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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF lVlANDAl,/US declaring the result notification for interviews ...RESPONDENTS dated 21-06-2019 in respect of notification NO.20/2015&1712016 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to even the division Bench Judgment of this court inWA 152512018 and batch and by nullifying the same direct preparation fresh list by deleting all those OMRs where part B was tampered/scratched/erased/whitenered or otherwise dealt with. I Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the result notification for interviews dated.21-06-20'19 in respect of notification No.2012015&1 7/2016 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. 1 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to delete the hail ticket Nos.2003000600, 2006001070, 2006010416, 2007019445, 2008013727, 2008040598, 2009060363, 2009070990, 2009097333, 2009100285, 2009104789, 2009109737, 2009159967, 2009178514, 2009180768, 2009267483, 2009269214, 2009276765, 2009292942 of the candidates from the final list and further direct the 2nd respondent to recast the final select list as per the merit and use of whitener of candidate list hall ticket Nos.2OO30152 47, 2004036683, 2008031678, Tlect 20090927 66, 2009292928. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Dr. P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR GENERAL npfuru. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGSPSC Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 6: M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.7 to 9: SRI J.CHANDRAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.10 to 20: SRI K.KIRAN MAYEE The Court made the following: ORDER -tJ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA IURIT PETITION No. 2Oa32 OF 2019 ORDER: Petitioners f-rled this Writ Petition to declare the result notification for interviews dated 21.06.2019 in respect of Notification Nos. 2Ol2Ol5 and 17/2016 issued by the 2nd respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to even the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and batch and by nullifying the same, direct preparation of fresh list by deleting all those OMRs. where Part B was tarnpered I scratched/erased /whitenered or otherwise dealt with.

2. The case of petitioners is that the 2nd respondent, in exercise of its powers as the recruiting authority, had issued Notification No 2012o15 dated 30.12.2015 inviting A$plications for recruitment to various posts under Group-ll Services. Subsequently, Supplementary Notification No.17/2016 dated

01.09.20 16 was issued, adding further vacancies, thereby bringing the total number of notified posts to lO32 across thirteen categor:ies of posts. Petitioners, being eligible and qualilied candidates belonging to BC category, applierl for the said posts and participated in the written examination. Though 2 one of the petitioners found place in the selection list, remaining petitioners, despite being more meritorious, were pushed downward in the final merit list due to the unlawful inclusion of .candidates whose oMR sheets were tainted and who had violated the explicit examination instructions prescribed by Telangana State Public Service Commission itself. 2-l- The issue relating to conduct of recruitment process and evaluation of oMR sheets pursuant to Notification Nos. 2o/2o15 and L7/2016 had earlier been the subject matter of detailed adjudication before this court in writ petition No.1gg34 of 2ol7 filed by one sri v. Ramachandra Reddy and others. The said writ Petition questioned the inclusion of candidates, who had committed violations such as wrong bubbling, double bubbling, non-bubbling, use of whiteners or erasers, or tampering of 'oMR sheets. After an elaborate f...i.rg and detailed analysis of the record, by a well-reasoned judgment, this court, while upholding the validity of recruitment notification itself, issued comprehensive and to State Public Service Commission to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability in the recruitment process. It was further held that all the candidates who had tampered or used whiteners or erasers on their oMR sheets were liable to be biryiing directions -) excluded from further consideration and directed the Commission t.o physically verify such OMR sheets to ensure that only eligible candidates were retained for the process of certificate verification and interview. The operative portion of the order Writ Petition No.18834 of 2017 is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "100. CONCLUSIONS:

