Telangana High Court
Eshwara Prasad Kandula vs The State Of Telangana on 9 September, 2025
1 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.11439, 8658, 9032, 9965, 10531,
10927, 12206, 12338, 12819, 13221, 16653 and 18556
of 2025
% 09 --09--2025
# Paramesh Matta and others.
...Petitioners
$ The State of Telangana and others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Smt.B.Rachana Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel
representing Mohd.Baseer
Riyaz and others
^Counsel for Respondents : Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel representing
Sri.P.S.Rajasekhar, learned
Standing Counsel for TGPSC
and others.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1.2025 (5) SCC Online SC 719
2.2021 (4) SCC 631
3.2010 (6) SCC 614
4.2019 (20) SCC17
5.2020 (19) SCC 430
6.2021(16) SCC 217
7.2007 (3) SCC 720
8.1980 AIR SC 2141
2 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
9.2007 (1) SCC 603
10.SLP (Civil).No. 23141 of 2024
11.Civil Appeal No.13806 of 2024
12.1970 (1) SCC 613
13.2011 (8) SCC 497
14.2006 (8) SCC 381
15.2022 (8) SCC 713
16.2011 (12) SCC 85
17.2024 (7) SCC 262
18.2005 (13) SCC 749
19.1990 (3) SCC 157
20.2004 (6) SCC 786
21.2018 (2) SCC 357
22.2023 (17) SCC 147
23.2024 (9) SCC 743
24.2008 (4) SCC 619
25.2015 (1) SCC 493
26.1986 (4) SCC 566
27.2013 (1) SCC 524
28.2003 (2) SCC 132
29.2012 (1) SCC 157
30.1985 (4) SCC 417
31.1995( 3) SCC 486
32.2024 SCC Online 724
33.2003 (7) SCC 285
34.2021 (5) SCC 1
35.2022 SCC Online SC 1706.
3 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION Nos. 11439, 8658, 9032, 9965, 10531,
10927, 12206, 12338, 12819, 13221, 16653 and 18556
of 2025
Between:
Paramesh Matta and others
...Petitioners
The State of Telangana and others. ... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 09.09.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
_______________________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
4 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos. 11439, 8658, 9032, 9965, 10531,
10927, 12206, 12338, 12819, 13221, 16653 and
18556 of 2025
COMMON ORDER :-
The issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same with regard to the conducting of Group-I mains examinations from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 by the Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC) i.e. 2nd respondent (hereinafter referred as "Commission"), seeking different reliefs. After hearing all the counsels, this Court is inclined to pass a common order in all these writ petitions.
2. The primary issue involved in majority of the writ petitions is with regard to questioning the evaluation method and several irregularities, such as, procedural and evaluation (lack of transparency, fairness, wrong doing, arbitrariness and deviating the Rules) in conducting the examinations, which leads to filing of these writ petitions. The action of the respondent authorities undermines the sanctity of Group-I Mains Examination.
5 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
3. Heard Mrs.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohd.Baseer Riyaz, Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.S.Prasen, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
4. Sri D.Ramulu, Sri T.R.V.S.S.S.Prasad, Shreyas Reddy, Ms.Aravind Mathuri, M.S.anirudh Sadhu, Ch.Sravani, Sri G.Bhasker Reddy, Smt.A.Anitha, Mr.D.Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and they adopted the petitioners' Senior Counsels arguments.
5. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the Commission/TGPSC.
6. While the arguments are in progress, Sri. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sriram Polali, Sri.Dr.K.Lakshminarasimha and Sri Pudattu Amarender, learned 6 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents in W.P.Nos.11439, 12206, 12819 and 13221 of 2025. Submissions of Petitioners' Counsels.
Mrs.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohd.Baseer Riyaz in W.P.No.11439 of 2025, submits as follows :-
7. The Commission issued Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024, for Group-I Services notifying 563 vacancies in different categories. All the petitioners were issued with hall tickets for the Prelims Examination, which were held on 09.06.2024 and they have qualified the prelims examination. However, the respondents have issued second hall tickets with new hall ticket numbers to all the petitioners for mains examination scheduled from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024.
8. In terms of letter No.134/Exams/Grp-I/2024, dated 01.10.2024 issued by the Secretary to the Commissioner of Police, 45 centres were allotted for the Mains examination. Subsequently, the number of centres were increased 45 to 46 centres vide letter dated 07.10.2024. After completion of the mains examination, the 7 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch results were released and the candidates were allowed to view their individual subject wise marks in their respective logins alone. The petitioners were allotted less marks when compared to the other candidates, who were systematically lower in merit.
9. After announcement of the marks in the mains examination, the petitioners came to know certain strange inconsistencies in the results and the manner of conducting the examination. The respondents' response clearly reflects the serious irregularities committed by them. According to the respondents their own press release, the petitioners came to know that the total candidates, who appeared in the Mains examination were 21,075 (excluding 18 sports persons). However, very strangely, according to the marks list of mains examination, which was issued by the Commission on 30.03.2025, a total of 21,085 (excluding 18 sports persons) candidates came to be listed, who seem to have received their marks along with hall tickets. The respondents' Commission has no answer to the irregularity as to how the number of candidates increased, who appeared for the Mains examination, have received their results suddenly by increasing ten (10) candidates compared to the information provided by the 8 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Commission, which shows that the discrepancies and irregularities were committed by the Commission while evaluating the main papers. When a similar irregularity and disparity in the conduct of Group-I examination was questioned earlier in W.P.No.15811 of 2023, this Court cancelled the Group-I Notification.
10. Two different hall ticket numbers were issued to the candidates for Prelims and Mains examination. Owing to such change in hall ticket numbers from Prelims to Mains, it is difficult to trace the additional ten candidates whose hall tickets are included in the General Ranking List (GRL) and the said procedure is alien and new.
11. After announcement of the main examination results, recounting option was provided to a candidate upon payment of Rs.1,000/- for each subject. All the petitioners have applied for recounting of marks.
12. A biased approach was being followed by allocating only women to one centre and only men to other centre. For example, Center Code Nos.18 and 19 were allotted to only women, whereas 9 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Center Code No.27 was allotted to only men. The biased allotment of examination centres based on gender is against Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
13. If the Commission has followed randomization in the allotment of centers to candidates, then how only the male candidates are allotted to one center and female candidates are allotted to other center.
14. A total 46 main examination centres were allotted. Out of the total centres, the candidates who appeared for mains examination in few centres are part of top 500 ranks in the General Ranking List (GRL) and the candidates who appeared in few centres were awarded low marks and in few cases not even single candidate is part of top 500 ranks. The answer scripts of centre wise are given for evaluation without shuffling and the answer scripts of one particular centre were allotted to liberal examiner, who awarded marks liberally and the Centre where none of the candidates are part of top 500 was evaluated by the strict examiner. Therefore, no moderation technique was followed. Hence, the entire evaluation was conducted without any mechanism or without there being any criteria for awarding 10 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch maximum marks and minimum marks. The evaluation exercise was carried out as per the whims and fancies of the examiners.
15. It is surprising to note that from the GRL the candidates whose hall tickets are in continuance are given exactly same marks. For instance, for hall ticket No.240902470 was given 253 and for hall ticket No.240902471 was also given 253. Further, in respect of hall ticket No.240905306 was given 373.5 marks and in respect of hall ticket No.240905307 was also given 373.5. Similarly, for hall ticket No.240905438 was given 270.5 marks and hall ticket No.240905439 was also given 270.5. Therefore, the candidates with exact subsequent hall ticket are given identical marks. Likewise, the same pattern of marks were given for 1369 candidates.
16. The evaluation of answers scripts commenced from 01.11.2024 and completed on 31.01.2025. After three days from the last day of exams, the evaluation process was started without there being any minimum training, which is a mandatory requirement. During the said three months, the Commission is supposed to have evaluated 21,085 theoretical answer scripts.
11 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Furthermore, the evaluation is claimed to have been done not once, but allegedly two times.
17. The press note dated 13.03.2025 issued under the caption "Steps taken for fair and transparent valuation of Group-I Services Mains Answer Scripts" it is categorically mentioned that "the chief examiners committee was formed for each subject with minimum of two subject experts based on the specialization of the subject area. Senior professors from reputed universities across the country were identified as the members of the chief examiner committee. These chief examiners/evaluators are also involved in several UPSC examinations and evaluations. The evaluators have been identified for all the subjects from reputed universities/institutions across the country. All the evaluators are the regular faculty from the universities/govt. colleges/institutions."
18. The evaluators namely Dr. Vannala Ramesh retired in 2022 and Prof. Narasaiah Panjala retired from his duties at Dr. BR. Ambedkar Open University were also part of the evaluation panel, which is a straight violation to above said press note. Further, Dr.M.A.Malik for Economics subject was engaged for evaluation. The said Dr. Malik is a tutor in a private institution, coaching aspirants for competitive exams at RC Reddy IAS study circle, Hyderabad. Hence, the professor, who taught and trained for the 12 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch same examination, was allowed to evaluate the papers of his own students and the same being analogous to one being the judge of his own case.
19. The evaluators, who are not concerned with the respective subjects, were appointed as evaluators. For instance, for Economy and Development subject, which includes different topics such as Indian Economy and Development, Telangana Economy and Development and Environment Problems, Professors from Economics branch were appointed, who can only evaluate the topics relating to economy. However, the topic relating to Development and Environment was also evaluated by the Economy faculty, who has absolutely no knowledge about the subject. Without appointing the evaluators according to the topics for evaluation, the evaluation process was carried on, which led to gross irregularities and inconsistencies leading to the very sanctity of the examination and evaluation being in jeopardy. Similarly, for evaluation of Telangana Movement and State Formation paper, the professors from political science and history department were engaged. Since two distinct groups of evaluators from the degree college in History and political science dealt in evaluation work, it 13 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch leads to lack of uniformity in the marks pattern granted between one centre to another centre that resulted in unfair and uneven grading of answer scripts.
20. The questions framed in the mains examination paper are analytical and far away from reach of evaluators, who have no previous experience of evaluating competitive exams. The evaluation was done without any expertise or minimum training. Since evaluators are engaged and allotted subject irrelevant to their expertise, significant harm has been caused to the petitioners. In the absence of uniform mechanism for evaluating answer scripts, the answer scripts of the petitioners and few others have been strictly evaluated leading them to score low marks.
21. The answer scripts evaluated in 90 days period and the alleged two evaluation processes were carried out. All the evaluations were conducted by the same evaluators, which is another mistake on the part of the Commission. As per the GRL, 21,103 candidates have appeared in the mains examination. Each candidate has appeared for six papers i.e., (21,103 x 6 = 1,26,618) (total theoretical answer scripts). If 1,26,618 papers are evaluated 14 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch in ninety (90) days only once without second evaluation process, per day 1,407 papers have to be evaluated. Such excessive work load, led to compromise of the credibility of evaluation process itself. Further, the said answer scripts are theoretical in nature and each question was answered logically and analytically, which required detailed examination by the experts. Even so, the Commission completed such overloaded evaluation process within a short period of time.
22. The evaluation of the essay paper was conducted by degree college lecturers from various departments and due to their lack of familiarity with the mode of essay type answers, the petitioners were given less marks, whereas a few of the petitioners', who also appeared for the UPSC Civil Services Examination for the very same essay type answers secured higher marks i.e., 141 in UPSC and only 41 in the present evaluation. Hence without having any criteria to judge the answer, the scripts were evaluated leading to disparity in the evaluation process.
23. The same evaluators scrutinized both Telugu and English medium answers scripts, which lead to discrimination in granting marks. The words and the reasoning prescribed in one language, 15 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch i.e., Telugu, may not reflect as it is to an evaluator having English background, who is not conversant with the technicalities and the technical usage of the Telugu language. This resulted in bias against the Telugu medium candidates and led to minimal scores from centres allotted to Telugu medium candidates. The evaluators are selected without any selection process or proving their expertise. The degree college professors are selected randomly without considering their experience in evaluating competitive answer scripts.
24. With regard to Urdu medium candidates, they are under the zone of consideration in their respective category. The larger discrepancy is found in the marks of the candidate having hall ticket No.240938010, who secured the highest marks in essay type answers with 97.5, despite having no material or books for preparation under Urdu medium.
25. In terms of Sub-Clause 15.2 of Para No.15 captioned as Memorandum of Marks in the notification, the respondents are obligated to publish the provisional merit list on the commission's website. However, no such publication is done and the candidates were directly allowed to apply for recounting and later GRL was 16 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch issued without any prior provisional marks list even to compare or contrast. Had such provisional merit list been issued, there would be transparency in the selection process, so as to ascertain how many candidates marks are reduced or increased after the re- counting process. Further, the individual subject wise marks are not disclosed publically. The respondents ought to have disclosed subject wise marks like GRL, which would create transparency and competitive platform for all the candidates.
26. The Commission issued press note on 13.03.2025 stating the count of total candidates falling under 100 ranks prior to the completion of recounting of answer scripts. As stated supra, the marks of one of the candidate, who applied for recounting, one candidate by namely Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy (Hall Ticket No.240918702) also applied for recounting of mains answer sheet and after declaration of final results after recounting, her marks were reduced by a total of 60 marks. The similar treatment was occurred in respect of some of the candidates. The candidates, who are having difference of 0.5 marks, were placed with differential ranks. However, the respondents have vaguely issued press note without knowing such consequences.
17 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
27. Due to flaws in the evaluation process, there is no trust in the Commission's evaluation process, as undeserving candidates are at the top in the GRL and the deserving candidates like petitioners are out of the zone of consideration. Since now the GRL is published, the evaluation of only petitioners' answers scripts would not suffice the cause. There is a need to start again the entire exercise of revaluation and it is not known as to how many candidates marks were added/reduced unfairly and drastically.
28. The petitioners sought information under RTI Act on 01.04.2025 seeking information with regard to criterion for evaluation, Instruction to Evaluators, criterion for maximum marks, double evaluation, third evaluation process, instructions for correction of Telugu medium papers, model answer copies and selection criterion for evaluators. No reply is given by the Commission, as there is no such criterion or mechanism fixed before evaluation of answer scripts. The petitioners lodged grievance with the TGPSC requesting to re-evaluate the answer scripts pertaining to Group-I. There is no reply by the Commission.
18 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
29. The respondents are proceeding with the next stage of recruitment process and invited the candidates for certificate verification commencing from 16.04.2025. Therefore, if the next level is completed huge loss will occur to the unsuccessful candidates. Hence, the Court interference is required. Therefore, the present Writ Petitions.
Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju in W.P.No.12819 of 2025 states as follows :-
30. The Commission in the earlier Notification No.04/2022, dated 26.04.2022, 503 vacancies are notified. In view of cancellation of the said Notification, the present Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024 was issued for 563 vacancies.
31. In the Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024, in Para- 1.15 it gives details of the vacancies in 18 categories of posts (PC.Nos.1 to 18). A total of 563 vacancies were shown in it. The 2nd respondent clubbed 503 vacancies notified vide Notification No.04/2022, dated 26.04.2022 and 60 vacancies for which the 1st respondent accorded permission vide G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 19 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch 03.02.2024. The Commission unauthorisedly without any power and authority clubbed with 503 vacancies.
32. Permission granted by G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 03.02.2024 is confined to those 60 vacancies only. As the persons in power and the recruiting agency were interested in certain identified persons, the Commission resorted to the cancellation of Notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022, by web note dated 19.02.2024. The deceptive and mischievous scheme started from 19.02.2024. Through Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024 (Para 1.5), it called upon the candidates of Notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022 to apply 'afresh' for notification No.02/2024.
33. The Commission gave eligibility to the fresh applicants to compete for the posts notified in Notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022 by clubbing the past notification there in with fresh vacancies. The fresh applicants (Most of them) were not eligible to apply for the posts in Notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022 perhaps they did not acquire Graduation (Degree) even by 26.04.2022.
20 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
34. The petitioners have applied in pursuance of Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024. The Commission issued Press Note dated 13.03.2025 stating that it has utilized the services of 351 evaluators for correcting seven (7) papers. It also published the highest marks secured in each paper of the examination under the heading of overall performance of 20,161 candidates.
35. The petitioners were astonished and shocked to see their paper wise and total marks. The said marks do not reflect the correct position. The petitioners have no iota of doubt about the answers to the questions given by them. The answers of the petitioners are impregnated with full particulars and details which they should contain to say it in one line. The answers given by them are complete in all material particulars.
36. In the present writ petitions, all the petitioners got low marks against the expected marks. The contention of the writ petitioners is that there is a mischief/mishandling/ wrong handling of the evaluation by the Commission. The process followed by the Commission for evaluation of answer scripts is wholly defective and it does not meet the standards to repose/instill confidence in the evaluation. Evaluation is neither 21 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch fair nor transparent. The Commission pursued their deceptive and mischievous scheme and acted designedly from stage to stage and thereafter, the 2nd respondent held the Preliminary Examination. For evaluation of the total papers, 351/318 evaluators were engaged for attending the evaluation from 01.11.2024 to 31.01.2025 is incorrect as they were engaged in phase wise manner.
37. According to the Commission, it engaged the services of 48 Lecturers for correcting paper-2 (History, Culture & Geography) and similarly different number of evaluators were engaged for correction of different subjects, but the said number of evaluators did not attend evaluation on every day from 01.11.2024 to 31.01.2025.
38. The evaluators appear to have not even bestowed five (5) minutes of time for correcting even one answer script. Such evaluation cannot be called as an evaluation at all especially in a Competitive Examination of the cadre of Group-I Service. The evaluation was unfair/non transparent and done to benefit the selected/identified few on whom favours were sought to be showered.
22 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
39. The candidates, who were assigned to appear from identified centers secured 83% where as persons in other centers secured 17% out of total 618 ranks. The Commission marked favouritism was shown in respect of female candidates from center Nos.18 and 19 and that the seating arrangement played a vital role for those who secured higher marks i.e., persons sitting side by side or behind each other.
40. The Urdu Medium candidate were awarded unprecedented marks and landed top ranks, even though only nine (9) candidates appeared for the examination, whereas for almost 8,000 Candidates appearing in Telugu Medium miniscule percentage. The entire selection process from the issuance/inception of Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024 till 1:1 as 563 vacancies are manipulated, manoeuvred and designed to favour a few of the candidates.
41. The analysis of TGPSC Group-I Main Examination results points to significant irregularities in the evaluation process, casting serious doubt on the principles of fairness and uniformity. Out of 618 top-ranked candidates, nearly 83% emerged from a selected few centers. While the remaining centers accounted for 23 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch only 17%. This disproportionate success rate is alarming, since all candidates wrote the same papers under identical conditions, qualification percentages also showed dramatic differences- ranging from as high as 76% in centers like 6, 18, 19, and 20 and as low as 22%-38% in centers such as 38, 39, and 42. These wide variations cannot be attributed to random fluctuations or merit alone, and instead point toward a systemic issue of non-uniform correction standards.
42. The data further reveals specific patterns that strengthen the suspicion of biased evaluation. A large number of candidates scoring above 450 marks were concentrated in a few centers. Several candidates seated side by side or within the same room secured very similar and unusually high marks, indicating potential lapses either in the evaluation process or in conducting the examination. In addition, a significantly high proportion of female candidates scored above 440 and 450 marks in the liberal centers. Discrepancies were also noticed in the total number of candidates who appeared for the Mains, when compared to official data, which questions the integrity of the overall conduct of the exam.
24 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
43. There is a huge variation in qualified candidates percentage i.e., Highest Qualification Percentages:
Center 18 - 76%
Center 19 - 76%
Center 06 - 73%
Center 20 - 73%
Lowest Qualification Percentages:
Center 38 - 22%
Center 42 - 38%
Center 39 - 38%
44. The above percentage indicates a massive range of 54 percentage points between the highest and lowest performing centers. The pattern consistently demonstrates a skewed distribution favouring centers 18 and 19, raising legitimate concerns over potential non-uniformity in evaluation standards across examination centers. Such disparities across multiple social categories suggest the need for an in-depth examination of the evaluation practices at these centers to ensure fairness and uphold the integrity of the competitive examination process.
45. The Group-I mains examination involved 21,103 candidates, 6 Papers (excluding English Qualified Paper) and corrections were done twice and the total workload scaled up to an overwhelming 2,53,236 answer scripts based on evaluator data less than five 25 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch minutes per answer script assuming a full working day of eight hours.
46. Every descriptive answer naturally requires qualitative reading and marking and moreover double corrections were done theoretically doubling the evaluator work load. Such unrealistic evaluation speed is not just improbable but statistically and operationally impossible without mechanically or template based correction method this amplifies the suspension that bulk evaluators shortcut were employed, compromising individual merit of candidates.
Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.S.Prasen, learned counsel in W.P.No.12206 of 2025 continued the arguments apart from adopting the arguments of other petitioners counsels and submitted as follows :-
47. In order to clear the doubts of the candidates, a press note dated 13.03.2025 was issued. In the press note, the procedure followed for valuation of answer paper booklets of Group-I services mains examination was also specified. As per the said press note, valuation of the mains answer paper booklets was done twice by 26 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch two different evaluators/examiners. The Chief Examiners Committee was formed for each subject with a minimum two (2) subjects experts. The said Chief Examiners have evaluated several UPSC examination papers. All the evaluators are regular faculty from the Universities/ Government Colleges/Institutions. After completion of the valuation, data was finalized on 15.02.2025 and as a measure of abundant caution, marks awarded were once again scrutinized by the Commission without knowing the identity of the individuals. Once the evaluation is undertaken by the evaluators, the Commission has no role to scrutinize the marks which may have led to manipulation of the marks awarded to certain candidates also. It was also specified that the data was finalized on 15.02.2025, whereas, the provisional marks were declared on 10.03.2025. The manipulations might have been undertaken in the process of scrutiny by the Commission during the said period and led to several further irregularities in the declaration of the provisional marks list of the Group-I Services.
48. The several representations have been made with regard to the procedure adopted by the Commission in respect of evaluation and the declaration of the results. A news item was also published 27 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch on 15.04.2025. In response to the same, the Public Service Commission issued a letter requesting to publish rejoinder for the news published on 15.04.2025 to the editors Sakshi News Paper, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in response to the news item published on 15.04.2025, wherein, it was stated that consecutive candidates getting same or nearby marks were common and that their percentage is less than 1%. It was also stated in Para-2 of the said letter. The evaluation was taken by unit of competent regular faculty who are working in Universities and Government higher educational institutions by following all the established protocols and procedures. It was also stated that, Group-1 Mains examination Center Nos.18 and 19 are in Veeranari Chakali Illama Women's University (Koti Women's College) and since it is a women's institution on the request of the management of the institution, only women candidates have been allotted to the said institution, as rest rooms are not separately available for both genders. 25% of the total women candidates appeared through these centers. The candidates also reflect to more or less same proportion of the women successful candidates. It was also stated that, 10 candidates have written the Group-I mains examination 28 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch in Urdu medium and out of which, only one (1) candidate is figuring in 563 candidates list, which has been published for calling of the candidates for certificate verification. There is always a possibility of candidates from one center being more in selection than compared to other centers.
