it clear that the
apparent lapses actually do not exist. In any way, they don't
undermine the process because of the internal checks and
balances in the mechanism.
283. Once the Commission applied the randomization method to
allot centres and how certain centres were allotted only to female
candidates, particularly two centres in high in number. If
randomization is properly applied, the same cannot be happened.
Further, there is no proof of concerned College asking to provide
172 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
only female candidates in their College. It is only the mere
submission of the Commission and there is no proof from the
concerned College. Therefore, the above case would not support
the case of the unofficial respondents.
284. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial
respondents submits that interference by the Court for the mere
asking will keep the examination result in uncertainty and the
unofficial respondents have suffered a lot. To support his case, he
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RAN VIJAY
SINGH's case (supra).
285. In the instant case, the candidates putting high efforts and
hard work, wrote the examination very well, but the Commission
gave single digit marks to certain candidates. The Commission
has not explained how it has given less marks though they wrote
the examination satisfactorily. The contention of the Senior
Counsel is that the selected candidates will suffer if the stay
continue. But the same theory will be applicable who wrote the
exam satisfactorily but awarded single digit marks. Therefore, the
above case would not support the case of the unofficial
respondents.
173 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
286. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Counsel for the unofficial
respondents relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in UOI
Vs. RAJESH P.U. PUTHUVALNIKATHU 33 and stated that the
entire selection process cannot be cancelled on generalized
allegations and must be based on specific and proven
irregularities.
287. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
MANISH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA 34 and stated that the
larger public interest must be bonafide and not invoked casually
to derail valid selections or statutes.
288. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
STATE OF U.P. Vs. KARUNESH KUMAR 35 and stated that the
candidates who participate cannot later challenge the process and
that the certainty and finality in public recruitment are part of
public interest.
289. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
KRISHNADATT AWASTY Vs. STATE OF M.P. (2025 SCC
ONLINE SC 179) and stated that judicial review in recruitment is
(2003) 7 SCC 285)
(2021) 5 SCC 1)
(2022 SCC Online SC 1706)
174 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
narrow and larger public interest must be clearly established to
justify interference.
290. In the instant case, there are no general allegations and
where the malafides, unfairness, wrong doing, the Court can
interfere and whenever there are certain allegations and violation
of the recruitment rules, the judicial review can be entertained. As
malafides, unfairness, wrong doing and transparency taken place,
there is no other go except judicial review.
291. Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel for the unofficial
respondents relied upon the following judgments of the Apex
Court with regard of maintainability, revaluation and judicial
review.
(1) MANISH KUMAR SHAHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (2010) 12
SCC 576).
(2) MADAN LAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS (1995)
3 Supreme Court Cases 486).
(3) Dr.NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Vs. Dr.YERRA TRINADH
AND OTHERS (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 716).
(4) RAN VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases
357).
(5) PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA (AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4116).
175 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
(6) TELANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
RECRUITMENT BOARD Vs. SALUVADI SUMALATHA AND ANOTHER (2024)
4 Supreme Court Cases 336).
(7) OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, HYDERBAD Vs. A.SREENAIAH (2007 SCC
ONLINE AP 366).
292. With regard to the maintainability, learned counsel for the
unofficial respondent submits that having participated in the
selection process, the candidates cannot challenge the Notification
as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above
judgments. But, in the very same judgments the Apex Court
observed that where malafides, unfairness and wrong doing takes
place, the Courts can interfere.
293. He further contended that the writ petitioners have not
raised any legal ground regarding violation of any statutory rule
and infringement of their fundamental rights in order to grant
relief as prayed for. Moreover, the petitioners have not explained
as to how they are prejudiced securing less merit and would have
been secured more merit and within the zone of consideration. In
the absence of rules, request for revaluation cannot be permitted.
176 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
294. This Court is of the considered view that if the Commission
did not follow the proper methodology and if there is unfairness in
the evaluation, the Courts can interfere.
295. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that
the writ petitioners have not made any of the meritorious
candidates as party respondents to the writ petitions and they are
necessary and proper parties to the writ petitions.
296. With regard to the judicial review, wherever malafides, wrong
doings, illegalities took place, the Courts can interfere. In the
present case, all the issues raised and discussed. Hence, these
case laws would not support the unofficial respondents.
297. One of the contentions of the unofficial respondents is that
since formation of the Telangana State i.e., on 02.06.2014 and
even prior to that, no Group-I recruitment had taken place. As a
consequence, the public interest suffered a lot for want of
employment by the unemployed candidates. The candidates, who
have been waiting for their jobs, their hard work and merit in the
selection process, their right to livelihood is denied, which is in
177 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
violation of Article 21, apart from violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
298. The same theory will also be applicable to the candidates
who might be more meritorious but for the unfair evaluation were
awarded single digit marks.
299. The specific allegation made by the unofficial respondents is
that the writ petitioners are aggrieved despite having secured
lower merit, whereas the unofficial respondents qualified the
preliminary tests and subsequently appeared for the main
examination.
300. In the instant case, after successfully clearing the first stage,
the candidates undertook the main examination with full effort
and dedication. Unfortunately, some of them received single-digit
marks, which is questionable. Moreover, any alleged violations
attributed to the unofficial respondents would equally apply to the
writ petitioners. After the formation of the Telangana State
Commission, the Commission failed to follow a proper system.
Due to the Commission's inefficiency, the examination was
cancelled twice, for which the writ petitioners are not responsible.
178 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
FINDINGS OF THE COURT :-
301. In the instant case, the Commission issued Notification
No.02 of 2024 on 19.02.2024 inviting online applications from
eligible candidates through a proforma application for the posts of
Group-I Services in the State of Telangana to fill up 563 vacancies
in various departments. Subsequently, the Commission conducted
a preliminary Test on 09.06.2024 and thereafter announced the
prelims results in respect of candidates who qualified for the
mains examination. The Commission conducted the Mains
examination from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 and announced the
results of the mains examination on 30.03.2025. Thereafter, the
Commission called for certificate verification from 16.04.2025 to
21.04.2025. At this juncture, some of the unsuccessful
candidates approached this Hon'ble Court and filed the writ
petitions questioning the Group-I mains examination, specifically
regarding the conduct of the examination and the method of
evaluation.
