Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.

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.

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.