49. The several web-notes and press-notes issued by the Public Service Commission would show that there was no consistency in the pattern of examination conducted, number of candidates participated in the Mains Group-1 examination, number of centers in which the examinations were conducted and the status of the evaluators, whose services were availed for evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates. The entire process undertaken by the respondents from the date of publication of candidates eligible to write the mains examination till the declaration of general ranking list of the mains examination is irregular. There is a discrepancy with regard to the number of candidates, who appeared for all the seven (7) papers. In the web-note dated 27.10.2024, it was notified that 21,093 candidates, which include 18 sports candidates appeared for all the examinations. Thereafter, in the press-note dated: 13.03.2025, it was stated that 29 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch number of candidates who appeared in the mains examination are 20,161. In the General Ranking List (GRL), which was published on 30.03.2025, the number of candidates, who appeared and written the examination are 21,085. On 30.03.2025, the marks list of all the candidates who appeared in the mains examination were uploaded in the Commission's website who are figuring at Sl.No.1 to 21,085. On the same day, the Commission has published the general ranking list of mains examination upto the rank of 12,622. Thus, there are variations in the number of candidates who appeared for the mains examinations held from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners are constrained to file the present Writ Petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Rama Mohan Rao in W.P.No.18556 of 2025 submitted as follows :-
50. The Commission's admission itself reveals the adoption of a procedure alien to its own frame work. Neither the Notification nor the TGPSC Rules authorise double valuation and the "third 30 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch valuation" was also done by TGPSC as alleged in the counter-
affidavit in W.P. No. 9965 of 2025 and therefore, it is ultra vires. Para Nos.17.1 and 18.1 of the Notification No.2/2024 require public notice of changes, yet no notice was issued to the candidates for double/triple valuation. The Commission's reliance on UPSC practice is equally misplaced, as the UPSC follows only single valuation.
51. When the law imperatively declares that where no statute, rule, or notification authorises a second or third valuation of answer scripts, the entire selection process is vitiated and that rule applies to the present case. The double and triple valuations carried out in the Group-1 Mains are illegal, and the entire evaluation exercise is void. Such revaluation also violates the express provisions of Notification No. 02/2024, whose terms are mandatory and binding on the Commission and all candidates. This unlawful procedure has gravely prejudiced the petitioners and their answer scripts were subjected to undisclosed and unauthorised re-marking. Now the final marks rest on an opaque mechanism never contemplated by the governing framework, and the respondents have been denied both transparency and the level 31 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch playing field guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, thereby casting doubt on the validity of the General Ranking List and frustrating their legitimate expectation of a fair assessment.
52. The Hon'ble Apex Court in one case identified examiner- variability as the fundamental vice that can distort a descriptive- answer examination. The Court noted the so-called 'hawk-dove phenomenon', some assessors are habitually liberal, others habitually strict, and each may still drift from the agreed yard- stick even after an orientation meeting. When different examiners value different batches of scripts, a candidate's fortunes turn on the accidental identity of the examiner rather than on merit. To eliminate this element of chance, the Court prescribed a systematic equalisation mechanism called 'moderation', not mere mathematical averaging. Moderation is a qualitative-cum- quantitative process led by Head (or Chief) Examiner, who first convenes all assessors to agree on uniform marking norms.
53. A striking disparity emerges in the treatment of Telugu- medium candidates. Although 7,829 Telugu-medium aspirants wrote the Mains examination, only a negligible fraction features in 32 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch the final list of 563 provisionally selected candidates. By contrast, out of ten Urdu-medium candidates, who sat the Mains, one has been selected an overall success rate exceeding 10%, whereas the success rate for Telugu applicants is suppressed, but indisputably under 1%. The Commission's own press note dated 13-03-2025 records the language-wise break-up of Mains participants as English 12,323, Telugu 7,829, and Urdu 9, yet, it has refused the RTI application filed requesting to disclose the evaluators assigned to Telugu scripts. A subsequent letter dated 15.04.2025 confirms that ten (10) Urdu-medium candidates took the Mains and one candidate among them was qualified, while no equivalent transparency exists for Telugu-medium outcomes, which is illegal.
54. The absence of competent Telugu evaluators, the English- oriented marking blueprint, and the opaque centre-allocation policy constitutes discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and fatally undermine the credibility of the evaluation process.
55. The results also reveal startling disparities across language media. Although only nine candidates wrote the examination in Urdu, several of them secured unprecedentedly high marks and 33 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch figured among the top ranks. By contrast, nearly 8,000 candidates wrote the Mains in Telugu, yet their success rate is negligible. Immediately, after the Mains concluded on 27.10.2024, Telugu- medium candidates submitted a representation dated 29-10-2024 requesting fair evaluation of Telugu scripts, but the respondents have neither acknowledged nor acted upon the said representation till date. The Commission has published the list of Urdu-medium candidates who were selected, while withholding any similar list for Telugu-medium candidates. Such selective disclosure, coupled with the unexplained awarding of exceptionally high marks to the Urdu medium candidates, renders the respondents' conduct arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness.
56. One among the most critical concerns regarding the evaluation process of the Group-1 Mains Examination conducted by the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) pertains to the absence of qualified, subject-specific evaluators, which has seriously undermined the credibility, fairness, and constitutional validity of the selection process. Multiple key papers in the Mains examination were evaluated not by domain experts, 34 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch but by faculty members from unrelated disciplines, which not only reflects institutional negligence, but also violates the principles of natural justice.
57. The Commission seeks to blur the line between moderation and scaling, using the terms interchangeably to justify its procedure and it is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. By conflating these categories, the Commission obscures its failure to implement the rigorous, two-tier moderation process prescribed for common papers and not only mischaracterises the binding precedent in one of the recent judgment of the Apex Court but also undermines the transparency and fairness that moderation is intended to secure.
58. The respondent's Commission has admitted to the fact that except for entering the marks in the OMR sheet, there is no trace of marking or indication of evaluation on the answer scripts and the reason given is because there is double evaluation, TGPSC did not want the second evaluator to know the marking of first evaluator. However, the method is against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings. The Commission's deliberate concealment of examiner identities, subject-wise marks and other 35 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch key examination data, relegated to sealed covers rather than publicly displayed stands in clear violation of legal precedents and the principle of transparency.
59. With regard to systemic bias against Telugu medium candidates, renumbering of hall-tickets from Prelims to Mains and the segregation of examination centres appear designed to corral Telugu-medium candidates, centres such as 44, 35, 32 and 40, reserved almost entirely for Telugu scripts, recorded markedly low selection ratios. Chart shows Telugu-only centres (44, 35, 32, 40 etc.) with dismal selection ratios Vs. English-medium centres and the Language-wise Results (TGPSC Group-I Mains) are :-
"Telugu: 8.48% - 50 selected out of 8,686 who appeared English: 91% - 510 selected out of 12,389 who appeared Urdu: 0.1% - 1 selected out of 10 who appeared"
60. The Commission failed to deploy suitably qualified Telugu evaluators, so well-structured answers were undervalued. Fourthly, despite a formal representation dated 29-10-2025 immediately after the Mains exams requesting a Telugu answer key special instructions, and separate evaluators, the Commission did not respond. Collectively, these practices have concealed a 36 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch success rate of less than one per cent for Telugu candidates, while Urdu candidates enjoy a success rate above 10%.
61. Nearly 40% of candidates wrote in Telugu for Mains and these candidates had already demonstrated their merit by clearing the Preliminary examination ahead of more than four lakh aspirants. However, when drawing comparisons with APPSC, TGPSC hides the participation figure and highlights only the final selection percentages. It also omits a crucial structural difference:
TGPSC's Group-I recruitment is a two-tier process (Prelims + Mains), whereas APPSC follows a three-tier process. (Prelims + Mains + Interview). By ignoring 40 % Telugu-medium participation and the additional interview stage in APPSC, TGPSC presents a skewed picture that masks the stark disparity in selection ratios and further exposes a serious transparency deficit in its reporting.
62. With regard to dubious and manipulated marks list, the Respondent's Commission asserts in its common counter (Para 76, page 45) that:
"As clarified above, the Web note dated 13.03.2025 contained the details of candidates, who have qualified in English paper (which is mandatory for evaluating the other answer scripts) ..."
37 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
63. The Commission is completely silent on the fact that numerous candidates, who did not qualify the English language paper nevertheless had all their other answer scripts evaluated and their scores included in the published marks list of the Mains Examination. A simple review of the total-marks list (filed with material papers under Annexure P13 at Page No.213) reveals multiple instances of candidates at Sl.Nos.27, 33, 46, 47, 57, 58, 59, 63, etc., who failed the English qualifier (Minimum 30% for certain categories), but whose total marks secured out of Paper I to Paper VI nonetheless appear a clear contradiction of the Commission's own notification, which renders qualifying English paper is a precondition for further evaluation as per own admission of TGPSC in Para 76 of the additional common counter affidavit. As the Commission has wilfully ignored this manifest discrepancy, the entire total-marks list released cannot stand. If passing English is a mandatory pre-condition for evaluating the remaining papers, how do the aggregate scores of candidates who failed English nonetheless appear in the total-marks list? By including such unqualified candidates, the Commission has breached its own notification, rendering the General Ranking List 38 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch illegal, procedurally infirm, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside in its entirety. Such a deviation not only violates the principle of legitimate expectation, but also constitutes an arbitrary exercise of discretion, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the said glaring inconsistency leads to the inescapable conclusion that the total marks list is fraught with fraud and manipulation.
64. Initially the Commission submitted written instructions in the open Court on 16.04.2025. The Commission denied the allegations of the petitioners counsel and opposed the granting of interim order.
65. After hearing the matter both sides at length, this Court passed the following interim order on 16.04.2025. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :-
"......
In view of the urgency in the matter, the process of certificate verification may go on. However, no appointment shall be scheduled or conducted in this regard, till finalization of the writ petition.
List on 28.04.2025 at 2.15 p.m."
39 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
66. Aggrieved by the same, the Commission has filed W.A.No.487 of 2025 and the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal on 30.04.2025 by observing as follows :-
"Since the impugned order is interlocutory in nature which can be modified, nullified, discontinued etc., by the learned Single after hearing both the sides and as the matter is admittedly listed today at 2:15 P.M., we decline interference. However, considering the nature of the matter where entire appointment is directed to be kept in abeyance, we deem it proper, in the interest of justice, to request the learned Single Judge to decide the question of interim relief expeditiously, preferably, before commencement of the ensuing summer vacation."
67. After disposal of the said Writ Appeal, the Commission has filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 along with counter seeking to vacate the interim order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11439 of 2025. In their counter stated as follows:-
68. The averments in the writ petition are vague, frivolous and baseless and are merely intended to stall the Group-I Services recruitment. On 07.07.2024 in its website, the Commission has published the details of all the candidates, who have been shortlisted for Group-I Mains. In the Group-1 Mains hall tickets, Prelims hall ticket number has been printed for all the candidates, who have qualified for Group-1 Mains. Giving a continuous 40 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch sequence for hall tickets would be convenient for printing of OMR sheets accompanying the answer scripts, distribution of the same across the examination centers and also in the examination halls. This plays a crucial role in verifying the candidates appeared, in evaluation and also in consolidation of the data. This is a new set of Hall tickets numbers given for Mains examination as was done in the previous Group - 1 Notification Nos.15/2011 and 18/2011.
69. In order to serve an equal play ground, the Commission has made multiple consultations to arrive at a conclusion in the matter of selecting the test Centers. The logistics, amenities and the human resources are arranged in a manner that reduces any form of discrimination, which includes consideration of exclusive spaces and special arrangements. Due to insufficient staff for selection of test centres, the Commission dependant on District Collectors and on their recommendation, the Commission finalized the centres.
70. The Mains examinations between 21.10.2024 and 27.10.2024 were conducted only in the Districts of Hyderabad, Ranga reddy and Medchal Malkajgiri that includes various Commissionerate Jurisdiction (Hyderabad, Cyberabad and 41 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Rachakonda). Initially, 45 Test Centers were identified and in respect of few centres, it was noticed that the strength allotted needs to be reduced owing to the facilities and the ratio that is to be maintained between candidates, rooms and the human resources.
71. The Test Centre Code 21 i.e., (CVR College of Engineering) initially the strength of 984 was proposed. However, a problem was noticed in Test Centre Code 19 (Telangana Mahila Viswavidyalayam) that Ground Floor is at higher elevation with steps and PWD candidates cannot climb the steps. Hence, 87 candidates, who were allotted to Test Centre 19 were moved to Test Centre Code 21 by reducing its strength from 984 to 787 to accommodate 40 PWD with scribe candidates. Another, 43 PWDs with scribe were allotted to Test Centre Code 39 (St. Peter's Engineering College) by reducing its strength from 504 to 358 to accommodate 43 PWD with scribe candidates. Despite initially sending Letter No. 134/Exams/Grp-1/2024, on further deliberations to avoid inconvenience to the candidates and 46 Test Centres were finalized for conducting the Mains Examination. The said exercise was taken up before the Hall Tickets were generated.
42 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch All Hall Tickets were generated only after thorough verification of these types of issues and after finalization of Test Centres, the data was processed for Hall Ticket generation and the same was the back-end process before it reached to the candidates and hence, the candidates are no way affected by these changes, as the process took place well-before downloading the Hall Ticket.
72. The Commission had conducted the Group-I Mains Examinations from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024. In this regard, the Commission had published a web note on 27.10.2024 i.e., on the last day of the exam when the examination was going on, displaying the figures of the candidates, who appeared for the Mains Exam.
73. When the exam is going on, the Chief Superintendents of all exam centers have to manually obtain details of candidates present from each of the examination halls and submit to the Commission. The figures submitted by the Chief Superintendents on the day of exam are subject to minor variation. The figure of 21,075 published in the web note categorically excluded two categories i.e., 1. the Sports persons, who were allowed by this Court by virtue of the orders in W.P.Nos.24113/2024, 43 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch 25028/2024, 27932/2024, 27972/2024, 28046/2024, 28729/2024 and 28978/2024 and two candidates who did not appear for all seven papers. After the completion of the examination and after receiving the used and unused answer Books along with hard copy Nominal Rolls, the same is compared to check the correctness of present candidates with respect to the Nominal roll and the OMR Answer Book to finalize the correct attendance particulars. It is an established procedure at the Commission to publish the tentative attendance figures obtained on the go when the exam is in process and to publish the final details after the evaluation is completed.
74. The Commission has released the list of candidates, who have attended all seven papers on 30.03.2025 and hosted the same on the official website, which has reflected a figure of 21,085. Initially, at the time of publishing the web note dated 27.10.2024, the statistics were based only on the figures submitted by Superintendents of the exam centres. The accurate figure is arrived only after the attendance records are procured from the test Centers and the data is reconciled and consolidated further.
44 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
75. The Commission vide web note dated 10.03.2025 accepted online requests for re-counting between 10.03.2025 and 24.03.2025, which is immediately after the release of marks subject wise in the individual logins of the candidates. The Commission has received a representation along with enclosures dated 01.04.2025 on 02.04.2025 from one Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy alleging a discrepancy of marks in Group I examination after the recounting process with a request to rectify her marks. She alleged a reduction in total marks obtained by her by 60 marks between original marks and the recounted marks. The Commission has considered the representation and verified with the records present with the Commission. The Commission could see no change in the marks allotted to Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy as against the allegation of the said candidate. (After direction of this Court, the petitioner's counsel impleaded the Ms.Bommu Poojitha Reddy and later she filed a counter affidavit disclosing her inability to continue in the writ petition as a respondent.)
76. The District Administration and the College authorities of the Test Centres bearing Code Nos.18 and 19 have requested the Commission to allot only women candidates for the Group-I 45 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Mains, as it is a women's Institution. They have stated that due to the non-availability of separate toilets for men, it would be appropriate to allot only women candidates to their institution. It is not just the Test Centres 18 and 19 had exclusively women candidates but also Test Centre bearing Code No. 05 (Government Degree College for Women, Begumpet), also requested to allow only women candidates and for this test center also only women candidates have been allotted for writing Group - I Mains exams.
77. The allegation that the candidates who wrote the exam in the Test Centers 18 and 19 are high is not correct. From Test Centre 18, only 5.41% of the candidates, who have written the exam from the center have been picked up for certificate verification and only 4.12% of candidates from test center 19 have been picked up for certificate verification. Since the Test Centres 18 and 19 could accommodate more candidates unlike all other test centres, it is logically possible that proportionate outcome is relatively more. However, a correlation is drawn based on the number of centres, its capacity and the women candidates to verify the proportionate outcomes for all the Test Centres, where the Mains examination is conducted. The study of the above data 46 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch does indicates that the Test Centres, which had a relatively large capacity, did reflect a proportionately large percentage and percentiles of measures in several aspects. Further, the pickup percentage for the certificate verification from the Test Centres is 5.41% and 4.12%, which is not an abnormal percentage. A similar pick up percentage is also witnessed in few other centres evidently. Hence, it is incorrect to state that is an irregularity and inconsistency.
78. The Commission has always adhered to the standard procedures and guidelines in evaluating the answer scripts. Myriads of subjectivities and probabilities cannot be dragged into the horizon of a rational inference or an allegation as presented by the writ petitioners, based on which, it is wrong to state that there is an endemic selection and thereby is an irregularity and inconsistency. The allegation of irregularity cannot stand because the subsequent candidates obtained similar marks. The marks obtained by each of the persons, who is placed in a sequence, is verified by the Commission and even though some candidates, who were given hall ticket numbers consecutively have secured same marks. All of them have secured different marks in each of 47 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch the seven papers and it is only the grand total, which is same for some of the candidates. In any recruitment exam, where large number of candidates writes the exam, it is very common for many candidates to secure same marks and it is because of this reason, the Commission has published the tie break clause in the Group - I Recruitment Notification.
79. It is incorrect to state that the evaluation procedure adopted by the Commission is faulty. The Commission has conducted the Group-1 (Mains) examination (Conventional/Descriptive type) from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024, for candidates, who have successfully cleared the Group-1 Preliminary Test held on 09.06.2024. This examination was part of the selection process to fill up the vacancies under Notification No.2 of 2024, dated 19.02.2024. The Mains exam comprised a qualifying paper and six main common papers. The General English paper was purely qualifying test, set at the X-Class standard, and its marks were not considered for ranking. The six main common papers are as follows:
"Paper-I: General Essay Paper-II: History, Culture, and Geography 48 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Paper-III: Indian Society, Constitution, and Governance Paper-IV: Economy and Development Paper-V: Science & Technology and Data Interpretation Paper-VI: Telangana Movement and State Formation (Each paper carries 150 marks totalling 900 marks)"
80. The TGPSC issued a press note on 13.03.2025, giving clarity and confidence regarding the evaluation process, stating as follows :-
"The valuation of Answer scripts commenced on 01/11/2024 and completed on 31/01/2025.
Following is the procedure that was followed for valuation of Answer Paper Booklets of Group-l Services Mains exam:
The Main Answer script contains 3 parts. i) The preprinted candidates' details. ii) The 2nd and 3rd part contains the part where marks are awarded by the examiner.
ii) Before the valuation process is started, the OMR Barcode Sheet which contained candidates' details part is detached and cannot be seen by the examiner or any other person at any point of time.
iii) Double valuation of all Answer scripts is mandatory.
iv) The valuation of Mains Answer Paper Booklet was done twice by two different Valuators/Examiners. After completion 49 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch of first valuation, the Part containing the marks awarded by the 1st valuator is detached and proceeded for 2nd valuation."
81. The writ petitioners contentions regarding the press note and their misinterpretation of the evaluation of papers and the appointment of unqualified examiners for evaluation are totally hypothetical, vague, and baseless, it is stated that the Commission, with utmost care and diligence has conducted Group-1 (Mains) examination (Conventional/ Descriptive type), and utmost care has been taken in evaluating the answer scripts of candidates. The Experts, having domain knowledge in the respective subjects, were engaged in the evaluation process, and the marks awarded by the examiners were thoroughly verified. No information can be revealed or was revealed as to who evaluated the papers. The GRL was released on 30.03.2025, only after completing the entire process, making the writ petitioners claim unfounded.
82. The evaluators are very much within the permitted consideration and as the word 'regular' only excludes the 'private teaching persons' and to be construed only in that manner to only exclude as the purposive interpretation adopted here is to 50 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch accommodate an expertise, who could evaluate the papers that requires high standards of knowledge and vast experience in the relevant disciplines and other ancillary subjects emanating. The principle "Expression Unius Est Exclusio Alterius" may be adopted for a purposive interpretation of the word in the phrase of the web note published. The Commission prioritizes transparency and accountability at each and every stage of the examination and hence to ensure high standards of accountability, the Commission has categorically excluded the Private faculty getting involved in the entire process of evaluation.
83. The term "regular faculty" does not exclude retired faculty members. It is a standard practice across Public Service Commissions to engage retired faculty members to evaluate the answer scripts. Moreover, the Press Note dated 13.03.2025 was issued after the evaluation process was over in the interest of transparency and disclosure. The same cannot be interpreted to retrospectively impose obligations upon the respondent with respect to the examination/ evaluation which already stood completed.
51 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
84. With regard to Dr. M.A.Malik, who is working in Government Degree Colleges since 2010, himself declared that he has not been involved in any private coaching for competitive exams after entering Government Service. The violations as alleged by the petitioners are merely based on speculations and apprehensions without any substantial evidence.
85. The contention of the writ petitioners that the Commission has concealed every stage of the recruitment process, including the evaluation procedure, is wholly incorrect. A detailed Press Note, dated 13.03.2025, titled "Steps taken for fair and transparent valuation of Group-1 Services Mains Answer Scripts,"
was released in the public domain, comprehensively outlining the entire evaluation methodology followed by the Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC).
86. The Commission also made public the exact number in evaluators assigned to each subject, clearly demonstrating that subject experts were meticulously chosen from reputed institutions, including senior professors and regular faculty with extensive experience in UPSC and academic evaluations.
52 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
Subject Subject Name Number of
Code evaluators
P0 English 33
P1 General Essay 57
P2 History and culture 26
Geography 22
Indian Society 22
Constitution 25
Governance 23
P4 Economic and Development 38
P5 Science and Technology 21
Biotechnology 26
Date Interpretation 18
P6 Telangana Movement and 40
Formation
87. In order to bolster transparency, Chief Examiner
Committees were constituted for each paper, comprising at least two subject specialists of national repute. Valuation was carried out in adherence to strict confidentiality protocols. The marks were awarded on designated barcode sheets without revealing candidate identity and were subject to scrutiny by the Commission post-valuation, again without disclosing candidate details. Following these rigorous measures, final integration of barcode data was carried out and provisional marks were published in candidates' login portals on 10.03.2025.
53 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
88. There is no evidence whatsoever that the same evaluators evaluated both Telugu and English medium papers or that bias or language-based discrimination occurred. The Commission had taken adequate care to assign evaluators well-versed in the respective mediums, including Telugu, English, and Urdu, to the corresponding answer scripts. The evaluators engaged were all qualified subject experts, with academic and teaching experience, and many of them were senior faculty from government degree colleges and universities with proven domain knowledge. Allegations that UPSC essay marks should serve as a benchmark for this examination are misplaced, as the evaluation schemes, scope, and rubric differ between the two examinations and therefore, seeks to vacate the interim order passed by this Court.
89. The Commission also filed additional counter affidavit on 25.06.2025 stating that there has been no recruitments to Group- 1 Cadre in Telangana after 2011 Notification i.e., from even prior to the formation of the State of Telangana. In such circumstances, the State administration is suffering from dearth of competent officers at the Group-1 level, which includes vacancies for 45 Deputy Collectors, 115 Deputy Superintendents of Police, 48 54 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Commercial Tax Officers, etc. The present Writ Petitions have been filed by the disgruntled candidates with the intention of stalling the recruitment process.
90. It is further stated that a challenge to the same Main Exam has already been dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 25.04.2025 in W.P.No.12431 of 2025 with costs and against the said order, W.A.No.589 of 2025 is pending. The said order dated 25.04.2025 constitutes resjudicata and it is impermissible for the petitioners to continue to agitate the very same issue before this Court for a second time. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and therefore, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
91. The Commission, being a Constitutional body, is empowered to draw its own procedures for conducting recruitment examinations, and there is no requirement for the respondent to align its practices with UPSC. Rule 3(xi), Telangana Public Service Commission Rules states as follows :-
"A decision as to the following shall be taken by the Commission in respect of all selections made by them:
(i) Whether any candidate possesses the prescribed qualifications for the post;
55 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
(ii) the basis on which the marks should be awarded;
(iii) the minimum of marks for inclusion in the selection list;
(iv) the manner in which the practical examination, physical efficiency test or any other test or examination is to be conducted and
(v) any other matter incidental to the selection".