302. After hearing the matter at length, the entire issue can be
divided into two parts, i.e. (1) Procedural aspects, (2) The method
of evaluation.
179 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
1) PROCEDURAL ASPECTS :
a) Issuing of two hall tickets for the Group-I Examination.
b) Allocation of examination centres in a biased manner.
c) Inconsistency about the total number of candidates, who
appeared for the main examination.
d) Multiple evaluation of answer scripts.
e) Publication of provisional/total marks list.
f) Disclosing of un-qualified candidate's hall ticket numbers
in the Mains final marks list.
g) Increasing vacancies by adding new vacancies.
2) METHOD OF EVALUATION :-
a) The selection of the evaluators.
b) The procedure of evaluation.
c) Telugu medium candidates were neglected.
d) Highest qualified candidates in specific centres.
e) Commission awarded the same marks to certain
candidates.
a) Issuing of two Hall Tickets for the Group-1 Examination:
303. The Commission has issued two hall tickets for the
prelims and mains examinations. The Prelims Hall tickets contain
details like District Code, Exam Center Code, etc. Since the Group
- I Mains exams are conducted only in the GHMC area, to avoid
180 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
confusion on the District Code and Exam Center Code, the
Commission has decided to allot separate hall ticket numbers for
all the candidates picked up for Group-I Mains, and the same is
purely an administrative issue as per the commission, and it is
within the purview of the Commission.
304. The Commission further stated that providing a continuous
sequence for hall tickets would be convenient for printing of OMR
sheets accompanying the answer scripts, distributing them across
examination centers and also in the examination halls. The same
plays a crucial role in verifying the candidates who appeared,
evaluated, and also in consolidation of the data. Thus, a new set
of hall ticket numbers for the Main examination has been given,
as was done in the previous Group - I Notification Nos. 15/2011 &
18/2011.
305. On the other hand, Mrs. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior
counsel for the petitioners stated that even in the UPSC
examination, which is a nationwide examination, only one hall
ticket is issued and utilized for the entire examination.
181 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
306. There is absolutely no mention or hint of the issuance of hall
tickets in Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024, and no
further web notes have been issued and that the very intention of
the respondent in issuing separate hall tickets is suspect given the
many illegalities and irregularities that have been followed.
Regarding issuance of two hall tickets, the explanation given by
the Commission is unclear.
307. After reviewing the Commission's explanation that, regarding
its administrative feasibility, they adopted the said procedure. For
this type of direct recruitment, the Commission has to follow the
Telangana State Public Service Commission's Rules of Procedure.
In the said rules, nothing was stated regarding the issuance of two
hall tickets. Further, the procedure followed by the higher
Commission, such as the UPSC, generally, the State Commission
ought to have followed the same system. The Commission
erroneously issued two hall tickets to the candidates. The
unsuccessful candidates questioned the Commission's action in
issuing two hall tickets.
308. The Commission did not provide clarification in a proper
manner as to what benefits the candidates will receive by issuing
182 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
two hall ticket numbers. When the UPSC conducted prelims and
mains examinations it issued only one hall ticket number to all
the candidates, and what necessitated the Commission to issue
two hall tickets is a question. The clarification given by the
Commission is not convincing.
309. Although the Commission stated that the same process was
followed in previous Group-I Notification Nos.15 of 2011 and 18 of
2011, no material has been placed before this court, and it is also
before the bifurcation of the State.
310. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the
entire exercise, beginning with the issuance of two hall tickets was
not as per the notification or rules. The Commission's action
creates doubts about the conduct of the examination.
b) Allocation of Examination Centres in a biased manner:
311. The Commission changed the number of test centers
from 45 to 46. Initially, 45 Test Centers were identified in the
GHMC area in all three Commissionrates. As per the commission,
in respect of centre 21 i.e., (CVR College of Engineering), it was
noticed that the strength of 984 candidates allotted needs to be
183 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
reduced and also that there was a problem noticed in Test Centre
Code 19 (Telangana Mahila Viswavidyalayam) that the Ground
Floor is at higher elevation with steps and PWD candidates cannot
climb the steps. Hence, 87 candidates, who were allotted to Test
Centre 19, were moved to Test Centre Code-21 by reducing the
strength from 984 to 744 to accommodate 40 scribe candidates.
The remaining 43 PWD with scribe candidates were allotted to
Test Centre Code 39 (St. Peter's Engineering College) by reducing
its strength from 504 to 312 plus 43 with scribe. Wherever PWD
with scribe candidates are to be allotted, it is mandatory to
allocate only six members in a room with a capacity of 24.
Accordingly, the strength has been reduced. As such, there was a
shortfall in centers in allotting total strength, and the Commission
identified one more additional Test centre (Centre code 46-
Princeton Institute of Engineering and Technology). Similarly, a
few more changes took place for non-scribe candidates also.
Further, all this exercise undertaken before the Hall Tickets were
generated, only after thorough verification of these types of issues.
After finalization of Test Centres, the data was processed for Hall
Ticket generation. All this was a back-end process before it
184 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
reached to the candidates and hence, they are in no way affected
by these changes as the process took place well before the
downloading of Hall Tickets.
312. The 46 centres were identified and selected based on various
parameters, including the feasibility of the centers to reach
centers. All three Commissionrates were involved in the conduct
of the examination.
