High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S.SATYAM REDDY, Sr. CC tJNSEL, REp. FOR SMT B.RAJESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: Gp FOR SERVICES.II Counsel for the Respondent No.5: ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER 1 6 6 s & ('' 6 G & t! HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA^IESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 1417 of 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the hfth responden t 1n issuing the Addendum dated 12.06.2023 to the Notification No.O3 of 2022 dated 30.12.2022, changing the prescribed pattern of examination from OMR (Optical Mark Reader) with CBT (Computer Based Test) and prescribing normalization of marks as illegal, and set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of Smt. B. Raj eswari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services II, appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent No.5. Perused the material available on record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are Graduates in Nursing, which is a Four Years course They are eligible to be appointed as a Stalf Nurse. The frfth respondent issued Notihcation bearing No.3/2022, dated

30.12.2022, inviting applications for the posts of Staff Nurse for l I 2 various departments. The selection procedure is lr::sed upon 1OO points, out of rvhich, 8O points are for.the perc,: ntage of marks obtained in the Written Examination and 20 point:, irre for services in State Government Hospitals / lnstitutions / P:ogrammes on a contract / outsourced basis. Apart from others, ,l-r: Written Test was conducted on O2.Oa.2O23. The marks obta red by all the candidates who appeared for the Written Exa.linations were declared on 28.12.2023. On the same day, within l-alf al hour of the release of rnarks, the Provisional Selection canclidates list was declared. The list for verification of mark sheet u,irs also declared on the same day, within 10 minutes of the de r:laration of the Provisiona,l Selection list. The petitioners secur€ 1 the following marks as per the first marks list released on 28.72. .).t)23: 1"t etitioner 2"d petitioner 3rd petitioner 4rl, etitioner: etitioner 6rh etitioner 7th etitioner titioner 8th 9rh etitioner 1orh etitioner 11rh etitioner Marks obtained <a l 53 <A 49 49 50 55 55 56 49 55

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after the release of the list of marks, without even mentioning the cut off marks, the list of provisional selected candidates was declared on the website of the respondents. The respondents issued a web notice on 78.12.2023 stating that the Norma-lization of marks in Computer Based Test (CBT) Weightage marks will be released. There cannot be any Normalization of marks. The Notification No.O3/2022 dated 30.12.2022 does not speak of Normalization of marks. It should have been the marks obtained in the CBT + Weightage marks. Further, it is stated that the marks are normalized. It is not specified which system is used for the Normalization of marks. The selection of cahdidates should be considered based on the marks obtained by.them in the Written Examination + Weightage marks. The following is the difference of the marks obtained by the petitioner after Norrnalization:

1.t petitioner 2nd peLitioner 3.d petitioner 4th petitioner 5th petitioner 6th petitioner 7th petitioner 8th petitioner 9th petitioner 1oth etitioner Marks before Normalisation 52 53 54 49 49 50 55 55 56 49 Marks after Normalisation 48.88 52.237 49.893 47 48.432 45 52.2 52.O23 53 46.t75 1 lth etitioner 4 55 +',/.304 As seen from the above list, it is clear tha.t in the name of normalization, the marks of the petitioners are ret- t, ced. Petitioners are aggrieved by the norm afizalion since there is rtc normalrzation procedure prescribed in the Notihcation, dated 3) 12.2022. After the reduction of the marks also, the respot'd ents have not specifled the basis on which they have reduced th,: marks.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further -"r-rbmits that the Written Test was conducted in three (03) sh.1t s u.ithout any justihcation. Approximately 38,000 students ,rppeared in the Written Test, and there is no reason why the competitive examinations should be held in three shifts. The rr:spondents have assigned different weightages to those u,ho al-,l:eared in three different shifts, rx'hich is attributed to the fact thi, 1 the test papers were different and some questions Were Irr:l l-e challenging; therefore, they have awarded additional marks contra-ry to the established lega1 selection process

