Telangana High Court
Nirmala Banothu vs The State Of Telangana on 7 October, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 1417 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the fifth respondent in issuing the Addendum dated 12.06.2023 to the Notification No.03 of 2022 dated 30.12.2022, changing the prescribed pattern of examination from OMR (Optical Mark Reader) with CBT (Computer Based Test) and prescribing normalization of marks as illegal, and set aside the same.
2. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of Smt. B. Rajeswari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 and learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent No.5. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are Graduates in Nursing, which is a Four Years course. They are eligible to be appointed as a Staff Nurse. The fifth respondent issued Notification bearing No.3/2022, dated 30.12.2022, inviting applications for the posts of Staff Nurse for 2 various departments. The selection procedure is based upon 100 points, out of which, 80 points are for the percentage of marks obtained in the Written Examination and 20 points are for services in State Government Hospitals / Institutions / Programmes on a contract / outsourced basis. Apart from others, the Written Test was conducted on 02.08.2023. The marks obtained by all the candidates who appeared for the Written Examinations were declared on 28.12.2023. On the same day, within half an hour of the release of marks, the Provisional Selection candidates list was declared. The list for verification of mark sheet was also declared on the same day, within 10 minutes of the declaration of the Provisional Selection list. The petitioners secured the following marks as per the first marks list released on 28.12.2023:
Marks obtained 1st petitioner 52 2nd petitioner 53 3rd petitioner 54 4th petitioner 49 5th petitioner 49 6th petitioner 50 7th petitioner 55 8th petitioner 55 9th petitioner 56 10th petitioner 49 11th petitioner 55 3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after the release of the list of marks, without even mentioning the cut off marks, the list of provisional selected candidates was declared on the website of the respondents. The respondents issued a web notice on 18.12.2023 stating that the Normalization of marks in Computer Based Test (CBT) Weightage marks will be released.
There cannot be any Normalization of marks. The Notification No.03/2022 dated 30.12.2022 does not speak of Normalization of marks. It should have been the marks obtained in the CBT + Weightage marks. Further, it is stated that the marks are normalized. It is not specified which system is used for the Normalization of marks. The selection of candidates should be considered based on the marks obtained by them in the Written Examination + Weightage marks. The following is the difference of the marks obtained by the petitioner after Normalization:
Marks before Marks after
Normalisation Normalisation
1st petitioner 52 48.88
2nd petitioner 53 52.237
3rd petitioner 54 49.893
4th petitioner 49 47
5th petitioner 49 48.432
6th petitioner 50 45
7th petitioner 55 52.2
8th petitioner 55 52.023
9th petitioner 56 53
10th petitioner 49 46.175
4
11th petitioner 55 47.304
As seen from the above list, it is clear that in the name of normalization, the marks of the petitioners are reduced. Petitioners are aggrieved by the normalization since there is no normalization procedure prescribed in the Notification, dated 30.12.2022. After the reduction of the marks also, the respondents have not specified the basis on which they have reduced the marks.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Written Test was conducted in three (03) shifts without any justification. Approximately 38,000 students appeared in the Written Test, and there is no reason why the competitive examinations should be held in three shifts. The respondents have assigned different weightages to those who appeared in three different shifts, which is attributed to the fact that the test papers were different and some questions were more challenging; therefore, they have awarded additional marks contrary to the established legal selection process.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per Notification No.03/2022, dated 30.12.2022, Para 13.2, the examinations would be based on OMR (Optical Mark Recognition). 5 However, this has been changed to a Computer Based Test, which is illegal. The respondents cannot change the method of examinations after the Notification was issued on 30.12.2022. The respondents should not have changed the scheme of examinations from OMR to CBT which also induced conducting CBT examinations in three shifts and subsequently adjusting the marks based on the difficult questions, which is also impermissible.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Staff Nurses who are regularly appointed before 30.12.2022 and working, as such, have also appeared in the present test. They have been awarded weightage marks @ 2.5/2 points for 6 months of completed services in Tribal Area/Non-Tribal Area respectively. The respondents have given 20 marks both for regular service and also for service on a contract basis before to these appointments in the year 2021. According to the petitioners' knowledge and belief, over 300 working Staff Nurses got weightage marks, to which they are not eligible. The service weightage marks cannot be given to outsourced staff nurses. At best, it can be given to those who are working on a contract basis. In the Provisional List, some individuals who had sought weightage, were not considered for 6 weightage and were accordingly, listed as such. Subsequently, they have been awarded weightage marks for contract / outsourced employment.