S.No. Commissionerate No. of
Centers
313. The Commission produced a letter dated 15.04.2025
regarding the publication of a rejoinder to the news published on
15.04.2025 about to the Group-I Services recruitment. In the said
letter, the Commission disclosed several issues, such as the
method of awarding marks and selection of evaluators, as well as
exam center Nos.18 and 19 i.e., namely Veera Nari Chakali
Ilamma Women's University (Koti Women's College). Since it is a
women's institution, that the request of the institutions
185 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
management, women candidates have been allotted to the said
institution, as the restrooms etc., are not separately available for
both genders. These centers are exclusively for women candidates,
and around 25% of the total women candidates appeared in the
exam through these centers. Hence, the selection of the
candidates also reflects a proportion is more or less the same
among the successful women candidates.
314. The Commission stated that while allocating the
examination centres in a fair manner they applied a
randomisation method. If the Commission had followed the same
approach, then how were centers 18 and 19 given priority only to
female candidates? This leads all petitioners to doubt the conduct
of the Group-I examination. The Commission mentioned in
particular center numbers 18 and 19, Veera Nari Chakali Ilamma
Women's University (Koti Women's College). The College
authorities themselves requested the Commission to allot only
female candidates to their College. The Commission, to that
extent, they mentioned in the pleadings, but did not provide any
documentary evidence. The objections of the petitioners were that
once the same college was utilized for both male and female
186 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
candidates in the UPSC examinations, what insisted the
Commission to deviate from that system? The Commission's
action indicates that they did not follow the proper randomisation
method. The Commission, in their arguments, nowhere stated
what necessitated giving priority only to female candidates.
315. There is no proper answer from the commission. Moreover,
they stated that the Commission prioritised female candidates to
protect their freedom. If both genders were allotted the same
college, security issues might arise. Under the same conditions,
the Commission prioritised females. Though there is no rule in the
Commission's Rules of Procedure or in the Notification to give
priority to the female candidates, the Commission's action amount
to a violation of their own rules of procedure and notification. On
the other hand, the Commission did not give priority to physically
challenged candidates and accommodated them in the 2nd and 3rd
floor buildings, which are far away from the City. The acts of the
Commission reflect that there is discrimination in allotting the
centres.
316. On the one hand, the Commission claims that it has
considered social justice, logistics, and amenities for all
187 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
candidates in the allocation of centres; on the other hand, it has
not followed the same. The said action of the Commission
amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
317. Furthermore, the meaning of 'randomisation' as per the
oxford dictionary is as follows:
"Randomisation is a statistical process in which random mechanism
is employed to select a sample from a population or assign subjects
to different groups.
The goal of randomisation is to minimize selections bias and
enhance the statistical validity."
318. If the randomization method was used for the allocation of
centers, then how was majority of female candidates allotted to
only two centers? It deviates from the meaning of the
randomization. The purpose of this method is to minimize the
selection bias, but whereas the commission acted against it.
c) Inconsistency about the total number of candidates who
appeared for the mains examination :-
319. The commission, while publishing the total number of
candidates who appeared in the mains examination declared
multiple figures at multiple times. The Commission, on
188 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
27.10.2024, declared that 21,093 including 18 sports persons
appeared in the Mains examination. This statistics is collected
from the Chief Superintendent of the exam centers "On the Go"
when the examination was in progress, and they were "Subject to
minor variation". On 30.03.2025, the Commission announced the
number 21,085, but out of them, 25 candidate's results were not
included in the total marks list of candidates as per the orders of
the Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the figure of 21,085 candidates,
including 25 candidates, comes to 21,110. Again, the Commission
issued a press note on 13.03.2025, in which the figure 20,161 was
reflected. The Commission has reported that a total of 924
candidates failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks in
English paper of the examination, which is mandatory for evaluate
the remaining papers. Therefore, the figure published in the press
note dated 13.03.2025 reflected 20,161 candidates (21,085 - 924).
However, the Commission did not calculate the attendance
properly. The action of the Commission reflects different figures at
different times, and it also it reflects the Commission's negligence
in finding out the correct number of candidates who appeared.
189 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
The negligence of a constitutional body like the commission
cannot be appreciated.
320. The commission, after five (5) months, suddenly released a
final marks list dated 30.03.2025 with 21,085 candidates having
written the Mains, and absolutely no explanation about the
sudden increase in numbers.
d) Multiple evaluations of answer scripts:
321. The Commission, after completion of the Group-I
examination, conducted a triple evaluation method. The first two
evaluations contain Barcodes and bubblings as per the web note
dated 13.03.2025, but in the third evaluation there is no Barcode
and bubblings. There is no such method prescribed in the
Notification and Rules of Procedure. The Commission to
substantiate their act compared the said triple evaluation method
with that of the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh, stating
that APPSC also conducted the evaluation in the same manner.
322. However, the fact remains that the APPSC evaluated the
mains answer scripts just like the TGPSC. Nevertheless, the
evaluation conducted by the APPSC all the three evaluations
190 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
followed the same method using Barcode and bubbling. The third
evaluation conducted by the Commission differs. Due to this
lapse, there is every chance of manipulating the marks in the
third evaluation. The acts of the Commission reflect that they did
not follow any recognised and proper evaluation method, and
moreover, the Commission issued a press note on 13.03.2025,
indicating the point number (iii) that Double valuations of all
answer scripts is mandatory. However, in the said Notification,
they did not explain or provide any details regarding the third
evaluation. It seems that the Commission totally violated the
Notification and Rules of Procedure. To substantiate their
deviation, the Commission, in their common additional counter
affidavit filed on 25.06.2025, submitted that provisions have been
made on the first page itself for the two evaluations. However, the
third evaluation (which is necessary only in a few cases) is
provided for on the 3rd page of the answer booklet. The sample
answer booklets were published on 16.08.2024. The Notification
was issued on 19.02.2024, and the mains examinations were
conducted from 21.10.2024 onwards, which the prelims were
conducted on 09.06.2024. The Commission issued the sample
191 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
answer booklets after the prelims, and nearly two months before
the Commission announced the triple evaluation method. The acts
of the Commission vitiated the sanctity of the Group-I mains
examination. The entire process of evaluation gives strength to the
contentions of the petitioners, and it cannot be denied.
e) publication of provisional/total marks list:
323. The Notification para-15, under the head
memorandum of marks, Rule 15.2, reads as follows:-
"The marks list of Main Examination (total marks) of all the
candidates will be displayed on the Commission's website.
