Telangana High Court
E.Shekhar Goud And 6 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 15 Others on 18 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 27787 OF 2019
O R D E R:
Petitioners filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional action of the 2nd respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "TGSPSC"), in including, calling for interviews and thereafter appointing certain candidates who had admittedly committed material violations of the mandatory instructions governing the conduct and evaluation of the Group- II Services Examination. The said violations, particularly scratching, tampering, erasing, and use of whiteners in Part-B of the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets, go to the very root of the integrity of the selection process and strike at the foundation of merit and fairness which are the hallmarks of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of petitioners is that the 2nd respondent issued Notification No. 20/2015 dated 30.12.2015, inviting Applications for recruitment to various posts under Group-II Services in the State of Telangana. Subsequently, by supplementary Notification No. 17/2016, dated 01.09.2016, 2 additional vacancies were notified, bringing the total number of posts to 1032, distributed across 13 distinct categories of services. The Notifications laid down the educational qualifications, age limit and other eligibility criteria to be satisfied by the candidates. Petitioners, being fully qualified and eligible, applied pursuant to the said Notifications, appeared for the written examination conducted by the 2nd respondent and performed meritoriously therein.
2.1. It is stated, the said recruitment process was earlier subjected to judicial scrutiny in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017 filed by several candidates aggrieved by the inclusion of ineligible candidates in the list published by TGSPSC. It was contended therein that the Commission, in disregard of its own examination instructions, had included candidates who had committed serious irregularities such as wrong bubbling, double bubbling, use of whiteners, erasures, and tampering of OMR sheets. It was further contended that such actions not only violated the express terms of the Notification but also destroyed the sanctity and secrecy of the examination, thereby vitiating the fairness of the process.
32.2. It is further stated, in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017, after a detailed and comprehensive examination of the entire recruitment process, the nature of irregularities alleged, and the principles governing public recruitment, this Court delivered a reasoned and authoritative judgment, categorically holding that while the recruitment process as a whole could not be annulled, candidates who had committed violations such as tampering, erasures, and use of whiteners in Part-B of their OMR sheets were mandatorily to be excluded from further participation in the process. The operative portion of the said order is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"100. CONCLUSIONS:
I. There is no infirmity in the selection process to conduct recruitment to Group II service pursuant to recruitment notification No. 20 of 2015 dated 30.12.2015, per se to hold that selection process is vitiated. Selection process cannot be held as vitiated merely because the OMR sheets of few candidates who have committed errors such as, wrong bubbling, no bubbling or double bubbling of the information relating to Roll number, question paper booklet number, used Whiteners/ used Erasers were evaluated. Such candidates are identifiable and can be separated. The candidates who have committed such mistakes can be excluded and rest of the selection process can be continued.
2. The candidates who have committed errors in bubbling, such as wrong bubbling, no bubbling or double bubbling of the information relating to Roll number, question paper booklet mumber, centre code etc used whiteners/ used Erasers, shall be excluded from consideration for 4 certificate verification process in the ratio of 1: 3 and for subjecting them to interview in the ratio of 1: 2. TSPSC may continue selection process after excluding the candidates referred to above.
3. Exclusion of few questions, change of answers in revised final key and prescribing more than one option as valid do not vitiate the selection process on that ground.
4. TSPSC shall exclude Question No. 111 of Paper III: CD series and question No.93 of paper IV: CD series. This is in addition to questions already excluded.
5. TSPSC shall treat option No. 3 in question No.113 of Paper IV: CD series only as valid answer.
6. TSPSC shall re-evaluate the merit of candidates after excluding Question No. 111 of Paper III: CD series and question No.93 of paper IV:
CD series and treating Option '3' only as the correct answer to Question No. 113 of Paper IV: CD series to arrive at the final list of candidates for certificate verification in the ratio of 1: 3.
7. For the questions which are deleted, only those candidates who have attempted the said questions should be awarded marks.
8. As substantial number of candidates are to be excluded and two additional questions are to be deleted and for one question answer changes, there is no certainty as to who would be in the final list of candidates called in the ratio of 1:3 for certificate verification. Therefore, the contention of special Government Pleader that petitioners are not in the zone of consideration even after excluding some candidates and that petitioners have not suffered legal injury and therefore no adjudication is required on various contentions urged is stated to be rejected.
