[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

K. Uday Kumar Reddy vs The Telangana Public Service ... on 10 April, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                AT HYDERABAD

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

                  W.P.No.8218 of 2025

                    Date:10.04.2026
Between:

K. Uday Kumar Reddy.
                                               ...Petitioner
                           And
The Telangana Public Service Commission, rep. by its
Secretary, Hyderabad.
                                       ...Respondent
ORDER:

Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel

for Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri P.S.Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the

action of the respondent Commission in not evaluating the

answer script of the petitioner, who has appeared for the

Main Examination of Group-II Services with Hall Ticket

bearing No.2283328171, as illegal and arbitrary.

SK, J

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

pursuant to the Notification No.28/2022 dated 29.12.2022

issued by the respondent for the posts of Group-II services,

the petitioner made application in ID No.TS 2101790276.

He has appeared for the examination held on 15.12.2024

and 16.12.2024 with Hall Ticket No.2283328171 by

following instructions correctly in so far as it relates to

Paper-1,2 and 4. However, in paper-3, while the petitioner

was filling up the details on OMR sheet, the persons who

have taken biometric of the candidates, entered into the

room and disturbed him by questioning him about his

biometric impression, thereby, though he has entered all

the data correctly, when it comes to the details of Question

Paper Booklet Number, he indicated the same in number in

the relevant box and he was also supposed to bubbled the

number in the same box and he bubbled 7 numbers out of

8 correctly, however, he has not bubbled last number of the

Question Paper Booklet Number as he was disturbed by the

invigilator. He came to know about it only after the results

SK, J

were published on 11.03.2025 and his number did not find

in the General Rank List.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the Public Service Commission also put up

Answer/OMR sheet in the website and after verification,

the petitioner found that he has written Question Paper

Booklet Number in the relevant column of the OMR sheet

and marked a dot in the relevant circle, but failed to bubble

it completely the last digit. Basing on the Final Key

published on 11.03.2025, the petitioner would get 409.822

marks if all the four papers are evaluated and would have

secured around 29th rank among the candidates successful

in the examination. He submits that the invigilator did not

guide all the candidates properly and had the Invigilator

properly verified the correctness of entries made by the

candidates before signing in the space provided on the

OMR sheet, the mistake committed by the petitioner could

have been rectified and his answer paper could have been

evaluated. He submits that for committing small mistake of

not completely bubbling the last box, the respondent

SK, J

Commission has not evaluated the answer script of

petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to

allow the writ petition by directing the respondent to

evaluate the answer script of the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on

the following Judgment;

1. Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar1

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent basing on the

counter submits that the petitioner shall be vigilant and

bound by the explicit terms and conditions mentioned in

the notification and hall ticket which include mandatory

instructions regarding the correct bubbling of particulars

on the OMR sheet. The Commission has issued

instructions to the candidates at Annexure-IV(b) of the

Notification vide No.28/2022 dated 29.12.2022 regarding

OMR based examination and these instructions form part

of a contractual and statutory obligation which every

applicant consents to upon applying and clearly informed

1 (2024) 11 SCC 785

SK, J

that the upper part of OMR sheet consists of columns such

as Question Paper Booklet Number etc., candidates have to

write their Question Paper Booklet Number and also bubble

relevant circles. Though the petitioner contended that he

wrote the booklet number correctly in the box but failed to

bubble one digit due to disruption, there is no complaint or

record from the exam centre supporting the claim of

biometric interruption. He submits that a sample OMR

Answer Sheet of Group-II was also placed in the

Commission's website for the purpose of candidate's

convenience that he/she can practice on the sample OMR

Answer Sheet before going to the examination and

important instructions to candidates printed on side-2 of

the OMR answer sheet at para Nos.4 and 7 besides

instructions at para-IV(9) of the Notification.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent further

submits that to avoid malpractice, TGPSC has taken

multiple jumbling of questions and when the candidate

failed to bubble the Question Paper Booklet Number

completely on OMR sheet, it is not possible to score his/her

SK, J

OMR answer sheet as there are different sets of answer

keys for different Booklet Numbers for different question

papers. As the machine cannot determine the correct

Question Paper Booklet Number, such OMR Answer Sheets

are invalidated. Identifying the correct Booklet Number

involves checking the exam records like nominal roll,

attendance sheets which require physical verification of the

OMR and records and this cannot be done as manual

intervention for evaluation of OMRs is dispensed with by

the TGPSC and electronic valuation is done. It is not

possible to evaluate the incorrect/not bubbled question

paper Booklet Number on OMR Answer Sheet where such

mistakes are exclusively related to Question Paper Booklet

Number. It is difficult for evaluation of not completely

bubbling as box in the OMR Answer Sheet since the entire

process is being done by the computers and not manually.