1. There is no infirmitl.in the selection process to conduct recruitment to Group II service pursuant to recruitment notification No.20 of 2015 dated 30.12.2015, per se to hold that selection process is vitiated. Selection process cannot be held as vitiated merely becatrse the OMR sheets of few candidates who have committed errors such as, wrong bubbling, no bubbling or double bubbting of the information relating to Roll number, question paper booklet number, used Whiteners/ used Erasers were erraluated. Such candidates are identifiable and can be separated. The candidates who have committed such mistakes can be excluded and rest of the selection process can be continued. 2. The candidales u,ho have committed errors in bubbling, such as wrong bubbling, no bubbling or double bubbling of the information relating to Roll number, question paper booklet number, ".nt.t code etc used u,hiteners/ used Erasers, shall be excluded from consideration for certificate verificzrtion process in the ratio of 1: 3 and for subjecting them to intervieu, in ttre ratio of l: 2. TSPSC may continue selection process after excluding the candidates referred to above. 3. Exclusion of ferv questions, change of answers in revised final key and prescribing more than one option as valid do not .ritiateftf,e setection process on that grouncl. 4. TSPSC shall e.xclude Question No. 111 of Paper III: CD series and question No.93 of paper IV: CD series. This is in addition to questions already excluded. 5. TSPSC shall treat option No. 3 in question No.113 of Paper IV: CD series only as valid answer. n 4

6. TSPSC shall re-evaluate the merit of candidates after excluding Question No. 111 of Paper III: CD series and question No.93 of paper IV: CD series and treating Option '3' only as the correct answer to Question No. 113 of Paper IV: CD series to arrive at the linal list of candidates for certificate verification in the ratio of 1: 3. 7. For the questions which are deleted, only those candidates who have attempted the said questions should be awarded marks. 8. As substantial number of candidates are to be excluded and two additional questions are to be deleted and for one question answer changes, there is no certainty as to who would be in the final list of candidates called in the ratio of 1:3 for certificate verification. Therefore, the contention of special Government Pleader that petitioners are not in the zone of consideration even after excluding some candidates and that petitioners have not suffered legal injury and therefore no adjudication is required on various contentions urged is stated to be rejected. 9. As the committee of senior advocates opined that the oMR machine reader rvas not recognizing the use of whitener, before finalizing the list of candidates for interview, the TSpSC shall physically verify the oMR sheets to ascertain whether any of the candidates used whitener to change the answers in Part -B and personal particulars in part-A and exclude candidates who have used whiteners. The proceedings of such verification should be conducted in the presence of Member-Secretary and two members of the TSPSC; should be video graphed; afd be stored at least for a period of six months after finalization of selections. 10. If any candidate applies for verification of his oMR sheet, images of such candidate's manual verification of oMR sheet be captured and furnished to him/her. 101. Before parting with this case, court deems it necessary to make following observations. whenever recruitment is takett'up, court is flooded with litigation on various aspects, about eligibility criteria, which include educational qualifications, equation of qualifications, age, social status, creamy layer and local candidature claim in terms of presidential order: parameters of evaluation of oMR sheets; prescribing answers, short listing of candidates; and final merit list. There is lack of transparenc-y in all these aspects leading to doubts in the minds of 5 candidates, compelling them to seek legal remedy. The litigation is not helping any of the stake holders, the State, the recruiting agency and the candidater; aspiring for public employment 102. Transparent procedure shall be the hallmark of selection to public employment. It is high time the TSPSC undertakes through review of procedures and shall put in place transparent mechanism, few of which are mentioned here under: i) A fu[y functional web site which shall contain the Service Rules which regulate recruitment in general, relevant provisions of the Presidential Order and sper:ial rules which govern particular post; ii) Through revision of questions and appropriate answer before they are finally identified. iii) clear instrttctions on bubbting of circles and carrying of prohibited instruments and firm policy on issue of evaluation of OMR sheets of candidates who have committed such errors be put in place' iv) Awareness campaign be put in place to enlighten candidates the importance of bubbling the circles and consequences of erTors committed by them and/or use of prohibited instruments. PSC can explore possibility of hosting a video on website on bubbling aspects. v) The chief Superintendents and Invigitators be given proper training onvariousaspectsofconductingexamination.Avideocanbemadeto demonstrate to them and also hosted on the website vij Preliginary key be notified soon after the examination is conducted vii) After preliminary key is published and objections are called, a through and proper review of questions and answ'ers be undertaken and finalise the key answers. TSPSC shall not indulge in changing the answers again and again. viii) Video graphing of entire process of evaluation of $VlR sheets in addition to taking the images and preserving the images' ix) Publishing the merit list containing all details of candidates on the web site including names, hall ticket number, social Stattls, local candidate status, marks secured, educational qualif,rcations with option to alt candidates to search for the information required and to download the matter. 6 n x) Strictl-v follow procedure to conduct selections and to prepare final merit list as per TSPSC Procedure Rules, particularly Rule 6-4. xi) create a web-based platform to clear all doubts to candidates/to redress grievance on any issue and minimize the candidates visiting the office of TSPSC-.. " 2-2. It is stated, the said judgment laid down the binding principle that any candidate who tampered, erased or used whiteners on their oMR sheet, particularly in part-B which contains answers, must be excluded from further stages of selection. Respondent No. 2 further directed to ensure physical verification of all such oMR sheets and to exclude the offending candidates before proceeding to the interview stage and that this court had arso observed that transparency and procedural fairness were to be the cornerstones of public recruitment and had issued wide-ranging directions to prevent rerurrence of irregularities and ensure that sanctity of competitive examinations is maintained.