9. As the committee of senior advocates opined that the OMR machine reader was not recognizing the use ofwhitener, before finalizing the list 5 of candidates for interview, the TSPSC shall physically verify the OMR sheets to ascertain whether any of the candidates usedwhitener to change the answers in Part -B and personal particulars in Part-A and exclude candidates who have used whiteners. The proceedings of such verification should be conducted in the presence of Member-Secretary and two members of the TSPSC; should be video graphed; and be stored at least for a period of six months after finalization of selections.
10. If any candidate applies for verification of his OMR sheet, images of such candidate's manual verification of OMR sheet be captured and furnished to him/her.
101. Before parting with this case, Court deems it necessary to make following observations. Whenever recruitment is taken up, Court is flooded with litigation on various aspects, about eligibility criteria, which include educational qualifications, equation of qualifications, age, social status, creamy layer and local candidature claim in terms of Presidential order; parameters of evaluation of OMR sheets; prescribing answers, short listing of candidates; and final merit list. There is lack of transparency in all these aspects leading to doubts in the minds of candidates, compelling them to seek legal remedy. The litigation is not helping any ofthe stake holders, the State, the recruiting agency and the candidates aspiring for publie employment
102. Transparent procedure shall be the hallmark of selection to public employment. It is high time the TSPSC undertakes through review of procedures and shall put in place transparent mechanism.
few of which are mentioned here under
1) A fully functional web site which shall contain the Service Rules which regulate recruitment in general, relevant provisions of the Presidential Order and special rules which govern particular post; 6
ii) Through revision of questions and appropriate answer before they are finally identified.
iii) Clear instructions on bubbling of circles and carrying of prohibited instruments and firm policy on issue of evaluation of OMR sheets of candidates who have committed such errors be put in place.
iv) Awareness campaign be put in place to enlighten candidates the importance of bubbling the circles and consequences of errors committed by them and/or use of prohibited instruments. PSC can explore possibility of hosting a video on website on bubbling aspects.
v) The Chief Superintendents and Invigilators be given proper training on various aspects of conducting examination. A video can be made to demonstrate to them and also hosted on the website. vi) Preliminary key be notified soon after the examination is conducted.
vii) After preliminary key is published and objections are called, a through and proper review of questions and answers be undertaken and finalise the key answers. TSPSC shall not indulge in changing the answers again and again.
viii) Video graphing of entire process of evaluation of OMR sheets in addition to taking the images and preserving the images.
ix) Publishing the merit list containing all details of candidates on the web site including names, hall ticket number, social status, local candidate status, marks secured, educational qualifications with option to all candidates to search for the information required and to download the matter.
x) Strictly follow procedure to conduct selections and to prepare final merit list as per TSPSC Procedure Rules, particularly Rule 6-A. 7
xi) Create a web-based platform to clear all doubts to candidates/to redress grievance on any issue and minimize the candidates visiting the office of TSPSC...."
2.3. The above directions, having attained finality, are binding upon the 2nd respondent Commission, being in the nature of mandatory directions issued in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The TGSPSC was, therefore, under a solemn legal obligation to ensure strict compliance with the said directions and to exclude all those candidates who had tampered with or used whiteners in Part-B of their OMR answer sheets. However, contrary to the binding ratio of the aforesaid judgment, the 2nd respondent, with utter disregard to judicial discipline and procedural fairness, had included and appointed several candidates who were found to have committed acts of scratching, tampering, erasing, or use of whiteners in Part-B of their OMR sheets. Petitioners state that such inclusion is ex facie illegal and resulted in manifest injustice to them. Petitioners, who were found successful in the written examination, were included in the 1:2 ratio list, were called for interviews on 16.07.2019, 25.07.2019, 30.07.2019, and 09.08.2019, and had every legitimate expectation of appointment in accordance with merit. However, their rightful claim has been defeated due to the 8 inclusion and appointment of candidates who stood disqualified under the express judicial directions.
2.4. The action of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to the doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It not only amounts to non-compliance with the binding precedent of this Court but also constitutes a clear case of discrimination against petitioners, who have abided by the examination norms and acted in good faith. The deliberate failure of TGSPSC to implement the directions of this Court in letter and spirit has vitiated the entire process of selection to the extent of inclusion of such ineligible candidates.
3. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. In this context, it is relevant to notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan High Court 1 has elaborated upon the settled principle that "rules of the game" in public recruitment cannot be changed midway or after the process is completed. It was held that the 1 (2024) INSC 847 9 sanctity of recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is founded upon fairness, predictability, and legitimate expectation. Any departure from declared norms, or retrospective alteration of standards, would amount to arbitrariness and violate the rule of law. The Hon'ble Court observed that equality of opportunity and fairness in State action are guaranteed rights, which are infringed if candidates who are otherwise eligible and meritorious are excluded by the employer's post facto deviation from the prescribed process. The operative reasoning is as under:
" The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution... Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality in public employment. These two Articles strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid and relevant principles alike to all similarly situated and not to be guided by extraneous considerations."
