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 especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that a) The 2nd respondent do not have:sny power to condone the errors committed by the candidates (if the errors / wrongs committed by the candidates) will lead to invalidation of the answer sheets as the consequence of which leads to disqualification of the candidates in particular the candidates who commit errors / wrongs in part-B of Ott/R answer sheet of Group-ll Services. b) further declare that the 2nd respondent has no discretion to condone the answers on OMR answer sheet of the candidates who committed / resorted to use of whitener / blade eraser/ scratching or any kind of tampering. c) declare that the respondent No.3 to 16 who committed wrong / error by resorting to use of whitener / blade / eraser/ scratching or committing tampering while changing answers on OMR answer sheet are not eligible and entitled to be appointed to Group-ll Services and therefore their appointments to Group-ll Services is illegal and arbitrary. d) declare that the respondents shall cancel the appointments of the persons who committed tampering, used whiteners / blade / eraser / scratching in OMR answer sheet in group-ll services and prepare a separate final list of the candidates according to merit and accordingly issue appointment orders. 5 e) declare that petitioners who are meritorious and who did not commit any tampering, used eraser / whitener / blade / scratching in the OMR sheet of the Group-ll Services are entitled to be appointed in place of respondent No.3 to 16. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 respondents to forthwith cancel the appointments of respondent No.3 to 16 by further directing the 2nd respondent to prepare a fresh final select list of meritorious candidates for appointment to group-ll services, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. oF 2020 Between: Kare Rakesh, S/o_ Karg Jalaiah, Working as Junior Assistant, Revenue Department,.?ged about 34 years, H.T No 2005026827,3-4_149 Gandhinagar, Khammam, Telangana. ...PETITIONERS 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretarv. General Administration Department, Secretariat, B.R.K.R.Bhavan, Hyderab'ad.

2. Telagana State Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. Kraanthi Kumar Maddhi, $19, J91a!i Ramaiah, Aged 3g years, TSpSC, H.T.No. 2009097333, R/o. H.No.S2, Ramakrishni Aiartmentd. euriat,ir"ri colony, Peezadiguda, Opp Uppat Bus Depot, HyderabaO - SOOOgg

4. Ameen.Red9y 8.., 9{o Chandrasekhar, Aged 36 years, H.T.No. 2OO7O22A47, R/o.. H.No.42242t3t2, Nev,t Town Coiony, Wanap'arthy, Mif,jOJU"Jgii . District. 5. Chinthakuntla Shai 2008040598, R/o H District. lqa, D/o Bhimi Reddy, Aged 25 years, H.T.No. .No. 8-2-36, Bokicamanthulapad, Nidiam-anur, Nalgonda 5

6. P Ashok Kumar, S/o. Narsimlu, Aged 30 years, H - -l-lNo. 2-23f17,Dichpally Thanda, Dichpally Mandat, 7. N. Samatha, D/o. N.Muthaiah, aged 31 years, H.T.No. 2009276765, R/o. -No. '1, Kimtee Colony, Tainaka, .T.No. 2009127646, R/o. Nizamabad.District. H.No. 12-13 677188, Lane No. 2, street Hyderabad - 500007

8. Komatireddy Kavitha, D/o K. Hamsakethan Redd 2009267483, Fl/o. Plot No.301, Reddy s Enclave, Alwal, Secunderabad - 500010. y, Aged 27 yearc, H.T.No. Road No.6, Alwal Hills, Old

9. B.Basava Madhu, S/o. B. Satyanarayana, Aged 28 years, H.T.No. 2008013727, R/o. Ho.No.1-4, M keshrajpally Mandal, Thipparthy District, Nalgonda - 508001.

10.Sk. Chandbee,Dlo. Sk. Hussain Saheb, Aged 31 years, H.T.No.200926921, F/o. Lakkavaram Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District - 508204. '11.Harish Kumar Neerudi, S/o Neerudi Darvender, Aged 28 years, H.T.No. 2009180768, Behind Sai Baba Temple, Pothireddipally, Sangareddy - 502001 l2.Bangari Naresh Kumar, S/o B. Narsaiah, Aged 28 yea!'9, . H.T.No. 2005015247, R/o. H.No. 7-564, Krishna colony, Jammikunta, Karimnagar- 505122 l3.Erraiah Ragam, S/o. Uppalaiah, Aged 33 years, H.T.No. 2004036683, R/o. H.No. 41854, Rajole Village, Kuravi Mandal, [Mahabubad District - 506101. 14.Oggu Raghunanden Reddy, S/o O.Karunakar Reddy, H.T.No.2009060363, Ry6"f tat N-o.zo2, V. S. Resid6ncy, Kondapur, Hyderabad-sOO 084.