2.3- It is further stated that against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, several wrft'Appeals were preferred by the aggrieved candidates; one among them being writ Appeal No. 1667 of 2org and batch, which was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench. The Division Bench, while upholding the essentiar reasoning of the learned single Judge, 7 clarified thett Telangana State Public Service Commission could condone certain minor clerical or technical mistakes committed in other parts of the OMR sheets, but the fincling regarding tampering <lf Part-B, portion concerning answers, remained undisturbed. The Division Bench did not extend any benefit to those candidates who had tampered Part-B or used whiteners to alter their answers.

2.4. Petitioners further state that such conduct on the part of the Commission amounts to altering the evaluation standards after the conclusion of the recruitment process. This practice has been expressly condemned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent authoritative judgment in Tei Prakash Prllthc,k a. Rajasthan High Courtl, wherein well- established principle that "the rules of the game cannot be changed midway or after the game is played" was affirmed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any aiteration in recruitment norms or evaluation criteria after commencement of completion of the process offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is constitutionally impermissible.

2.5. It is the further case of petitioners that facts and circumstances of the present Writ Petition squarell' attract the '2024 INSC 847', r\ 8 principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tei Prakash Patha,k. The said decision has comprehensively reaffirmed the constitutional principle that rules of the game .cannot be changed mid-u'ay through or after the game has been played, and that any such deviation in the process of public employment offends the equality clause enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2.6. In Tej Pro,kqsh pathak, the Hon'ble Supreme court considered a situation where selection authority altered the standards of evaluation after commencement of the recruitment process. The court, after examining a catena of earlier precedents including K. Manjusree a. state of Andhra Pradesh2 and state of Haryana a. subash chander Marutahas, held that transparency, fairness, and adherence to pre-declared norms are the bedrock of cEnstitutional recruitment. The court further held that the rule against arbitrariness forbids the state or any public authority from modifying eligibiliry conditions, benchmarks,-pr evaluation standards once the process has commenced or concluded. 2.7 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while delineating the doctrine against post facto modification, held that prohibition on = lzooa; 3 scc 512 '(19741 3 SCC 220 f 9 changing rules midstream is a logical corollary of the equality mandated in Article 14 and the guarantee of equal opportunity under Article 16. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: " The doctrine proscribing change of rules midr'r'ay through the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article l6 gives effect to the concept of equality in all matters relat.ing to public employment. 'These two Articles strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equalit)' of treatment. They reqtrirc that State action must be based on valid and relevant principles zrlike to all similarly situated and not guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations." "Candidates participating in a recruitment process have a legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and r-ron-arbitrary. The doctrine ol'legitimate expectation recognises that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure." , "The criterion for selection is not to be changed after completion of the selection process. The Selection Committee may fix minimum maiks either for written examination or interviert', bttt if such minimum marks are fixed, it must be done before commencernent of the selection process. What is impermissible is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process when the entire selection proceeded on a different basis." "Tht: appointing authority, in absence of rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and may set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process, but if any such benchmark is set, it must be.stipulatcd before the commencemr:nt of the process. If the benchmark or cut-off is fixed l0 after the stage is over, it would amount to changing the rules of the game, which violates Article 14." .'

