High Court · 2025

Petitiop under Section 15-1 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated ln the afficavit filed in 5uppe;1 of the pgtition, the High court may be pleaped to direct the 2nd Respqndent to conduct pappr-!r Examrnatiqn for the petitioner in QBRT for the posl of rown Pranning and Buirding overseer (TpBo), pending disposar of the Main Writ Pgtition A o OF 23 Petition under section 1oi e pc praylog thaf in tfrq circumstances stateq in the affidavit fired in support of the petirion, the High Qourt may be preased to direct the 2nd Re$pcndenl to keep one pgst of Tqwn planning and Building Overseol (TPBO) vacanl, Pending dispogat of the Main lvrit petitigo. COUnspl for [[e petiriongr: S(t RAMESH qHlLLA Qeunsgl for fhg Respondent Ng.1; gp FOB $ERVICEE{ Ogpnsgl for the Respondent No.2: gRt e.E. RAJA$HEKAR, SC goqnsql for the Respondent No.3;-,-," The Cqurt 44de the foilowing: ORQER \'(cr t I 0 TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: trIRJT PETITION No .21476 of2O23 This Writ Petition is hled seeking the following relief: ".-.declaring the action of the 3.d respondent center allotted by the 2nd Respondent who not allowed the petitioner into their examination center though she entered the main gate and reached the examination hall for Paper II which was scheduled to be commenced from 2:30 pM by breastfeeding her 3-month-old baby and resulted in tosing the opportunity to get selected as Town planning and Building Overseer conducted by the 2nd respondent Commission is unjust, i[egal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article la, 19(g) ald 2i of the Constitution of India and consequently, dirpct the 2nd Respondent to conduct the paper-ll for the petitioner in CBRT Examination for the post of Town planning and Building Overseer (TPBO) and direct to keep one post vacant to avoid the chances of losing the opportunity of getting selected for the said post.. _." 2) Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, iearned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for Services_l appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri p.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent No.3. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has completed M.Tech. in Civil Engineering and eligibte for the post of Town planning Ofhcer and she is also a lactating mother. In pursuance to Notiiication No.l4l2022, dated 07.O9.2022, petitioner has applied for the post of Town planning _) PK, J \\E 2t476_2O23 ._ Building Overseer under the control of the Director of Town & countr5r Pla,ning in the Municipal Administration and urban Development Department and she was issued with H.all Ticket bearing No.1.123400061 and aliotted Examinabon Centre in the third respondent College. The nature of examination is Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) and the examination consist two papers. Paper I was scheduled on 0g.07.2023 from 10.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and Paper-ll was scheduled from 2.30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on the same day. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner gave birth to a baby boy on 22.O3.2O2A and was in iactating period. Further, petitioner,s Viltage Tekulapalli is about 27 kms away from th,: p12-lrrution Centre. Therefore, the petitioner left her baby at hcr rclatives house nearby and after breast feeding she came to the examination centre in the morning sessiorL to write Paper-I, which u'as scheduled from 10.00 am to 12.30 pm. and appeared for the examination without any issue. After completing paper-l at 12.30 pm, she left for her relatives, house to feed her baby and returned back to write her paper_ll exa.mination scheduled at 2'..3O pm, she was allowed at main ga.te and entered in the examination hall. However, the staff/ invigilator present there had not allowed the petitioner to write the examination though she explained thern that she is a lactating mother and was coming back after breastfeeding her baby and that she was on time in -J PK, J wp 21476 2023 reaching the centre. Learned counsel has contended that under Instruction No.3 stipulated under Guiileline and Instructions to Candidates' the timings to enter the main gate was specihcally mentioned wherein it is stated that the Test Center Gate will be closed at 2.00 pm and no candidate w l be arlowed to enter the Test Center after closing the gate. However, though the petitioner was allowed at the main gate, she was not allowed to write the examination and the entire episode of entering the examination centre, etc. was recorded and it can be found by checking the CCTV footage. Learned counsel has strenuously contended that if the petitioner has not reached the main gate on time, the staff rvould have stopped her at the main gate itself. Learned counsel has submi[ted that the new born baby cannot eat and drink other than mother's milk and the lactating mother had an inalienable right to feed her child. Hence, the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to write the examination is against Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner has raised a grievance in 2.d respondent Grievance Redressal System on the same day i.e. on O8.O7.2O23 at 4.4a.25 pm but no response is received yet. Further, the nature of examination is CBRT and this kind of examination is adopted in Staff Selection Commission (SSC) where examination will be conducted at forenoon and afternoon sessions for days together and the paper is different for different 4- PK, J wp.214762023 sessions. Finally, by the process of normaiization, the cut_off date will be deciderl to balance between the question papers ot different sessions on dilferent dates. In the same way, respondent No.2 has to conduct the CBRT examination for the petitioner and by adopting the process of Normalization any other balancing process, the marks can be decided. Hence, it is prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that clear instruct ons were printed on the Hall Tickets regarding timing, etc. under the head of ,Guidelines and Instrur:tions to Candidates' ar.d at Sl.No.3 thereof, it is ciearly mentioned t],.at,the test center gate will be closed at 2.0o p.m. and no cand.ida.te utill be allouted to ente,r the Test Center after closing the gate'. Further, the Chief Superintendent of respondent No.3 Coilege has sub,mitted a report in this regard mentioning rhat the petitioner herein came to the college after the stipulated time and the officials of the coflege, Police and J'ata Consultancy Services (TCS), deputed by respondent No,2 have denied her entry into the College and they tried to convin,:e her. However, she entered into the exarnination hall at 2.09 p.n-r. without permission. As such, it is thus clear that all the officials are strictly adhered to the insl.ructions; of the Commission. Further, the TCS officials also sent a mail to -5 PK, J wp_2t476_2023 respondent No.2 conhrming the abovesaid facts submitted by the chief Superintendent of respondent No.3 Institution in their letter. Further, the TCS is appointed by respondent No.2 to conduct Online examination of respondent No.2 and TCS is the authorized agency to conduct [he online recruitments of respondent No.2 and hence their personnel will be present at each venue in all Districts for smooth conduct of examination. It is further conducted that the petitioner came late in the afternoon session at the main gate i.e. after 2 p_m. and after closing of main gate and the same is totally negligence on the part of the petitioner in coming late to the examination centre. Further, the petitioner gave a representation to respondent No.2 on 13.06.2023 to change the examination centre from Hyderabad to Bhadradri Kothagudem on medical grounds and considering the same on humanitarian grounds, her examination venue was changed from Hyderabad to Bhadradri Kothagudem, at her convenience, but the petitioner could not be alert in presenting at the venue on time and the officia_ls present at the venue cannot be blamed for her fault.