However, paper wise Memorandum of Marks of all candidates can
be accessed in their respective logins for a period of one week."
Rule 15.3 states as follows :-
"Request for recounting of marks will be considered for
Conventional Type (Written) Test only within 15 days after
publication of provisional marks list on payment of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees one thousand only) for each paper through online payment
only."
324. The Commission, as per the above rules, ought to have
published the total marks of all the candidates along with
provisional subject-wise marks. Without doing so, the
192 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
commission sent individual subject wise marks to the individual
logins which is incorrect, arbitrary and violative of their own rules
and regulations.
325. The Commission, without accepting their mistake, tried their
level best to cover the said mistake and stated as follows:
"Paragraph 15.3 did not mandate publishing once
consolidate list of all candidates reflecting total provisional marks
obtained by them. It only mentioned publishing "provisional
marks list" which published on the respective account of each
candidate and also not only that the final list reflecting total
marks of each candidate after the completion of the process of
recounting was published on the commission's Website in
compliance with Paragraph 15.2". One way the Commission stated
that Rule 15.2 of the Notification did not mandate publishing a
consolidated list of all candidates along with their total marks,
and on the other hand they stated that publishing the total marks
of all candidates after recounting on 30.03.2025 is in compliance
with Paragraph 15.2. It is nothing but deviating from their own
procedures and the said acts reflect that there is no fairness or
transparency in the system.
193 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
326. The petitioner's object that the Commission violated their
own Notification, completely flouting Clauses 15.2 and 15.3,
thereby forcing a deliberate secrecy between the initial (provisional
marks) that was deliberately not uploaded generally but only sent
to candidates, logins individually and the final GRL released on
30.03.2025 giving room to the Commission a lot of mischief and
several situations where marks could be randomly changed.
327. In this regard, in the vacate stay petition, the Commission
did not disclose whether they have followed Clause 15.2 and 15.3
of the Notification or not ?.
328. While providing an oral explanation regarding this aspect,
the Commission stated that the non-disclosure of the provisional
marks list would not cause any loss to the candidates. However,
the reason given by the Commission is not convincing. If
candidates intend to apply for a recount, they need to know both
their own marks and the total marks of other candidates for
comparison. If they suspect any discrepancy in the total marks,
they may seek a recount.
194 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
329. The Commission submitted that, changes in the system will
not cause any disadvantage or loss to the candidates. The said
submission is not acceptable. It is not the question of loss or
gain. Once a constitutional body frames certain Rules, must and
should they have to follow.
330. It is incorrect to suggest that the Commission failed to follow
its own rules and it cannot be questioned. Candidates who have
appeared for the examination have every right to question whether
the Commission has followed its own prescribed rules, regardless
of whether they are selected or not.
f) Disclosing the unqualified candidates' hall ticket numbers
in mains final marks list:-
331. The Commission filed an additional counter-affidavit
on 25.06.2025. In the said counter in Para No.76 reads as
follows:-
"76.Further, the petitioners have also alleged that the
Commission vide Press Note dated 15.04.2025 declared that 10
persons from Urdu medium appeared for all seven papers in the
Mains Examination, while web-note dated 13.03.2025 reflects a
figure 9 Urdu medium candidates. As clarified above, the Web
Note dated 13.03.2025 contained the details of the candidates
who have qualified in English paper (which is mandatory for
195 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
evaluating the other answer scripts) suggesting that only 9 Urdu
candidates have qualified in the English paper. The petitioners are
deliberately misinterpreting the figures published by the
Commission at various intervals and raising speculative
allegations."
332. The Purport of rule 12(d) of the notification is as under.
The paper of General English is a qualifying one. The
minimum qualifying marks in this paper are "for the candidates
belongs to OCs, sports man and EWS- should not be less than
40% i.e. (60 marks) BCs- not less than 35% ( 52.5 marks) SCs,
STs and PH - not less than 30% (45 marks)". The marks obtained
in this paper are not counted for ranking.
333. If the Commission had followed the above method in
evaluating answer scripts, candidates who scored less than 30%
out of 150 marks in General English (Qualifying paper) would
have become ineligible for the evaluation of their remaining
papers(paper I to paper VI). But surprisingly in the marks list of
the mains examinations shows as follows:-
Sl.No Hall Ticket Nos. General English Marks secured
(qualifying test) Out of 900 (total
(150 marks) of paper I to VI)
27 240901035 27.500 72.000
33 240901043 44.000 88.500
46 240901059 15.500 103.000
196 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
47 240901061 15.500 144.000
57 240901075 26.500 137.000
58 240901076 27.000 81.000
59 240901080 21.000 45.000
63 240901086 26.500 49.500
431 240902081 8.000 64.500
445 240902105 19.500 63.500
451 240902112 26.500 132.500
409 240902053 8.500 8.000
334. The above table indicates that candidates who were
disqualified in the qualifying exam, i.e., General English, but their
other papers were also evaluated and total marks were published,
which contradicts their own Rules. This itself demonistrates how
the transparency maintained by the Commission in evaluation of
the answer scripts.
335. The commission, being a Constitutional Body in the process
of Group-I mains exams, deviated from the mandatory rules,
which is unacceptable, and it shows that there is no transparency,
fairness and integrity in conducting the examination. It appears
that Commission violated the principles of natural justice, which
is unconstitutional. The acts of the Commission are reflect that it
causes injustice to the unemployed youth who have a strong hope
197 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
of serving Government employment and has been waiting for the
last one decade.
