Telangana High Court
P. Sudhakara Raju vs State Of Telangana on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 23517 OF 2018
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the Final Key dated 03.05.2018 and the Revised Final Key dated 29.05.2018, published by the 2nd Respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission, as illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners challenge the Keys for not considering their objections to specific questions in the Teacher Recruitment Test for the post of School Assistant (Biological Science) under Notification No. 52/2017 dated 21.10.2017, issued by the 2nd Respondent. The questions in dispute include Question Nos. 130, 136, 146, and 153 of Booklet Series: C, Question Nos. 54, 60, 82, 83, 96, 106, and 116 of Booklet Series: B, and Question Nos. 41, 76, 87, 88, 150, and 160 of Booklet Series: D, under Paper Code: 52101. Petitioners request to direct respondents to constitute an Expert Committee to review their objections, correct the Final Key, revise their results based on their entitlement, and grant all consequential reliefs.
2. Petitioners 1 and 3 belong to BC-B community and Petitioners 2 and 4 belong to OC community and all of them 2 possess requisite qualifications for the post of School Assistant (Biological Sciences) and applied for the same under subject Notification; they appeared for the examination conducted on 04.03.2018 as part of the recruitment process which included publication of Preliminary Key on 14.03.2018, with the 2nd Respondent inviting objections online from 21.03.2018 to 31.03.2018. Petitioners accordingly, submitted their objections to the Preliminary Key, as detailed in Annexure-I, concerning the specified questions across the different booklet series. However, the 2nd Respondent published Final Key on 03.05.2018, allegedly without considering petitioners' objections. In response, petitioners manually submitted further objections on 24.05.2018, supported by relevant proofs and direct answers sourced from textbooks ranging from 8th Standard to Intermediate II Year. Despite these submissions, the 2nd Respondent published a Revised Final Key on 29.05.2018, again allegedly without addressing petitioners' objections. Subsequently, on 08.06.2018, the 2nd Respondent released State-wide Marks List, wherein petitioners secured 65.088, 70.716, 70.615, and 69.938 marks respectively.
The case of petitioners is that proper consideration of their objections to Preliminary and Final Key would result in 3 additional marks, as outlined in Annexure II, which would place them within the zone of consideration for selection to the post of School Assistant (Biological Science). They allege that the 2nd Respondent mechanically published Final Key and Revised Final Key without referring to the material / proof submitted by them. Aggrieved by this, the present Writ Petition.
3. This Court by order dated 04-10-2018 directed the TSPSC not to fill up four posts of School Assistants (Biological Science) meant to be filled up by Open Competition one each in Ranga Reddy, Medak, Adilabad and Nizamabad Districts, for a period of four weeks. By order dated 24.10.2018, this Court directed the 2nd respondent not to fill up four posts of School Assistants (Biological Science) meant to be filled up by BC(B) in Ranga Reddy District and Open Competition-5 in Medak, Adilabad and Nizamabad Districts until further orders.
4. Seeking vacation of the said order, the impleaded petitioners (Respondents 3 to 10) have taken out an Application; along with it they filed counter. It is stated therein that they are qualified and eligible candidates for the post of School Assistant (Biological Science) Telugu Medium and local candidates of Medak District, participated in the recruitment process pursuant to notification No. 52/2017 dated 21-10-2017. The 4 vacancy position included 6 posts in Open Category (OC), Local, General, and 1 post in Open Category, Unreserved, General, totalling 7 posts in Open Category (Local, General + Unreserved, General). Additionally, there was 1 post in Open Category, Local (Women) for Government schools.
As per the merit list, 7 posts (6 OC, Local, General + 1 OC, Unreserved, General) were to be filled by the top seven rankers. However, the second ranker was selected for the Post Graduate (Plain Government) (Women) post. Consequently, 7 Open Category posts were to be filled by the top 1 to 8 rankers to accommodate this adjustment. The total vacancies in Medak District were 26 plus 1 additional post for Plain Government (Women), making a total of 27 posts. Results were declared for these posts, with 1 post reserved for an Ex-Serviceman. Due to the non-availability of a qualified Ex-Serviceman, this post was to be reallocated to the Open (General) Category, as mandated by the A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, to be filled by a candidate eligible for the General Category. Candidates with state ranks 27, 32, 44, 45, and 54 were selected, but 5 posts in Open (General), Local were kept vacant. According to the roster prepared by the TSPSC, the positions of Respondents 3 to 10 were Kankati Ravi (BC-B), was placed in Open General + 5 Local at the 6th position; T. Srinivas (BC-D) at the 7th position; Uppari Machendar (BC-D) at the 8th position; N. Venkatesh (ST), at the 10th position; Srinivas Kanugula (BC-B) at the 16th position; G. Shravan Kumar (BC-B) at the 17th position; Ramesh Khanoch (ST) at the 99th position (notably, the first ranker in ST category); and Korampally Nagaraju (BC-D) in BC-D General + Local at the 19th position.