92. The Commission issued a Web Note dt.16.08.2024 making Sample Answer Booklets available to the candidates. The sample Answer Booklet includes a reference to both Prelims Hall Ticket Number and Mains Hall Ticket Number. Similarly, through Web Note dt.09.10.2024, the candidates were instructed to download Hall Tickets for Mains Examination one week before the commencement of the examination. The Mains Hall Ticket for each candidate contains pre-printed Hall Ticket Numbers for both the Prelims and Mains Examination.
93. The candidates were notified well in advance (in August 2024) that there would be two separate hall ticket numbers for the Preliminary and Mains Examination. The petitioners did not object to the same before or even after the Main Examination conducted in October 2024. They waited till the declaration of the final results on 30.03.2025, which shows that the petitioners are not aggrieved by the process, but rather by the outcome.
56 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
94. There would be a difference between the total candidates calculated on the basis of list of absentees provided "on the go" on the day of the exam, and the final figures arrived at after thorough reconciliation. In the present case, there is a difference of 17 candidates between the first figure and the final figure. None of the 17 candidates, who were inadvertently marked as absent in the absentees list have been figuring in the final list of candidates, who have been shortlisted for certificates verification. Therefore, the purported increase in numbers has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners.
95. Regarding use of Biometrics, the petitioners have contended that since the Commission collected biometric data of all the candidates on each day of the examination, it should have published accurate figures of attendance compiled in real time from biometric data, instead of tentative figures. In this regard, it is submitted that the primary purpose of capturing biometric data is not for attendance, but for authentication of the identity of each candidate and prevention of impersonation. The process of Capturing of Biometric Data cannot be used for real time attendance count, as the Commission does not permit availability 57 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch of internet in any of the test centres, keeping in view the potential dangers to the integrity of the examination process.
96. The process of capturing of Biometric Data of candidates during the mains examination was explained. The said process clearly indicates the purpose of collection of biometric data is to capture/authenticate the identify of each candidate at every stage of the recruitment process and prevent impersonation and other malpractices. It cannot be used for real-time attendance figures.
97. With regard to Randomisation and allocation of Test Centres, there was biased allocation of Centres to candidates and certain Centres performed significantly better than others. The petitioners alleged that the same has happened since Answer Scripts from these Centres went to lenient evaluators. Centre Nos. 18 and 19 are cited as constituting 14.8% of the total candidates in the top 500. Allocation of centres exclusively to women (and certain centres to just men) has been alleged to show lack of randomization.
98. For the above said allegation, the Commission has explained the process of randomisation for allocation of test centres. The 58 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch contention of the Commission is that there is no manual intervention in allocation of candidates to the Test Centres and generation of the Hall Tickets for the candidates of Group-I Mains examination. The allegation of the writ petitions that selectively assigned candidates to particular test centres is totally false and is completely baseless.
99. As per the evaluation process, the respondent Commission divides the Answer Booklets from one Test Centre for each paper into smaller bundles after anonymising the Answer Booklets. The bundles containing anonymous answer booklets are distributed amongst evaluators on random basis, without any discretion. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioners that candidates at certain centres performed better because their Answer Scripts were sent to a lenient evaluators is contrary to the record and speculative. Moreover, there are several evaluators for each paper. Therefore, it cannot be that all evaluators for each paper were lenient.
100. The petitioners seek to mislead this Court by presuming wrong doing merely on the basis that candidates with consecutive hall ticket numbers secured the same marks. They have 59 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch concealed the material fact that various other candidates secured the same marks, as the adjacent candidates. Three candidates who appeared from the same exam centre (Centre No.11) having hall ticket numbers 240911068, 240911097 and 240911138 have secured high ranks. Securing of marks depends upon individual merit of each candidate. Since the candidates are allotted to the Test Centres on random basis, the uniform distribution of merit across all Test Centres cannot be expected. However, it is incorrect to allege that it is suspicious for the top rankers to come from a same centre. The candidates were placed in different rooms in the same Test Centre No.11 and there is no possibility of any irregularity that could creep in while the entire examination process is under CCTV surveillance.
101. The petitioners in W.P.No.11439/2025 have deliberately relied upon forged Memorandum of Marks of one candidate (Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy) claiming that her marks were reduced by 60 after recounting, and accordingly her rank fell from 130 to 1700. There has been no change in her marks after recounting as elaborated in counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.11439/2025. After 60 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch discovering the act of forgery, the respondents undertook the following actions:
"On 15.04.2025, the Commission has issued Show Cause Notice to Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy vide Memo. No: 89/Group- 1/2024 based on fabricated marks memo submitted by her to the Commission through a representation.
On 22.04.2025, the Commission preferred a Complaint to PS Cyber Crimes highlighting the act of forgery, and FIR No.758/2025 was registered at Cybercrime PS of Hyderabad City Police against Ms.B. Poojitha Reddy inter alia for the offence of forgery.
Investigation against Ms. B. Poojitha Reddy has been concluded and a Chargesheet has been filed before the Ld. XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally for offences under Sections 66 r/w 43 of the IT Act and Sections 335, 353(1)(b) & (c), 353(2), 337, 61(2) and 62 of the BNS. During the course of investigation by Police, it has been clearly established in the forensic examination of the digital records retrieved from the laptop, tablet, phone and other electronic gadgets belonging to Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy that the marks memo submitted by the Petitioners in the Hon'ble High Court has been edited and forged. During the course of investigation, it was further established that Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy did a series of conversations with ChatGPT for PDF editing tools and techniques, downloaded and used PDF editors to edit the original marks memo."
102. The Writ Petitions deserve to be dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioners have approached this Court while placing reliance upon forged documents with full knowledge. The 61 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch petitioners placed reliance on the purported reduction in the marks of Ms. B.Poojitha Reddy to support their claim of wrongdoing in the evaluation process. The Commission in its counter-affidavit, pointed out that the same was tampered with and there is no reduction in her marks. Despite the same, the petitioners in W.P. No. 11439/2025 (while placing the FIR on record) have continued to rely upon the marks of Ms.B.Poojitha Reddy to support their claim and have stated in their reply affidavit that the allegations of fabrication have been leveled without any tangible evidence. This shows the mala fide conduct of the petitioners, who have approached this Court with unclean hands and have sought to mislead this Court.
103. With regard to the evaluation method and evaluators, the evaluation process starts with the conduct of Chief Examiners' committee meetings to finalize the Answers Keys, Schemes for all papers including award of marks, conduct of controlled/mock evaluation including briefing and training of the evaluators. This was undertaken before the commencement of actual evaluation of the Answer Scripts.
62 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
104. All the evaluators engaged in the assessment of answer scripts were duly trained/ briefed by the Commission. Prior to being entrusted with evaluation duties, each evaluator was subjected to a process of consistency assessment to ensure adherence to the approved Scheme of Evaluation. Only those evaluators who met the prescribed standards of consistency and reliability were permitted to undertake evaluation work. Evaluators for Urdu and Telugu medium scripts were trained on par with their English medium counterparts. They underwent the same training modules and consistency assessments before being permitted to evaluate answer scripts. The Scheme of Evaluation was uniformly applied across all mediums without deviation. Furthermore, the majority of evaluators were retained across all phases of the evaluation process in order to ensure continuity, standardization, and fairness. The Scheme of Evaluation was followed strictly and uniformly throughout all phases of evaluation, without deviation and accordingly, due diligence was exercised at every stage.
105. The petitioners have relied upon Press Note, dated 13.03.2025, which stated that all evaluators "are the regular 63 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch faculty from the universities/govt. colleges/ institutions" and alleged that two retired faculty members have been used as evaluators. The list of evaluators are confidential to ensure fairness and anonymity. The petitioners, who are already in government service, have abused their office to secure the list of evaluators and the letters addressed by the Commission to Commissioners of Police and have filed the same along with the Writ Petitions. The Commission reserves its right to initiate appropriate legal action against the petitioners for illegally procuring documents and using them in the present proceedings as per Rule 3(xii) of the Telangana Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure.
106. The evaluation is anonymous, and the evaluators do not know the identity of the candidates, whose papers they are evaluating. Therefore, there can be no possibility of favoritism or bias.
107. The allegations with regard to the third evaluation, there is no separate bar code for the third evaluation slip, while the slips for the first and second evaluation (on the first page of the Answer 64 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Booklet) carry unique bar codes. This has been alleged to render the third valuation subject to manipulation.
108. Since all papers are evaluated twice (as stated above), provisions have been made on the first page itself for the two evaluations. However, the third evaluation (which is necessary only in a few cases) is provided for on the third page of the Answer Booklet. The Sample Answer Booklets were published on 16.08.2024.
109. The first page of the Answer Booklet contains three parts: (i) details of the candidate, (ii) a table for first evaluation (which is signed by valuer, chief examiner and scrutinizer) and (iii) a similar table for the second evaluation. The first part is removed prior to sending the paper for first evaluation, in order to ensure that the paper is anonymized. After obtaining the first evaluation and its scrutiny, and prior to sending the paper for a second evaluation, the portion containing the reference to the first evaluation is removed. This is done to ensure that the second evaluation is independent and uninfluenced by the first evaluation. Third evaluation, if necessary, is conducted by removing all three parts. However, the Answer Book has a stitched part running on one 65 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch side and is untearable and undetachable. The stitched part of the answer script has the Barcode running along with Answer Scripts. This part of the Answer Script containing Barcode remains undetached even after the OMRs for first and second evaluation are detached. Owing to the Barcode on the stitched portion of the Answer Script, the third evaluation form can still be identified with the same bar code given on the Answer Script. The third valuation form also has the provision for signatures of Valuator, Chief Examiner and Scrutinizer. The OMR/Valuation Form is scanned after each evaluation in the interest of integrity of the evaluation process. Since the third Valuation Form has the signatures of the evaluator, Chief Examiner and scrutinizer, there is absolutely no scope for any manipulation. Hence it is a false allegation that the 3rd evaluation is exposed to manipulation as it does not have bar code attached.
110. With regard to allegation of non-publication of Provisional Marks List, paragraph 15.2 and 15.3 of Notification No. 02/2024 states as follows:
"15.2 The marks list of Main Examination (total marks) of all the candidates will be displayed on the Commission's website. However, Paper wise Memorandum of Marks of all candidates 66 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch can be accessed in their respective Logins for a period of one week "15.3 Request for recounting of marks will be considered for Conventional Type (Written) only within 15 days after the publication of Provisional Marks List on payment of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for each paper through online payment only."
111. The petitioners in W.P.No.12206/2025 alleged that the total marks of all candidates were not published contrary to Paragraph 15.2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.11439/2025 and 12819/2025 alleged that the Commission is erred by not publishing a list of all candidates reflecting their Provisional Marks, contrary to Paragraph 15.3. In compliance of Paragraph 15.3, the Commission issued a Web Note, dated 13.03.2025, informing candidates that the Provisional Marks have been uploaded on their respective login accounts and can be accessed by logging into the Commission's website. Paragraph 15.3 did not mandate publishing one consolidated list of all candidates reflecting the total provisional marks obtained by them. It only mentioned publishing 'provisional marks list', which was published on the respective account of each candidate. There is no reason for publishing one consolidated list containing provisional marks of 67 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch all candidates, given that it is provisional in nature and only concerns the specific candidate. The final list reflecting total marks of each candidate after the completion of the process of recounting was published on the website, in compliance with Paragraph 15.2.
112. With regard to the other allegations in the writ petitions, it is submitted that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.11439 of 2025 and 12819 of 2025 alleged that the petitioners' marks did not reflect their performance and persons lower in merit scored higher marks. The petitioners also alleged that certain candidates secured much higher marks in UPSC than in the present exam. The candidates' subjective dissatisfaction with their result cannot be a ground to cancel an examination or direct re-evaluation. The subjects tested in UPSC are different from the subjects tested in the present examination, and moreover the performance of candidates may also vary from exam to exam. Therefore, there is no guarantee that a candidate who performed well in UPSC will necessarily perform well in the present examination.
113. The petitioners in W.P.No. 11439 of 2025 further alleged that the list of shortlisted candidates along with demographic 68 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch details were published in the Press Note dated 13.03.2025 i.e., prior to recounting. In response, it is submitted that the Press Note was issued in the interest of transparency and was based on the provisional results (which were subject to variation after recounting).
114. The petitioners in W.P.No. 11439 of 2025 further allege that no "moderation/scaling" of marks was carried out in the present examination. The 'moderation' or 'scaling' is a method that enables rationalization of grand totals in favour of few disciplines/subjects and is dependent on the pattern and scheme of that examination. It is adopted in examinations, at the discretion of recruiting bodies, which involve multiple optional subjects. However, no such moderation is required in the Group-1 examination because all papers are mandatory, and all candidates take the very same exams.
115. The petitioners in W.P.No.12819/2025 have alleged that the decision to cancel Notification No.04/2022, dated 26.04.2022 vide the present Notification No.02/2024 dt.19.02.2024 (notification for the present examination) was unauthorized. They further alleged that permitting candidates who were not eligible in 2022 to 69 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch write the present examination is illegal. In this regard, the Preliminary Examinations conducted pursuant to Notification No.04/2022 were cancelled by the respondent on one occasion and set-aside by this Court on the second occasion. Thereafter, the Commission issued the present Notification as new vacancies had emerged. The Commission has the power to cancel a notification and eligibility is required to be assessed at the time of issuance of the notification. The said issue was already challenged before this Court and this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter by dismissing the challenge.
116. It is further submitted that W.P.No.13221 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners seeking re-evaluation of Answer Scripts. The same is contrary to Rule 3(ix)(d) of the Telangana Public Service Commission Rules, which states that:
"Re-evaluation of Answer sheets shall not be entertained under any circumstances. However, recounting of marks will be considered within 15 days from the date of publication of results."
117. It is further submitted that paragraph No.15 of the Notification No. 02/2024 only permitted recounting and not re-evaluation, in conformity with Rule 3(ix)(d). Therefore, 70 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch W.P.No.13221/2025 is liable to be dismissed. There is no reason to re-evaluate the Answer Script of the petitioner therein alone. It is settled law that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim or demand re- evaluation.
118. The evaluation process and scheme of evaluation is uniformly followed for all three language answer scripts and the relevant competent subject experts in the respective languages were engaged for evaluation. The petitioners have levelled baseless allegations that there was a discrimination and bias against Telugu medium candidates in award of marks, which led to their minimal scores. The petitioners have not produced any supporting data to support the same and it is purely based on assumptions. A comparison with the selection of Telugu Medium candidates in Andhra Pradesh Group-1 Examination reveals that the figures from both States are broadly similar. Hence, it is a baseless and false allegation that the Telugu Medium candidates were discriminated and awarded less marks.
119. The allegation of bias that Urdu medium candidates were favored is baseless, as it is evident from the numerical assessment 71 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch that only one Urdu candidate was picked up for Certificate verification, out of the ten (10) Urdu medium candidates who appeared in the examination. The allegation that without proper material in Urdu medium, it was impossible for Urdu candidates to score top mark in the Essay paper is frivolous. The Commission has taken proper care to accommodate the evaluators from all accommodated media for evaluation including the subject experts who hold an expertise in that field.
120. The petitioners have also alleged that the Commission vide Press Note dt.15.04.2025 declared that ten (10) persons from Urdu medium appeared for all seven papers in the Mains Examination, while web-note dated 13.03.2025 reflects nine (09) Urdu medium candidates. As clarified above, the Web Note dated 13.03.2025 contained the details of the candidates, who have qualified in English paper (which is mandatory for evaluating the other answer scripts) suggesting that only nine (09) Urdu medium candidates have qualified in the English Paper. The petitioners are deliberately misinterpreting the figures published by the Commission at various intervals and raising speculative allegations.
72 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
121. In W.P.No.12819 of 2025 it is alleged that manually entering marks into individual boxes for each question, sub-totaling and thereafter computing the grand total. The petitioners alleged that there is a high possibility of manual errors. It is submitted that scrutinizers are engaged to obviate the said possibility. A scrutinizer checks whether the evaluator has valued each question and whether the sub-totaling and totaling is accurate. There is also provision for recounting of marks on the request of the candidates. Therefore, the Commission has taken adequate measures to ensure that there are no errors in the manual process.
122. It is settled law that this Court should not interfere with results of examinations. The petitioners have utterly failed to even build a case of violation of any legal right. The petitioners must approach this Court with clean hands. The petitioners relying upon forged documents, despite dismissal of another Writ Petition challenging Group-1 Mains Examination/Evaluation Process on similar grounds by this Court cannot benefit from the exercise of its extraordinary powers of this Court.
73 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
123. It is further submitted that the present Writ Petitions are frivolous and lack of substantial evidence and they have been filed belatedly by the candidates (after finding out the result). The present litigation is nothing, but an attempt of disgruntled candidates to stall the selection process for Group-1 services. Therefore, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed, as they are neither maintainable in law or on facts.
124. Learned Additional Advocate General filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 stating that though there are no averments and allegations against the respondents, since the appointment of the selected candidates is stayed, the present counter is warranted. He also submitted that the allegations made by the petitioners are vague, baseless and without any substance. The petitioners have approached the Hon'ble Court after taking final examination and after declaration of final results with unclean hands and the same is impermissible and also held that it is settled law that in matters of recruitment courts should be slow and cautious while dealing with the recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agencies. In the instant case, except 74 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch vague allegations no substantial allegations made out. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Reply to the Commission's submissions :-
125. All the petitioners counsels filed reply to counter affidavit and made the following submissions:-
Ms.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior counsel stated as follows :-
126. A specific irregularity was raised in W.P.No.12431 of 2025, which is presently under appeal vide W.A.No.589 of 2025.
Absolutely there is no connection, similarity or even a modicum of proof that res judicata allegedly as claimed by the 2nd respondent would apply. The 2nd respondent is once again trying to evade and has not taken up the responsibility of explaining all the irregularities pointed out with evidence and trying to browbeat this Court on the point of res judicata. It is well settled law that the principle of res-judicata applies only where the same cause of action, between the same parties, has already been adjudicated on merits in the earlier litigation.
75 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
127. W.P.No.11439 of 2025 was instituted well before W.P.No.12431 of 2025, and the two petitions are distinguishable on their facts. In paragraph No.6 of the order in W.P.No.12431 of 2025, this Court observed that the candidate whose marks are alleged to have been reduced is not a party to that petition and as learned Standing Counsel confirmed, has neither filed any grievance nor made any representation to the TGPSC.
128. Issuance of Separate hall tickets for Preliminary and Mains examinations germane to Irregularities. Para 1.6 of Annexure VI of the Notification stipulates that 'no separate application is needed for the Main Examination. The application submitted for the recruitment is only considered up to the finalization of selection'. Point 20 of the instructions printed on the Preliminary examination Hall Ticket further stipulated that a digital copy of the candidate's OMR answer sheet would be made available in the candidate's login, and that the Hall Ticket together with the Question Paper Booklet must be preserved until the recruitment process is finally concluded for any future communication. These provisions presuppose a unified application process in which the same candidate identifier (i.e., Hall Ticket number) remains 76 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch constant from Prelims through Mains and the final selection. However, TGPSC departed from this requirement and issued fresh Hall Ticket numbers for the Mains, reportedly using undisclosed parameters such as medium of writing (Telugu or English), gender, age group, and various reservation categories, including social, disability, and sports quotas. None of these segmentation criteria was mentioned in the Notification or explained in any subsequent press release, rendering the change opaque and discriminatory.
129. Pursuant to Rule 3(xi)(v) of the Telangana Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the respondent is claiming that it can do whatever it wants including randomly and without any prior intimation or the reason for the same, come up with the change of hall tickets midway through the examination process, simply for the sake of 'their administrative convenience', which itself resulted in the massive irregularities that have surfaced throughout the conduct of the Mains examination and the evaluation of results itself, as the candidates have absolutely no manner or process of confirming or cross verifying their results leading to the clandestine irregularities, where the hall tickets 77 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch themselves were selectively issued specifically to facilitate selective allocation of centres, which is clear from the manner of evaluation and the results that have been evidenced by this Court.
130. Para No.17.1 of the Notification states that the candidates to follow the Commission's website for all updates, including any changes or modifications and Para No.18.1 allows respondent No.2 to alter conditions during the recruitment process, provided such changes are duly informed to all the concerned.
131. Web note dated 16.08.2024 was allegedly issued by the Commission making sample answer booklets available to the candidates, in no way 'shows', 'announces' or even 'states', the fact that there would be two independent and completely different hall ticket numbers generated and issued to the candidates for the Mains examination, simply for the sake of their 'administrative convenience'. The discrepancy in the numbers of candidates, who wrote the Mains Examination without final reconciliation of numbers, is suspicious pointing out the malafide intentions.
132. In the first counter filed by the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.11439 of 25 states that 'Hence it is reiterated that after 78 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch reconciliation of the OMR sheets Nominal rolls etc., the final figure arrived is 21,085...'. When the petitioners demanded about the discrepancy in numbers from 21,093 to 21,103 to 21.110 (including 18 sports candidates) the 2nd respondent conveniently answered that when the petitioners asked about the discrepancy of the numbers actually coming upto 21,110, i.e., the results of the candidates, whose marks were withheld, pursuant to the orders of this Court, not being included in the 'total count' at least showing about the withholding in the said tabulation. The additional counter affidavit in Page No.18 states that:
".....Therefore, it is likely that there would be a difference between the total candidates calculated on the basis of list of absentees provided "on the go" on the day of the exam, and the final figures arrived at after thorough reconciliation. In the present case, there is a difference of 17 candidates between the first figure and the final figure."
133. Pertinently, none of the 17 candidates who were inadvertently marked as absent in the absentees list have been figuring in the final list of candidates, who have been shortlisted for certificate verification. Therefore, the purported increase in numbers has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners....." It is pertinent to note that there is no explanation as to when these 17 79 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch candidates are marked as absent in the absentees list, then how the attendance jumped to 21,110 and if their OMRs were also scanned and total number arrived at are 21,110 as per the statement of the 2nd respondent, then how could they have been marked absent. When their own documents and webnotes show the discrepancy, there is no plausible explanation for the same.
134. The 2nd respondent itself is contradicting in the very same page of the additional counter affidavit, wherein at one instance it claims that "...Thereafter, these figures are tallied with the consolidated biometric data obtained at the time of the examination each day. A copy of a sample Nominal Roll is annexed herewith as Annexure R-7..." at Page No. 17 of the additional affidavit and then in the following Para at Page No.18 contradicts and claims that apparently ".....The process of Capturing of Biometric Data cannot be used for real time attendance count, as the Commission does not permit availability of internet in any of the test centers, keeping in view the potential dangers to the integrity of the examination process.".. The 2nd respondent is clearly confused itself and is deluding this Court into accepting this irrational contradiction as to how would they now accepted fact of Biometric data was not 80 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch used for attendance was allegedly 'reconciled with manual and very easily subject to subterfuge manual Nominal Rolls'. Therefore, the very premise of the 2nd respondent although regurgitated ought to be rejected in full, as the entire process of examination is now questionable given that there are suspicious entries and exits, deliberate fudging of numbers, candidates unaccounted for with no final tally forthcoming to this date.
135. Once again contradicting itself, the 2nd respondent has stated in its Webnote, dated 21.06.2024, in Annexure-Il at Point No.5 as follows :-
"......The system of Biometric attendance involving capturing fingerprints and photographs of each candidate has been effectively implemented with the help of one biometric invigilator for every 160 candidates, while all the biometric invigilators have been trained across 897 centers in handling standalone Tabs/Biometric devices....."
