High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF IVIANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No.3 in not adding the marks to the wrong and invalid questioni.e-Question1d.26544815862,26544815863'26544815864, 26544815865 and 26544815866 in TS-SET-2024, Social work code-27- Paper- 01 to consider the candidature of petitioner as qualified, despite of the objections of the petitioner to the said questions as illegal, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent authorities particularly respondent No.03 to add the marks to the wrong and invalid questions i.e. Question ld.26544815862, 26544815863, 26544815864, 26544815865 and 26544815866 in TS-SET-2024, Social work, code-27- Paper- O 1 to consider the candidature of the petitioner as qualified' lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under section r 5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the writ petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent 03 to allow the petitioner for certificate verification. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI yEDDU DMKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR HIGHER EDUCATION COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENT NOS.2 & 3: SRI MALIPiDDI SRINIVAS REDDY, SC FOR OU The Court made the following: ORDER I HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITToN No.7855 OF 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliet ".. .to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No3 in not adding the -u.k, to the wrong and invalid question i'e' Question Id'26544815862' 26544815863, 26i448r5864, 26544815865 and 26544815866 in TS- SET.2)24,SocialWorkCode-27-Paper-0ltoconsiderthecandidahrre ofpetitioner as qualified, despite ofthe obj ections. of the petitioner to the saii questions as illegal, undonstitutional, against the principles of naturai justice and consequently direct the respondent authorities particularly respondent No. 03 to add the marks to the wrong and invalid questions i.e. Question Id.265448 I 5862, 26544815863, 26544815864' iesqqlts86S and 26544815866 in TS-SET-2024, Social Work Code- 27- Payier-}| to consider the candidature of the petitioner as qualified andpass..."

2.HeardMr.YedduDivakar,leamedcounselforthepetitioner; Mr. Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for Osmania University, appearing for respondents No'2 and 3; and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that respondents No'2 and 3 announced holding of the State Eligibility Test (TG-SET) between lO.Og.2O24 and 13.09.2024 for determining the eligibility of the candidates for the posts of Assistant Professor & Lecturer in Telangana 2 universities and Colleges. It is submitted that respondents No.2 and 3 issued notification dared 04.05-2024 inviting applications ffom eligible candidates. The petitioner applied for the TG_SET Exam for the category of Social Work and was issued a Hall Ticket bearing No.4402030179. The examination pattern comprised of paper_I (50 questions _ 100 marks) and Paper-II (100 questions - 200 marks) and the quariling criteria to be considered for 'Eligibility for Assistant professor/Lecturer, is that the candidate must have appeared in both the papers and secured atleast 40%o aggreqate marks in both the papers taken together for General (Unreserved) category candidates. It is stated that the petitioner appeared for the exam on ll.09.2024 in morning session and she attempted all 150 questions in Paper-I and paper-Il. As per provisional key uploaded in the website, the petitioner has scored about 54 marks in paper_I and 100 marks in Paper-II; a grand total of I 54 marks was scored by the petitioner. It is submitted that along with the provisional key, respondents No.2 and 3 issued response sheet to veril! the score in detail - and to raise objections if any. While going through the response sheet, it was found that five (5) data interpretation questions were unreasonable and invalid i.e. euestion Id. Nos.265448r5862, 26544g15863, 26544815864, 26544815865 and 26544815866. It is submined on ,.- -rt 3

23.09.2024, respondents No.2 and 3 issued a notification inviting the candidates to raise objections if any on provisional key uploaded in the website. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner raised objections with regard to the said hve (5) wrong questions through online as per the module prescribed by respondents No.2 and 3. However, the objections of the petitioner were not considered.

