Telangana High Court
Satta Shekhar vs Telangana Public Service Commission on 18 October, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA :: HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Writ Appeal Nos.1188 & 1190 of 2024
W.A.No.1188 of 2024:
Between:
Sri Satta Shekhar and two others.
.........Appellants
and
Telangana Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and another
.......Respondents
W.A.No.1190 of 2024:
Between:
Sri Damodar Reddy Gangula and four others.
.........Appellants
and
Telangana Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and another
.......Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 18-10-2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether The Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes
Of the Judgment?
::2:: AKS,J & LNA,J
wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA :: HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Writ Appeal Nos.1188 & 1190 of 2024
%18-10-2024
W.A.No.1188 of 2024:
Between:
Sri Satta Shekhar and two others.
.........Appellants
and
Telangana Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and another
.......Respondents
W.A.No.1190 of 2024:
Between:
Sri Damodar Reddy Gangula and four others.
.........Appellants
and
Telangana Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and another
.......Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 18-10-2024
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
!Counsel for the Appellants inW.A.No. : Sri J. Sudheer
1188 of 2024
!Counsel for the Appellants inW.A.No. : Sri Goda Shiva
1190 of 2024
^ Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Sri P.S. Rajashekar
^ Counsel for the respondent No.2-State : Spl. Government Plealder
? Cases referred
1
(2017) 4 S.C.C. 357
::3:: AKS,J & LNA,J
wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Writ Appeal Nos.1188 & 1190 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Both these Writ Appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment since the issue raised in these Writ Appeals is one and the same.
2. Both the Writ Appeals are filed against the common order, dated 15.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024.
3. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellants in W.P.No.1188 of 2024, Sri Goda Shiva, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.P.No.1190 of 2024, Sri P.S.Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Telangana Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and the learned Special ::4:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondents- State in both the Writ Appeals.
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.A.No.1188 of 2024 are discussed hereunder.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the appellants have responded to a notification issued by respondent No.1-Telangana Public Service Commission, Hyderabad (for brevity 'Public Service Commission') on 26.04.2022 for the post of Group-I vacancies. In all, 503 vacancies were notified and the Preliminary Examinations were conducted. However, as the question paper was leaked, that necessitated the State Government to cancel the preliminary examinations on 17.03.2023. Subsequently, the preliminary examinations were once again conducted on 09.06.2024 and they were also cancelled in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.15811 of 2023, dated 23.09.2023 on the ground that the biometric attendance was not conducted for the ::5:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 candidates who have appeared for the preliminary examinations. The learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the Public Service Commission to re-conduct the preliminary examination by taking biometric attendance for the examinations. Instead of re-conducting the examinations in pursuance to the original notification, dated 26.04.2022, the Public Service Commission has cancelled its original notification on 19.02.2024 without having any power and issued a new notification on the same day i.e. 19.02.2024. This time, in all, 563 posts were notified.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that earlier notification, dated 26.04.2022 was confined to only 503 vacancies and the Public Service Commission could not have cancelled its earlier notification, thereby allowing so many others who became qualified after issuance of original notification dated 26.04.2022, to compete for the very same 503 vacancies, and this unwarranted action of the Public Service ::6:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 Commission has marred the chances of the appellants for selections.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that when original notification was issued on 26.04.2022, there was no increase of percentage of reservation in favour of ST candidates. However, with new notification, the percentage of reservation for ST candidates has been increased from 6% to 10% vide G.O.Ms.No.33 dated 30.09.2022. If the original notification had been followed, the ST reservations would be confined only to 6% and in view of the issuance of the fresh notification, the ST category candidates are now being benefitted by extra 4% of reservation.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that as per the original notification, dated 26.04.2022, only few set of individuals were eligible. However, with the issuance of new notification on 19.02.2024, many candidates who were not eligible as on ::7:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 the date of earlier notification have become eligible and the competition for the Group-1 post is increased by multi-fold. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the revised procedure is being followed by the Public Service Commission pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024, wherein Public Service Commission has called the candidates in the ratio 1:50 for the main examinations, thereby more ST candidates are being called with the enhanced reservation accorded in their favour, which caused to reduction of the selection opportunities to other category candidates.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the original selection process should have been confined to 503 posts only and a separate recruitment process should have been initiated in respect of 60 vacancies which were added in the new notification, dated 19.02.2024, exclusive for those who have become eligible for those posts and because of the cancellation of the original notification issued by the Public Service ::8:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 Commission, the Public Service Commission had enlarged the participation of the fresh candidates, and due to which, the candidates who were not eligible initially, are made eligible by the fresh notification, dated 19.02.2024.