136. The acceptance of bio metric for attendance, when their own Web note specifically states that in accordance with the earlier order of this Court, biometric was supposed to be implemented for the purpose of attendance. The respondents have violated their own notifications, webnotes and are providing nonsensical, 81 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch rational reasons for not reconciling the bio metric attendance to this date.
137. The test centre allocation was random and category- agnostic, implying equal opportunity for all candidates. However, its own data shows highly skewed selection outcomes across centres, which is statistically improbable under a truly random and fair process.
TGPSC's claim Finding Allocation was based on randomly Disproportionate success rates at generated numbers, specific centers category-agnostic No bias based on candidate 22 centers had 0-9 selections: identity or center 1 center had 12.6% of total selections Candidates were distributed in If so, selection rates should be more e serial of random numbers distributed statistically
138. The concept of sampling variability and random allocation may result in some natural variation in candidate distribution and success rates across Test Centres. However, the magnitude of disparity observed in the present case, wherein approximately twenty-two out of forty-six centres recorded single-digit or zero selections, while one centre alone accounted for an extraordinary 12.6% of the total selections, far exceeds the range of variation reasonably attributable to chance or normal sampling variability.
82 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
139. The Commission has not provided any statistical evidence, analysis, or data to substantiate that such an extreme clustering of successful candidates at certain centres falls within the bounds of expected randomness. In the absence of such proof, the claim that randomness alone explains the disproportionate distribution remains unsubstantiated and unsatisfactory.
140. In para No.29, the Commission states that it merely divides one test centre's booklets into smaller bundles for evaluation, without any inter-centre mixing or randomized coding. While the Commission states that "several evaluators" marked each paper, it gives no details as to how many scripts evaluator seen, how cross- checking was organized or how leniency was detected and correct. Without a valid moderation mechanism (as prescribed by law), mere numerical plurality of evaluators does not eliminate the risk of coordinated or institutional bias. The said procedural gap undermines the anonymity and impartiality that UPSC's system secures, exposing TGPSC's process to centre-based identification and potential favouritism.
141. In the present case, 654 candidates forming 327 consecutive Hall Ticket pairs have obtained exactly identical marks, which is 83 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch statistically implausible under a fair and independent evaluation system.
142. With regard to defamatory allegations of forgery of Memorandum of Marks by Ms. Bommu Poojitha Reddy, the Commission is aware about the representation of Ms.Poojitha Reddy dt.01.04.2025 requesting to verify her marks as they were reduced by 60 marks, pursuant to a recounting applied by her. Hence, the representation and the marks memorandum were public records that were known to the petitioners at similar times. The Commission's claims or allegations of forgery that albeit defamatory in nature lack any kind of credibility or evidence as the Commission only initiated the alleged disciplinary action and the criminal actions including the registering of FIR and the filing of the Charge sheets only after filing of the present W.P.No.11439 of 2025.
143. Neither second stage nor third stage evaluations are mentioned or provided pursuant to the Notification itself and were subsequently informed in an adhoc manner, pursuant to various webnotes. It is unbelievable that seven papers each of approximately 21,000 candidates was evaluated twice and in 84 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch certain instances subjected to third evaluation upon there being an alleged variation of 15% just within three months. It is pertinent to note the absence of OMR bar code for the 3rd evaluation itself is enough to throw the entire examination process into question owing to the fact that there is a clear probability of a manual intervention, when an alleged 3rd evaluation is required that is neither accountable and clearly susceptible to manipulation or change.
144. The Press-note dated 13.03.2025 clearly states that "regular faculty from the universities/government colleges/institutions"
which by no stretch of imagination be equated to anybody, including retired faculty having taught or left government employment more than 20 years back. Therefore, the retrospective or not 'regular faculty' clearly does not include retired faculty, who have no knowledge of the present status of the academia or the stage at which the given course over which the subject expert is expected to have expertise.
The Commission in Para No.51 of the additional Counter stated as follows :-
85 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch "...The Commission has engaged subject specific experienced faculty of universities and govt., Degree colleges for the group-I Mains evaluation work. Degree college faculty teach both the English and Telugu medium graduation students and are competent enough to evaluate the Group-I..."
145. The Commission is deliberately does not care that 'learning' or 'educating a technical course in a specific language/medium is very different requiring acquired learning and teaching abilities in that specific language from merely being conversant in the said language. The 2nd respondent's admission clearly underwrites the fact that the petitioners doubted all along that evaluations in Telugu and Urdu were done hastily by evaluators, who do not understand the technical nuances of the language and they were asked to evaluate, leading to grave injustice being meted out to candidates who had written their Mains examination in Telugu or Urdu.
146. One Dr.M.A.Malik was only one of the several evaluators, who continued to have allegiance with a private coaching institution. The fact of his continued association not in tandem with the 2nd respondent's guidelines as stated on 13.03.2025 was only brought to the notice of this Court and therefore, trying to compare writing books for a Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Open university 86 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch with writing for RC Reddy Publications is nothing short of trying to compare and normalise apples with oranges. Both are not the same, however, the respondent is desperately trying to prove otherwise. As far as his declaration is concerned, this Court is already seized the books that the said evaluator has written for RC Reddy Publications.
147. With regard to third evaluation, it is specifically submitted that it is not just the barcode, but the absence of a bubbling of marks provision given to the prior two evaluations, subject and susceptible to OMR reading that is absent from the 3rd evaluation. In its explanation, the 2nd respondent has not explained as to how the marks for the 3rd evaluation are determined and placed without manual intervention, when there is no bubbling of the said marks or variation between the 1st and 2nd evaluation arrived at by the 3rd evaluator. The 2nd respondent merely states at Para No.64 that "...owing to the barcode on the stitched portion of the Answer Script, the third evaluation form can still be identified with the same barcode given on the Answer script".
148. The Commission for reasons best known to it and for obvious malicious reasons chose 'not to publish' the provisional 87 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch marks listing completely blind siding doubly, so the aspirants by firstly coming up with an irrational explanation for the suspicious introduction of a completely different hall ticket for the Mains examination, preventing candidates/petitioners from reviewing or verifying any competing details, and then competing the process of deception by not even publishing the provisional marks list, which would have enabled candidates to atleast know where they were and where they stood pursuant to recounting vis-à-vis their own marks and especially and specifically everybody else's competing marks.
149. The moderation is the established legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reiterated the same by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements, wherein it was categorically held that inter-examiner intra-subject moderation is mandatory to address the aspect of inter-examiner variation in descriptive examinations involving common subjects for all candidates. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly explained that while moderation is the method, which is to be used for common subjects, scaling is used for optional subjects, which are not common to all.
88 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
150. The Hon'ble Supreme Court identified "examiner-variability"
as the fundamental vice that can distort a descriptive-answer examination. The Court noted the so-called hawk-dove phenomenon, some assessors are habitually liberal, others habitually strict, and each may still drift from the agreed yard-
stick even after an orientation meeting. When different examiners value different batches of scripts, a candidate's fortunes turn on the accidental identity of the examiner rather than on merit. To eliminate this element of chance, the Court prescribed a systematic equalisation mechanism called moderation, not mere mathematical averaging. Moderation is a qualitative-cum-
quantitative process led by Head (or Chief) Examiner who first convenes all assessors to agree on uniform marking norms, then samples top, middle, and random scripts from every examiner after valuation, re-marks a subset himself, and finally applies a calibrated upward or downward adjustment adding or deducting a fixed number or percentage to the entire batch of any "strict" or "liberal" examiner. Where the candidate load is very large, such process check continues through additional tiers of oversight, 89 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch moving from Head-Examiner to Chief-Examiner, until uniformity is achieved.
151. The absence of moderation renders the evaluation process arbitrary and violative of the principles of fairness and equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The Commission's attempt to justify the Telugu-medium success rate by comparing it to a recent Andhra Pradesh recruitment selectively rather than to its own previous exercise in 2017 under 2011 notification is a flawed "apples to oranges" comparison. Moreover, while the Commission has publicly disclosed the number of successful Urdu-medium candidates in its rejoinder press note, dated 15.04.2025, it has withheld the corresponding Telugu-medium figures in a sealed cover. Such selective disclosure is contrary to the guarantee of equality and the requirement of transparency.
152. At one instance on 15.04.2025, the Commission states that 10 persons of Urdu medium appeared and then previously on 13.03.2025 vide Web Note they claim that nine persons appeared for the same, and when questioned in the open court, the 2nd respondent is now spinning the story that the petitioners are deliberately misinterpreting the facts and that the former is only of 90 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch people who apparently qualified English examination. It is frightening to realise how much further the 2nd respondent is willing to push with its fiction about speculative allegations when every single one of them are rooted in facts from their own documentation and the same has not been explained. Further, the Commission stated as follows :-
".... The Web Note dated 13.03.2025 contained the details of the candidates, who have qualified in English paper (Which is mandatory for evaluating the other answer scripts)".
153. As per the above statement, it is mandatory for a candidate to secure qualifying marks in the compulsory English Paper in order for their remaining papers to be evaluated. However, as observed from the Marks list of Main examination, which is published on 30.03.2025, it has come to light that the authority has evaluated the answer scripts of candidates, who failed to qualify the compulsory English Paper, thereby disregarding the said mandatory requirement. The said action not only undermines the sanctity and fairness of the examination process, but also constitutes an arbitrary and unequal treatment of candidates, in direct contradiction to the principles of natural justice and the 91 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch rules framed by the authority itself and casts doubts on authenticity of entire marks list.
154. Though the Commission is vehemently harping on its constitutional authority, but fails to provide any details or explanations, especially considering its dubious past and the malpractices in recent years, which led to the cancellation of several notifications, including two related to the Group-1 examination.
155. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel in his reply submitted that the Public Service Commission has issued the web note on 27.10.2024 stating that 21,093 candidates have appeared for all examinations. After the Web Note dated 27.10.2024, the Respondent Commission is silent with regard to the number of candidates appeared. Only in the Press Note, dated 13.03.2025, it was stated that the total candidates appeared are 20,161. Thereafter, the Commission has published the marks secured by the candidates with their respective Hall Tickets numbers, wherein the total number of candidates were displayed as 21,085. Thus, the contention that there are minor variations in number of candidates participating in the examination is incorrect and it 92 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch would show that the Commission has violated the procedure required for conducting the main examination inspite of the specific observations of this Court on earlier occasion that a doubt is caste with regard to the number of candidates who participated in the examination and the methodology adopted by the invigilators is not in conformity with the standards of the examination.
156. The Public Service Commission referred to the Press Note dated 13-3-2025 with regard to the procedure followed in valuation of answer paper booklets of Group-1 service main examination. In the said press note, it is stated that certain individuals and organizations are spreading misinformation without going into all the details pertaining to the Group-1 mains provisional marks declared by the Public Service Commission on 10.03.2025. The said Note would clearly show that the Public Service Commission has not adhered to the conditions specified in the Notification.
157. The Commission did not publish the total marks of the candidates in its website. That itself would give scope for the 93 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch irregularities and only to cover up the irregularities, they issued the Press Note, but the details were not uploaded in the website even on 13.03.2025. It is stated that the valuation of the main answer paper booklet was done twice by two different Valuators/Examiners.
158. After completion of the first valuation, the part containing the marks awarded by the 1st valuator is detached and proceeded for the 2nd valuation, is not specified in the Notification No.2/2024 or at any time before conducting of the main examination. Further, the Public Service Commission referred to Rule 3 (ix) (d) of the Commission's Rules and Procedure. The Public Service Commission Rules and procedure were published in Telangana Gazette dated 14-11-2018. Rule 3 specifies the procedure in conducting the competitive examination for direct recruitment to the posts. The said procedure in Rule 3 does not contemplate for valuation of main answer scripts to be done by two different valuators/examiners. On the other hand, Rule 3 (ix) (d) specifies that the request for revaluation shall not be entertained and therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the Public Service Commission not to undertake the revaluation once the valuation 94 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch is undertaken by the examiners. Therefore, the procedure now demonstrated is in violation of the Rules and the procedure notified by the Public Service Commission.
159. The model answer booklet uploaded in the website few days before the written examination contains the instructions to the candidates. Even in the said instructions, there is no reference of conducting of evaluation of answer scripts by more than one evaluator. Even in the first sheet, though reference to details of Part-I contains the pre-printed candidates details, Part-II and Part-III contains the details where the marks are awarded by the examiner. Even in the said booklet, there is no reference how the answer script will be evaluated by more than one examiner. Therefore, the averment that the double valuation of all answer scripts is mandatory, is neither specified in the notification nor published in the Commission's Rules and Procedure notified in the Telangana Gazette dated 14.11.2018.
160. There is no other procedure required to be adopted by the Public Service Commission in respect of main answer booklets of the candidates. Therefore, the double evaluation is not 95 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch contemplated under Rules. It is the specific case of the petitioners herein that the Respondent Commission had no role in scrutinizing the marks through the second valuator is specific, which remain unrebutted.
161. The Commission has no role in re-evaluating the answer scripts to arrive at the marks secured by the candidates. No rule or procedure has been shown or demonstrated in the counter affidavit that the Commission has power to undertake the valuation of main answer booklet by two different evaluators or examiners. Further, the Public Service Commission has filed the counter affidavit in W.P. No. 9413 of 2025 through the very same deponent, wherein it was stated that the average of the first and second marks list were considered as the final merit list. If there is a deviation of 15% of the total marks of the particular papers between the marks awarded in the two valuations (Val-I & Val-II) that answer scripts is subjected to a third valuation. Thus, the procedure adhered to by the Public Service Commission is contrary to the statutory Rules and the Notification.
96 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
162. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in one case held that if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of law. The Rules and procedure do not provide for second valuation or revaluation except recounting of marks. Therefore, the second or double revaluation is contrary to law. Therefore, no adherence to Rule 3
(ix) of the Rules and Procedure, would show that the entire exercise is nullity and not existence in the eye of law.
163. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in a catena of decisions, where it is not possible to find out the irregularity with reference to the specified candidates, the entire selection has to be set aside. Admittedly, in the case on hand, double valuation or in other words, evaluation of marks by two different evaluators/examiners, or 3rd valuation of the answer scripts are irregular, since the very evaluation of answer scripts is in contravention of Rule 3 (ix) (d) of the Rules. There is no possibility of identifying the meritorious candidates and others. Thus, the procedure adopted is lead to the elimination of meritorious candidates.
97 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
164. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the sanctity of the selection process comes under a cloud held that, recruitment to public services must command public confidence. The conduct of evaluation by more than one evaluation, which is not permitted by the Rules, would demonstrate that there is a possibility of eroding faith on the process of valuation of answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) Examination, thereby, the persons who are deserving and qualified are denuded an opportunity to face the oral interview and get selection. Thus, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, the entire procedure of evaluation of marks is liable to be set aside and the selection process stands unreasonableness and violation of Rules.
165. With regard to allocation of Centre Code Nos.18 and 19, the details furnished in the counter affidavit, out of 6,396 women candidates, 1,497 candidates have written the examination from the said two centres. In the Centre code No.5,669 women candidates have written the examination. Thus, out of 6,329 women candidates appeared in 17 centres, 2,166 candidates were accommodated only in three centres and they constitute as per 98 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch the details furnished in Para Nos.20 to 24, 9.63% of the 563 posts, in the ratio of 1:1, who were called for certificate verification.
166. The details of Telugu Medium candidates and percentage of the Telugu medium candidates selected for the post in the ratio of 1:1 were also not furnished. It would clearly demonstrate that the Telugu medium students were deprived of selection unjustly by evaluating the answer scripts by more than one evaluator/examiner.
Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel in his reply submitted as follows:-
167. The Hall Ticket number is not merely a logistical tool, but a critical identifier for tracking a candidate's journey throughout the multi-stage selection process. Issuing a new Hall Ticket number for the Mains stage breaks audit trail, making it impossible for an independent observer candidate, or court to verify whether a candidate who appeared in the Mains had actually qualified in the Prelims. It is particularly concerning because the Mains results and marks were not published publicly, and name-wise selection 99 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch lists were withheld and it would lead to further obscuring transparency.
168. The technical convenience of data collation cannot override constitutional mandates of fairness, equality, and accountability under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. No public explanation or notification was issued by TGPSC in advance regarding this change, thereby violating the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
169. The respondent's assertion in the counter affidavit that separate hall ticket numbers were also issued in previous Group-I recruitments under Notification Nos.15/2011 and 18/2011 is factually incorrect. Under Notification No. 15/2011, the Group-I Mains examination conducted in 2012 by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) retained the same Hall Ticket number from Prelims to Mains. Subsequently, following the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, separate Group-I Mains re-examinations were conducted by TGPSC and APPSC in 2016, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that process, a detailed list of 100 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch qualified candidates for Mains was published in advance, the list included both the candidate names and original Preliminary examination Hall Ticket numbers, and the same ensured full traceability and transparency, enabling public and judicial verification.
170. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that no arbitrary or opaque re-numbering was done in the name of convenience. No pick-and-choose centre allocation occurred. Rather, the Hall Tickets for Mains were issued strictly in accordance with the Prelims-qualified list, thereby preserving a transparent, fair, and auditable trail from Prelims to Mains and final selection. Even if such a practice was followed once or sporadically, it cannot be deemed a precedent to justify a non- transparent and irregular practice in the present recruitment process. Constitutional recruiting agencies like UPSC and APPSC follow a uniform Hall Ticket number throughout all stages. ensuring complete traceability, auditability and fairness. even if such a practice was followed once or sporadically, it cannot be deemed a precedent to justify a non-transparent and irregular practice in the present recruitment process. Constitutional 101 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch recruiting agencies like UPSC and APPSC follow a uniform Hall Ticket number throughout all stages. The petitioners reiterate that merely mapping Prelims and Mains Hall Ticket numbers internally and submitting them to the Hon'ble Court post-facto does not cure the fundamental defect of public non-disclosure and candidate- level unverifiability. Moreover, the non-random and opaque allotment of candidates to specific centres (e.g., exclusive placement of select women candidates in Koti Women's College) further proves the practical misuse of the Hall Ticket reissuance system for selective segregation, possibly by medium, gender, or reservation category.
171. The centres predominantly assigned to Telugu medium candidates have shown alarmingly low selection rates, while centres associated with English medium candidates reflected disproportionately higher ranks. This post-exam outcome disparity substantiates the claim that bias may have influenced the evaluation process based on centre-wise tagging or other undisclosed factors.
102 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
172. The claim that no centre's scripts were evaluated by a single evaluator is irrelevant, as the problem lies not in single-evaluator allocation, but in the lack of standardization, absence of moderation, and pattern-based bias in scoring. Over 1,500 instances of identical scores and decimal marks were identified in close numerical Hall Ticket sequences and 68 candidate pairs with consecutive Hall Ticket numbers received identical marks, which is statistically improbable in descriptive evaluation. The said acts strongly support the petitioners' contention that the evaluation process was not only opaque and inconsistent but also possibly manipulated or algorithmically tampered, in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
173. The Commission's claim that only subject matter experts were appointed as evaluators is refuted by its own conduct and record, including absence of any publicly released list of appointed evaluators and their qualifications. RTI responses indicating that several Chief Examiners did not possess UPSC evaluation experience, contrary to the claims made by the Commission in its press note dated 13.03.2025. The appointment of economics faculty to evaluate Paper-V (which included environment to 103 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch evaluate Paper-VI (covering Telangana Movement and state formation), despite these falling outside their core subject expertise. Furthermore, it has come to light that some evaluators themselves appeared for Group-I Prelims and failed, raising serious conflict of interest concerns. Research scholars and PG students from institutions like JNTU Hyderabad were engaged in the evaluation process without any formal authorization experience in public service commission recruitment processes. Ultimately, the unqualified or unauthorized individuals were permitted by the Commission to evaluate scripts without prior sanction. No moderation or scrutiny mechanism was implemented despite large-scale double/triple evaluations.
174. The claim that evaluators were well-versed in Telugu and subject experts were engaged across all mediums are unsupported by any evidence. Despite repeated demands and RTI applications, the Commission has failed to disclose the number, qualifications, or subject expertise of the evaluators appointed for each paper and medium. The RTI replies reveal that many evaluators lacked UPSC evaluation experience, contradicting Commission's official press note dated 13.03.2025.
104 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
175. There is no data has been provided to confirm that Telugu- medium scripts were assessed by Telugu language and subject experts. The mass underperformance of Telugu medium candidates especially from specific centres suggests either evaluator mismatch or bias in the evaluation process. The same evaluation blue print and answer keys used for English medium scripts were reportedly applied to Telugu scripts without necessary linguistic adaptation, which is pedagogically inappropriate and discriminatory.
176. The low selection ratio of Telugu-medium candidates compared to English-medium candidates, despite both appearing for the same examination and having access to the same syllabus raises serious doubts about linguistic fairness and evaluator competence. This cannot be dismissed as "speculative"; it is statistical evidence of disproportionate outcomes, pointing to systemic failure.
177. The Commission's assertion that no evidence exists with regard to evaluators handling both Telugu and English scripts. If the Commission has not disclosed the evaluator assignment 105 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch records, how can it assert what evidence exists or not? The burden lies with the Commission to prove that evaluators were linguistically and academically matched to the scripts they assessed.
178. The Commission has not explained why Telugu-medium candidates were overwhelmingly clustered in specific centres of selections. This disparity when compared with significantly higher outcomes from centres dominated by English-medium scripts, demonstrates outcome-based discrimination, regardless of intention.
179. The evaluators were "senior faculty from government colleges" with "proven domain knowledge" is unsubstantiated. On the contrary, RTI replies/ confirm that the evaluators did not have any prior UPSC evaluation experience contrary to the claims made by Telangana Public Service Commission. Some evaluators were already retired personnel. Some evaluators were reportedly those who had failed the Group-I Prelims, raising conflict of interest concerns. There was no publicly known selection or vetting process for appointing evaluators.
106 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
180. A bias or discrimination can be systemic, implicit, or result- oriented. Thousands of Telugu medium candidates were eliminated from the final list. Mass patterns of identical marks were awarded to candidates with numerically close hall ticket numbers indicates a statistical anomaly not random coincidence.
181. The Commission has misrepresented the facts by claiming that 318 evaluators worked continuously for 90 days to evaluate the Group-I Mains answer scripts and the said assertion is factually incorrect and misleading. In the instant case, the evaluators were engaged in batches, not simultaneously. Each batch was typically called for a limited period of approximately 15 days, as is clearly evidenced by the Proceedings dated 02.12.2024 (File No.CCEAC/SPL/6/2024) issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. The actual number of evaluators working at any given time was far lower than 318, and the duration of engagement was significantly shorter than claimed by the Commission. Official records and internal communications confirm that the average time allotted to evaluate each answer script was approximately five minutes. Such an accelerated evaluation rate is grossly inadequate for assessing descriptive, 107 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch analytical responses expected in a high-stakes, conventional type examination like Group-1. The said unrealistic workload and time pressure imposed on evaluators severely compromised the quality, consistency, and objectively of the evaluation process, thereby undermining the credibility of the final marks awarded.
182. With regard to allotment of only women candidates, TGPSC has not placed on record any requisition letter or official communication from the college authorities requesting that only women candidates be allotted to the said centres. In the absence of any documentary evidence, such a claim cannot be accepted as a valid justification. Even if such a request had been made, allotting only women candidates to a specific centre without following the principle of randomization amounts to a pick-and- choose approach, which severely compromises the fairness, transparency, and integrity of the examination process. Randomization of centers is a key safeguard to prevent bias or preferential treatment, and any deviation must be backed by demonstrable necessity, due process, and verifiable records, all of which are conspicuously absent in the present case.