4.Itisfurthersubmittedthatwithoutconsideringtheobjections raised by the petitioner with rigard to the five (5) wrong questions' respondent No.3 released'the final results of TS-SET 2024 ot

16.11.2024. The respondent authorities issued final results along with cut-off percentage for qualihcation of candidates to different categories. As the petitioner belongs to BC-A category, the qualiffing percentage' in general cut-off, was shown as 53 '33Yo' As such, the petitioner submitted representation dated 02.01.2025 requesting respondents No.2 and 3 to add marks towards wrong and invalid questions and she was informed that the objections raised by her with regard to the said frve (5) data interpretation questions were invalid. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. 4

5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that the petitioner raised objections with regard to hve (5) data interpretation questions claiming that they are invalid and unreasonable. The matter was placed befbre the subject experts, who upon evaluation found the said questions to be correct and deemed valid and the correct answers were already reflected in the provisional key. The objections raised by all the candidates, including the petitioner, were duly examined by a panel of subject matter experts and the same were rejected. It is stated that the final results were released by respondent No.3 only after examining the objections raised by the candidates. That representation dated 02.01.2025 was responded by letter of respondent No.3 dated

06.02.2025 that contained a rypographical error which was promptly corrected through revised letter dated lo.oz.2oz5. The assertion of the petitioner that adequate clarification was not provided is incorrect. On 18.01.2025, meeting of the advisory committee consisting of five (5) eminent professors, who are subject matter experts in their respective domain, was held to address the objections/representations received in various subjects of History & Paper-l of physical Education/Social work pertaining to TG-SET 2024 and, decided thar specific objections in the unit relating to Data Interpretation are not valid. The decision of the .{ 5 committee is hnal and it was communicated to the petitioner on

10.02.2025.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the five (5) data interpretation questions which are filed as Ex.P-2 (page Nos.18 to 22). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the said five (5) questions do not contain conect answers. In sub- question No.31, the candidate was asked to answer 'In which of the following companies, is the percentage growth in the exports highest from 2019 to 2022, as pel the bar-graph indicated therein?'. It is submitted that the bar graph refers to the growth of each company from the year 2020 to 2023. However, the question was asked regarding the percentage ofthe highest growth in exports from 2019 to 2022. Thus, the said question is invalid as the percentage of growth in 2019 was not indicated. It is contended that similar mistakes have been committed in respect of the questions No.32 to 35. 7 . Leamed Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersr wherein it was held as under: ' izorr; z scc:sz 6 " 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation goveming an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting il) 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 rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the maffer and academic matters are best left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the leamed Single Judge? took it upon himself to acnrally ascertain the corectness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible. "

8. The advisory committee, in its meeting held on 18.01.2025, disposed of the objections of the petitioner as under: " l . With regard to complaints pertaining to Paper-l of Physical Education & Social Work, the Committee after thorough discussion resolved, that the specific objections in the unit relating to Data Interpretation are not valid. The objections are invalid on account of incorrect comprehension of the data which requires adequate degree of logical reasoning & numerical intelligence on the part of candidates.

2. With regard to the complaints expressed in person by five(5) History candidates the Committee resolved as follows: 7 "As the queries raised by the 5 candidates pertain to specific subject History' these questions wilt be forwarded to Prof' G' Sudharshan Reddy subject expert' for lo&ing into the renewed objections. Further, it is to be reiterated that for all the coifidential works of TG- SET Office, the subject experts are draum lrom across the countrY." " g. As seen from the above, the advisory cor nittee considered the objections of the petitioner in its meeting held on 18'01'2025 and concluded that the said objections were invalid' This Court cannot interfere with the decision of the experts of the advisory committee as held in Ran VijaY Singh's case. l0.IntheconsideredopinionofthisCourt,thepetitionerhasnotmade out any case, for exercising the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constifutionoflndia.Accordingly,thiswritpetitionisdismissed' There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any' pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI STSTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI YE DDU DIVAKAR, Advocate [O Two CCs to GP FO R HIGHER EDUCATION, HighCo urt for the State of Telang ana, at HYderabad. [OUT] MAL IPEDDI SRIN IVAS REDDY, SC FOR OU [OPUC]

3. One CC to SRI 4. Two CD CoPies To 1 2 PS HIGH COURT DATED:23 t06t2025 ORDER WP.No.7855 of 2O2S DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t ,/',-',, ,.,,' -r i,if;l::\. t C_ \ 2l AU8 2025 i ':i.:. _:-'