10. Learned counsel had further contended that the preliminary examination was conducted on 09.06.2024, all the appellants have participated in the same and the preliminary answers' key was published by the Public Service Commission on 13.06.2024, and also invited objections to the said preliminary answers' key and the time limit was prescribed up to 17.06.2024. Thereafter, two of the appellants have submitted their objections in respect of 15 questions, but the objections submitted by them were not considered by the expert body and the final answers' key was published on 07.07.2024. Learned counsel had further contended that the final answers' key was finalized by the expert body and in respect of question Nos. 41, 66, 79, 112, 114 and 119 are concerned, the answers finalized by the expert body are erroneous, and to ::9:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 demonstrate the same, the learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to question No.41 which reads as follows:
"a) Question No.41 of the Master Question Paper:
Match the following Acts/Rules in India with respect to their year passing:
Act/Rule in India Year of Passing
A.Forest Conservation Act I. 2010
B.National Green Tribunal Act II. 2016
C.Wild Life (Protection) Act III. 2002
D.Hazardous Wastes (Management IV. 1972
Handling and Transboundary Movement) First Amendment Rules.
E. Biological Diversity Act V. 1980 VI. 2020 Choose the correct answer.
(1) A-V; B-I; C-IV; D-III; E-VI (2) A-I; B-IV; C-V: D-III; E-II (3) A-VI; B-V; C-IV; D-II; E-III (4) A-V; B-I; C-IV; D-II; E-III
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that in respect of answer to question No.41 furnished by the expert body regarding Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) ::10:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 First amendment Rule is "2016", which is totally incorrect.
The Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) First amendment Rule is concerned, they have been framed in "2009". To strengthen their argument, they have filed the Ministry of Environment and Forest Notification dated 21.07.2009. A perusal of the same discloses that the Rules were framed in "2009" but not "2016". Likewise, they have contended that in respect of several other questions also, the answers finalized by the expert body was found to be incorrect. Aggrieved by the answers finalized by the expert body, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the subject W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petitions by way of common order, dated 15.10.2024, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that when an answer furnished by the expert body is demonstratively wrong, then the Courts can ::11:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 intervene and refer the disputed questions to the independent expert body. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have referred these cases to the independent expert body instead of dismissing the Writ Petitions. Learned counsel had further contended that except these two appellants, all the other appellants were not qualified to participate in the main examinations. Had the Public Service Commission conducted the examination in a transparent and fair manner, the appellants would have participated in the main examination. Learned counsel had further contended that the main examination is scheduled to be held on 21.10.2024. If Public Service Commission is permitted to go ahead with the main examination, then appellants would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, let the main examination be postponed, till such time, the Public Service Commission refer the disputed questions to the independent expert body and only after independent expert body furnishes the report, the Public Service commission may undertake the ::12:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 next process of selection i.e. conducting the main examination.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that as per the notification, dated 19.02.2024, it was made very clear that the last date for submission of applications will not be extended under any circumstances. However, contrary to the said clause, the Public Service Commission has extended the last date of submitting applications, which would mean that the Service Commission itself is not complying with its own conditions stipulated in the notification. By extending the last date for submitting applications, more number of candidates have participated in the Group-1 examination, thereby enlarged the competition, which would be detrimental to the persons who have applied to the original notification, dated 26.04.2022. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in both the Writ Appeals by postponing the main examination, which is scheduled to be held on 21.10.2024 and further direct the Public Service Commission to refer ::13:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 the seven (7) disputed questions i.e., Question Nos.41, 66, 79, 106, 116, 119 and 139 to the independent body of experts and let the independent body of experts examine the disputed questions and after obtaining their opinion, let the Public Service Commission proceed with the next stage of recruitment process i.e. conducting of the final main examination.
14. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission had contended that as per para XIII of the notification, dated 26.04.2022, the Service Commission empowered to alter, modify or withdraw the notification at any time and that decision of the Commission shall be final. In exercise of that power only, the Public Service Commission has cancelled the earlier notification, dated 26.04.2022 vide proceedings, dated 19.02.2024, and on the very same day, a new notification i.e., Notification No.2 of 2024 for the posts of 563 vacancies was issued. The Public Service Commission had to cancel the earlier notification in order to include 60 new vacancies ::14:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 in the Group-I cadre and in order to implement G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 30.09.22, wherein the State Government has enhanced the reservation of STs from 6% to 10% and also in order to ensure that each category is adequately represented in the form of 1:50 ratio in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.29, dated 08.02.2024.
15. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents had further contended that the appellants, having participated in the selection process, have not challenged the cancellation of earlier notification and issuance of new notification No.2 of 2024, dated 19.02.2024. Further, the appellants have participated in the selection process and also participated in the preliminary examination, but having not been qualified, they cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. In fact two of the appellants are already qualified for the main examination. Learned Standing Counsel had further contended that the Public Service Commission has published the preliminary answers' key on 13.06.2024 inviting all the candidates to ::15:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 file objections, if any, and time limit was prescribed for filing the objections up to 17.06.2024 and two of the appellants have filed their objections and the rest of the appellants not filed any objections. The Public Service Commission has not finalized the answers to the disputed questions on its own, it has referred the objections to the expert body and based upon the opinion of the expert body only, the Public Service Commission has finalized the preliminary key answers and published it on 07.07.2024. Therefore, transparent method was adopted by the Public Service Commission by referring the disputed questions to the expert body and upon the opinion of the expert body only, the answers were finalized.
16. Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that nearly 31,000 candidates are likely to be participate in the main examinations, which are scheduled to be held on 21.10.2024 i.e. two days' time from today and 90% of the candidates have already downloaded the Hall Tickets. Therefore, postponing the examination at this point of time ::16:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 may not be feasible. The entire administration has been involved in order to conduct smooth examination. At this point of time, postponing the main examination would cause lot of prejudice to the several thousands of candidates, that too, at the instance of six (6) appellants. The two appellants have already qualified to participate in the main examination. Therefore, stalling the examination process which is marred by several controversies in the past should not be postponed. Till now, two preliminary examinations were conducted and the Public Service Commission could not conclude the recruitment process consequent upon the paper leakage at the first instance and by not following biometric attendance in the second instance. If the recruitment process is stalled, several unemployed youth will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the case and dismissed the Writ Petitions.
::17:: AKS,J & LNA,J
wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024
17. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents had further contended that the last date for submission of applications had to be extended, as there was technical glitch while accepting the applications forms, in order to ensure that everybody get an opportunity to submit their applications. As a last indulgence, time was extended by two days only on the representations of several candidates. Therefore there is no force in the contention of the appellants that the Public Service Commission has not complied with its own condition as stipulated in the Notification. Hence, there are no merits in the Writ Appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.
18. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the view that the Public Service Commission has finalized the answers' key based upon the expert body report, and it is not that the Public Service Commission has finalized the answers' key on its own and as far as the contention of the appellants that this Court should examine with proofs whether preliminary answers' ::18:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 key which was finalized by the Public Service Commission is right or not is concerned, this Court cannot go into that aspect as this Court is not expertise to examine as to whether which answer is the correct answer. When once the expert body has finalized the key, then it has to be left open to the experts body only and it is not for the Courts to finalize the answers' key.