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the Notification No.03 of 2022, dated 30.12.2022, the vacancies called for, are for 5204 posts. The examinations were conducted only for these posts. Subsequently, 1890 posts were added. The respondents are now about to fill the 7094 posts in total, which is illegal and contrary to the Notification, dated 30.12.2022.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in all the competitive examinations, the minimum qualification marks for Written Examinations are always prescribed. Otherwise, it would defeat the very purpose of competitive examinations. Some persons, who have secured less than 20 marks in the Written Examinations, have also been shown as selected only because of weightage marks. The candidates, who secured less than 40 marks, are listed as selected, with a number of 900. In view of the large scale of irregularities made in the selection process, the selection made pursuant to the notification No.3/2022, dated 30.12.2022, is liable to be set aside. If the same is not done, the 7 petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 filed counter and submits that the relief as sought for by the petitioners, is misconceived and untenable. The Medical and Health Services Recruitment Board (MHSRB) issued a Notification on 30.12.2022 to fill 5,204 posts of Staff Nurses under various departments. Additionally, 1890 posts were added later through a web notice, dated 15.12.2023. Thus, total number of posts are 7,094. An 'Addendum' to the original notification was issued on 12.06.2023, wherein, it was informed to the applicants that after due deliberations, MHSRB has decided to conduct a Computer Based Test (CBT), instead of OMR based test.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that a total of 40,926 applications have been received, which are more than the capacity available in the State to conduct CBT in one shift. Therefore, the exam would be conducted in a multi shift mode in three shifts. A merit list would be prepared after normalizing the scores of the candidates to account for variation in the difficulty levels of the question papers across different shifts. The shifts would be allotted to candidates randomly by the 8 computer. The following formula of normalization was also described in the Addendum:
Normalized marks of the candidate =GASD+(GTA-GASD) X(Marks obtained by the candidate in a shift-SASD) (STA-SASD) Where:
SASD: Sum of Average (A) and Standard Deviation (SD) of a shift in which the candidate appeared. GASD: Sum of Average (A) and Standard Deviation (SD) of all the candidates across all shifts put together. STA: Average mark of the top 0.1% of the candidates of a shift in which the candidate appeared. GTA: Average mark of the top 0.1% of all the candidates across all the shifts put together.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits the Computer Based test was conducted on 02.08.2023 in three shifts in 39 centers across four cities, viz., Hyderabad, Warangal, Khammam and Nizamabad. The preliminary key of the examination was released on 07.08.2023, and the applicants were requested to submit objections, if any, on the preliminary key online in their login from 07.08.2023 to 09.08.2023.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that the Subject Experts have examined the objections filed by the candidates. Based on the inputs from the Subject Experts, the key 9 Committee finalized the final key. The final key was communicated to the applicants through a Web notice on 18.12.2023. Based on the final key, and marks obtained for contract/outsourced service in Government Institutions, the provisional merit list was drawn up on 28.12.2023. Thereafter, the candidates, who are in the merit list, were called for verification of their certificates in a ratio of 1:1.25.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that after the certificate verification, the final merit list of the Staff Nurse was drawn up. The final selection of staff nurses was also announced on 28.01.2024. Thereafter, the selected candidates have been issued appointment orders by the respective Departments.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that, the petitioners herein, who have appeared for the Computer Based Test, were well aware of the fact that normalization of their scores would be done as indicated in the addendum to the Notification. The procedure of normalization is not new for competitive exams. Various recruiting agencies followed it. In fact, the Staff Selection Commission, way back in the year 2019, in its notice dated 07.02.2019, informed the applicants that the Staff Selection 10 Commission had decided to normalize the scores of candidates for the examinations which are conducted in multi-shifts to take into account any variation in the difficulty levels of the question papers across different shifts.
16. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that, in many other competitive exams, also like admissions into engineering courses in IITS, EAMCET, etc., normalization of marks is followed. Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that the principle of estoppel comes into play, against a candidate who challenges the selection process, after having failed in it. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para (16) has held thus:-
"16. We also agree with the High Court 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 petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under 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 petitioner clearly 11 disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."