2.8. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the above case directly and unequivocally applies to the present matter. Petitioners state that in writ Petition No. 18834 of 2o17, this court categorically directed Telangana State public Service commission to exclude from selection process all the candidates who had committed irregularities such as wrong bubbling, double bubbling, or who had tampered or used whiteners/erasers on their oMR answer sheets, particularly in Part-B of the examination booklet. Despite such clear judicial directions, Public Service commission, while publishing the final result notilication dated 21.06.2o19, unilaterally altered the operative parameters of evaluation by including candidates who had admittedly rampered or whitened part-B fi their oMR answer sheets. This inclusion represents a posl facto relaxation of disqualification criteria that had already been judicially settled.

2.g. Applying the said principle to the OJ.."rr, case, it is evident that Public Service commission, having already undertaken recruitment under a judicially-determined framern ork, could not retrospectively alter or relax the standards 7 to include ca,ndidates previously disqualified on account of tampering of OMR sheets. Such inclusion represents an impermissible post facto change, thereby vitiating the entire process. Petitioners therefore, state that the conduct of the Public Service' Commission is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it amounts to clear violation of the binding judicial directions issued by this court in writ Petition No. 1883 4 of 2017, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in writ Appeal No. 1667 of 2018 and batch. By including candidates who had admittedly tampered or used rvhiteners on part-B of their oMR sheets, respondent No.2 has, in effect, altered and relaxed the evaluation standards after conclusion of the recruitment process, thereby changing the very Rules o[ the game midstrearn, in direct contravention of the doctrine laid down by the H<ln'ble Supreme Court in Tei Prako'sll Patho,k' Such arbitrary deviation from judicially-prescribed n<lrms not only undermines the sanctity of a fair and transparent selection process but also infringes Petitioners' fundamentetl rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by depriving them of fair, equal and merit-based consideration under the previously settled criteria' \\ t2

2.LO. However, it is stated, while publishing the linal list 6 dated 21.06.2019 in the ratio of L:2, Respondent No. 2 included even those candidates who had themselves admitted before this .Court in Writ Appeal No. 1667 of 2018 to have tampered or altered Part-B of their oMR sheets. Inclusion of such names including those of Kranthi Kumar Maddhi (H. No. 2oo9ogr33g), Ameen Reddy P. (H. No. 2oo7o22847l, chinthakuntla shailaja (H. No. 2008040598) and P. Ashok Kumar (H. No. 200912z643), in the list of candidates shortlisted for interview is in direct violation of the judgments of both the learned Single Judge and the Hon'ble Division Bench. petitioners further apprehend that there are several more such ineligible candidates, estimated to be around fifty, who have been wrongly included in the said list by virtue of the respondent's arbitrary and negligent actions. 2 -ll - Petitioners further state that p,rdti" Service commission, without conducting the mandatory physical verification of oMR sheets and without differentiating between minor errors and deliberate tampering, extende{., the benefit of the Division Bench judgment indiscriminately to all the candidates, thereby condoning even the most serious acts of manipulq,llion. Respondent have thus not only misinterpreted the scope of the Division Bench's decision but also acted in 6 13 contemptuous disregard of the spirit and substance of the binding judicial directions. This act of the respondent amounts to a deliberate dilution of the integrity of recruitment process and underrnines the faith of the public in the sanctity of competitive examinations.

2.12. It is stated further by Petitioners that the entire process adopted by respondent is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law. lnclusion of tainted candidatr:s, who had admittedly tampered their OMR sheets, nullilies the principle ot meritocracy and violates the rights of petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2O1'2, emphasizing exclusion of tampered OMR sheets and physical verification, aimed at ensuring fairness, transparency and legitimacy in recruitment. Respondent No.2's deviation from these directives has rendered the enft-re process vulncrable to judicial interference. This Court's words that "transparent procedure shall be the hallmark of selection to public employrnent" resonate profoundly in the present case, as the respondenl.'s opaque and arbitrary approach has produced precisely the kind of confusion and injustice which the earlie-r judgment sought to Prevent. t4

3. The case of Respondent No.2 is that the present Writ Petition is misconceived, untenable and not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the issues raised by petitioners .stand concluded by the binding judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is urged that legality and validity of recruitment process to Group-II Services, which forms the very subject matter of this Writ Petition, has already been comprehensively adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 20 18 and batch uide judgment dated 03.06.2019, and that the said judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upon dismissal of S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No.23878 of 2019 and S.L.P. (C) No.16999 of 20 19 on

22.O7.2O19. it is therefore, stated that the present proceedings, which seek to reopen and re-agitate the settled issues, are an abuse of the process of law and tiabte to be disrri?ssed at the threshold.