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further -.ubmits that as per Notification No.03/2O22, dated 30.12.2022, Para 13.2, the examinations rvould be based on OMR (Optical M:r -k Recognition) 5 However, this has been changed to a Computer Based Test, which is illegal. The respondents cannot change the method of examinations after the Notification was issued on 3o. 12.2022. The respondents should not have cha,ged the scheme of examinations from OMR to CBT which also induced conducting CBT examinations in three shifts and subsequently adjusting the marks based on the difhcult questions, which is also impermissible. 7 . Learned counser for the petitioners further submits that the Sta-ff Nurses who are regularly appointed before 30. I2.2O22 and. working, as such, have also appeared in the present test. They have been awarded weightage marks (O 2.5/2 points for 6 months of completed services in Tribai Area/Non-Tribar Area respectivery, The respondents have given 20 marks both for regular service and also for service on a contract basis before to these appointments in the year 2O2I. According to the petitioners, knowledge and belief, over 300 working Staff Nurses got weightage marks, to which they are not eligible. The service weightage marks cannot be given to outsourced staff nurses. At best, it ca, be given to those who are working on a contract basis. In the provisiona_l List, some individuals who had sought weightage, were not considered for 6 weightage and were accordingly, listed as such l)ubsequently' they have been awarded weightage marks f ir r contract I outsourced emPloYment. 8- Learned counsel for the petitioners further r'trbmits that in the Notification No.O3 of 2022, dated 30'12'2022 the vacancies called for, are for 5204 posts' The examinations 'r ':re conducted only for these posts. Subsequently, 1890 posts u': 13 added The respondents are now about to frll the 7O94 posts i-r total' which is illegal and contrar.v to the Notification, dated 30'12")'O22' g.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersfurtherl;ttllmltsthatin all the competitive examinations, the minimum quz:lihcation maJks for Written Exam.inations are always prescribet: Otherwise' it would defeat the very purpose of competitive exanl jtrations' Some persons, who have secured less than 20 marks jr-r the Written Examinations, have also been shown as selected 'rnly because of weightage marks. The candidates, who securet:L less than 40 marks, are listed as selected, with a number of gtrii In view of the large scale of irregularities made in the selecti rtr process' the selection made pursuant to the notification N':' '3/2022, dated

30.12.2022, is liable to be set aside. If the same is not done, the 7 petitioners would suffer irreparable ioss and ittjury' Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court'

10. Learned counsel for, respondent No.S hled counter ald submits that the relief as sought for by the petitioners, is misconceived and untenable. The Medical and Health Services Recruitment Board (MHSRB) issued a Notification on 30 'I2 '2022 to fill 5,2O4 posts of Staff Nurses under various departments' Additionally, 189O posts were added later through a web notice, dated 15. 12.2023. Thus, total number of posts are 7,094' An 'Ad.dendum' to the original notihcation was issued on 12'06'2023, wherein, it was informed to the applicants that after due deliberations, MHSRB has decided to conduct a Computer Based Test (CBT), instead of OMR based test.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.S further submits that a total of 40,926. applications have been received, which are more than the capacity available in the State to conduct CBT in one shift. Therefore, the exam would be conducted in a multi shift mode in three shifts. A merit list would be prepared after normalizing the scores of the candidates to account for variation in the difhculty levels of the question papers across different shifts. The shifts would be allotted to candidates randomly by the 8 computer. The following formula of normaliz:L:ton was also described in the Addendum: Normalized marks of the caldidate =GASD+ GTA GASD x(Marks obtained by the candidate in a sh:1t-SASD) (STA.SASD) Where: SASD: Sum of Average (A) and Standard DeviatiorL iSD) of a shift in wh.ich the candidate appeared. GASD: Sum of Average (A) and Standard Deviatior' 1SD) of ail the candidates across all shifts put togeth()t. STA: Average mark of the top O.lok of the caldi<lares of a shift in vvhich the candidate appeared. GTA: Average mark of the top O.l'k of all the car,ljdates across all the shifts put together.

12. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 furth,:r submits the Computer Based lest was conducted on 02.08.2O'.,.\ in three shifts in 39 centers across four cities, viz., Hydeti:bad, Warangal, Khammam and Nizamabad. The .prelimina:-'v k"y of the examination was released on 07.O8.2023, and tht: ::pplicants $rere requested to submit objections, if any, on the preliminary key online in their logrn from 07.O8.2023 to 09.Oa.2O2)'.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 furthc - submits that the Subject Experts have examined the objectirr:rs filed by the caldidates. Based on the inputs from the Subject Experts, the key $ Committee finalized the final key. The hnal key was communicated to the applicants through a Web notice on

18.12.2023. Based on the final key, and marks obtained for contract/ outsourced service in Government Institutions, the provisional merit list was drawn up on 28. 12.2023- Thereafter, the caldidates, who are in the merit list, were called for verifrcation of their certificates in a ratio of l:1.25.

14. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that after the certificate verifrcation, the hnal merit list of the Staff Nurse was drawn up. The final selection of staff nurses was also announced on 28.01.2024. Thetealter, the selected candidates have been issued appointment orders by the respective Departments.

15. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that, the petitioners herein, who have appeared for the Computer Based Test, were well aware of the fact that normalization of their scores would be done as indicated in the addendum to the Notification. The procedure of normalization is not new for competitive exarns. Various recruiting agencies followed it. In fact, the Staff Selection Commission, way back in the year 2019, in its notice dated

07.O2.2O19, informed the applicants that the Staff Selection E 10 Commission had decided to normalize the scores of candidates for the examinations which are conducted in multi :;hifts to take into account any varizrtion rn the difficulty levels of th,, rluestion papers across different shifts.