108 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
183. The petitioners strongly refutes the Commission's assertions in Paragraph 39 of counter affidavit and submits that the lack of transparency surrounding the third evaluation process raises serious doubts about the fairness, consistency, and integrity of the entire Mains answer script evaluation. Unlike the first and second evaluations, which are governed by a standardized system involving the use of barcodes, and the bubbling of marks on a designated OMR section to ensure secure and traceable recording of marks, the third evaluation process does not follow the same standardized format. Specifically, the column for third evaluation in the answer script does not contain a pre-printed barcode, unlike the first two. There is no designated space for bubbling marks in the third evaluation section. The Commission's own claim that a barcode sheet is "attached when required" introduces discretion and irregularity, allowing for the possibility of manual entry of marks, which is highly susceptible to error, manipulation, or selective tampering.
184. The Commission has not disclosed how many answer scripts were subjected to third evaluation, not explained the criteria for selecting scripts for third evaluation, not published any detailed 109 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch procedure or internal guideline governing the third evaluation methodology and not clarified how discrepancies (if any) between the three evaluations were resolved.
185. In the absence of the said crucial details, there is a real and reasonable apprehension that the third evaluation process was non-uniform, opaque, and vulnerable to abuse. The concern is heightened if a significant number of selected candidates belong to the group whose scripts underwent third evaluation, since they may have been subject to different evaluation standards, and their scores may have been recorded without the same safeguards used in the double evaluation system. Therefore, the Commission's reliance on an ad hoc and non-transparent third evaluation, particularly that lacks barcode integration and standardized mark recording, violates the principles of natural justice, equal treatment, and procedural fairness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
186. After granting the interim order, the successful candidates filed implead petitions by way of I.As. The said IAs were allowed on 07.07.2025 counters also filed.
110 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch The submissions of the unofficial respondents:
Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sriram Polali, submitted as follows :-
187. Pursuant to Notification dated 09.04.2025, the proposed respondents have attended the certificate verification held on 16.04.2025, 17.04.2025, 19.04.2025, 21.04.2025 and 22.04.2025. The proposed respondents have been called for certificate verification as they have secured ranks in the merit list of candidates for the main examination and they are entitled for appointment, subject to verification of the certificates and ancillary requirements W.P.No.12819 of 2025 has been filed for the sole purpose of stalling the selection process for Group-I services without any substantial evidence.
188. It is settled law that this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review usually does not interfere with the selection process undertaken by an expert body that too a Constitutional body like the Respondent No.2. The only exception to this rule is where there is a case of malfeasance (wrong doing), inherent arbitrariness, violation of statutory rules or systemic irregularities.
111 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch In the present case, none of the exceptions have been clearly averred, and in any case demonstrated with sufficient evidence. None of the allegations in the writ petition meet any of the aforesaid thresholds/parameters required for interference by this Court. Therefore, no interference with regard to the impugned selection process is called for. Since it delays the selection process and leads to uncertainty, which adversely affects the public interest.
189. When a writ petition avers arbitrariness and violation of Article 14, it is for the petitioners to substantiate the same with cogent evidence. In fact, one of the para of the writ affidavit makes it clear that the main grouse of the petitioners is that the result of the main examination was not as per their own subjective assessment of their performance. This is practically the subjective feeling of any candidate, who has made serious efforts for a competitive examination but could not unfortunately get through. However, such subjective assessment and consequent disappointment cannot be the reason for challenging the examination process itself, thereby jeopardizing larger public 112 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch interest and the interest of successful candidates, who have also put serious efforts.
190. The decision conveyed by web note dated 19.02.2024 to cancel the earlier notification No.4/2022 and to club those seats with the subsequent 60 vacancies that arose subsequently is perfectly legal. No violation of any statutory rule or Constitutional provision on account of such an exercise has been spelt out by the petitioners except for baldly alleging that it was without power or arbitrary. In any event, the challenge to the cancellation of the earlier notification has already been rejected by this Court in two rounds of litigation earlier in order dated 15.10.2024 in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 and batch and order dated 26.12.2024 in W.P.No.26038 of 2024 and batch. It is not open for the writ petitioners to agitate the same issue again. Moreover, having participated in the recruitment process, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the cancellation of the earlier notification and the validity of the present notification.
191. There is no constitutional or statutory bar against candidates, who have graduated after the issuance of Notification No. 4/2022 in participating in the present impugned notification.
113 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Para 18 of the recruitment notification gives wide power to Respondent No.2 in respect of all aspects of the recruitment and selection process. The petitioners have not even spelt out how there is an "irregularity" in the recruitment process, leave alone proving that, it goes to the root of the legality/propriety of the selection process. The attempt to correlate the increase in the number of candidates declared to have written the main examination with this change in hall tickets is a convoluted attempt and does not, in fact, convey any causation between the two events.
192. Web note dt.27.10.2024, i.e. on the last day of the main examination, declared the number of candidates, who have appeared for the main examination, was 21,093 (including sports quota candidates), whereas in the web note released on 30.03.2025, it was stated to be 21,085 (excluding sports quota candidates). They state that there is a mismatch of candidates.
193. Firstly, the petitioners ought to first explain how variation in the number of candidates declared to have written the main exam is an irregularity. Secondly, no further fact or material would corroborate this decimal increase to any larger irregularity has 114 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch been either averred or proved. Thirdly, the web note dated 27.10.2024 itself makes it clear that the number indicated therein was collected from the chief superintendents of exam centres on the go and is subject to minor variation. None of the petitioners had challenged this caveat in the web note nor did they seek the actual number of declared candidates right upto the release of the final merit list. Clearly this allegation is an afterthought and a desperate attempt to make out a ground to somehow challenge the recruitment process, realising that there is none. Fourthly, respondent No.2 has given a rational explanation for the variation, which is inconsequential, in the declared number of candidates in its counter affidavit. Thus, there is no substance in this ground raised by the petitioners,
194. The petitioners have alleged that the allotment of centers with code numbers 18 and 19 to women and code number 27 only to men is in violation of Article 14 and 15. However, absolutely no averment has been made as to how it has led to discrimination against or disadvantage in any manner to candidates of the other sex. In fact, no averment has been made as to what is the right under law for either males or females to have their presence in 115 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch every single center. An allegation of violation of Article 14 has to be averred cogently and proved with supporting material and it cannot be a mere bald declaration.
195. Randomization itself can also lead to allotment of only women or men to a particular center or it may lead to just one man and all women in a particular center, so on and so forth. Merely because such an event happens does not imply that the recruitment process is somehow vitiated. Moreover, even if a conscious decision is taken to allot only men or women to a particular center for any reason, that itself does not mean that there is no randomization because even the exercise of randomization can be carried out among all men or all women, as the case may be.
196. Respondent No.2 in its counter affidavit has attributed the reason allotting only women to centers with code numbers 18 and 19 as the problems association with lack of proper toilet facility for men in these centers. The allegation of certain candidates were identified to be favoured in also an bald allegation without producing any evidence. To substantiate the allegations made by the writ petitioners, no evidence has been produced.
116 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
197. The petitioners alleged that evaluation process was irregular on account of the fact that in certain "identified" centers having code numbers 18, 19, 27 and 28, secured very high number of top ranks. It is alleged that 83% of ranks upto 618 (those who scored above 450 marks) were from these centers. It is also alleged that 76% of qualification percentages are from centers 18 and 19. They have also alleged that in some centers, the number of selected candidates has been very low and even zero. According to the petitioners, this is because answer sheets from these centers went to liberal examiners and the answer sheets in other centers went to strict examiners.
198. The petitioners' contentions are bereft of merit for the following reasons. Firstly, particular centers getting higher number of top ranks and particular centers getting low or zero top ranks is a probability in any competitive exam and is not itself a reason to doubt the examination or the evaluation process. Secondly, particular centers getting higher number of top ranks is not itself an adequate or sufficient indicator that there was no uniform standard of evaluation by evaluators or that there was no proper moderation. It is equally possible that even with reasonably 117 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch uniform standard of evaluation by evaluators and proper moderation, some centers can end up getting higher number of top ranks and some centers getting zero top ranks. Thirdly, what is relevant to be noted is not the percentage of ranks in the top 500 (or those who secured above 450 marks) that a particular center has got, but the percentage vis-à-vis the number of candidates who appeared in that particular center. As explained in the counter affidavit of the Commission, the percentage of candidates who got top ranks out of the total who appeared in centers with code Nos.18, 19, 27 and 28 was actually a miniscule 5.41%, 4.12%, 5.25% and 3.46%. It is comparable to the total average of all centers, which is 2.59% (i.e. 546 out of 21085+18). Fourthly, it ought to be borne in mind that a center which has higher number of candidates in attendance has a higher probability of having higher number of top ranked candidates, which is also suggested by the Commission in its counter affidavit.
199. Insofar as the allegation regarding disparity in the number of women candidates, who have been selected is concerned, where some centers have given higher numbers compared to others, this 118 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch is again a mere statistical possibility. The petitioners' allegations are simply based on surmises and conjectures.
200. There is no mention that a provisional merit list will be published and again, after recounting, another list will be published. Respondent No.2 has published once marks list of final examination on 09.04.2025, in compliance with para 15.2. Thus, there is no right vested in the petitioners to seek a provisional merit list. Thus, there is no right vested in the petitioners to seek a provisional merit list. There is no illegality committed by respondent No.2.
201. Any competitive examination in India is bound to have an evaluation process which is cumbersome and that itself is not sufficient to infer that there were definite errors in the evaluation process. In fact, even if there are some errors which are inevitable when human element is involved, it would not by itself go to the root of the matter, so as to invalidate the entire examination process. Further, respondent No.2 in its counter affidavit has denied that there is no space in the answer sheet for the third evaluation marks to be written. Thus, the allegation is untenable.
119 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
202. The averment that same evaluators scrutinized both Telugu medium and English medium papers is a bald allegation without any proof. Similarly, the averment that evaluators were selected without evaluating their expertise is also a bald allegation with no material in support of it. Similarly, the allegation of bias in favour of Urdu medium candidates is also not supported by any material.
203. The evaluators were inexperienced or persons without accountability is not based on any foundation whatsoever even in pleadings in the writ affidavit. No foundational pleadings have been set out in respect of the prayer seeking scaling, standardisation and moderation. In any event, the evaluation process has been set out in detail by respondent No.2 in its web note dated 13.03.2025, where evaluation is done by two evaluators, with a provision for further evaluation if needed. That itself takes care of moderation. Chief Examiners Committees constituting experts takes care of standardization. Insofar as scaling is concerned, it need not be resorted to when the same set of papers are given to all the students as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
120 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
204. The petitioners having participated in the selection process without any demur at any stage, now come forward to challenge the selection process after knowing that they are not going to get selected, which is impermissible.
Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents stated as follows :-
205. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the proposed respondents are adversely affected and their interest is jeopardized as they are awaiting for issuance of appointment orders. They have studied for several years and waiting for the employment and after being successful in the selection process of Group-I, it is being stalled at the behest of the Petitioners, who filed the writ petition on untenable grounds, without making the affected parties as party respondents to the Writ Petition. Therefore, the proposed respondents are constrained to file the Implead Petition as well as the counter affidavit. The present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, since the petitioners filed the Writ Petition without impleading the successful candidates, who are within the zone of consideration for appointment.
121 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
206. The petitioners raised several grounds alleging that several discrepancies and irregularities were found during the selection process of Group-I examination. The petitioners are unsuccessful and not within the zone of consideration in the selection process and having observed that they have secured less merit in the selection process, raised several grounds which are baseless, unfounded, without any material basis and rationale and further there is no legal basis for the averments made by them in the Writ Petition. The interim order passed in W.P.No.11439 of 2025 is adversely affecting their interest to the extent of not being appointed despite their merit in the selection process, which is nothing but taking away their right to livelihood, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is contrary to Article 21 apart from violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
207. The law is against the petitioners as they are seeking revaluation of answer scripts by mentioning certain irregularities. Neither the recruitment notification nor the rules permit the revaluation of answer scripts and the law is well settled on this 122 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch issue. The law is also well settled on the ground that the process of recruitment may not be stalled at the interlocutory stage as it affects the livelihood of large number of unemployed youth, who have been studying hard for years and waiting for employment and the same issue was discussed in several decisions in the Hon'ble Apex Court.
208. The petitioners are not within the zone of consideration for appointment and they are unsuccessful candidates and as the proposed respondents are in merit, the selection process ought to have been proceeded further and their appointments should not be stalled at the behest of some persons, who have no legal basis. This Court ought to have seen that the proposed respondents have also processed very same recruitment process as to that of the petitioners and at no point of time, they have noticed any deviations and with their hard work they could succeed in the selection process. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners are baseless, hypothetical and without any material proof. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
209. Dr.K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents whose appointments have been stalled 123 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch despite their lawful and meritorious selection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that judicial review of public examination is limited to situations where there is clear proof of illegality, fraud or violation of statutory rules.
210. With regard to lack of transparency in evaluation procedures, the petitioners contended that no provisional merit list was released prior to the GRL and that the process lacked scaling or moderation mechanisms. They failed to demonstrate how the absence of these features constitutes a violation of rules or resulted in prejudice. Moreover, none of them have shown a breach of the evaluation guidelines notified by TGPSC in the recruitment notification.
211. With regard to OMR Format and third valuation implementation, it is stated that a recurring theme is the claim that the design of OMR answer booklets did not allow sufficient space for third valuation. The petitioners state that third valuation may not have been uniformly applied. However, none of the petitioners have produced their own answer scripts or cited a specific instance where third valuation was required, but not conducted. Despite not alleging any personal procedural violation, 124 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch many petitioners conclude with sweeping prayers for re-evaluation of all answer scripts, judicially monitored assessment under UPSC supervision, or cancellation of the entire examination. These are disproportionate remedies sought without proof of mala fide, fraud or systemic failure.
212. None of the petitioners have provided their hall ticket number, the marks awarded to them, or their position in the General Ranking List. Nor have they produced their own answer scripts or demonstrated any irregularity in the evaluation of their papers. Without disclosing their individual performance or pointing to any deviation in their own case, the petitioners cannot sustain a challenge to the selection process. This fundamental omission renders the writ petitions vague and speculative. The Commission has adhered to the selection methodology notified in advance and no deviation from the established rules has been shown by the petitioners.
213. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the process of awarding marks is within the exclusive domain of academic experts. Courts cannot substitute their own assessment for that of evaluators, nor can they order re-evaluation unless there is a 125 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch statutory right to such relief. The recruitment rules applicable to TGPSC do not provide for re-evaluation, and the petitioners' demand is legally unsustainable. Evaluation protocols adopted by an expert commission deserve deference in judicial review.
214. The law is well settled that an examination cannot be cancelled or set aside in its entirety unless there is clear and compelling evidence of pervasive malpractice or institutional failure. The petitioners have not even alleged and established any such systemic fraud. The Supreme Court has cautioned against granting drastic remedies like re-conduct of examinations unless the integrity of the process stands wholly vitiated.
215. The petitioners appear to be motivated by a desire to reopen the entire selection process on the basis of generalized dissatisfaction. They contain no concrete proof of procedural breach or legal infirmity. The wide-ranging reliefs sought-such as cancellation of selection, re-exam under UPSC, or universal re- evaluation are grossly disproportionate to the nature of the grievances alleged.
126 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
216. None of the petitioners have established any specific injury to themselves. None of the petitioners have disclosed their hall ticket number, the marks secured by them, the rank obtained, or even a copy of their answer script. The petitioners rest entirely on statistical graphs, centre-wise assumptions, and generalized dissatisfaction. Such speculative averments without individual pleading or documents are legally unsustainable. In this aspects in one of the judgment the Apex Court observed that candidate's subjective expectations do not give rise to a justiciable claim.
217. The TGPSC conducted the evaluation in a structured manner strictly in accordance with the recruitment notification. Double valuation was implemented for all descriptive papers by independent evaluators. Answer scripts were barcoded and anonymized, ensuring that neither centre, gender, nor candidate identity influenced the process. Third valuation was invoked wherever the variation between two evaluators crossed the notified threshold. The procedures adopted by TGPSC are consistent with accepted standards and were disclosed in advance. The petitioners have not demonstrated any deviation from these norms in their individual cases.
127 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
218. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that academic evaluation is the domain of expert bodies and is not subject to judicial scrutiny except in cases of demonstrable mala fide or statutory violation. In the said aspects, the Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly observed that courts must not interfere with the sanctity and academic assessment.
219. The recruitment process involving over 563 vacancies and more than 3,00,000 candidates cannot be invalidated merely because a few candidates are dissatisfied or perceive anomalies. The Supreme Court has held that cancellation of an entire examination must be a last resort and only when the process is vitiated by fraud, leakage, or proven illegality. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
220. The Commission has demonstrated transparency at every stage of the recruitment process, including evaluation and publication of results. The stay order has been adversely affected candidates, who have worked hard and are awaiting appointment orders, causing unnecessary delays and hardship.
128 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
221. The interveners adopt all the above objections and rely upon the comprehensive counter filed by TGPSC in W.P.No.11439 of 2025 for purposes of defending the integrity of the selection process and seeking vacation of the interim order therein, which adversely impacts the finalization of appointments in the present case as well.
Analysis of case laws and findings of the Court:
Analysis of case laws submitted by all the counsels:
Mrs. B.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior counsel, to substantiate her arguments, relied upon the following case laws:-
222. The allegation is that the several gross irregularities and illegalities occurred by the Commission while evaluating the answer scripts. In support of her arguments, she relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharya Chatterje and Others 1.
223. The case pertains to 2016 West Bengal School Commission had issued a notification for regional and State Level Selection Tests, before the results were declared writ petition is filed against 1 (2025 SCC online SC 719) 129 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch the State's failure to grant age relaxation. The case went to Supreme Court finally concluded with multiple reliefs. While deciding the above case, several observations were made by the Apex Court with regard to cancellation of the examinations and held at Para.7 as follows:-
7. This Court in several cases has examined the question when the entire selection process should be struck down in case of irregularities. It will be apposite to refer to some of the decisions as the ratio and reasoning, in our opinion, is clear and does not suffer from contradictions. In Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB)25, this Court observed that determining when the examination process is vitiated by irregularities requires an in-depth fact-finding inquiry. The answer lies in examining whether the irregularities were systemic enough to undermine the sanctity of the process. In some cases, the irregularities may border on or even constitute fraud, which severely damages the credibility and legitimacy of the process. In such cases, the only option is to cancel the result entirely. These are situations where it is difficult to separate the tainted from the untainted participants, and the irregularities are widespread, indicating a malaise or fraud that has corrupted the process. On the other hand, there are cases where only some participants have committed irregularities.
In such cases, it may be possible to segregate the wrongdoers from those who adhered to the rules. The innocent should not suffer for the actions of the wrongdoers. By segregating the guilty, the selection process for the untainted candidates can proceed to its logical conclusion. This aligns with the principle of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, as well 130 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch as the fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates a fair, equitable, and reasonable process. Care must be taken to ensure that the innocent are not unfairly penalized alongside the wrongdoers by cancelling the entire process. To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it would involve treating un-equals equally. The innocent should not be punished for faults they did not commit. Finally, while the decision of the recruiting body is subject to judicial control, the body must retain a measure of discretion.
18. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India36, this Court observed that a holistic view must be adopted by assessing the extent of unfair means used and whether it is possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones. The court must ensure that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material on record, including investigative reports, supports this conclusion. There must be at least some evidence for the court to reach such a conclusion. However, the standard of evidence need not be unduly strict. Specifically, the material on record need not point to a single, definitive conclusion that malpractice occurred at a systemic level. Nevertheless, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise, as reflected in the material before the court.
224. In the above case, the Apex Court observed certain principles for cancellation of examination with regard to the extent of unfair in evaluation and undermines the integrity of the entire selection process. The Commission adopted evaluation method certain procedure irregularities support the petitioner's allegations.
131 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
225. There is no transparency and fairness in the conducting of examination. To support her arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and others 2, wherein the Apex Court held as follows :-
"A. Broad contours of the litigation
2. This judgment visits a familiar conundrum in service jurisprudence. The constitutional values which under gird Articles 14 and 16 mandate that selection processes conducted by public authorities to make recruitments have to be fair, transparent and accountable. All too often, human fallibility and foibles intrude into the selection processes. Selection involves intense competition and there is no dearth of individuals who try and bend the Rules to gain an unfair leap in the race. Irregularities in the process give rise to misgivings over whether the process has denied equal access to all persons. The sanctity of the selection process comes under a cloud. The detection of individual wrongdoing by candidates may result in action being taken to exclude those whose credentials or performance is tainted. But when the entire process is tainted, the authority in charge of conducting it may decide to cancel the selection as a whole. Judicial review is then invoked to challenge the decision to cancel the entire process. The guiding principles have evolved over the past five decades as new challenges emerged and novel attempts to suborn the legitimacy of recruitment processes have come to the fore. The Delhi High Court in the present case upheld the view of the Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") that the cancellation of the entire process was invalid but it confined the relief to six candidates who had moved the proceedings before the Tribunal in the first instance. Like other cases of its genre, this batch of appeals calls the court to balance two competing considerations: the need to preserve public confidence in and the sanctity of selection to public posts and the requirement of observing fairness to candidates who invest time and resources in attempting to clear through a selection. Both 2 (2021 (4) SCC 631) 132 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch these considerations have a constitutional foundation going beyond service and administrative law principles. The issue has travelled to the court for resolution and the path ahead requires us to revisit and evolve the law on the subject.
F. The position in law
35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not re-invent the wheel. Over the last five decades, several decisions of this Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are cases which border upon or cross-over into the domain of fraud as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the spectrum where the authority conducting the examination or convening the selection process comes to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact- finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of mal- practices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process. At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participants in the process who appear at the examination or selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrong-doing from others who have adhered to the Rules and to exclude the former from the process. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrong-doing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrong-doers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity Under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate 133 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch persons who have indulged in mal-practices and to penalise them for their wrong-doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process. Now it is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes appropriate to advert to the precedents of this Court which hold the field.
66. Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in wrong-doing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrong-doing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held for recruitment. Both the High Court and the Tribunal have, in our view, erred in laying exclusive focus on the report of the second Committee which was confined to the issue of impersonation. The report of the second Committee is only one facet of the matter. The deputy Chief minister was justified in going beyond it and ultimately recommending that the entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the findings which were arrived at in the report of the first Committee. Those findings do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal found any fault with those findings. In this view of the matter, both the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable."
226. With regard to the judicial review in the case on hand learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of 134 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Chairman All India Railway Recruitment Board and Another Vs. K. Shyam Kumar and Others 3 held as follows:-
"22 judicial review conventionally is concerned with the question of jurisdiction and natural justice and the court is not much concerned with the merits of the decision but how the decision was reached. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for civil Service (GCHQ case) the House of Lords rationalised the grounds of judicial review and ruled that the basis of judicial review could be highlighted under three principal heads, namely, illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality. Illegality as a ground of judicial review means that the decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making powers and must give effect to it. Grounds such as acting ultra vires, errors of law and/or fact, onerous conditions, improper purpose, relevant and irrelevant factors, acting in bad faith, fettering discretion, unauthorised delegation, failure to act, etc. fall under the heading "
illegality". Procedural impropriety may be due to the failure to comply with the mandatory procedures such as breach of natural justice, such as audi alteram partem, absence of bias, the duty to act fairly, legitimate expectations, failure to give reasons, etc".
227. The above case is supporting the allegations of the petitioners counsel such as the Commission while conducting the examinations there are several irregularities, procedural impropriety and irrationalities taken place. In such situation, the 3 (2010 (6) SCC 614) 135 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch judicial interference is required. These three things lead to filing of the present writ petitions.
228. Rejecting the Commission submissions with regard to maintainability that after having failed, challenging the selection process by the petitioners is not correct. The learned Senior Counsels Sri. G.Vidya Sagar and Mrs. B. Rachana Reddy relied upon the judgment in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahani v. State of Bihar 4, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: -
15. Furthermore, before beginning analysis of the legal issues involved, it is necessary to first address the preliminary issue. The maintainability of the very challenge by the appellant has been questioned on the ground that she having partaken in the selection process cannot later challenge it due to mere failure in selection.