5. The Hon'ble Court further clarified that the principle of "legitimate expectation" flows from fairness in administrative action and obligates public authorities to act predictably and transparently. It held that:
" Candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non- arbitrary. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is founded on the 10 principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals."
6. The ratio decidendi of Tej Prakash Pathak is that once the recruitment process commences, neither eligibility criteria nor evaluation procedure can be altered. The Court harmonized its earlier decisions in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. 2 and State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha 3, holding that while the State may ensure higher standards in the interest of efficiency, it cannot retrospectively impose new qualifications or tolerate procedural violations once the process has started. The Hon'ble Court, speaking through Justice Manoj Misra, categorically held as under:
" The decision in K. Manjusree does not proscribe setting of benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process but mandates that it should not be set after the stage is over, in other words, after the game has already been played."
7. TGSPSC, despite judicial directions from this Court in the earlier Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017, deviated from the prescribed evaluation and verification process by including candidates whose OMR sheets were tampered or whitened acts that directly contravene the "rules of the game" and destroy fairness in competition. TGSPSC's action amounts to retrospective alteration of standards and constitutes a violation 2 (2008) 3 SCC 512 3 (1974) 3 SCC 220 11 of Articles 14 and 16, as held by the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak.
8. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds substantial force in the contentions of petitioners. The record clearly discloses that TGSPSC did not fully implement the directions in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017 regarding exclusion of candidates who had used whiteners or tampered with Part-B. The purported verification process conducted by the Commission is perfunctory, mechanical, and lacks transparency. The justification offered by respondents that errors were minor and did not affect the fairness of the process is wholly untenable in view of the express language of the earlier judgment, which mandates exclusion of such candidates.
9. This Court is therefore, of the considered view that the sanctity of a public recruitment examination is sacrosanct and cannot be compromised on grounds of convenience or expediency. The rule of law demands that all authorities, particularly constitutional bodies like TGSPSC, act within the four corners of legality and abide by the judicial directions with utmost fidelity. Non-compliance with judicial orders not only undermines the authority of this Court but also erodes the 12 public trust in the fairness of competitive examinations. Accordingly, it is held that inclusion of candidates who have indulged in tampering, scratching, erasing and use of whiteners in Part-B of the OMR sheets is contrary to the binding judgment of this Court, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. TGSPSC has acted in disregard of judicial directives and has thereby denied the petitioners their lawful entitlement.
10. This Court further relies on the principles reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak that any alteration of the evaluation procedure or selective relaxation of the disqualification parameters after commencement of the recruitment process strikes at the core of transparency and equal opportunity. The ratio enunciated therein that "State action must conform to valid, relevant, and transparent principles alike to all similarly situated candidates"
fully supports petitioners' grievance that inclusion of tampered OMR candidates constitutes arbitrary deviation from a judicially- settled recruitment framework.
11. In light of these binding precedents, this Court has no hesitation in holding that TGSPSC's conduct amounts to a clear case of violation of the "rules of the game doctrine, as 13 enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak and by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017 and batch. The principle that the process must be fair, transparent and in accordance with pre-declared norms, stands violated. This Court further observes that the constitutional principles of equality, fairness and transparency in public employment are not mere formalities but binding obligations on the part of the State and its instrumentalities. Any deviation therefrom shall invite strict judicial scrutiny and appropriate consequences in law.
12. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned action of the 2nd respondent in calling for interviews and appointing Respondent Nos. 3 to 16, who have been found to have committed scratching, tampering, erasing, and use of whiteners in Part-B of their OMR sheets, is declared illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The said appointments are hereby quashed and set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to forthwith recast the provisional selection list by excluding all such disqualified candidates and to include petitioners, in accordance with their merit, for appointment to the respective posts in Group-II 14 Services. The entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. This Court further directs that TGSPSC shall, henceforth, ensure strict adherence to the recommendations made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017 in paragraph 102 of his judgment, particularly relating to maintenance of transparency, physical verification of OMR sheets, video-recording of evaluation and publication of all relevant details on its official website to ensure accountability and to restore public confidence in its functioning. No costs.
14. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 18th November 2025 ksld