16. Learned cotrnsel for respondent No.5 furthe: s;ubmits that, in mary other competitive exarns, also like rrrlmissions into engineering courses in IITS, EAMCET, etc., normalization of marks is followed. Hor-r'ble Supreme Court declared thzLt the principle ol estoppel comes into play, against a caldidate wl'<; challenges thc selection process, after having failed in it. In Malr sh Kumar Shahi State of Bih:rr, reported in (2OlOl 12 SCC :;'76, the Hon'ble Supreme Courl at- Para (16) has held thus:- " 16. We also agree uith the High Court tha'. tfier hauirtg tokert part in the process of selection kr'.::tL,irt!l fuLIg utell tl-tat more than 19o/o marks haue tteerL earmarked l or uiua uoce test, the petitioner ,:; not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selattion. Surelg, iJ' tht petitioner's name had appeared 't the meit list, lrc would not haue euen drea.m tl of challenginq the selection. The petitioner ir utked jurisdictiort of the High Court under 226 L.i the Constituti()n of India only ajler he found tlnt his tr amct does not Jiqure in the merit list prepared L'\ the Comrnissiorr. Tltis conduct of the petitioner ,1,, o.rlll i ..---e$td-;i::i 11 t disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit anA error bg refusing to entertain the u.trit petition." In Ashok Kumar vs State of Bihar, reported rn (20171 4 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para numbers 12 & 13 has held thus: " 12. The appellants participated in the fresh process o/ selection. If the appellants u)ere aggrieued by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it uas onlg upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the u.tit petition- This uas clearly not open to the appelLants. The principle of estoppel u.tould operate."

13. The laut, on the subject hns been crystallized in seueral decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakosh Tiwai u. Slrulcuntalo Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwai u. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127: 2OO2 SCC (L&S) 8301, this Court laid doun the pinciple that uhen a candidate appears at an exomination uithout objection and is subsequentlg found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining o petition challenging an examination utould not arise u..,here a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequentlg turn around and contend tLnt the process utas unfair or that there uas a lacuna therein, merelg because the result is not polatable. In Union of .f'1 1,2 India u- S. l'inodh Kumar [Union of India u. S. riitodh Kumor, (2007) I SCC 1OO: (2OO7) 2 SCC (L&::t) 7921 this Court held that: /SCC P 1O7, Pora 18) " 18. )t is also u.tell settled that tln..:e'- candid.ates who had taken part in tr .it selecticn process knou-ting fullg well tr.t: procedure laid doun therein u€r€ entitled to question the same. 1S,:'r: Munindra Kumur u. Rajiu Gouil [Munindrtl Kumar u. Rajiu Gouil, (1991) - ISCC 36,1: 1991 SCC (L&S) 10521 and Rashmi Mishu.t u. M.P. Public Seruice Commission [Rashr,t.i Mishrct u. M.P. F\tblic Seruice Commissio;t. (2006) 12 SCC 724: (2oo7) 2 SCC fr&,)-) s4s)."

17. I-earned counsel for respondent No.5 furttLe;' submits that, Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, irr its order, dated 0l.06.202l in W.A.No.809 of 2079, had upheld llie normalization procedure followed by Telalgana State Police Re rruitment Board The claim of the petitioners that MHSRB hac released ma-rks

28.12.2023 as shown at para (4) of the writ petitr:;rr is not correct On 28.I2.2O23, MHSRB uploaded the Pror.isionrJ Merit List of applicants, which included in addition to or.LL:r detaiis, the normalized marks obtained by each applicant. '1'he procedure for normalization was clearly elaborated in the addendum issued on 13 F t2.o6.2023.

18. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that, under Para No.22 of the original Notihcation, dated 31.12.2022, it was stipulated as under: "22. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS: Appliconts are directed to uisit the Board's Website (htts:/ / mlsra.telangana.gou.in) regularlg to knotu the latest deuelopments of this recntitment and any cLnnges / modificotions/ results/ calling of applicants for ueification of Certificates etc. Applicants moA note thot indiuidual communication shall not be made. Hence, theg must regularlg uisit tlte MHSRB uebsite for updotes."