336. In this regard, the Commission is remains silent, and no
information was disclosed in any of their affidavits. Their own
notification clause 15.5 reads as follows:
"Rejected, Invalid, disqualified, ineligible candidates will not be
issued any Memorandum of Marks and fees paid by such
candidates, if any, will be forfeited to Government account, without
entertaining any correspondence in this regard. Request for
revaluation will not be entertained under any circumstances as per
Rule-3 (ix) (d) of Commission's Rules of Procedure."
337. The commission clearly deviated from the above mentioned
clause by evaluating the other six answer scripts of the candidates
who were disqualified in the General English paper and also
issued a memorandum of marks in respect of them.
g) Increasing vacancies by adding new vacancies:-
338. The commission in the earlier Notification No.4/2022
dated 26.04.2022, notified 503 vacancies. Due to the cancellation
of the said notification, the present Notification No.2/2024 dated
19.02.2024 was issued, increasing the number of vacancies by 60
and the total number of vacancies notified is 563. The 1st
198 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
respondent accorded permission vide G.O.Ms.No.16 dated
03.02.2024 for 60 vacancies only. The main contention raised by
the petitioners is that fresh applicants were not eligible to apply
for the post as per Notification No.4/2022 dated.26.04.2022. They
may not have acquired graduation by 26.04.2022. The
Commission responded to this allegation and stated that it has the
power to cancel the notification and that eligibility must be
assessed at the time of notification issuance. This issue was
already challenged in this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Supreme
Court refused to intervene in the matter by dismissing the
challenge. Hence, the petitioners' counsel arguments were
rejected on this aspect.
2) Method of Evaluation and its impact:
a) The selection of the evaluators:
339. After completion of the mains examination, the
Commission evaluated all answer scripts from 1-11-2024 to
31.01.2025, i.e. 90 days. The commission issued Press Note dated
13.03.2025 with regard to evaluation and to transparency, as per
the said note "all evaluators are the regular faculty from the
199 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Universities/Government Colleges/Institutions and two retired
faculty members have also been used as evaluators. To
substantiate allegations, the Commission stated that the
list/evaluators are confidential to ensure fairness and anonymity,
and that the petitioners, who are already in the Government
service, have abused their office to secure the list of evaluators.
The letters addressed by the Commission to the Commissioner's of
Police have been filed along with their writ petitions. The
Commission reserves the right to initiate appropriate legal action
against the petitioners for illegally procuring documents and using
them in the present proceedings, as per Rule-3(xii) of the TGPSC
Rules of Procedure. If it is right, the Commission, has to take
action against their own employees who supplied the details of the
evaluators. Instead, without doing so, threatening the petitioners
is incorrect.
340. Regarding "regular faculty", the Commission stated that it
does not exclude retired faculty members from this definition. It is
a standard practice across the public service Commission's from
retired faculty members to evaluate the answer scripts. In this, the
Commission observed two things. One is regular faculty do not
200 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
exclude retired faculty and second one is standard practice across
the public service commission to use retired faculty members as
evaluators. Both are different. As per the Commission's
Notification, for the evaluation purpose, only regular employees
will be considered, whereas the petitioners alleged that retired
employees were also considered for evaluation. Moreover, the
press note dated 13.03.2025 was issued after the evaluation
process completed, in the interest of transparency and disclosure.
One of the evaluator Sri. Dr. M.A.Malik, who worked as a private
tutor, was used as an evaluator. The petitioners allege that the
person favoured in his own students. The Commission tasked with
substantiating the allegation about this evaluator stated that the
said evaluator has been working as an associate professor at
Government Decree College since 2010 and has not taught a
single class at R.C.Reddy IAS study circle since then. The
Commission to that extent produced vide letter dated 20.04.2025.
The Commission said that the said evaluator approached the
advocate to issue a legal notice to all the petitioners of W.P.No.
11439 of 2025. However, the facts remains is that the particular
evaluator wrote the book on Indian Economy for Group-I mains.
201 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Which is published in the year of 2024 itself. In the said book,
while introducing about the author (i.e. Dr.M.A. Malik) stated that
for the past 22 years he is contributing insightful articles on the
economy for competitive exams in the Andhra Jyothi, Telugu Daily
News Paper and for 'Vivek' a monthly magazine by R.C.Reddy
publications. It seems that the author guides the students of the
R.C.Reddy IAS study circle in Hyderabad, in one way or the other.
Knowing fully about the author particulars, the Commission
without accepting the same threatened to file cases against the
writ petitioners.
341. With regard to regular faculty, the Commission's reply is
incorrect saying that the regular faculty does not exclude retired
faculty members. As per the service law, regular faculty means "a
person who is currently in service on a substantive post,
appointed according to rules, either on probation or confirmed.
He is still drawing salary and discharging duties." It seems to
overcome their lapse finally the Commission changed the meaning
of regular faculty.
b) The procedure of evaluation :
202 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
342. The TGPSC issued a press note on 13.03.2025 providing
greater clarity and confidence regarding the evaluation process.
The press note stated as follows:
"The valuation of Answer scripts commenced on 01/11/2024 and
completed on 31/01/2025."
343. Following is the procedure that was followed for the
Valuation of the Answer Paper Booklets of Group-l Services Mains
exam:
i) The Main Answer script contains 3 parts. i) The preprinted
candidates' details. ii) The 2ndand 3rdpart contains the part where
marks are awarded by the examiner.
ii) Before the valuation process is started, the OMR Barcode Sheet
which contained candidates' details part is detached and cannot be
seen by the examiner or any other person at any point of time.
iii) Double valuation of all Answer scripts is mandatory.
iv) The valuation of Mains Answer Paper Booklet was done twice by
two different Valuators/Examiners. After completion of first
valuation, the Part containing the marks awarded by the 1st
valuator is detached and proceeded for 2nd valuation."
344. As per the above note, double evaluation for all the answer
scripts is mandatory. Hence, the evaluation was over burdened.
The same evaluators evaluated the both Telugu and English
answer scripts, which caused prejudice to the candidates. The
203 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Commission denied all the allegations as baseless, untrue.