It is stated, the interim directions granted in the related Writ Petitions prevented their selection for the post of School Assistant (Biological Science) Telugu Medium in Medak District. Out of the 27 vacancies (26 + 1 Plain Government (Women)), results were declared for 16 posts. The Ex- Serviceman post, due to non-availability, was to be allotted to Open (General), but the 5th post in Open (General) was withheld. It is argued that ranks 1 to 10, including the first ranker in ST category, should be finalized. Additionally, the 14th ranker, belonging to BC-B was a female candidate who fit into BC-B (Women) quota. Writ Petitioners' primary grievance was that the answers in the answer key were incorrect. However, even if Writ Petitioners succeed, the merit list would not change significantly and they would remain ineligible for General Category posts as their ranks were far below those of these respondents. 6
It is further stated that Open Category posts should be filled up to serial number 11 because the second-ranked candidate opted for a Government school post, thus, they could be accommodated in 10 available General/Open Category posts in Medak District list.
According to this respondent, as qualified and eligible candidates, they should not be deprived of their opportunity for employment due to technicalities. They stated that losing this opportunity would jeopardize their livelihood, rendering their education and efforts futile. They therefore, urged to vacate the interim order dated 24-10-2018 in the Writ Petition to prevent irreparable loss. It is alleged that Writ Petitioners filed the Writ Petition without impleading the affected parties, including Respondents 3 to 10 and obtained interim orders behind their back. They argued that the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended that selection process was complete and merit lists were prepared; delaying the process would cause significant harm and hardship to candidates like them, for whom this recruitment was a critical employment opportunity. Right to employment should not be defeated by dilatory tactics. Writ petitioners had no chance of surpassing 7 petitioners' ranks, rendering Writ Petition without merit and liable for dismissal.
5. The 2nd respondent TGPSC filed counter affidavit stating that the Commission constituted an Experts Committee to evaluate the objections, comprising: (1) H. Narender Rao Khatri, Professor (Retired) in Biological Science (Methodology) and Consultant, SCERT, Hyderabad, (2) Dr. D. Sambaiah, Professor (Retired) in Botany, Kakatiya University, Warangal, and (3) Manikya Reddy, School Assistant (Biological Science), Govt. High School, Sadasivpet, Sangareddy District. The Committee assessed the validity of objections by referring to standard books. Objections were deemed valid only if supported by accurate references from these standard sources; otherwise, the answers in the preliminary key were upheld. The TSPSC asserts that, following this rigorous scrutiny, the final key was published on the Commission's website on 07/05/2018, correcting the petitioners' claim that it was published on 03/05/2018. This submission directly addresses the petitioners' allegation that their objections were not considered, emphasizing that a qualified expert panel reviewed all objections.
8
The TSPSC acknowledges that, in the subject identified by Paper Code-52101, there were certain oversight mistakes in the Final Key published on 07/05/2018. The Commission took corrective action by revising the key and placing the corrected Final Key on its website on 06/06/2018. This admission of initial errors, followed by rectification, demonstrates the TSPSC's commitment to accuracy and fairness, while also addressing the petitioners' concern about the deletion of questions by clarifying that corrections were made transparently. TSPSC details the handling of objections received as a special case after publication of final key. These objections were reviewed by a second Scrutinizing Committee, constituted by the Commission, consisting of: (1) Prof. B. Raj Kumar, Professor (Retired) in Botany, Osmania University, Hyderabad, (2) H. Narender Rao Khatri, Professor (Retired) in Biological Science (Methodology) and Consultant, SCERT, Hyderabad, and (3) Manikya Reddy, School Assistant (Biological Science), Govt. High School, Sadasivpet, Sangareddy District. This Committee met, scrutinized the additional objections, and submitted its report on 19/05/2018. Based on the reports from both the first and second Expert Committees, the TSPSC finalized the key, and the state-wise marks list was subsequently published. This step underscores the 9 Commission's thoroughness in addressing all objections, including those received late, to ensure no valid concerns were overlooked.
TSPSC directly addresses petitioners' objections by stating that these were verified against the Objections Report submitted by the Experts Committee. The verification confirmed that the petitioners' objections were deemed invalid during the initial scrutiny of objections received on the Preliminary Key. The Commission further notes that the latest Final Key was published on 12/06/2018, and it declared that no further objections would be entertained on the Final Keys. This submission negates the petitioners' claim of non-consideration by affirming that their objections were evaluated and found lacking merit based on standard references, and it clarifies the finality of the key published on 12/06/2018. TSPSC emphasizes that petitioners' allegations of procedural lapses or non- consideration of objections are unfounded, as evidenced by the structured process and the involvement of qualified experts.
6. Heard Sri P. Narasimha, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC, Sri Ramesh Bura, learned counsel for Respondents 3 to 10 10 and Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for Respondents 11 to
13.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Shaik Gilani v. State of Telangana (W.A.No.1089 of 2023 and batch), that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta 1 and Central Board of Secondary Education v. T.K. Rangarajan 2.