The counsel for the respondents relied upon a catena of decisions of this Court to substantiate his objection.
16. It is well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging the selection process after having failed in it as iterated by this Court in a plethora of judgments including Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256] , observing as follows: (SCC p. 584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321 : (2008) 4 PLJR 4 (2019) 20 SCC 17) 136 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch 93] 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 appellant is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the appellant's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The [appellant] invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 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 appellant clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition." The underlying objective of this principle is to prevent candidates from trying another shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse wherein every disgruntled candidate, having failed the selection, challenges it in the hope of getting a second chance.
17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising there from, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process."
229. In the case on hand also, the petitioners are questioning the deviation of Commission's own principles, rules and conditions.
137 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Whenever deviation taken place, the candidates can approach the Court.
230. With regard to violation of instructions to applicants, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS Vs. G. HEMALATHAA AND ANOTHER 5, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the 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.
231. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Commission has failed to maintain fairness and purity in the examination process. To support her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. A.Kalaimani and others 6, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: -
5
(2020) 19 SCC 430) 6 ((2021) 16 SCC 217) 138 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
15. In Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat (2017) 13 SCC 621 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 80] , this Court held : (SCC pp. 628-
29, para 21) "21. Purity of the examination process -- whether such examination process pertains to assessment of the academic accomplishment or suitability of candidates for employment under the State -- is an unquestionable requirement of the rationality of any examination process. Rationality is an indispensable aspect of public administration under our Constitution. The authority of the State to take appropriate measures to maintain the purity of any examination process is unquestionable. It is too well settled a principle of law in light of the various earlier decisions of this Court that where there are allegations of the occurrence of large-scale malpractices in the course of the conduct of any examination process, the State or its instrumentalities are entitled to cancel the examination. This Court has on numerous occasions approved the action of the State or its instrumentalities to cancel examinations whenever such action is believed to be necessary on the basis of some reasonable material to indicate that the examination process is vitiated. They are also not obliged to seek proof of each and every fact which vitiated the examination process."
16. May be, the candidates who had a chance of being selected and appointed as Lecturers in the Government Polytechnic Colleges on the basis of the results of the written examination would be inconvenienced due to another examination being conducted but a serious doubt entertained by the Board about the magnitude of the manipulation in the examination has to be given due weightage.
232. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that with regard to the evaluation methodology, the 139 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Commission has failed to evaluate the answer scripts in a proper manner. The Commission has not followed the moderation method. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh and Anr. V. U.P.Public Service Commission, Allahabad 7, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: -
"These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the unsuccessful candidates who appeared in the examinations conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission ('Commission for short) for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
23. When a large number of candidates appear for an examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of the answer- scripts. Where the number of candidates taking the examination are limited and only one examiner (preferably the paper-setter himself) evaluates the answer-scripts, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in the valuation. But where a large number of candidates take the examination, it will not be possible to get all the answer-scripts evaluated by the same examiner. It, therefore, becomes necessary to distribute the answer- scripts among several examiners for valuation with the paper-setter (or other senior person) acting as the Head Examiner. When more than one examiner evaluate the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of the respective examiner will creep into the marks awarded by him to the answer- scripts allotted to him for valuation. Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the answer- scripts. Inevitably therefore, even when experienced examiners 7 ((2007) 3 SCC 720)
140 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch receive equal batches of answer scripts, there is difference in average marks and the range of marks awarded, thereby affecting the merit of individual candidates. This apart, there is 'Hawk- Dove' effect. Some examiners are liberal in valuation and tend to award more marks. Some examiners are strict and tend to give less marks. Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who are strict, there may be variance in the degree of strictness or liberality. This means that if the same answer-script is given to different examiners, there is all likelihood of different marks being assigned. If a very well written answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre answer- script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre answer-script may be awarded more marks than the excellent answer-script. In other words, there is 'reduced valuation' by a strict examiner and 'enhanced valuation' by a liberal examiner. This is known as 'examiner variability' or 'Hawk-Dove effect'. Therefore, there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the Examiners so that the effect of 'examiner subjectivity' or 'examiner variability' is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic method of moderation is as follows :
(i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the Head Examiner for the subject. He is selected from amongst senior academicians/scholars/senior civil servants/Judges. Where the case of a large number of candidates, more than one examiner is appointed and each of them is allotted around 300 answer-scripts for valuation.
(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the examiners is held soon after the examination. They discuss thoroughly the question paper, the possible answers and the
141 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch weightage to be given to various aspects of the answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions. The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed by the Head Examiner and variations in assigning marks are further discussed. After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the examiners are required to complete the valuation of answer scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about uniformity of assessment inter se the examiners. In spite of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to deviate from the expected or agreed norms, as their caution is overtaken by their propensity for strictness or liberality or erraticism or carelessness during the course of valuation. Therefore, certain further corrective steps become necessary.
(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the Head Examiner conducts a random sample survey of the corrected answer scripts to verify whether the norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually been followed by the examiners. The process of random sampling usually consists of scrutiny of some top level answer scripts and some answer books selected at random from the batches of answer scripts valued by each examiner. The top level answer books of each examiner are revalued by the Head Examiner who carries out such corrections or alterations in the award of marks as he, in his judgment, considers best, to achieve uniformity. (For this purpose, if necessary certain statistics like distribution of candidates in various marks ranges, the average percentage of marks, the highest and lowest award of marks etc. may also be prepared in respect of the valuation of each examiner.)
(iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted by each examiner, the Head Examiner may confirm the award of marks without any change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms, or suggest upward or downward moderation, the quantum of 142 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch moderation varying according to the degree of liberality or strictness in marking.In regard to the top level answer books revalued by the Head Examiner, his award of marks is accepted as final. As regards the other answer books below the top level, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the awards are moderated as per the recommendations made by the Head Examiner.
(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasible to have any standard moderation, the answer scripts valued by such examiner are revalued either by the Head Examiner or any other Examiner who is found to have followed the agreed norms.
(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examiner to assess the work of all the Examiners. In such a situation, one more level of Examiners is introduced. For every ten or twenty examiners, there will be a Head Examiner who checks the random samples as above. The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief Examiner to ensure proper results.
The above procedure of 'moderation' would bring in considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity."
233. In the present case, the Commission has taken different and contradictory stands. In their own additional common counter affidavit in para No.70, they said that moderation is not required 143 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch in Group-I examinations and on the same issue, while arguing the matter before the Court submitted that the Commission fully followed the moderation methodology. The very same Commission submitted their arguments and when the Court raised objection with regard to the key, the Commission replied that the key will be provided only in the objective type and since it is a descriptive type, there is no key. All the evaluators are experts in evaluating the English, Telugu medium papers. The action of the Commission reflects with the above observations that they have not followed any method in proper manner.
234. The very same case is relied on by the learned Senior Counsel Sri M.Surender Rao and submitted that "in the absence of a moderation or scaling mechanism to balance inter evaluator disparities, the result stands vitiated by arbitrariness and unequal treatment". In the present case, the Commission failed to put in place any moderation, standardization or uniform evaluation matrix, despite involving multiple evaluators, double evaluation, and multi phase assessment under different chair persons leading to unbalanced and inconsistent marking and also the Counsel brought to the notice of the Court that the Commission's own 144 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch affidavit (para-70 of additional common counter) states that moderation was "not required", because all papers are mandatory, at in the Court it claims full compliance with SANJAY SINGH's case (supra). This contradiction confirms that no genuine moderation was done. The average - only method treats the candidates unequally and violates the Constitutional guarantees of fairness and equality rendering the entire evaluation arbitrary and void.
Sri. M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel to support his arguments relied upon the following case laws:-
235. With regard to fairness, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr.J.P.Kulshreshtha and Others Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University and Other 8, wherein the Apex court held as follows :-
10. We may dispel two mystiques before we debate the real issued. Did the selection committee act illegally in resorting to the interview process to pick out the best ? We think not. Any administrative or quasi judicial body clothed with powers and left unfettered by procedures is free to devise its own pragmatic, flexible and functionally viable processes of transacting business subject, of course to the basics of natural justice fair play in action, 8 (AIR 1980 SC 2141)
145 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch reasonableness in collecting decisional materials, avoidance of arbitrariness and extraneous considerations and otherwise keeping with in the leading strings of the law. We find no flaw in the methodology of `interviews.' Certainly, cases arise where the are of interviewing candidates deteriorates from strategy to stratagem and undetectable manipulation of results is achieved by remote control tactics masked as viva voce tests. This, if allowed, is surely a sabotage of the purity of proceedings, a subterfuge whereby legal means to reach illegal ends is achieved. So it is that courts insist, as the learned single Judge has, in this very case, suggested on recording of marks at interviews and other fair checks like guidelines for marks and remarks about candidates and the like. If the court is skeptical, the record of the Selection proceedings, including the notes regarding the interviews, may have to be made available. Interviews, as such, are not bad but polluting it to attain illegitimate ends is bad. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when be wrote.
"So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or even more, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends."
236. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the examiners who make the valuation of answer papers should be well-equipped for the job. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in 146 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch President Board Of Secondary Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr 9, wherein the Apex Court held as follows :-
"It has to be ensured that the Examiners who make the valuation of answer papers are really equipped for the job. The paramount consideration in such cases is the ability of the Examiner. The Board has bounden duty to select such persons as Examiners who have the capacity, capability to make valuation and they should really equipped for the job."
237. The Hon'ble Supreme court in D.Suvankar's case (supra), laid down three mandatory safeguards for any evaluating authority:
I. Subject-specific competence - only examiners "really equipped for the job" may value answer scripts, and each must belong to the same discipline as the paper assessed.
II. Consistency of marking - wide inter-examiner variation erodes credibility; the system myust prevent a situation where "for the same answer one candidate gets higher marks than another." III. Judicially reviewable duty - If an examining body fails to ensure those safeguards, courts may interfere despite the normal restraint in valuation matters.
238. TGPSC's Group-I Mains process violates each principle. First, the evaluator lists filed by the Commission show no (2007 (1) SCC 603 9 147 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch dedicated sociology faculty for Paper III (Indian Society), no Environmental-science specialists for Paper IV, no domain experts for Telangana Movement (Paper VI) and no domain-wise panel for the six-section General Essay; several assessors are degree-college lecturers or long-retired teachers with no advanced work in the subjects they marked. This squarely violates Suvankar's mandate that "care should be taken to see that the examiners ... belong to the same faculty," and reduces the exercise to a "mockery of the system of valuation.".
239. In the present case, all the three safeguards while evaluating the answer scripts deviated by the Commission.
240. In MANDEEP SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS 10, the Apex Court held as follows :-
"18. Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution, inter alia, states that the State Public Service Commission "shall be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts". The provision appears to be mandatory as the words "shall be consulted" suggest. All the same, the learned counsel for the respondents would rely on a 1957 Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava 1957 SCC 10 (SLP (civil) No. 23141 of 2024) 148 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch OnLine SC 4 which had laid down that the provision is not mandatory but merely directory.
55. In Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 388, this Court laid down the general principle that State action should be grounded in sound principles and should not be unpredictable or without basis. This Court noted as follows:
"27. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. The decision should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is, but if a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law (vide S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1427] , AIR p. 1434, para 14 and Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corpn. [(1988) 1 SCC 166 : AIR 1988 SC 157] )." (Emphasis provided) .
241. The above case law is supporting the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners with regard to conducting the examinations in a fair manner and there is a discrimination in finalizing the result.
242. While denying the submissions of the respondents counsel with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions, the 149 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch petitioners counsel relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e., RAMAVATAR SINGH YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 11, the 3 Judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that High Courts in the country are guardians of Fundamental Rights & constitution and should not mechanically dismiss writ petitions seeking enforcement of fundamental rights on the ground of 'delay and laches', without considering all relevant factors.
243. In the present case respondents opposing the filing of writ petitions on the ground of delay the facts remains that while certificate verification is announced the petitioners approached this court. Hence the contentions of the respondents cannot be taken up.
244. While denying the submissions of the respondents counsel with regard to the res judicata, the petitioners counsel relied upon the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Daiswal and others Vs. Dossibai N.B.Jeejeebhoi 12, with regard to res judicata in the above case 11 (CIVIL APPEAL No.13806 OF 2024) (1970 (1) SCC 613) 12 150 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch took the view that the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure and a decision on an issue of law will be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent proceedings be the same as in the provisions proceedings, but not when cause of action is different.
245. In the present case initially this court granted interim direction on 16.04.2025 thereafter some of the candidates filed W.P.No..12431 of 2025 and the same was came up before another bench and the same was dismissed on 25.04.2025. By connecting the same to this case Commission argued before this court once writ petition is already dismissed and the present case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata cannot be accepted.
246. While denying the submissions of the respondents counsel with regard to the evaluation process, the petitioners' counsel submitted that there is no indication of evaluation in the answer scripts, is contrary to law. While supporting his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of 151 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay 13. He also submitted that under similar circumstances, this Court has repeatedly applied that ratio. Dr.P.Kishore Kumar (2016 SCC ONLINE hyd 364) Dr.J.Kiran Kumar (and the Division Bench Ruling W.A.No.757 of 2019 reiterated once again in W.P.No.27869 of 2021, as a binding precedent. Here by contrast, the total obliteration of the mark trial frustrates the very "vigour of evaluation" that these authorities deem mandatory. In the said case, the Supreme Court held that every examinee has a "legitimate expectation" that his answers will be looked at appreciated and evaluated and that the resulting markings constitute disclosable "information". In the present case, there is no marking in any answer scripts. Hence, the above judgment supports the contention of the petitioners.
Sri. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel to support his arguments relied upon the following case laws:-
247. With regard to legitimate expectation, failure in fairness in action, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the 13 (2011 (8) SCC 497)
152 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Apex Court in RAM PRAVESH SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 14, wherein the apex court held as follows:
"15. What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. The term 'established practice' refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It is a concept fashioned by courts, for judicial review of administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. In short, a person can be said to have a 'legitimate expectation' of a particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above 'fairness in action' but far below 'promissory estoppel'. It may only entitle an expectant: (a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, courts may grant a direction requiring the Authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. A legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bonafide reason given by the 14 (2006) 8 SCC 381
153 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the 'legitimate expectation'.
16. In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation [1993 (3) SCC 499], this Court explained the nature and scope of the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' thus :
"For legal purposes, the expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It is different from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can it amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right. However earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be and however confidently one may look to them to be fulfilled, they by themselves cannot amount to an assertable expectation and a mere disappointment does not attract legal consequences. A pious hope even leading to a moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence. Again it is distinguishable from a genuine expectation. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protectable. Every such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional sense."
17. This Court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation:
" it is generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no crystallized right as such is 154 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. Therefore even if substantive protection of such expectation is contemplated that does not grant an absolute right to a particular person. It simply ensures the circumstances in which that expectation may be denied or restricted. A case of legitimate expectation would arise when a body by representation or by past practice aroused expectation which it would be within its powers to fulfil. The protection is limited to that extent and a judicial review can be within those limits. But as discussed above a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, must satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has locus standi to make such a claim. In considering the same several factors which give rise to such legitimate expectation must be present. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. If it is a question of policy, even by way of change of old policy, the courts cannot interfere with a decision. In a given case whether there are such facts and circumstances giving rise to a legitimate expectation, it would primarily be a question of fact. If these tests are satisfied and if the court is satisfied that a case of legitimate expectation is made out then the next question would be whether failure to give an opportunity of hearing before the decision affecting such legitimate expectation is taken, has resulted in failure of justice and whether on that ground the decision should be quashed. If that be so then what should be the relief is again a matter which depends on several factors."
155 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
248. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the Commission failed to follow its own Rules and Regulations. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KRISHNA RAI (DIED AS PER LRS) AND OTHERS Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY (THROUGH REGISTRAR) AND OTHERS 15, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
32. Further in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (preventive), Jamnagar8, it has been laid down that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is as follows:-
"18. The Tribunal's judgment has proceeded on the basis that even though the samples were drawn contrary to law, the appellants would be estopped because their representative was present when the samples were drawn and they did not object immediately. This is a completely perverse finding both on fact and law. On fact, it has been more than amply proved that no representative of the appellant was, in fact, present at the time the Customs Inspector took the samples. Shri K.M. Jani who was allegedly present not only stated that he did not represent the Clearing Agent of the appellants in that he was not their employee but also stated that he was not present when the samples were taken. In fact, therefore, there was no representative of the appellants when the samples were taken.15
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 713) 156 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch In law equally the Tribunal ought to have realized that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires that something be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, and if not done in that manner has no existence in the eye of law at all."
249. To support his arguments that the Commission has not followed their own Rules, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in BEDANGA TALUKDAR Vs SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS 16, wherein the apex court held as follows :-
29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained.
There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to 16 (2011) 12 SCC 85) 157 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
250. In the case on hand, for Group-I, the Commission issued Notification with certain Rules and Regulations and the same has to be followed. Being a Constitutional body, they have to follow the Rules of procedure. Surprisingly, both are not followed in a proper manner.
251. With regard to maintainability, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in ABHIMEET SINHA AND OTHERS Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA AND OTHERS 17, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
35. At the outset, it is apposite to address the issue of the maintainability of the writ petitions. It is argued by Mr. Gautam Narayan and Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan learned counsel that after having participated in the recruitment process, the writ petitioners having not succeeded, cannot turn around and challenge the recruitment process or the vires of the Recruitment Rules. It is submitted that all candidates knew about the prescription of minimum marks for viva voce, well before the selection process commenced and the principle of estoppel will operate against the unsuccessful challengers. On the other hand, 17 (2024) 7 SCC 262) 158 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners argued that the principle of estoppel would have no application when there are glaring illegalities in the selection process. Further, estoppel is not applicable when the arbitrariness affects fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
36. As argued by the learned counsel for the High Courts, the legal position is that after participating in the recruitment process, the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn around and challenge the recruitment process. However, it is also settled that the principle of estoppel cannot override the law. Such legal principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. Union of India, where it was observed as under:
"17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process."
Sri. K. S. Murthy Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners to support his arguments relied upon the following case laws:-
159 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
252. With regard to the procedural lapses of the Commission and in the interest of student community, merit should not be casualty. Supporting his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the GURUNANAK DEV UNIVERSITY Vs. SAUMIL GARG AND OTHERS and the very same principle applied in MANISH UJWAL Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND SARASWATHI UNIVERISTY 18, wherein it is stated as follows:
"11 What is paramount is the interest of the student community. Merit should not be a casualty. We feel that the interests of the students would be adequately safeguarded if we direct the appellant University to revaluate the answers of the aforesaid eight questions with reference to the key answers provided by CBSC and the University of Delhi which are same and not with reference to the key answers provided by the appellant University".
253. Learned counsel for the petitioners contradicting the arguments of the Commission with regard to the following Rules and Regulations supporting his arguments, the counsel relied upon the Apex Court judgment in N.T.DAVIN KATTI VS. KARNATAKA PSC 19. In the similar contention, relied upon another judgment of the Apex Court in INDER PRAKASH GUPTA 18 (2005 (13) SCC 749) 19 (1990 (3) SCC 157) 160 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Vs. STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS 20, wherein it was held as follows:
"28.The Jammu & Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1979 admittedly were issued under Section 124 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution which is in pari materia with Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Rules are statutory in nature. The Public Service Commission is a body created under the Constitution. Each State constitutes its own Public Service Commission to meet the constitutional requirement for the purpose of discharging its duties under the Constitution. Appointment to service in a State must be in consonance with the constitutional provisions and in conformity with the autonomy and freedom of executive action. Section 133 of the Constitution imposes duty upon the State to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State. The Public Service Commission is also required to be consulted on the matters enumerated under Section 133. While going through the selection process the Commission, however must scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating the field".
254. Contradicting the issuance of two hall tickets, to support his arguments, he relied upon the judgment in HEMALATHAA's case (supra). In the said Judgment, it is stated as follows :-
"8. We have given our consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent. The instructions 20 (2004 (6) SCC 786) 161 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch 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. Hence, the Commission if not followed the rules, conditions which has given in the notification and the gazette. It amounts to deviating the rules and conditions of the Notification gazette."
255. Learned Counsel for the petitioners opposing the contentions of the respondents with regard to revaluation relied upon the Judgment in RAN VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 21. In the said case three evaluations of the answer sheets of, more than 36,000 candidates who took the examination for recruitment as Trained Graduate Teachers way back in January 2009. In the said judgment, the Apex Court held as follows:
"30.1 If a statute, Rule of Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet ( as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "
inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization" 21
(2018 (2) SCC 357) 162 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;"
256. In the present case also, there is no fair evaluation. Due to lack of integrity in evaluation process, injustice was done to the major Telugu medium candidates. Hence, the above judgment is supporting the contentions of the petitioners' counsel with regard to re-evaluation.
To support their arguments, the Commission (TGPSC) relied upon the following case laws.
257. In TAJVIR SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS 22, has given proposition that the Courts generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognizing the important of maintaining the integrity of the selection process, as it involves high degree of expertise and discretion.
258. It is further stated that the candidates, having taken part in the selection process without demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The 22 (2023) 17 SCC 147) 163 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch only exception to such waiver is existence of mala fides on part of the selected board.
259. In the above case, the contention of the petitioners is that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the Advertisement Notice dated 05.05.2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12.06.2009 without any justifiable reason.
260. In the case on hand, there is no corrigendum and in the Notification itself the Commission stated that the candidates have to regularly follow the Commission's website to know the changes and the modification in the said examination time to time, but the Commission did not follow their own condition. Therefore, the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
261. In VANSHIKA YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 23 has given proposition that it is settled law that the cancellation of an examination is justified only in cases where the sanctity of the exam is found to be compromised at a systemic level. Cancellation can be ordered only if it is not possible to separate the tainted 23 (2024) 9 SCC 743) 164 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch candidates from untainted ones. In this case, court examined the success rates from certain centers (where malpractice was alleged) and found no abnormality. The leak of the question paper was not found to be systemic or widespread.
262. In the case on hand, there is no leakage of question papers, but sanctity of exam is found to be compromised and therefore, the above case is not applicable to the case on hand.
263. In SADANANDA HALO AND OTHERS Vs. MOMTAZ ALI SHEIKH AND OTHERS 24, has given proposition that the validity of recruitment cannot be judged on the basis of microscopic details and the courts cannot assume investigatory role. The High Court did not have any tangible evidence regarding the process being farcical except the self-serving statement made by the unsuccessful candidates.
264. In the above case, the learned Single Judge conducted investigatory role by calling for records of candidates participated in interview and appointing a committee for scrutinizing the said 24 (2008) 4 SCC 619) 165 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch records and relying upon such findings of the scrutinizing committee.
265. In the instant case, there is no investigation with regard to conducting of the examination or that the Court did not appoint any committee for scrutinizing the records, but the action of the Commission is reflecting unfairness and malafides. Therefore, the above case is not applicable to the case on hand.
266. In PRADEEP KUMAR RAI AND OTHERS Vs. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS 25 has given proposition that acquiescence by participation and challenge to selection process after participating in interview and declaration of adverse result, held, is not maintainable. Once candidates had participated in selection process without raising objections, they cannot be allowed to challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful and either candidates should not have participated in the interview or they should have challenged the procedure immediately after interviews were conducted.
267. In the above case, there was preliminary written examination, Main written examination and interview and there is 25 (2015 11 SCC 493) 166 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview and the same cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted.
268. In the case on hand, there is no question of delay and the process is not yet finalized and when the Commission called for Certificate Verification, the petitioners questioned the Group-I examinations. Therefore, the above case is not applicable to the case on hand.