Initially answer scripts was evaluated by two different evaluators.
However, in case where the case of a difference in marks awarded
by to two evaluators, exceeds 15% a third evaluation is carried
out. Chief Examiner closely monitor the evaluation process to
ensure that the scheme of evaluation is strictly implemented in
terms of uniformity and fairness.
345. While arguing the matter, this Court asked the Commission
if there is any procedure for the evaluation of all answer scripts
and any key to that extent? Surprisingly, initially, the
Commission stated that there is no key. The Commission replied
that all evaluators are subject experts and that it is not the
multiple choice question paper to prepare a key, but rather
descriptive type answers. Again, the Court, exclusively asked the
question, for example 'in Paper VI of the Telangana Movement, one
candidate will write with full information within one page some
other candidates will write the same in ten pages, under those
circumstances, how will the evaluators give the marks?' For this
question, there is no new answer and repeated as stated supra.
The Commission answer reflects that there is no proper method to
204 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
evaluate the answer scripts. Subsequently, the Commission
engaged Senior Counsel and even then also, there is still no
proper answer to the Court's satisfaction. Again the Court asked
regarding to the key, any method for awarding marks in different
answers. For that, the learned Senior Counsel stated that "there is
no such key as the Court said, but the Commission prepared key
to all the question papers" and then, the Court asked them to
produce the same in a sealed cover and accordingly, the
Commission finally produced all the certified copies of the key
answers in the sealed cover in the open Court. It is pertinent to
mention here that the Commission changed its voice time to time,
and it is observed in their own affidavits on three occasions.
Firstly, the Commission submitted instructions before the Court
in the said instructions nothing is mentioned in it but in oral
submissions replying to this court as stated supra, secondly, after
granting interim direction filed vacate stay petition, in the said
vacate stay petition the commission stated that "the examiners
valued the scripts well versed in Telugu evaluated Telugu medium
answer scripts and adequate subject experts who were engaged to
evaluate papers in Telugu, English, Urdu mediums." In addition
205 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
the Commission did not provide any information regarding on the
method of evaluation or preparation of the key. Finally, the
Commission filed a common additional counter affidavit. In the
said affidavit the commission stated as follows "The evaluation
process starts with the conduct of chief examiner committee
meetings to finalise the answer keys and scheme for all papers
including award of marks conduct of control/mock evaluation
including briefing and training of evaluator. This was undertaken
before the commencement of evaluation of answer scripts." And
also stated that "evaluators for Urdu and Telugu medium scripts
were trained on par with their English medium counter parts. The
evaluation scheme was applied uniformly across all mediums
without deviation" In these three affidavits, there is in
inconsistency in their own statements regarding the evaluation
procedure. So, all these acts of the Commission reflect that there
is no proper evaluation, transparency and fairness.
346. While explaining the evaluation method, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Commission said that on 03.07.2025 there
are three methods of evaluations in our Country i.e., scaling,
normalisation and moderation. The Commission has stated that
206 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
scaling and normalisation is not applicable in this examination.
The Commission fully followed moderation method in evaluating
the answer scripts. On 25.06.2025, the Commission filed an
additional common counter affidavit. In the said additional
common counter affidavit, the Commission explained which type
of evaluation followed in para No.70 is as follows:-
"The petitioners in W.P.No.11439 of 2025 further allege that no
'moderation/scaling' of marks was carried out in the present
examination. It is submitted that 'moderation' or 'scaling' is a
method that enables rationalization of grand totals in favour of few
disciplines/subjects and is dependent on the pattern and scheme
of that examination. It is adopted in examinations, at the
discretion of recruiting bodies, which involve multiple optional
subjects. However, no such moderation is required in the Group-I
examination because all papers are mandatory, and all candidates
take the very same exams."
347. Shockingly, the Commission has given contradictory
statements and the Court understood that the Commission did
not follow any proper method and instead relied solely on its own
selected expertise evaluators. The entire evaluation process
undermine the sanctity of the Group-I examination.
348. This Court wishes to disclose the marks of one candidate
accordingly the petitioners affidavit who studied every day for ten
207 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
to twelve hours while resigning the Corporate job after twelve
years, experience of his job appeared for the Group-I examination.
The hall ticket number as per the affidavit is 240918176 evaluated
this candidate answer scripts and awarded the following marks :-
Paper-1 33 marks
Paper-II 45 marks
Paper-III 10 marks
Paper-IV 8 marks
Paper-V 2 marks
Paper-VI 7 marks
349. The Court was shocked after seeing the awarding marks to
this candidate i.e., out of six papers, this candidate awarded
single digit marks in four subjects and one subject ten marks.
Surprisingly in paper VI i.e. Telangana Movement and State
Formation, the candidate awarded single digit marks seven (7) is
very shocking. In similar circumstances, who got the lower marks
in the examination, several candidates applied for recounting at
huge charges i.e., each paper Rs.1,000/-. This is one proof
likewise there are several candidates, who were awarded single
digit marks and even in some centres selection percentage is "0".
350. The Commission had argued that in all the writ petitions
nowhere stated by the petitioners as how their papers awarded
208 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
lower marks. The submissions of the commission that only to stop
the appointments petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court
which is unacceptable, unreasonable and impermissible.
351. Initially, in its web note, the Commission stated that two
evaluations were mandatory, which was also reiterated in its
counter affidavit. However, in the vacate stay petition, the
Commission did not mention anything about a third evaluation
and later it filed an affidavit disclosing the implementation of a
third evaluation.
352. Being a constitutional body, while recruitments are taking
place, the Commission must follow its own Rules strictly as
mentioned in the Rules of Procedure. Under Rule 3(x) reads as
follows :-
" (x) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the
Commission may in consultation with the Government adopt for
purposes of recruitment in any particular cases of cases a special
procedure as more appropriate than the one prescribed in any of
these rules."