8. Learned Government Pleader for School Education relied on the judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 1188 and 1190 of 2024 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court holding that the persons who have participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the very same selection.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajasekhar placed on record the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 to contend that Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views against views of experts; Court should never take upon itself task to re-evaluate the answer sheets. Importantly, sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing 1 (1983) 4 SCC 309 2 (2019) 2 SCC 674 3 (2018) 2 SCC 357 11 or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidate suffer. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. Basing on the said judgment and other precedent, this Court dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 21239 and 22320 of 2024.
10. Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for Respondents 3 to 10 relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. The State of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal Nos. 3649-3650 of 2020)
11. Petitioners' primary contention is that TSPSC failed to consider their objections, supported by standard textbook references, rendering Final Key dated 07.05.2018 and Revised Final Key dated 06.06.2018 (or 12.06.2018, per TSPSC) illegal. They argue this failure violates Articles 14, 16, and 21, as it denies them equal opportunity, fairness, and livelihood. TSPSC counters that it followed a transparent process, with two expert 12 committees evaluating objections against standard references, and that petitioners' objections were deemed invalid. Respondents 3 to 10 argue that petitioners' low ranks preclude their selection and the interim orders harm their employment prospects.
12. TSPSC's counter affidavit details a structured process, with expert committees comprising qualified academics and practitioners. The two committees, evaluated objections using standard books. However, the TSPSC's assertion that petitioners' objections were "deemed invalid" lacks specificity. The counter affidavit does not provide question-wise findings or explain why petitioners' textbook references were rejected. Petitioners' objections, detailed in Annexure-I and supported by textbooks from 8th Standard to Intermediate II Year, suggest a prima facie case for review, as they claim additional marks would place them in the selection zone, per Annexure II.
13. In this factual backdrop, it is very important to go through the law placed before this Court by the learned counsel for petitioners. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (supra), it has been held that 'If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to 13 penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.'
14. In Shaik Gilani's case, the Division Bench of this Court observed that 'the Court should be very slow in adjudicating the matters, more so, when the team of Experts have held that questions were properly framed, but in order to instil confidence in the unemployed youth and when questions are doubted by the candidates in the form of objections, this Court is of the considered view that in order to resolve the entire issue once for all, this Court deems it fit and proper to refer all the disputed question to the body of an Independent Experts afresh and finalise the selection after duly taking the second opinion from the Independent Body of Experts and this would cause no prejudice to the Board nor to the candidates and it would clear the minds of the unemployed youth and it will instil great confidence in the recruitment agency itself'.
15. In view of the above legal precedents, the judgments relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for TSPSC cannot be taken into consideration. It is further evident that TSPSC's admission of "oversight mistakes" in the Final Key published on 07.05.2018, corrected on 06.06.2018, indicates initial errors, 14 raising doubts about the scrutiny process. The second committee's review of special-case objections, culminating in the final key on 12.06.2018, suggests responsiveness, but the lack of transparency regarding petitioners' specific objections undermines the fairness in selection process. The purpose of inviting objections is to ensure accuracy and fairness, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that objection-handling must be transparent and reasoned. The TSPSC's failure to disclose reasons for rejecting the petitioners' objections violates this principle.
16. Respondents 3 to 10's vacate stay petition highlights the practical implications of the interim orders, which withhold 4 posts across districts, including 5 OC (General) Local posts in Medak. Their contention that the petitioners' ranks (with marks of 65.088, 70.716, 70.615, and 69.938) are too low to affect the merit list assumes the Final Key's correctness, which is the disputed issue. Their reliance on Article 21 is noted, but the right to livelihood applies equally to the petitioners, who allege deprivation due to an unfair process. Their claim of non-joinder is weakened, as the TSPSC, the primary decision-maker, is a party, and the petitioners' challenge targets the key, not individual selections. However, 15 impleading Respondents 3 to 10 ensures all affected parties are heard, aligning with natural justice principles.
17. The interim orders dated 04.10.2018 and 24.10.2018 protected the petitioners' interests by preserving posts pending adjudication. However, prolonged withholding risks prejudice to Respondents 3 to 10, necessitating a balanced resolution.
18. In light of the above, the court finds that the TSPSC's handling of the petitioners' objections was not sufficiently transparent or reasoned, violating Articles 14 and
16. The failure to consider textbook-supported objections potentially deprived the petitioners of marks, affecting their right to equal opportunity and livelihood under Article 21.
19. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to constitute an independent Expert Committee, comprising three subject experts not previously involved, within 4 weeks from the date of this order, to review the petitioners' objections to the disputed questions, considering their submissions in Annexure-I and textbook references. The Expert Committee shall submit a reasoned report within 8 weeks, addressing each objection and specifying whether the 16 petitioners' references are valid, with reasons for acceptance or rejection. No costs.
20. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 28th May 2025 ksld