269. In STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Vs. NANDLAL JAISWAL AND OTHERS 26 and RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED 27, has given proposition that the allegations of malafides need proof of high degree and that an administrative action is presumed to be bonafide unless the contrary is satisfactorily 26 (1986) 4 SCC 566) 27 (2013) 1 SCC 524 167 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch established. Wherever allegations of mala fides are made, it is necessary to give full particulars of such allegations and to set out material facts specifying the particular person against whom such allegations are made.
270. In the above cases, the observation of the Apex Court is that the interference of the Courts in India is only on limited grounds, such as, illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the selection committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc.
271. In the case on hand, the Commission has not followed the procedure stipulated in the Notification and violated their own Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the above cases are not applicable to the case on hand.
272. In JASVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS 28 has given proposition that no specific allegation of any mala fides or bias against the Board for selection or anyone in the Board nor any such pleas substantiated. The observations by High Court that there was conscious effort made for bringing 28 (2003) 2 SCC 132) 168 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch some candidates within the selection zone cannot be said to be justified.
273. In the above case, the candidates approached the Court after completion of the appointments. But, in the present, the appointments are not at all finalized, only the qualified candidates list was announced and that the certificate verification is under process. Therefore, the above case is not applicable to the case on hand.
Unofficial Respondents relied upon the following case laws.
Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel in support his submissions relied upon the following:
274. As per the Judgment of the Apex Court in SANCHIT BANSAL Vs. JOINT ADMISSION BOARD 29, submits that when a bonafide procedure is adopted to achieve the purpose of the exam, which is uniform and non-discriminatory, it is not arbitrary or malafide.
275. In the above case, with regard to judicial interference in the selection process, particularly with regard to the definition or 29 (2012) 1 SCC 157) 169 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch arbitrariness, allegations of malafies, and the principle that subsequent disclosure of details by the authority pertaining to the selection process does not, by itself, vitiate the process.
276. In the case on hand, whatever procedure adopted and followed by the Commission did not explain anywhere in the Notification or the web notes or by way of corrigendum and that the procedure followed by the Commission itself is illegal. Therefore, the above case is not applicable to the case on hand.
277. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submits that mere suspicion of arbitrariness or mala fides is not enough to set aside the selection process and it must be proved. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ASHOK KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA 30 and MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF J & K 31.
278. In the case on hand, the Commission has adopted two hall ticket methods where it is not there in the Rules (one is for prelims and another one is for mains). The Commission has not published 30 (1985) 4 SCC 417) 31 (1995) 3 SCC 486) 170 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch the provisional marks where specifically mentioned in the Notification as point No.15.2 total marks list will be published in the Commission's web site, but the same was not published. It reflects the Commission deviated their own method. Therefore, the above case would not support the case of the unofficial respondents.
279. By relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Deependra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. 32 and Sanchit Bansal's case (supra), the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Courts will not generally interfere with the selection process because it is a specialized exercise undertaken by an expert body. No statutory rule is violated and that Rule 3(ix) is also not violated.
280. In the instant case, the Commission has violated their own Rules and Regulations and therefore, the Court can interfere with the selection process, where there are violation of statutory rules and malafies or arbitrariness. Therefore, the above case would not support the submission of the unofficial respondents.
281. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submits that even if any lapses are pointed out, the 32 (2024 SCC Online 724) 171 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Court shall first see the internal checks and balances put in place by the Commission to satisfy itself and not straight away interfere with selection process. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in RAN VIJAY SINGH's case (supra).
282. He further contended that TGPSC has explained the reason for change in number of centres and difference in numbers of candidates. It has explained the procedure for counting and cross- checking attendance. It has explained the apparent anomaly in high number of selections from centres 18 and 19 and the method adopted to allocate students to test centres by randomization. Thus, the mechanisms adopted by TGPSC make it clear that the apparent lapses actually do not exist. In any way, they don't undermine the process because of the internal checks and balances in the mechanism.
283. Once the Commission applied the randomization method to allot centres and how certain centres were allotted only to female candidates, particularly two centres in high in number. If randomization is properly applied, the same cannot be happened. Further, there is no proof of concerned College asking to provide 172 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch only female candidates in their College. It is only the mere submission of the Commission and there is no proof from the concerned College. Therefore, the above case would not support the case of the unofficial respondents.
284. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submits that interference by the Court for the mere asking will keep the examination result in uncertainty and the unofficial respondents have suffered a lot. To support his case, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RAN VIJAY SINGH's case (supra).
285. In the instant case, the candidates putting high efforts and hard work, wrote the examination very well, but the Commission gave single digit marks to certain candidates. The Commission has not explained how it has given less marks though they wrote the examination satisfactorily. The contention of the Senior Counsel is that the selected candidates will suffer if the stay continue. But the same theory will be applicable who wrote the exam satisfactorily but awarded single digit marks. Therefore, the above case would not support the case of the unofficial respondents.
173 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
286. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in UOI Vs. RAJESH P.U. PUTHUVALNIKATHU 33 and stated that the entire selection process cannot be cancelled on generalized allegations and must be based on specific and proven irregularities.
287. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in MANISH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA 34 and stated that the larger public interest must be bonafide and not invoked casually to derail valid selections or statutes.
288. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF U.P. Vs. KARUNESH KUMAR 35 and stated that the candidates who participate cannot later challenge the process and that the certainty and finality in public recruitment are part of public interest.
289. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KRISHNADATT AWASTY Vs. STATE OF M.P. (2025 SCC ONLINE SC 179) and stated that judicial review in recruitment is 33 (2003) 7 SCC 285) 34 (2021) 5 SCC 1) 35 (2022 SCC Online SC 1706) 174 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch narrow and larger public interest must be clearly established to justify interference.
290. In the instant case, there are no general allegations and where the malafides, unfairness, wrong doing, the Court can interfere and whenever there are certain allegations and violation of the recruitment rules, the judicial review can be entertained. As malafides, unfairness, wrong doing and transparency taken place, there is no other go except judicial review.
291. Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court with regard of maintainability, revaluation and judicial review.
(1) MANISH KUMAR SHAHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (2010) 12 SCC 576).
(2) MADAN LAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 486).
(3) Dr.NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Vs. Dr.YERRA TRINADH AND OTHERS (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 716). (4) RAN VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases
357).
(5) PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA (AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4116).
175 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch (6) TELANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RECRUITMENT BOARD Vs. SALUVADI SUMALATHA AND ANOTHER (2024) 4 Supreme Court Cases 336).
(7) OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, HYDERBAD Vs. A.SREENAIAH (2007 SCC ONLINE AP 366).
292. With regard to the maintainability, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent submits that having participated in the selection process, the candidates cannot challenge the Notification as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgments. But, in the very same judgments the Apex Court observed that where malafides, unfairness and wrong doing takes place, the Courts can interfere.
293. He further contended that the writ petitioners have not raised any legal ground regarding violation of any statutory rule and infringement of their fundamental rights in order to grant relief as prayed for. Moreover, the petitioners have not explained as to how they are prejudiced securing less merit and would have been secured more merit and within the zone of consideration. In the absence of rules, request for revaluation cannot be permitted.
176 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
294. This Court is of the considered view that if the Commission did not follow the proper methodology and if there is unfairness in the evaluation, the Courts can interfere.
295. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that the writ petitioners have not made any of the meritorious candidates as party respondents to the writ petitions and they are necessary and proper parties to the writ petitions.
296. With regard to the judicial review, wherever malafides, wrong doings, illegalities took place, the Courts can interfere. In the present case, all the issues raised and discussed. Hence, these case laws would not support the unofficial respondents.
297. One of the contentions of the unofficial respondents is that since formation of the Telangana State i.e., on 02.06.2014 and even prior to that, no Group-I recruitment had taken place. As a consequence, the public interest suffered a lot for want of employment by the unemployed candidates. The candidates, who have been waiting for their jobs, their hard work and merit in the selection process, their right to livelihood is denied, which is in 177 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch violation of Article 21, apart from violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
298. The same theory will also be applicable to the candidates who might be more meritorious but for the unfair evaluation were awarded single digit marks.
299. The specific allegation made by the unofficial respondents is that the writ petitioners are aggrieved despite having secured lower merit, whereas the unofficial respondents qualified the preliminary tests and subsequently appeared for the main examination.
300. In the instant case, after successfully clearing the first stage, the candidates undertook the main examination with full effort and dedication. Unfortunately, some of them received single-digit marks, which is questionable. Moreover, any alleged violations attributed to the unofficial respondents would equally apply to the writ petitioners. After the formation of the Telangana State Commission, the Commission failed to follow a proper system. Due to the Commission's inefficiency, the examination was cancelled twice, for which the writ petitioners are not responsible.
178 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch FINDINGS OF THE COURT :-
301. In the instant case, the Commission issued Notification No.02 of 2024 on 19.02.2024 inviting online applications from eligible candidates through a proforma application for the posts of Group-I Services in the State of Telangana to fill up 563 vacancies in various departments. Subsequently, the Commission conducted a preliminary Test on 09.06.2024 and thereafter announced the prelims results in respect of candidates who qualified for the mains examination. The Commission conducted the Mains examination from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 and announced the results of the mains examination on 30.03.2025. Thereafter, the Commission called for certificate verification from 16.04.2025 to 21.04.2025. At this juncture, some of the unsuccessful candidates approached this Hon'ble Court and filed the writ petitions questioning the Group-I mains examination, specifically regarding the conduct of the examination and the method of evaluation.
302. After hearing the matter at length, the entire issue can be divided into two parts, i.e. (1) Procedural aspects, (2) The method of evaluation.
179 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
1) PROCEDURAL ASPECTS :
a) Issuing of two hall tickets for the Group-I Examination.
b) Allocation of examination centres in a biased manner.
c) Inconsistency about the total number of candidates, who appeared for the main examination.
d) Multiple evaluation of answer scripts.
e) Publication of provisional/total marks list.
f) Disclosing of un-qualified candidate's hall ticket numbers in the Mains final marks list.
g) Increasing vacancies by adding new vacancies.
2) METHOD OF EVALUATION :-
a) The selection of the evaluators.
b) The procedure of evaluation.
c) Telugu medium candidates were neglected.
d) Highest qualified candidates in specific centres.
e) Commission awarded the same marks to certain candidates.
a) Issuing of two Hall Tickets for the Group-1 Examination:
303. The Commission has issued two hall tickets for the prelims and mains examinations. The Prelims Hall tickets contain details like District Code, Exam Center Code, etc. Since the Group
- I Mains exams are conducted only in the GHMC area, to avoid
180 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch confusion on the District Code and Exam Center Code, the Commission has decided to allot separate hall ticket numbers for all the candidates picked up for Group-I Mains, and the same is purely an administrative issue as per the commission, and it is within the purview of the Commission.
304. The Commission further stated that providing a continuous sequence for hall tickets would be convenient for printing of OMR sheets accompanying the answer scripts, distributing them across examination centers and also in the examination halls. The same plays a crucial role in verifying the candidates who appeared, evaluated, and also in consolidation of the data. Thus, a new set of hall ticket numbers for the Main examination has been given, as was done in the previous Group - I Notification Nos. 15/2011 & 18/2011.
305. On the other hand, Mrs. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners stated that even in the UPSC examination, which is a nationwide examination, only one hall ticket is issued and utilized for the entire examination.
181 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
306. There is absolutely no mention or hint of the issuance of hall tickets in Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024, and no further web notes have been issued and that the very intention of the respondent in issuing separate hall tickets is suspect given the many illegalities and irregularities that have been followed. Regarding issuance of two hall tickets, the explanation given by the Commission is unclear.
307. After reviewing the Commission's explanation that, regarding its administrative feasibility, they adopted the said procedure. For this type of direct recruitment, the Commission has to follow the Telangana State Public Service Commission's Rules of Procedure. In the said rules, nothing was stated regarding the issuance of two hall tickets. Further, the procedure followed by the higher Commission, such as the UPSC, generally, the State Commission ought to have followed the same system. The Commission erroneously issued two hall tickets to the candidates. The unsuccessful candidates questioned the Commission's action in issuing two hall tickets.
308. The Commission did not provide clarification in a proper manner as to what benefits the candidates will receive by issuing 182 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch two hall ticket numbers. When the UPSC conducted prelims and mains examinations it issued only one hall ticket number to all the candidates, and what necessitated the Commission to issue two hall tickets is a question. The clarification given by the Commission is not convincing.
309. Although the Commission stated that the same process was followed in previous Group-I Notification Nos.15 of 2011 and 18 of 2011, no material has been placed before this court, and it is also before the bifurcation of the State.
310. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the entire exercise, beginning with the issuance of two hall tickets was not as per the notification or rules. The Commission's action creates doubts about the conduct of the examination.
b) Allocation of Examination Centres in a biased manner:
311. The Commission changed the number of test centers from 45 to 46. Initially, 45 Test Centers were identified in the GHMC area in all three Commissionrates. As per the commission, in respect of centre 21 i.e., (CVR College of Engineering), it was noticed that the strength of 984 candidates allotted needs to be 183 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch reduced and also that there was a problem noticed in Test Centre Code 19 (Telangana Mahila Viswavidyalayam) that the Ground Floor is at higher elevation with steps and PWD candidates cannot climb the steps. Hence, 87 candidates, who were allotted to Test Centre 19, were moved to Test Centre Code-21 by reducing the strength from 984 to 744 to accommodate 40 scribe candidates. The remaining 43 PWD with scribe candidates were allotted to Test Centre Code 39 (St. Peter's Engineering College) by reducing its strength from 504 to 312 plus 43 with scribe. Wherever PWD with scribe candidates are to be allotted, it is mandatory to allocate only six members in a room with a capacity of 24. Accordingly, the strength has been reduced. As such, there was a shortfall in centers in allotting total strength, and the Commission identified one more additional Test centre (Centre code 46- Princeton Institute of Engineering and Technology). Similarly, a few more changes took place for non-scribe candidates also. Further, all this exercise undertaken before the Hall Tickets were generated, only after thorough verification of these types of issues. After finalization of Test Centres, the data was processed for Hall Ticket generation. All this was a back-end process before it 184 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch reached to the candidates and hence, they are in no way affected by these changes as the process took place well before the downloading of Hall Tickets.
312. The 46 centres were identified and selected based on various parameters, including the feasibility of the centers to reach centers. All three Commissionrates were involved in the conduct of the examination.
S.No. Commissionerate No. of
Centers
1 Hyderabad 08
2 Rachakonda 20
3 Cyberabad 18
313. The Commission produced a letter dated 15.04.2025 regarding the publication of a rejoinder to the news published on 15.04.2025 about to the Group-I Services recruitment. In the said letter, the Commission disclosed several issues, such as the method of awarding marks and selection of evaluators, as well as exam center Nos.18 and 19 i.e., namely Veera Nari Chakali Ilamma Women's University (Koti Women's College). Since it is a women's institution, that the request of the institutions 185 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch management, women candidates have been allotted to the said institution, as the restrooms etc., are not separately available for both genders. These centers are exclusively for women candidates, and around 25% of the total women candidates appeared in the exam through these centers. Hence, the selection of the candidates also reflects a proportion is more or less the same among the successful women candidates.
314. The Commission stated that while allocating the examination centres in a fair manner they applied a randomisation method. If the Commission had followed the same approach, then how were centers 18 and 19 given priority only to female candidates? This leads all petitioners to doubt the conduct of the Group-I examination. The Commission mentioned in particular center numbers 18 and 19, Veera Nari Chakali Ilamma Women's University (Koti Women's College). The College authorities themselves requested the Commission to allot only female candidates to their College. The Commission, to that extent, they mentioned in the pleadings, but did not provide any documentary evidence. The objections of the petitioners were that once the same college was utilized for both male and female 186 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch candidates in the UPSC examinations, what insisted the Commission to deviate from that system? The Commission's action indicates that they did not follow the proper randomisation method. The Commission, in their arguments, nowhere stated what necessitated giving priority only to female candidates.
315. There is no proper answer from the commission. Moreover, they stated that the Commission prioritised female candidates to protect their freedom. If both genders were allotted the same college, security issues might arise. Under the same conditions, the Commission prioritised females. Though there is no rule in the Commission's Rules of Procedure or in the Notification to give priority to the female candidates, the Commission's action amount to a violation of their own rules of procedure and notification. On the other hand, the Commission did not give priority to physically challenged candidates and accommodated them in the 2nd and 3rd floor buildings, which are far away from the City. The acts of the Commission reflect that there is discrimination in allotting the centres.
316. On the one hand, the Commission claims that it has considered social justice, logistics, and amenities for all 187 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch candidates in the allocation of centres; on the other hand, it has not followed the same. The said action of the Commission amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
317. Furthermore, the meaning of 'randomisation' as per the oxford dictionary is as follows:
"Randomisation is a statistical process in which random mechanism is employed to select a sample from a population or assign subjects to different groups.
The goal of randomisation is to minimize selections bias and enhance the statistical validity."
318. If the randomization method was used for the allocation of centers, then how was majority of female candidates allotted to only two centers? It deviates from the meaning of the randomization. The purpose of this method is to minimize the selection bias, but whereas the commission acted against it.
c) Inconsistency about the total number of candidates who appeared for the mains examination :-
319. The commission, while publishing the total number of candidates who appeared in the mains examination declared multiple figures at multiple times. The Commission, on 188 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch 27.10.2024, declared that 21,093 including 18 sports persons appeared in the Mains examination. This statistics is collected from the Chief Superintendent of the exam centers "On the Go"
when the examination was in progress, and they were "Subject to minor variation". On 30.03.2025, the Commission announced the number 21,085, but out of them, 25 candidate's results were not included in the total marks list of candidates as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the figure of 21,085 candidates, including 25 candidates, comes to 21,110. Again, the Commission issued a press note on 13.03.2025, in which the figure 20,161 was reflected. The Commission has reported that a total of 924 candidates failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks in English paper of the examination, which is mandatory for evaluate the remaining papers. Therefore, the figure published in the press note dated 13.03.2025 reflected 20,161 candidates (21,085 - 924).
However, the Commission did not calculate the attendance properly. The action of the Commission reflects different figures at different times, and it also it reflects the Commission's negligence in finding out the correct number of candidates who appeared.
189 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch The negligence of a constitutional body like the commission cannot be appreciated.
320. The commission, after five (5) months, suddenly released a final marks list dated 30.03.2025 with 21,085 candidates having written the Mains, and absolutely no explanation about the sudden increase in numbers.
d) Multiple evaluations of answer scripts:
321. The Commission, after completion of the Group-I examination, conducted a triple evaluation method. The first two evaluations contain Barcodes and bubblings as per the web note dated 13.03.2025, but in the third evaluation there is no Barcode and bubblings. There is no such method prescribed in the Notification and Rules of Procedure. The Commission to substantiate their act compared the said triple evaluation method with that of the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh, stating that APPSC also conducted the evaluation in the same manner.
322. However, the fact remains that the APPSC evaluated the mains answer scripts just like the TGPSC. Nevertheless, the evaluation conducted by the APPSC all the three evaluations 190 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch followed the same method using Barcode and bubbling. The third evaluation conducted by the Commission differs. Due to this lapse, there is every chance of manipulating the marks in the third evaluation. The acts of the Commission reflect that they did not follow any recognised and proper evaluation method, and moreover, the Commission issued a press note on 13.03.2025, indicating the point number (iii) that Double valuations of all answer scripts is mandatory. However, in the said Notification, they did not explain or provide any details regarding the third evaluation. It seems that the Commission totally violated the Notification and Rules of Procedure. To substantiate their deviation, the Commission, in their common additional counter affidavit filed on 25.06.2025, submitted that provisions have been made on the first page itself for the two evaluations. However, the third evaluation (which is necessary only in a few cases) is provided for on the 3rd page of the answer booklet. The sample answer booklets were published on 16.08.2024. The Notification was issued on 19.02.2024, and the mains examinations were conducted from 21.10.2024 onwards, which the prelims were conducted on 09.06.2024. The Commission issued the sample 191 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch answer booklets after the prelims, and nearly two months before the Commission announced the triple evaluation method. The acts of the Commission vitiated the sanctity of the Group-I mains examination. The entire process of evaluation gives strength to the contentions of the petitioners, and it cannot be denied.
e) publication of provisional/total marks list:
323. The Notification para-15, under the head memorandum of marks, Rule 15.2, reads as follows:-
"The marks list of Main Examination (total marks) of all the candidates will be displayed on the Commission's website. However, paper wise Memorandum of Marks of all candidates can be accessed in their respective logins for a period of one week."
Rule 15.3 states as follows :-
"Request for recounting of marks will be considered for Conventional Type (Written) Test only within 15 days after publication of provisional marks list on payment of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for each paper through online payment only."
324. The Commission, as per the above rules, ought to have published the total marks of all the candidates along with provisional subject-wise marks. Without doing so, the 192 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch commission sent individual subject wise marks to the individual logins which is incorrect, arbitrary and violative of their own rules and regulations.
325. The Commission, without accepting their mistake, tried their level best to cover the said mistake and stated as follows:
"Paragraph 15.3 did not mandate publishing once consolidate list of all candidates reflecting total provisional marks obtained by them. It only mentioned publishing "provisional marks list" which published on the respective account of each candidate and also not only that the final list reflecting total marks of each candidate after the completion of the process of recounting was published on the commission's Website in compliance with Paragraph 15.2". One way the Commission stated that Rule 15.2 of the Notification did not mandate publishing a consolidated list of all candidates along with their total marks, and on the other hand they stated that publishing the total marks of all candidates after recounting on 30.03.2025 is in compliance with Paragraph 15.2. It is nothing but deviating from their own procedures and the said acts reflect that there is no fairness or transparency in the system.
193 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
326. The petitioner's object that the Commission violated their own Notification, completely flouting Clauses 15.2 and 15.3, thereby forcing a deliberate secrecy between the initial (provisional marks) that was deliberately not uploaded generally but only sent to candidates, logins individually and the final GRL released on 30.03.2025 giving room to the Commission a lot of mischief and several situations where marks could be randomly changed.
327. In this regard, in the vacate stay petition, the Commission did not disclose whether they have followed Clause 15.2 and 15.3 of the Notification or not ?.
328. While providing an oral explanation regarding this aspect, the Commission stated that the non-disclosure of the provisional marks list would not cause any loss to the candidates. However, the reason given by the Commission is not convincing. If candidates intend to apply for a recount, they need to know both their own marks and the total marks of other candidates for comparison. If they suspect any discrepancy in the total marks, they may seek a recount.
194 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
329. The Commission submitted that, changes in the system will not cause any disadvantage or loss to the candidates. The said submission is not acceptable. It is not the question of loss or gain. Once a constitutional body frames certain Rules, must and should they have to follow.
330. It is incorrect to suggest that the Commission failed to follow its own rules and it cannot be questioned. Candidates who have appeared for the examination have every right to question whether the Commission has followed its own prescribed rules, regardless of whether they are selected or not.
f) Disclosing the unqualified candidates' hall ticket numbers in mains final marks list:-
331. The Commission filed an additional counter-affidavit on 25.06.2025. In the said counter in Para No.76 reads as follows:-
"76.Further, the petitioners have also alleged that the Commission vide Press Note dated 15.04.2025 declared that 10 persons from Urdu medium appeared for all seven papers in the Mains Examination, while web-note dated 13.03.2025 reflects a figure 9 Urdu medium candidates. As clarified above, the Web Note dated 13.03.2025 contained the details of the candidates who have qualified in English paper (which is mandatory for 195 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch evaluating the other answer scripts) suggesting that only 9 Urdu candidates have qualified in the English paper. The petitioners are deliberately misinterpreting the figures published by the Commission at various intervals and raising speculative allegations."
332. The Purport of rule 12(d) of the notification is as under.
The paper of General English is a qualifying one. The minimum qualifying marks in this paper are "for the candidates belongs to OCs, sports man and EWS- should not be less than 40% i.e. (60 marks) BCs- not less than 35% ( 52.5 marks) SCs, STs and PH - not less than 30% (45 marks)". The marks obtained in this paper are not counted for ranking.