19. Learned counsel for respondent No.S further submits that, under the aforesaid circumstances, tJre candidates cannot contend lack of knowledge in relation to arry subsequent modifications or changes to the original Notihcation, and they are estopped from raising the said ground. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. .l

1.4 20 . Perusal of the record reveals that initiall., . at the time of admission on 30.Ol .2024, the following interim lr':der was passed by this Court. The operative portion is as follows: "Hauing giuen consideration to the submts:;ions made bg the respectiue parties, prima faor: this Cou.rt ts of the uietu that the issue raised ot the Writ Petition needs an extensiue conside'n,tion. ThereJore, to meet the ends of justic,: the respondents are permitted to go ahead u,tlt the selection process. Hotueuer, the responde,'.t s ore directed to keep 11 posts uacdnt, pot ding further orders of this Court. "

21. The contention of the petitioners is that the sr:lection process adopted by the respondent authorities is arbitrrrrv and involves issuing various instructions contrary to the Notifr,::ation No.3l2022 dated 30.12.2O2t1,. It is not correct; the respor lr:nt authorities, with the information, they had issued the adclr..rdum. In the Notification itself , they observed in para No.22, a r; stated supra. The first marks list was released on 28 .72 .20'||3 . In the said marks list, all the 1 1 petitioners got the marks irL between 49 to

56. After normalization, there is variation in the pet itioners' marks as stated supra. 15

22. The petitioners contended that nothing is stated about norma-lization in the Notihcation No.3/2022. The said Notifrcarion does not speak the norma,lization of the marks. However, if aly changes take place, as per paragraph No.22, ca:rdidates must regularly visit the Website. The respondent authorities have given the addendurn on 12.06.2023. The said addendum reads as follows: "8. 'the main aim of normalization is to ensure that no student gets aduontage/ disad.uantage due to multiple sh,Jts "The normalization process brings all candidates across all shlfs on a comparatiue scale. Due to this process, the mark-s of the easA shifr. mag reduce ,marginallg and marks of hard shtjt_ maA increase marginollg on the global scale. This depend.s exactlg on the ouerage perfonnance in each session. Since care is taken to prepare papers of equal drfficultg, these changes are expected to be uery marginal. The foltotuing normalization procedure utill be adopted uhich is being folloued bg other competitiue examinations in India to auoid aduantage/ disadzantage to candidates in a particular shifi compared. to the other shifis. "

23. The information of normal ization given in addendum is much before hrst marks list. If petitioners had any grievance regarding \ 't I 16 normalization, they would have challenged it r: s soon as the addendum was issued by the authorities. Withr:r.rt doing so, they waited for normzrlization marks. After getting l,:,ruer marks after normalization, the petitioners' case carnot be cor-Lsidered. On this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dis n-issed. However, on 1.8.O6.2025, rvhile arguing the matter, learne I counsel for the respondents informed this Court that the recruitrnent is over by

31.01.2024 itself 24 . It is pertinent to mention here that thc, Lrgh there is an interim order grarted by this Court on 3O.Ol.')-(t24 to keep 1 1 posts vacant pending further orders of thir; Court. But, unfortunately, the respondent authorities did no1 ,:isclose whether the petitioners are qualified or not after addir-L1z the weightage marks. The respondent authorities did not everL rlisclose in their counter affidavit whether the petitioners are quaiifi.:d or not. They even did not disclose whether they have kept v:rt.: lnt 11 posts or not in view of the above interim direction.

25. In the said circumstances, this Court is r l the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of t,y directing the respondent authorities to disclose final marks inr:lrrding weightage marks, if any, of the petitioners. In vieu, of tlrt: interim order - 17 grarted by this Court, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and ltll up the vacalcies, if any available, in accordalce with law.

26. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Misceilaneous petitions, if aly, pending shall stand closed. SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, l.TheChiefSecretarytoGovernment,General^AdministrationDepartment, ' s;;r"tr;;t nvo"no'ro, state of relangana-500 022 2. The Principal Secretary to Govt, -Medical, - D;ril";I b""rei"riit'Hvderabad, State of Telangana-500 022 3. The Director, Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of Telangana' - 4. The Director, Medical Education, Governrnent of Telangana, sultan Bazar' Suttan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 00'1 Health and F-amily Welfare Koti, Hyderabad - 500 001

5.TheMemberSecretary,MedicalandHealth^ServicesRecruitmentBoard,old " C'ii;;i FW auiroing' 6ivi'r.o us C'mpus, sultan Bazar' Koti' Hvderabad 6. One CC to SMT B RAJESWARI, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two ccs to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] B. Two ccs to GP FOR SERVICES-I|, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD CoPies BSR BS + {t $ e. ,i + {1 + i i 6 +1 f * + t! s HIGH COURT oarED: oztlotzozs ( ti- gF TEi., s .i- LL & N n,.\ ,I, l, '('l; ;f j,' :.r,J ,,'/ ORDER WP.No.1417 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS lo lu' I