3.1. It is further contended that the Commission has acted strictly in compliance with the directions ,issued by the Division Bench, which had modified certain portions of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2Ol7 . It is stated that paragraphs 1O0. 1, 100.2 and 1OO.9 of -the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which -.? € l5 t directed the Commission to undertake physical verification of OMR sheets and to exclude candidates who had used whiteners or erasers, \vere expressly set aside by the Division Bench. The Hon'ble Division Bench, while analysing the material placed before it, in<:luding the reports of the Technical Committee and the Sub-Committee constituted by the Commission, observed that the alleged discrepancies were not attributable to any mala fide conduct of the candidates but were primarily result of administrative lapses on the part of invigilators in certain examination centers. It is asserted that the Division Bench, recognizing the bona fides of the Commission, accepted the corrective measures taken by the Commission and authorized it to proceed with the recruitment process based on the Technical Committee report dated 09.03.2017, which had been prepared after a scit:ntific review of the scanning and'evaluation procedure.

3.2. It is contended that the Commission, being a constitutiona.l recruiting authorit5r, acted within its jurisdiction and in discharge of its statutory dury while i-it...r..rting the t recommendations of the Technical Committee and the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench. In pursuance thereof, the Commission prepared and published the final merit list in the t6 ratio of l:2 for interviews on 21.O6.2OL9, following an S automated, technolory-driven process of OMR evaluation, entirely free from manual interference. It is submitted that the OMR answer sheets were evaluated through a fully computerized scanning system using fixed threshold values for bubble density, thereby ensuring uniformity, accuracy, and transparency. The software automatically invalidates questions where multiple bubbles or insufficient markings are detected, leaving no scope for subjective discretion or human error. Hence, the allegation of arbitrary inclusion of tampered OMRs is devoid of substance.

3.3. It is further contended that the contention of petitioners that candidates who had used whiteners or erasers were wrongly included is factually incorrect and legally- untenable. They deny that any candidate who naa Ettered Part- B of the OMR sheet was deliberately retained or favoured. It is stated, the so called "tampering" relied upon by petitioners is nothing but misinterpretation of minor technical irregularities, '*,hich were already identified and accounted for by the Technical Committee and accepted by the Hon'ble Division t Bench as not warranting disqualification. The Commission has uniformly applied the same evaluation standards to all t7 candidates zrnd has maintained pariry and fairness throughout the process.

3.4. tt is also contended that reliance placed by petitioners on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Tej Pro,ka,sh Pathak's ca,se is misplaced and inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The said judgment pertains to a situation where selection authority altered the prescribed criteria midway through the recruitment process, whereas in the instant case, there has been no alteration of criteria or evaluation mr:thod. on the contrary, the Telangana State public Service commission merely implemented the judicial directions of the Hon'trle Division Bench and the findings of expert committees constituted under its supervision. The respondents thus submit that there has been no "change of rules of the game" as alleged, but rather a lawful adherence to thd judicially settled procedure intended to rectify administrative irregularities and ensure equal treatment of candidates. 3.5. Rt:spondent No.2 also contended th,lt this writ Petition suffers from gross delay and laches, inasmuch as .i' interviews were completed betwee n ol.o7 .2019 and 2T .og.2olg, and the final .esults were published om 24.10.2019, leading to further administrative processes for appointment. Any l8 interference with recruitment process at this belated stage (j would cause grave administrative inconvenience, disrupt the appointment of meritorious candidates, and create unnecessary .uncertainV in public employment. It is therefore, emphasized that the commission has acted bona ftde, without malice or discrimination and adhered to every judicial and technical guideline to uphold the sanctity of the selection process. It is therefore, stated that the allegations of arbitrariness, illegality, or discrimination are wholly-unfounded. The impugned result notification dated 21.06.2019 was issued strictly in accordance with the binding judgment of the Division Bench dated O3.O6.2OL} and in faithful compliance with recommendations of the Technical Committee and Sub- Committee constituted by the Commission. It is thus prayed that Writ Petition, being devoid of merit and an attempt to p unsettle settled issues, be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. Heard Dr.P.B. Vrjay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, leafned Standing Counsel for the Commission.