In Ashok Kumar vs State of Bihar, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para numbers 12 & 13 has held thus:
"12. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate."
13. The law, on the subject has been crystallized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127: 2002 SCC (L&S) 830], this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of 12 India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumor, (2007) 8 SCC 100: (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] this Court held that: (SCC P 107, Para 18) "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumur v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) - ] SCC 368:
1991 SCC (L&S) 10521 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission [Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724: (2007) 2 SCC (L&S)
345)."
17. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that, Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, in its order, dated 01.06.2021 in W.A.No.809 of 2019, had upheld the normalization procedure followed by Telangana State Police Recruitment Board. The claim of the petitioners that MHSRB had released marks 28.12.2023 as shown at para (4) of the writ petition is not correct. On 28.12.2023, MHSRB uploaded the Provisional Merit List of applicants, which included in addition to other details, the normalized marks obtained by each applicant. The procedure for 13 normalization was clearly elaborated in the addendum issued on 12.06.2023.
18. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that, under Para No.22 of the original Notification, dated 31.12.2022, it was stipulated as under:
"22.SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS:
Applicants are directed to visit the Board's Website (htts://mhsra.telangana.gov.in) regularly to know the latest developments of this recruitment and any changes / modifications/results/ calling of applicants for verification of Certificates etc. Applicants may note that individual communication shall not be made. Hence, they must regularly visit the MHSRB website for updates."
19. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that, under the aforesaid circumstances, the candidates cannot contend lack of knowledge in relation to any subsequent modifications or changes to the original Notification, and they are estopped from raising the said ground. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
14
20. Perusal of the record reveals that initially, at the time of admission on 30.01.2024, the following interim order was passed by this Court. The operative portion is as follows:
"Having given consideration to the submissions made by the respective parties, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the issue raised in the Writ Petition needs an extensive consideration. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the respondents are permitted to go ahead with the selection process. However, the respondents are directed to keep 11 posts vacant, pending further orders of this Court."
21. The contention of the petitioners is that the selection process adopted by the respondent authorities is arbitrary and involves issuing various instructions contrary to the Notification No.3/2022 dated 30.12.2022. It is not correct; the respondent authorities, with the information, they had issued the addendum. In the Notification itself, they observed in para No.22, as stated supra. The first marks list was released on 28.12.2023. In the said marks list, all the 11 petitioners got the marks in between 49 to
56. After normalization, there is variation in the petitioners' marks as stated supra.
15
22. The petitioners contended that nothing is stated about normalization in the Notification No.3/2022. The said Notification does not speak the normalization of the marks. However, if any changes take place, as per paragraph No.22, candidates must regularly visit the Website. The respondent authorities have given the addendum on 12.06.2023. The said addendum reads as follows:
"8. The main aim of normalization is to ensure that no student gets advantage/disadvantage due to multiple shifts. "The normalization process brings all candidates across all shifts on a comparative scale. Due to this process, the marks of the easy shift may reduce marginally and marks of hard shift may increase marginally on the global scale. This depends exactly on the average performance in each session. Since care is taken to prepare papers of equal difficulty, these changes are expected to be very marginal. The following normalization procedure will be adopted which is being followed by other competitive examinations in India to avoid advantage/disadvantage to candidates in a particular shift compared to the other shifts."
23. The information of normalization given in addendum is much before first marks list. If petitioners had any grievance regarding 16 normalization, they would have challenged it as soon as the addendum was issued by the authorities. Without doing so, they waited for normalization marks. After getting lower marks after normalization, the petitioners' case cannot be considered. On this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. However, on 18.06.2025, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the respondents informed this Court that the recruitment is over by 31.01.2024 itself.
24. It is pertinent to mention here that though there is an interim order granted by this Court on 30.01.2024 to keep 11 posts vacant pending further orders of this Court. But, unfortunately, the respondent authorities did not disclose whether the petitioners are qualified or not after adding the weightage marks. The respondent authorities did not even disclose in their counter affidavit whether the petitioners are qualified or not. They even did not disclose whether they have kept vacant 11 posts or not in view of the above interim direction.
25. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to disclose final marks including weightage marks, if any, of the petitioners. In view of the interim order 17 granted by this Court, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and fill up the vacancies, if any available, in accordance with law.
26. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J Date: 07.10.2025 BDR