333. If the Commission had followed the above method in evaluating answer scripts, candidates who scored less than 30% out of 150 marks in General English (Qualifying paper) would have become ineligible for the evaluation of their remaining papers(paper I to paper VI). But surprisingly in the marks list of the mains examinations shows as follows:-
Sl.No Hall Ticket Nos. General English Marks secured (qualifying test) Out of 900 (total (150 marks) of paper I to VI) 27 240901035 27.500 72.000 33 240901043 44.000 88.500 46 240901059 15.500 103.000 196 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch 47 240901061 15.500 144.000 57 240901075 26.500 137.000 58 240901076 27.000 81.000 59 240901080 21.000 45.000 63 240901086 26.500 49.500 431 240902081 8.000 64.500 445 240902105 19.500 63.500 451 240902112 26.500 132.500 409 240902053 8.500 8.000
334. The above table indicates that candidates who were disqualified in the qualifying exam, i.e., General English, but their other papers were also evaluated and total marks were published, which contradicts their own Rules. This itself demonistrates how the transparency maintained by the Commission in evaluation of the answer scripts.
335. The commission, being a Constitutional Body in the process of Group-I mains exams, deviated from the mandatory rules, which is unacceptable, and it shows that there is no transparency, fairness and integrity in conducting the examination. It appears that Commission violated the principles of natural justice, which is unconstitutional. The acts of the Commission are reflect that it causes injustice to the unemployed youth who have a strong hope 197 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch of serving Government employment and has been waiting for the last one decade.
336. In this regard, the Commission is remains silent, and no information was disclosed in any of their affidavits. Their own notification clause 15.5 reads as follows:
"Rejected, Invalid, disqualified, ineligible candidates will not be issued any Memorandum of Marks and fees paid by such candidates, if any, will be forfeited to Government account, without entertaining any correspondence in this regard. Request for revaluation will not be entertained under any circumstances as per Rule-3 (ix) (d) of Commission's Rules of Procedure."
337. The commission clearly deviated from the above mentioned clause by evaluating the other six answer scripts of the candidates who were disqualified in the General English paper and also issued a memorandum of marks in respect of them.
g) Increasing vacancies by adding new vacancies:-
338. The commission in the earlier Notification No.4/2022 dated 26.04.2022, notified 503 vacancies. Due to the cancellation of the said notification, the present Notification No.2/2024 dated 19.02.2024 was issued, increasing the number of vacancies by 60 and the total number of vacancies notified is 563. The 1st 198 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch respondent accorded permission vide G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 03.02.2024 for 60 vacancies only. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that fresh applicants were not eligible to apply for the post as per Notification No.4/2022 dated.26.04.2022. They may not have acquired graduation by 26.04.2022. The Commission responded to this allegation and stated that it has the power to cancel the notification and that eligibility must be assessed at the time of notification issuance. This issue was already challenged in this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter by dismissing the challenge. Hence, the petitioners' counsel arguments were rejected on this aspect.
2) Method of Evaluation and its impact:
a) The selection of the evaluators:
339. After completion of the mains examination, the
Commission evaluated all answer scripts from 1-11-2024 to 31.01.2025, i.e. 90 days. The commission issued Press Note dated 13.03.2025 with regard to evaluation and to transparency, as per the said note "all evaluators are the regular faculty from the 199 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Universities/Government Colleges/Institutions and two retired faculty members have also been used as evaluators. To substantiate allegations, the Commission stated that the list/evaluators are confidential to ensure fairness and anonymity, and that the petitioners, who are already in the Government service, have abused their office to secure the list of evaluators. The letters addressed by the Commission to the Commissioner's of Police have been filed along with their writ petitions. The Commission reserves the right to initiate appropriate legal action against the petitioners for illegally procuring documents and using them in the present proceedings, as per Rule-3(xii) of the TGPSC Rules of Procedure. If it is right, the Commission, has to take action against their own employees who supplied the details of the evaluators. Instead, without doing so, threatening the petitioners is incorrect.
340. Regarding "regular faculty", the Commission stated that it does not exclude retired faculty members from this definition. It is a standard practice across the public service Commission's from retired faculty members to evaluate the answer scripts. In this, the Commission observed two things. One is regular faculty do not 200 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch exclude retired faculty and second one is standard practice across the public service commission to use retired faculty members as evaluators. Both are different. As per the Commission's Notification, for the evaluation purpose, only regular employees will be considered, whereas the petitioners alleged that retired employees were also considered for evaluation. Moreover, the press note dated 13.03.2025 was issued after the evaluation process completed, in the interest of transparency and disclosure. One of the evaluator Sri. Dr. M.A.Malik, who worked as a private tutor, was used as an evaluator. The petitioners allege that the person favoured in his own students. The Commission tasked with substantiating the allegation about this evaluator stated that the said evaluator has been working as an associate professor at Government Decree College since 2010 and has not taught a single class at R.C.Reddy IAS study circle since then. The Commission to that extent produced vide letter dated 20.04.2025. The Commission said that the said evaluator approached the advocate to issue a legal notice to all the petitioners of W.P.No. 11439 of 2025. However, the facts remains is that the particular evaluator wrote the book on Indian Economy for Group-I mains.
201 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Which is published in the year of 2024 itself. In the said book, while introducing about the author (i.e. Dr.M.A. Malik) stated that for the past 22 years he is contributing insightful articles on the economy for competitive exams in the Andhra Jyothi, Telugu Daily News Paper and for 'Vivek' a monthly magazine by R.C.Reddy publications. It seems that the author guides the students of the R.C.Reddy IAS study circle in Hyderabad, in one way or the other. Knowing fully about the author particulars, the Commission without accepting the same threatened to file cases against the writ petitioners.
341. With regard to regular faculty, the Commission's reply is incorrect saying that the regular faculty does not exclude retired faculty members. As per the service law, regular faculty means "a person who is currently in service on a substantive post, appointed according to rules, either on probation or confirmed. He is still drawing salary and discharging duties." It seems to overcome their lapse finally the Commission changed the meaning of regular faculty.
b) The procedure of evaluation :
202 RRN,J
W.P.No.11439
of 2025 and batch
342. The TGPSC issued a press note on 13.03.2025 providing greater clarity and confidence regarding the evaluation process. The press note stated as follows:
"The valuation of Answer scripts commenced on 01/11/2024 and completed on 31/01/2025."
343. Following is the procedure that was followed for the Valuation of the Answer Paper Booklets of Group-l Services Mains exam:
i) The Main Answer script contains 3 parts. i) The preprinted candidates' details. ii) The 2ndand 3rdpart contains the part where marks are awarded by the examiner.
ii) Before the valuation process is started, the OMR Barcode Sheet which contained candidates' details part is detached and cannot be seen by the examiner or any other person at any point of time.
iii) Double valuation of all Answer scripts is mandatory.
iv) The valuation of Mains Answer Paper Booklet was done twice by two different Valuators/Examiners. After completion of first valuation, the Part containing the marks awarded by the 1st valuator is detached and proceeded for 2nd valuation."
344. As per the above note, double evaluation for all the answer scripts is mandatory. Hence, the evaluation was over burdened. The same evaluators evaluated the both Telugu and English answer scripts, which caused prejudice to the candidates. The 203 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Commission denied all the allegations as baseless, untrue. Initially answer scripts was evaluated by two different evaluators. However, in case where the case of a difference in marks awarded by to two evaluators, exceeds 15% a third evaluation is carried out. Chief Examiner closely monitor the evaluation process to ensure that the scheme of evaluation is strictly implemented in terms of uniformity and fairness.
345. While arguing the matter, this Court asked the Commission if there is any procedure for the evaluation of all answer scripts and any key to that extent? Surprisingly, initially, the Commission stated that there is no key. The Commission replied that all evaluators are subject experts and that it is not the multiple choice question paper to prepare a key, but rather descriptive type answers. Again, the Court, exclusively asked the question, for example 'in Paper VI of the Telangana Movement, one candidate will write with full information within one page some other candidates will write the same in ten pages, under those circumstances, how will the evaluators give the marks?' For this question, there is no new answer and repeated as stated supra. The Commission answer reflects that there is no proper method to 204 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch evaluate the answer scripts. Subsequently, the Commission engaged Senior Counsel and even then also, there is still no proper answer to the Court's satisfaction. Again the Court asked regarding to the key, any method for awarding marks in different answers. For that, the learned Senior Counsel stated that "there is no such key as the Court said, but the Commission prepared key to all the question papers" and then, the Court asked them to produce the same in a sealed cover and accordingly, the Commission finally produced all the certified copies of the key answers in the sealed cover in the open Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the Commission changed its voice time to time, and it is observed in their own affidavits on three occasions. Firstly, the Commission submitted instructions before the Court in the said instructions nothing is mentioned in it but in oral submissions replying to this court as stated supra, secondly, after granting interim direction filed vacate stay petition, in the said vacate stay petition the commission stated that "the examiners valued the scripts well versed in Telugu evaluated Telugu medium answer scripts and adequate subject experts who were engaged to evaluate papers in Telugu, English, Urdu mediums." In addition 205 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch the Commission did not provide any information regarding on the method of evaluation or preparation of the key. Finally, the Commission filed a common additional counter affidavit. In the said affidavit the commission stated as follows "The evaluation process starts with the conduct of chief examiner committee meetings to finalise the answer keys and scheme for all papers including award of marks conduct of control/mock evaluation including briefing and training of evaluator. This was undertaken before the commencement of evaluation of answer scripts." And also stated that "evaluators for Urdu and Telugu medium scripts were trained on par with their English medium counter parts. The evaluation scheme was applied uniformly across all mediums without deviation" In these three affidavits, there is in inconsistency in their own statements regarding the evaluation procedure. So, all these acts of the Commission reflect that there is no proper evaluation, transparency and fairness.
346. While explaining the evaluation method, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Commission said that on 03.07.2025 there are three methods of evaluations in our Country i.e., scaling, normalisation and moderation. The Commission has stated that 206 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch scaling and normalisation is not applicable in this examination. The Commission fully followed moderation method in evaluating the answer scripts. On 25.06.2025, the Commission filed an additional common counter affidavit. In the said additional common counter affidavit, the Commission explained which type of evaluation followed in para No.70 is as follows:-
"The petitioners in W.P.No.11439 of 2025 further allege that no 'moderation/scaling' of marks was carried out in the present examination. It is submitted that 'moderation' or 'scaling' is a method that enables rationalization of grand totals in favour of few disciplines/subjects and is dependent on the pattern and scheme of that examination. It is adopted in examinations, at the discretion of recruiting bodies, which involve multiple optional subjects. However, no such moderation is required in the Group-I examination because all papers are mandatory, and all candidates take the very same exams."
347. Shockingly, the Commission has given contradictory statements and the Court understood that the Commission did not follow any proper method and instead relied solely on its own selected expertise evaluators. The entire evaluation process undermine the sanctity of the Group-I examination.
348. This Court wishes to disclose the marks of one candidate accordingly the petitioners affidavit who studied every day for ten 207 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch to twelve hours while resigning the Corporate job after twelve years, experience of his job appeared for the Group-I examination. The hall ticket number as per the affidavit is 240918176 evaluated this candidate answer scripts and awarded the following marks :-
Paper-1 33 marks
Paper-II 45 marks
Paper-III 10 marks
Paper-IV 8 marks
Paper-V 2 marks
Paper-VI 7 marks
349. The Court was shocked after seeing the awarding marks to this candidate i.e., out of six papers, this candidate awarded single digit marks in four subjects and one subject ten marks. Surprisingly in paper VI i.e. Telangana Movement and State Formation, the candidate awarded single digit marks seven (7) is very shocking. In similar circumstances, who got the lower marks in the examination, several candidates applied for recounting at huge charges i.e., each paper Rs.1,000/-. This is one proof likewise there are several candidates, who were awarded single digit marks and even in some centres selection percentage is "0".
350. The Commission had argued that in all the writ petitions nowhere stated by the petitioners as how their papers awarded 208 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch lower marks. The submissions of the commission that only to stop the appointments petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court which is unacceptable, unreasonable and impermissible.
351. Initially, in its web note, the Commission stated that two evaluations were mandatory, which was also reiterated in its counter affidavit. However, in the vacate stay petition, the Commission did not mention anything about a third evaluation and later it filed an affidavit disclosing the implementation of a third evaluation.
352. Being a constitutional body, while recruitments are taking place, the Commission must follow its own Rules strictly as mentioned in the Rules of Procedure. Under Rule 3(x) reads as follows :-
" (x) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Commission may in consultation with the Government adopt for purposes of recruitment in any particular cases of cases a special procedure as more appropriate than the one prescribed in any of these rules."
353. The above Rule indicates that if the Commission wants to introduce any new system regarding the conduct of examinations and evaluations, it must follow the procedure outlined in the rules 209 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch for the direct recruitment process. Specifically, the Commission must first consult with the Government before adopting such a system for recruitment in any particular case.
354. In the instant case, the Commission has never applied the aforementioned rule and no specific rule has been prescribed for evaluation and there is no discussion in their arguments.
The observations of the Court about the sealed cover information are as follows:-
355. The Commission produced sealed covers, seven in number of seven papers including the qualifying exam key, in the open Court in three languages.
1) All the sealed covers consist of question papers and keys.
2) All three language papers are certified by the Additional Secretary.
3) Paper-2 original key not found, checked soft copy with true copy and the same was informed by the Commission.
4) In Paper-5, some pages lack a signature.
210 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
5) Firstly, in some instructions were given to the evaluators for grading, such as, 0-9 very poor, 10-19 poor, 20-29 - Good, 30-39- Very good and 40 and above is excellent. (Marks under excellent category to be awarded in consultation with the Chief Examiner). Secondly, some keys given other grading i.e, 0-2 very poor, 3-4 poor, 5-6 good, 7 very good, above 8 outstanding. Note observed as awarded more than eight marks the Chief Examiner should be consulted. Thirdly, 0-2 very poor, 2-3 poor, 4-5 good, 6-7 very good, 8 above excellent. Marks under the excellent category are to be awarded in consultation with the Chief Examiner. Fourthly, 0-1 very poor, 2-3 poor, 4-5 good, 6-7 very good, 8 above excellent.
6) Regarding some keys, there are no general instructions which for others there are general instructions.
7) Sealed covers containing question papers also. But, all the question papers are only in bilingual English and Telugu, and there are no questions in the Urdu language in any of the question papers.
211 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
8) With regard to the key, there is no proper explanation in relation to the answers. Some of the keys showing only sub-headings and there is no description and some of the keys, there is an elaborate description. Some keys are showing two types of grading figures.
356. Based on the above observation of the sealed cover information, this Court believes that the Commission did not follow a uniform method to evaluate the answer scripts. There is no discussion in the entire commission's arguments regarding of the evaluation of the answer scripts and the awarding of grades. While fixing the grading there is a note if any candidate awarded excellent/outstanding marks, evaluators have to consult the Chief Examiner. Even this also nowhere, discussed in the entire arguments by the Commission, and there is no mention regarding grading in Commissions counter. It was very shocking.
c) Telugu Medium candidates were neglected:-
357. One of the allegations is that who wrote Group-I examination in Telugu medium, their answer scripts are neglected and not evaluated in a proper method. To substantiate the 212 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Commission's arguments as well as in the common affidavit, they submitted as follows:-
"Degree college faculty teach both the English and Telugu medium graduation students and are competent enough to evaluate the Group-I mains exam papers. For all languages, adequate numbers of the evaluators who have taught and who are teaching in the respective mediums have been identified by the Commission. The Commission thoroughly identifies and accommodates the subject experts from across the Country.
Again, this answer is showing the ambiguity of the stand of the Commission. There is no specification on how many evaluators are allotted for English script evaluation, Telugu script evaluation and Urdu script evaluation. In any answer scripts, English version and Telugu version may not be the same. There must be a different verbatim in English and Telugu. Another shocking aspect is that on 16.04.2025, the Commission issued instructions in the open court. In the said instructions, one of the document with heading "Important instructions of the candidates". In that point No.32 read as follows :-
213 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch "For evaluation purpose, (though English version would be taken as a reference under normal circumstance) a balanced view would be taken after comparing English/Telugu and Urdu version of the subject paper."
358. As per their own instructions, if the evaluators are experts in English, Telugu, Urdu, they could have had a reference in each language. Then, the question of English version taken as a reference under normal circumstances would not arise.
359. The second answer referred by the Commission is that the evaluation of the Telugu medium candidates answer scripts fully justified. To support their arguments, the compared the neighbouring State APPSC Telugu medium qualified candidates with the TGPSC Telugu medium qualifying candidates. However, the reality is that, APPSC follows three-tier system i.e., prelims, mains and interview. That means, Telugu medium candidates are filtered in three stages. Whereas TGPSC Group-I candidates filtered only in two tier i.e., prelims and mains. If this is the reality, how the Commission compared the qualifying Telugu students of Andhra Pradesh and the Telangana State, it is very miserable and also they said in their additional counter as follows :-
214 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch "A comparison with the selection of the candidates in the Group-I examination in the Andhra Pradesh reveals that the figures from both the States are broadly similar, hence it is baseless."
360. To support their arguments, as document No.4 captioned as 'Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Vijayawada, Statement of Candidates for Medium Wise for Group-I Service stated that as per the Tabular form 2016, (1) 3900 candidates appeared. Out of that, 11 from telugu, 59 from English, total 76. Likewise (2) in 2018, 2482 for Telugu medium, 6053 in English medium, total 9,679. Out of the said number, 14 from Telugu, 151 from English in Total 165 candidates were selected. In 2022 (3), 1834 for Telugu, 4381 for English, total 6455. The selected candidates out of this nine from telugu, 102 from English, total
111. In 2023 (4), mains examination was not yet finalized.
361. Whereas in Telangana State, at the second tabular form indicating the TGPSC, Hyderabad, details of the medium wise number of candidates picked up for certificate verification in the Group-I (Notification No.2 of 2024). The said Tabular form English medium 12,381 candidates were appeared. Out of them, 506 candidates picked up. Telugu medium 8,694 appeared only 215 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch 56 candidates picked up. Urdu 10 candidates appeared only one candidate picked up. The Commission, while comparing the success rate of Telugu medium they said that there is no unusual difference in the selection candidates for the Telugu medium. But, reality is that in APPSC selection was three-tier system. It means, candidates will filter three phases i.e., prelims, mains and interview. Then the final number of selected candidate will be announced. Where as in Telangana TGPSC candidates will filtered in two phases i.e., prelims and mains. Under the said circumstances, how they will the Commission compare the selected Telugu candidates from Andhra to Telangana. However, the arguments of the Commission is unacceptable.
362. In W.P.No.16653 of 2025, on 24.03.2025 nearly 110 candidates who appeared for the Telugu medium made a representation before the Commission for revaluation of their Telugu scripts and some others also applied for the same. At a stretch, a several number of candidates seeking revaluation, it indicates the agony of the candidates, who wrote satisfactorily in Telugu. It gives strength that there is no fairness and transparency in evaluating the Telugu answer scripts.
216 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
363. For the English medium, 12,381 candidates attended, out of which picked up 506 i.e., 89.88%. Telugu medium 8,694 candidates attended, out of which only 56 candidates picked up i.e., 9.95%. Urdu medium, 10 candidates attended, out of which only one candidate picked up i.e., 10%. Upon examining the comparison figures above, it is clear that injustice has been done to the Telugu medium candidates.
d) The highest qualified candidates in specific centres.
364. Regarding the highest marks the Commission stated that in Paper VI maximum marks is 100 and no candidate has achieved a highest marks in Paper VI. For the candidates, who have not applied for recounting, the Commission has not changed any marks. Only for the candidate, who has applied for recounting, recounting has been under taken as per norms and procedure. It is entirely incorrect to state that the marks were changed without recounting.
365. The petitioner's allegation is that in Centre Code Nos.18 and 19, the highest female candidates were selected. To substantiate this, the Commission's Counsel produced document No.1 with the 217 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch caption Group-I Services (2/2024 Mains examination centre wise overall and female percentage of picked up (563). Accordingly their own document, female candidates were allotted to a total of 28 centres out of which, in centers 18 and 19, 71 female candidates were picked up. It means on average 35.5 girls per centre were selected, whereas remaining 26 centres, 139 female candidates were selected. It means on average 5.35 girls per centre were selected. The figures are show as disparity between the average of the two centres and the average of the remaining centres. Hence, there is a significant amount of variance which is unacceptable, and these figures establish the allegations of the petitioners.
366. Regarding the allegations of the unofficial respondents, it is that without disclosing petitioners' hall ticket numbers and marks, the petitioners do not have locus standi to question the examination. It is incorrect to say because the petitioners filed their hall tickets and memorandum of marks as enclosures in the writ petition. The other allegation of the unofficial respondents is that the writ petitions are not maintainable unless the successful candidates are made party respondents. It is also incorrect to say that the fact remains no petitioner is questioning the selection of 218 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch successful candidates the writ petitioners questioning the acts of the commission such as procedural irregularities and evaluation. Moreover, the selection process is under way.
e) Commission awarded the same marks to certain candidates :
367. Several candidates who wrote the main examination were awarded same marks. The commission, in its common counter affidavit, accepted that the same marks were granted to 719 candidates, which is unusual. The commission on this aspect stated that in the marks range of 430-439.5, 440 candidates had got same marks which is usual in a highly competitive exam. This argument of the commission is not appreciated since Table I refers to the same marks but Table II refers to range of marks. It can be understood that in a competitive exam a number of persons can have same marks, but not with adjacent hall ticket numbers. The similar marks obtained by more than 500 candidates is look unnatural. Accordingly to their additional common counter affidavit two tables were disclosed. For clarification, a few particulars are given below :-
219 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch TABLE-I S.No. Hall Ticket Hall Ticket Marks Number No. No. candidates the same marks.
1. 240902470 240902471 253.00 28
2. 240905307 240975308 373.50 54
3. 240905438 240905439 270.50 46
4. 240906410 240906411 301.50 50
5. 240910439 240910440 393.50 51 TABLE-II Range of marks Number of candidates 500-550 52 490-499.5 29 480-489.5 62 470-479.5 92 460-469.5 154
368. The Commission comparison in between same marks and range marks is legally unsustainable and defective.
220 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch Conclusion:
369. After analysing the submissions of all the counsels, case laws, and the material available on record, this Court feels that the Commission, while conducting the Group-I Mains Examination had not maintained transparency, integrity, acted in biased manner and deviated their own Rules.
370. Due to the Commission's negligence and inefficiency, the affected individuals are the unemployee youth of Telangana State.
The candidates have spent a substantial amount on coaching classes, studying 10 to 12 hours a day and some candidates had resigned their jobs for the sake of preparation for this exam. The Commission failed in both procedural aspects and evaluation method, which is impermissible.
371. Although, there have been two instances of cancellation of Group-1 examination, the Commission has not learnt from its previous experience.
372. In view of the foregoing discussions and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned above, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
221 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
(a) The Final Marks List dated 10.03.2025 as well as General Ranking List (GRL) dated 30.03.2025 are hereby set aside.
(b) The respondent authorities are directed to re-evaluate all the answer scripts of the Group-1 mains examination by applying the moderation method in terms of Sanjay Singh and Anr. Vs. U.P.Public Service Commission, Allahabad (2007 (3) SCC 720), manually and announce the results. Based upon such results, the respondents authorities are directed to take steps for filling up of said 563 posts.
(OTHERWISE)
(c) This Court is inclined to cancel the Group-I Mains examination. The respondent authorities are directed to re-conduct the Group-I Mains examination in Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024, for those who have succeeded in the prelims examination.
222 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch
d) The above said exercise should be completed within a period of eight (08) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J Date: 09.09.2025 Note:
L.R.Copy to be marked (B/o) Prv