Since the scanning machines can read only the darkened

portion of the Question Paper Booklet of the petitioner's

OMR Sheet, it cannot read the numerical Hall ticket or

Question Paper Booklet entered by the petitioner on the

SK, J

OMR Sheet and even the single digit mistake creates a fatal

error as far his/her answer sheet is concerned. He further

submits that the invalidation of the OMR sheets shall be

strictly based on the list generated by the system without

human intervention and requested to dismiss the writ

petition.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on

the following Judgments;

1. State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemalathaa2.

2. Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad vs. Pothula Durga Bhavani3.

9. After hearing both sides and perusing the material

on record, this Court is of the considered view that in

pursuance of the Notification No.28/2022

dated 29.12.2022 issued by the respondent for the posts of

Group-II Services, the petitioner has appeared in the

examination. In paper-3, while the petitioner was filling up

2 (2020) 19 SCC 430 3 2021 (5) ALT 192 (D.B)

SK, J

the details in the OMR sheet with regard to the Question

Paper Booklet Number, mistake occurred in the last digit in

bubbling and in view of the same, paper-3 of the petitioner

was not evaluated by the respondent Commission. The

contention of the petitioner is that in view of disruption of

the invigilator, the petitioner has done that mistake and

also the invigilator did not guide the candidates properly

and it can be rectified and his answer paper should be

evaluated. For committing small mistake of not bubbling

the last box, the respondent Commission has erroneously

not evaluated the answer sheet of the petitioner.

10. The contention of the respondent Commission is

that to avoid malpractice, the Commission has taken

multiple jumbling of questions and also the machine

cannot determine the correct Question Paper Booklet

Number unless bubbling the OMR sheet correctly and it is

not possible to evaluate the incorrect or not bubbling

Question Paper Booklet Number on OMR answer sheet

where such mistakes are exclusively related to question

Paper Booklet Number. As per the Notification, it is the

SK, J

obligation of the candidates to fulfill all the conditions as

stated in the Notification and the petitioner has not filed

any complaint against the invigilator after completion of

examination and he made the said allegation only after

declaration of results and it cannot be taken into account.

11. In Telangana State Public Service Commission's

case (3 supra), the Division Bensch of this Court held in

para Nos.15 and 16 as under;

"15. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the errors committed by the petitioners of wrong bubbling/double bubbling and/or absence of bubbling in the hall ticket numbers are bona fide errors and can be easily corrected, is untenable. Tough as it may sound, compassion or generosity of the heart has no place in public examinations conducted by an Examination Regulatory Authority like the TSPSC. The petitioners ought to have carefully read the instructions issued by the TSPSC and correctly filled in their personal details, hall ticket number etc., in the OMR sheet, as mandated. Once it is admitted that the entries made were inaccurate due to which the answer sheets of the petitioners were not evaluated and in view of the fact that evaluation in such cases is an electronic process undertaken through scanners, with no human intervention, we are of the opinion that no directions can be issued to the TSPSC to conduct

SK, J

manual scanning of the weeded out answer scripts to collate and declare the results of the petitioners.

16. The dichotomy in the decisions of the two Division Benches of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.20088 of 2003 and W.P.No.28874 of 2015 stands adequately answered in the light of the view expressed by the Supreme Court in G.Hemalatha (1 supra) wherein emphasis has been laid on a strict construction of the rules and of forbearance by the High Courts in exercising extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to modify and/or relax the instructions issued by the Examining Authority, which would result in violating the instructions issued to candidates participating in public examinations".

The above finding of the Division Bench of this Court

squarely apply to the instant case. As the petitioner has

not bubbled the Question Paper Booklet Number

completely, his paper cannot be evaluated as contended by

the respondent Commission.

12. In State of Tamil Nadu's case (2 supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para No.8 as under;

"8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the

SK, J

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".

The above finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely

apply to the instant case as the petitioner has to fulfill all

the conditions as mentioned in the Notification. The

petitioner has done the mistake in not bubbling the

Question Paper Booklet Number in paper-3. In view of the

same, the petitioner will not get any benefit.

13. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for

the petitioner in Vashist Narayan Kumar's case (1 supra)

is not apply to the facts of this case. The Division Bench of

this Court in Telangana State Public Service

Commission's case (3 supra) has specifically given finding

with regard to the bubbling issue and in view of the same,