353. The above Rule indicates that if the Commission wants to
introduce any new system regarding the conduct of examinations
and evaluations, it must follow the procedure outlined in the rules
209 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
for the direct recruitment process. Specifically, the Commission
must first consult with the Government before adopting such a
system for recruitment in any particular case.
354. In the instant case, the Commission has never applied the
aforementioned rule and no specific rule has been prescribed for
evaluation and there is no discussion in their arguments.
The observations of the Court about the sealed cover
information are as follows:-
355. The Commission produced sealed covers, seven in number of
seven papers including the qualifying exam key, in the open Court
in three languages.
1) All the sealed covers consist of question papers and
keys.
2) All three language papers are certified by the
Additional Secretary.
3) Paper-2 original key not found, checked soft copy with
true copy and the same was informed by the Commission.
4) In Paper-5, some pages lack a signature.
210 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
5) Firstly, in some instructions were given to the
evaluators for grading, such as, 0-9 very poor, 10-19 poor,
20-29 - Good, 30-39- Very good and 40 and above is
excellent. (Marks under excellent category to be awarded in
consultation with the Chief Examiner). Secondly, some keys
given other grading i.e, 0-2 very poor, 3-4 poor, 5-6 good, 7
very good, above 8 outstanding. Note observed as awarded
more than eight marks the Chief Examiner should be
consulted. Thirdly, 0-2 very poor, 2-3 poor, 4-5 good, 6-7 very
good, 8 above excellent. Marks under the excellent category
are to be awarded in consultation with the Chief Examiner.
Fourthly, 0-1 very poor, 2-3 poor, 4-5 good, 6-7 very good, 8
above excellent.
6) Regarding some keys, there are no general instructions
which for others there are general instructions.
7) Sealed covers containing question papers also. But, all
the question papers are only in bilingual English and Telugu,
and there are no questions in the Urdu language in any of the
question papers.
211 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
8) With regard to the key, there is no proper explanation
in relation to the answers. Some of the keys showing only
sub-headings and there is no description and some of the
keys, there is an elaborate description. Some keys are
showing two types of grading figures.
356. Based on the above observation of the sealed cover
information, this Court believes that the Commission did not
follow a uniform method to evaluate the answer scripts. There is
no discussion in the entire commission's arguments regarding of
the evaluation of the answer scripts and the awarding of grades.
While fixing the grading there is a note if any candidate awarded
excellent/outstanding marks, evaluators have to consult the Chief
Examiner. Even this also nowhere, discussed in the entire
arguments by the Commission, and there is no mention regarding
grading in Commissions counter. It was very shocking.
c) Telugu Medium candidates were neglected:-
357. One of the allegations is that who wrote Group-I
examination in Telugu medium, their answer scripts are neglected
and not evaluated in a proper method. To substantiate the
212 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Commission's arguments as well as in the common affidavit, they
submitted as follows:-
"Degree college faculty teach both the English and Telugu
medium graduation students and are competent enough to
evaluate the Group-I mains exam papers. For all languages,
adequate numbers of the evaluators who have taught and who are
teaching in the respective mediums have been identified by the
Commission. The Commission thoroughly identifies and
accommodates the subject experts from across the Country.
Again, this answer is showing the ambiguity of the stand of the
Commission. There is no specification on how many evaluators
are allotted for English script evaluation, Telugu script evaluation
and Urdu script evaluation. In any answer scripts, English
version and Telugu version may not be the same. There must be a
different verbatim in English and Telugu. Another shocking
aspect is that on 16.04.2025, the Commission issued instructions
in the open court. In the said instructions, one of the document
with heading "Important instructions of the candidates". In that
point No.32 read as follows :-
213 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
"For evaluation purpose, (though English version would be
taken as a reference under normal circumstance) a balanced
view would be taken after comparing English/Telugu and Urdu
version of the subject paper."
358. As per their own instructions, if the evaluators are experts in
English, Telugu, Urdu, they could have had a reference in each
language. Then, the question of English version taken as a
reference under normal circumstances would not arise.
359. The second answer referred by the Commission is that the
evaluation of the Telugu medium candidates answer scripts fully
justified. To support their arguments, the compared the
neighbouring State APPSC Telugu medium qualified candidates
with the TGPSC Telugu medium qualifying candidates. However,
the reality is that, APPSC follows three-tier system i.e., prelims,
mains and interview. That means, Telugu medium candidates are
filtered in three stages. Whereas TGPSC Group-I candidates
filtered only in two tier i.e., prelims and mains. If this is the
reality, how the Commission compared the qualifying Telugu
students of Andhra Pradesh and the Telangana State, it is very
miserable and also they said in their additional counter as
follows :-
214 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
"A comparison with the selection of the candidates in the
Group-I examination in the Andhra Pradesh reveals that the
figures from both the States are broadly similar, hence it is
baseless."
360. To support their arguments, as document No.4 captioned as
'Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Vijayawada,
Statement of Candidates for Medium Wise for Group-I Service
stated that as per the Tabular form 2016, (1) 3900 candidates
appeared. Out of that, 11 from telugu, 59 from English, total 76.
Likewise (2) in 2018, 2482 for Telugu medium, 6053 in English
medium, total 9,679. Out of the said number, 14 from Telugu,
151 from English in Total 165 candidates were selected. In 2022
(3), 1834 for Telugu, 4381 for English, total 6455. The selected
candidates out of this nine from telugu, 102 from English, total
111. In 2023 (4), mains examination was not yet finalized.
361. Whereas in Telangana State, at the second tabular form
indicating the TGPSC, Hyderabad, details of the medium wise
number of candidates picked up for certificate verification in the
Group-I (Notification No.2 of 2024). The said Tabular form
English medium 12,381 candidates were appeared. Out of them,
506 candidates picked up. Telugu medium 8,694 appeared only
215 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
56 candidates picked up. Urdu 10 candidates appeared only one
candidate picked up. The Commission, while comparing the
success rate of Telugu medium they said that there is no unusual
difference in the selection candidates for the Telugu medium. But,
reality is that in APPSC selection was three-tier system. It means,
candidates will filter three phases i.e., prelims, mains and
interview. Then the final number of selected candidate will be
announced. Where as in Telangana TGPSC candidates will filtered
in two phases i.e., prelims and mains. Under the said
circumstances, how they will the Commission compare the
selected Telugu candidates from Andhra to Telangana. However,
the arguments of the Commission is unacceptable.