5. This Court linds considerable merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of petitioners. The record clearly discloses that Respondent No. 2 while issuing the impugned 19 final result list dated 21.06.2019, had acted in blatant disregard of the binding judicial directions issued by this court in writ Petition No. 18834 of 2orr and as affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in writ Appeal No. 1667 of 2o1g and batch. The learned Single Judge had categorically held that a[ the candidates who had tampered, erased, scratched or used whiteners orr their oMR sheets, particularly in part-B thereof, must be excluded from further stages of selection process. The Division Bench, while affirming the said principle, only permitted condonation of minor clerical errors in other parts of the oMR sheet but did not dirute the embargo on tampered oMRs. However, the commission, while preparing the final list, had deliberately included the names of candidates who had admittedly tampered with their oMR sheets, thereby violating the spirit an<l mandate of the judicial orders gov'Lrning the process. 6- This court is also fortified in its view by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Suprgme court of India in Tej Prako.sh pqthq.k, wherein the Hon,ble Apex court reiterated that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid- way or after ttre game is played'. The Hon,ble Supreme court further emphasized that once recruitment process has been 20 initiated under declared or judicially-settled standards, any subsequent alteration or relaxation of those standards offends the constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness under Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. The ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the present case, as the Telangana state Public service commission, having already undertaken recruitment under a judicially-determined framework, could not have retrospectively altered the disqualification criteria so as to include candidates whose oMR sheets were previously held tampered. 7- Such conduct of Respondent No. 2 _ Telangana state Public Service commission amounts to not only willful disobedience of judicial directions but also violation of the rule against arbitrariness and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Inclusion of tainted candidates.destroys the transparency and fairness expected in public employment, undermines .* meritocracy and erodes public confidence in the sanctiqr of competitive recruitment. Accordingly, this court,lrolds that the impugned result notification dated 2L.06.2019 issued by the 2na Respondent, insofar as it includes candidates whose oMR answer sheets were tampered, erased, scratched or whitened, is / 2t arbitrary. illegal, and unconstitutional and is liable to be set aside. T'he Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed- The 8. impugned result notihcation dated 21.06-2O19 is hereby quashed and set aside. The 2"d respondent is directed to recast the final merit list strictty in accordance with the directions issued in writ Petition No. 18834 of 2077, by excluding all the candidates urhose OMR sheets, particularly Part-B, were tampered, era.sed, scratched or whitened and to complete the process of finalization of a fresh merit list and publication of results within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thjs order. The 2"d respondent is further directed to ensure

8.1. that process of physicat verification of OMR sheets is undertaken un.der the direct supervision of senior offrcers of the Commission in accordance with the safeguards enumerated by this Court in earlier orders, including video documentation of the verification process, preservation of the footage, and publication of the revised merit list in a transparent manner accessible to all candidates.

8.2. The 2'd Respondent is cautioned to scrupulously adhere to the binding judicial directions of this Court and the I / 22 Hon'ble Supreme Court in all future recruitment exercises, failing which serious view shall be taken for any deviation therefrom. No costs.

9. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. ,/^ ---\ o /TRUE COPY/ SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGIST-RAR6/ SECTION OFFICER To, Secretaiiat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana'

1. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department' Telangana' 2. The secretary, Telangana state Public Service commission' M' J' Road' NampallY, HYderabad.

3.oneCCtoSRlDr.P.B.VIJAYKUNIAR,Advocate[oPUC] 4. One CC to SRt K-KIRAN MAYEE, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to SRI J.CHANDRAIAH, Advocate IOPUC] 6. one CC to tr//s. BHARADWAJ ASSoCIATES, Advocate [oPUC] T.OneCCtoSRIP.S.RAJASEKHAR'SCFORTGSPSCIOTPUCI B. Two ccs to Gp FoR GENE_q ! ADMINISTRATIoN, Hi$h court for the State of tetangana at HYderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP ':I HIGH COURT DATED: 1811112025 ORDER WP.No.20832 of 2019 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS a/l {liitE s}'4 ( U 25 f,ilr] * :it