19. A perusal of the prayer made in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 is concerned, the appellants have not challenged the disputed questions and also the answers in preliminary answers' key. As far as the prayer in W.P.No.22320 of 2024 is concerned, there is no doubt that the disputed questions should be referred to an independent expert body, but that relief is being asked in the main prayer instead of asking for interim relief. Had the appellants have sought an interim relief initially to refer the disputed questions to an independent expert body, then perhaps, the learned Single Judge could have explored the possibility of referring it to an independent expert's body, ::19:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 but the interim relief sought by the appellants in the said Writ Petitions is for staying of all further proceedings, which will not serve anybody's purpose. Had the appellants requested as interim measure before the learned Single Judge to refer the cases to an independent body of experts, then there was enough time for the independent body of experts to examine disputed questions and give its opinion. But such an interim relief was not sought by the appellants before the learned Single Judge and the Writ Petitions were dismissed on 15-10-2024 and if they wanted to refer the cases to an independent body of expert in the eleventh hour, it cannot be entertained because main examinations are to be held within two days from today as already subject experts have finalized the key. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to once again refer the disputed questions to another body of experts and on that ground, the main examinations cannot be postponed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to postpone the main ::20:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 examinations which are scheduled to be commenced from 21-10-2024.
20. A perusal of the notification, dated 19.02.2024 makes it clear that the entire schedule of selection was already stated, wherein the preliminary examination was supposed to be held in the month of June and the mains examinations were scheduled to be held in September and October, 2024. When once the schedule of selection process has been set out in the notification, the question of postponing the main examination, which is scheduled to be held on 21.10.2024 would not arise and stalling the examination, which is scheduled to be held in just two days, would cause more inconvenience to several thousands of students who are likely to attend examinations and this Court takes a judicial note of the fact that the Public Service Commission has issued notification way back in the year, 2022 and in spite of several attempts being made to conduct the selections, they have ended up in disputes and finally the preliminary ::21:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 examination was conducted in the month of June, 2024, and that the next process of selection is conducting main examination which is scheduled to be held on 21.10.2024 and we are of the considered opinion that this Court is not inclined to postpone the main examinations which are scheduled to be held on 21.10.2024 onwards. Insofar as the appellants in W.A.No.1188 of 2024, they have challenged the Notification, dated 19.02.2024 on the ground that the Telangana Public Service Commission, Hyderabad, could not have cancelled its earlier Notification and issued fresh notification. To this contention, the appellants having participated in the preliminary examination and in the selection process, and also having been unsuccessful in the selection, they cannot turn around and challenge the Notification dt.19-02-2024. If the appellants are aggrieved by the issuance of fresh notification dt.19-02-2024, they could not have challenged the notification after the results of the preliminary examination have been published. Therefore, the ::22:: AKS,J & LNA,J wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024 judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar 1 would definitely attract in this case since it was held in the said judgment that the persons who have participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the very same selection.
21. If the main examinations are postponed, the candidates who would be appearing will be put to irreparable loss and that the administration has already taken steps and have made necessary arrangements to conduct the main examinations in a smooth way, and therefore at this point of time, stalling the main examinations would cause irreparable loss to scores of individuals, that too, at the instance of six unsuccessful candidates.
22. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1
(2017) 4 S.C.C. 357
::23:: AKS,J & LNA,J
wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ __ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date : 18.10.2024 Note:-
Issue C.C. by Monday.
Mark the LR copy.
B/o.
kvr/prat
::24:: AKS,J & LNA,J
wa_1188 & 1190 of 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Writ Appeal Nos.1188 & 1190 of 2024 (Common Judgment of a Division Bench delivered by Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Date : 18.10.2024 kvr/prat