4.I) Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that no candidate was deprived of entering into the examination hall, who came within the prescribed time. Further, in the forenoon session 131 candidates and in the afternoon session I29 candidates r-: ,: 6 PK, J wp_-t1476_2023 appeared the examination. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that 25 candidates were deprived of entering into the examinalion ha11 is incorrect. Further, it is a common phenorrrenon in competitive exurmination that the applicants will be allowect into the examination hall much before the commencement of the examination and the gates will be closed accordingly to ensure that all the formalities are done on-time. Further, the r:omputer systems will automatically get locked alter the strpulated time, so that no one car:r login to the system. Hence, a1l thc candidates who are appearing for the CBRT examination must sit befoie the allotted systerrl within the stipulated time to login to the system and the candidates who arrive after the stipulated time cannot login to the system as the systems will automatically get locked as per the pre-defined instructions to the systems. Hence, allowing the candidates into the examination hall after the stipulated time will not ensure them to write the examination.

4.2) As regards, backup of CCTV footage, lerarned lStanding Counsel has s;ubmitted that CCTV Footage of respondent No.3- College was copied into a pen drive for the purpose of submitting the same befo:re this Court, but due to technical giitch, the pen drive was cornrpted and the same could not be opened. Therefore, k -7 PK, J wp-214762023 it contended that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. 6l As can be gathered from the material on record, pursuant to notification No.1412022, dated OT.09.2022, issued by respondent No.2 for hlling up the posts of Town planning Building Overseer, examination i.e. computer based recruitment test was scheduled on O8.O7.2023. The sard examination contained two papers i.e. Paper-I scheduled from i0.00 AM to 12.30 pM and paper_Il scheduled from 2.30 PM to 5.00 pM. The petitioner has appeared for Paper-I in the forenoon session from 10.00 AM to 12.3O pM without any issues. According to the petitioner, she was not allowed in the afternoon session inspite of her being present at the gate of the examination centre well within time. 7) In this context, it is apt to extract the relevant portion of the instructions issued by respondent No.3 printed on the hall tickets, which reads as under: "......... Candidates are allowed for afternoon session inside ttre test center from 1:OO PM onwards for identity verification. The test center gate will be closed at 2:OO pM. NO CANDIDATE WILL 8 PK, J wp 2t476_2O23 BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE TEST CENTRE AFIER CI,OSING THE GATE." 8) A reading of the above said instructions makes it crystal clear that the Test Center gate will be closed at 2.0O pM and no candidate will be allowed to enter the Centre after the closing time. 9) Here, it is pertinent to note that on the samer date of examination i.e. on 08.07.2023, Lhe petitioner raised a grievance in respondent No.2 Grievance Redressal System at 16:48:.25 i.e . at 4.48 prn. Relevant portion of the same reads as unrler: "I attendel the exam in morning session. For afternoon sessrion the invigilater told that you have to be on the exam centre :l.1spm l lvent on correct on b,3fore it self but they didn't allow me to attend the exam I have 2months baby feeding itchi velle sariki 2.Spm indhi. cate lopalaki vellanu examination room Loki kuda vellanu hall ticket theskoni registration chestunte observer attendance alrcadv,' (emphasrs added) 10) From th,e above version of the petitioner, it is clear that in the afternoon rsession she has reached at the Examination Centre at 2.OS PM i.e. after the gate closing time sripulate<l in the notification. i1) Further, the respondents have specifically asserted in their counter that after the stipulated time, the computer syst.ems will automatically get locked so thal no one can log-:n to th(t system and therefore rnerely allowing the candidates into the exa:rrination 9 PK, J wp 214762023 hall after the stipuiated time would serve no purpose as they will not be ensured to write the examination 12) That apart, as per the report of the Chief Superintendent of respondent No.3 College, in the afternoon session, the petitioner came to the college after the stipulated time of 2.OO pM and the College officials, police Officials and TCS ofhcials including the deputed officials of respondent No.2 denied her entry into the college and they tried to convince her. yet, she entered into the examination hall at 2.09 pm. without permission. 13) Thus, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the petitioner has reached the examination center within the stipulated time, for writing paper-Il examination. Therefore, this Court does not see any merit in the present writ petition and the same is riable lo be dismissed. l4l Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs //TRUE COPYII ASSI SD/.T. JAYASREE T REGISTRAR TION OFFICER To, 'l . One CC to Sri Ramesh Chilla, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Services-|, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Qne CC to Sri P.S. Rajashekar, SC [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \! u*' B!i HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:13 10312025 ORDER WP.No.21476 of 2023 { 6E Si TA t' 1 g l" $B 2025 \d ':':: l),',T(-, * o I'i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS coqRab + w (6a' €