362. In W.P.No.16653 of 2025, on 24.03.2025 nearly 110
candidates who appeared for the Telugu medium made a
representation before the Commission for revaluation of their
Telugu scripts and some others also applied for the same. At a
stretch, a several number of candidates seeking revaluation, it
indicates the agony of the candidates, who wrote satisfactorily in
Telugu. It gives strength that there is no fairness and
transparency in evaluating the Telugu answer scripts.
216 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
363. For the English medium, 12,381 candidates attended, out of
which picked up 506 i.e., 89.88%. Telugu medium 8,694
candidates attended, out of which only 56 candidates picked up
i.e., 9.95%. Urdu medium, 10 candidates attended, out of which
only one candidate picked up i.e., 10%. Upon examining the
comparison figures above, it is clear that injustice has been done
to the Telugu medium candidates.
d) The highest qualified candidates in specific centres.
364. Regarding the highest marks the Commission stated
that in Paper VI maximum marks is 100 and no candidate has
achieved a highest marks in Paper VI. For the candidates, who
have not applied for recounting, the Commission has not changed
any marks. Only for the candidate, who has applied for
recounting, recounting has been under taken as per norms and
procedure. It is entirely incorrect to state that the marks were
changed without recounting.
365. The petitioner's allegation is that in Centre Code Nos.18 and
19, the highest female candidates were selected. To substantiate
this, the Commission's Counsel produced document No.1 with the
217 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
caption Group-I Services (2/2024 Mains examination centre wise
overall and female percentage of picked up (563). Accordingly their
own document, female candidates were allotted to a total of 28
centres out of which, in centers 18 and 19, 71 female candidates
were picked up. It means on average 35.5 girls per centre were
selected, whereas remaining 26 centres, 139 female candidates
were selected. It means on average 5.35 girls per centre were
selected. The figures are show as disparity between the average of
the two centres and the average of the remaining centres. Hence,
there is a significant amount of variance which is unacceptable,
and these figures establish the allegations of the petitioners.
366. Regarding the allegations of the unofficial respondents, it is
that without disclosing petitioners' hall ticket numbers and
marks, the petitioners do not have locus standi to question the
examination. It is incorrect to say because the petitioners filed
their hall tickets and memorandum of marks as enclosures in the
writ petition. The other allegation of the unofficial respondents is
that the writ petitions are not maintainable unless the successful
candidates are made party respondents. It is also incorrect to say
that the fact remains no petitioner is questioning the selection of
218 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
successful candidates the writ petitioners questioning the acts of
the commission such as procedural irregularities and evaluation.
Moreover, the selection process is under way.
e) Commission awarded the same marks to certain
candidates :
367. Several candidates who wrote the main examination
were awarded same marks. The commission, in its common
counter affidavit, accepted that the same marks were granted to
719 candidates, which is unusual. The commission on this aspect
stated that in the marks range of 430-439.5, 440 candidates had
got same marks which is usual in a highly competitive exam. This
argument of the commission is not appreciated since Table I refers
to the same marks but Table II refers to range of marks. It can be
understood that in a competitive exam a number of persons can
have same marks, but not with adjacent hall ticket numbers. The
similar marks obtained by more than 500 candidates is look
unnatural. Accordingly to their additional common counter
affidavit two tables were disclosed. For clarification, a few
particulars are given below :-
219 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
TABLE-I
S.No. Hall Ticket Hall Ticket Marks Number
No. No. candidates
the same
marks.
1. 240902470 240902471 253.00 28
2. 240905307 240975308 373.50 54
3. 240905438 240905439 270.50 46
4. 240906410 240906411 301.50 50
5. 240910439 240910440 393.50 51
TABLE-II
Range of marks Number of candidates
368. The Commission comparison in between same marks and
range marks is legally unsustainable and defective.
220 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Conclusion:
369. After analysing the submissions of all the counsels, case
laws, and the material available on record, this Court feels that
the Commission, while conducting the Group-I Mains
Examination had not maintained transparency, integrity, acted in
biased manner and deviated their own Rules.
370. Due to the Commission's negligence and inefficiency, the
affected individuals are the unemployee youth of Telangana State.
The candidates have spent a substantial amount on coaching
classes, studying 10 to 12 hours a day and some candidates had
resigned their jobs for the sake of preparation for this exam. The
Commission failed in both procedural aspects and evaluation
method, which is impermissible.
371. Although, there have been two instances of cancellation of
Group-1 examination, the Commission has not learnt from its
previous experience.
372. In view of the foregoing discussions and also taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned above, these
writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
221 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
(a) The Final Marks List dated 10.03.2025 as well as
General Ranking List (GRL) dated 30.03.2025 are
hereby set aside.
(b) The respondent authorities are directed to
re-evaluate all the answer scripts of the Group-1 mains
examination by applying the moderation method in
terms of Sanjay Singh and Anr. Vs. U.P.Public Service
Commission, Allahabad (2007 (3) SCC 720), manually
and announce the results. Based upon such results,
the respondents authorities are directed to take steps
for filling up of said 563 posts.
(OTHERWISE)
(c) This Court is inclined to cancel the Group-I Mains
examination. The respondent authorities are directed to
re-conduct the Group-I Mains examination in
Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024, for those
who have succeeded in the prelims examination.
222 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
d) The above said exercise should be completed within
a period of eight (08) months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this common order.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J
Date: 09.09.2025
Note:
L.R.Copy to be marked
(B/o)
Prv