15.P.Anusha, D/o P.Anjaneyulu, Aged about 26 years, H.T.No.2009109737, R/o H.No.2-96/3, Bhongir, Nalgonda District-S081 1 6. l6.Annarapu Praveen, S/o A.Sudharshan Reddy, H.T.No.2006010416, R/o H.No.3-l-llq, Sarojinidevi Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District -503 111. ...RESPONDENTS lN WP.No.2885 ot 2020 17.B.Hemalatha, D/o. B.Hanumanthu, Aged 40 years, Working as CDPO, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar district. H.T.No.200701 1859.

18. K.Balakrishna, S/o. K.Gopal, Aged 37 years, Working as Teacher, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. Hall ticket No-200701 7872. tg.K.Rlivelu Lakshmi, D/o. Venkataswamy, Aged 31 years, Working as Junior Panchayat Secretary, Shamshabad, Bangq .B".Ody . District. R/o. H.No.1 -itlSt't, Anandnagar colony, Near Sarada High School, Kondapur, Hyderabad, R.R.District. Hall ticket No.20091 06454-

20.P.Raghavender Reddy, S/o. Hanumanth [eddy, Agg' 9'! -Ye?r!:.y9llin-g-:p Beat-officer, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. R/o. H.No.17l120lE, MTR colony, Kbtnakota ni'andal, Mahaboobnagar District. Hall ticket No.2007022956.

21. M.Gangadhar Yadav, S/o. Satyam Yadav., . Panchayat €ecretary;Shakapur;ltkal mandal Hall ticket No.200701 0669. 31 AS a

22.K.Pruthvi, Sio. Jangaiah, Age 27 years, working as Postal Assistant, Office of SSPO, Hyderabad City OiviSion, Hyderabad, Hall ticket No.2007004993.

24. K.Radhag_opal, S/o. K-Kistanna, Age. 31 years, Occ. Un-employee, H.No.1-2126, Palwai, Maldakal mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal olsirict. Ticket No.2009121292. R/o. R/o. Hall

25.Tee-gjrla.John Re..ddy,..s/9. Pichi Reddy, Ag.e, QZ years, working as Teacher, 7.lIS, /l1aAOally.(V),. Ramannapet mandal, Ya-dadri'Bhongir"Oiitrict. Ryo. H.No.14-2!, Be^@qlpad post, Pallepad, Narketpaily, Nalgonda District. Hali Ticket No.2008008056.

26. Maheshwaramma,Qlo.Krishnaiah QouQ,-Age. 40 years, working as Teacher, ' Mandal Parishad school, Villiankota (v), -Kothakota (M), Maiaboobnagai i ,! I i , i ! I 1 District. R/o. H.No.1-90, Thomalapally (V), Pebbair mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, Hall Ticket No.200701 5849.

27.K. Ravi Kiran, S/o. K.Venkateswarlu, Age. 31 years, working as Junior Asst. Registration Department, Peddaamberpet (V), Abdullapur mandal, R.R.District. Hall Ticket No.20091 24277 . ...PETITIONERS 1 to 11 in WP.No.2885 ot2020 Petition under Section 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 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 Respondents to fill up. backlog posts as per the Notification No.20l2015 and 1712016 if any backlog posts not filled up by the Respondent No.2, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner Nb's 1 to 11 . : SRI M.SURENDER RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL, REPRESENTING SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel for the Petitioner No.12: SRI P.R.BHARATH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGSPSC The Court made the following: ORDER a ' 1- - !'::'' ' "'r'" , ,.1 il,Ilo,:"" ,;itir':', ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA UTRIT PETITION . 2885 0F 2o/2o/ ORDER: The case of petitioners is that inclusion of such candidates, who have admittedly resorted to scratching, erasing, tampering or using whiteners in Part-B of OMR answer sheets, is wholly contrary to the mandatory instructions contained in the Notification, violative of Articles L4 and 16 of the constitution of India and contrary to the binding directions issued by this Court in earlier proceedings culminated in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2O17, which has attained hnality.

1.1. Petitioners state that the 2.d respondent - TGSPSC had issued Notification No.2O/2015 and Supplementary Notification No. L7|2OL6 inviting Applications for lO32 posts across thirteen categories under Group-ll Services, prescribing the eligibitity criteria and qualifications. They being fully eligible and possessing all the requisite qualifications, applied for the said posts, participated in the written examination conducted by a TGSPSC and qualified in the written test. Their names were included in the list of candidates shortlisted for certificate verification in the ratio of l:2. After due verification of their certificates, petitioners were called for interviews held on various dates between July and August 2OI9, which they duly 1l 2 attended, thereby completing all stages of selection process and (-) legitimately expecting to be included in the final selection list. L.2. It is the case of petitioners that, to their utter shock and prejudice, TGSPSC subsequently included in the interview list and final selection list candidates whose OMR answer sheets were found to have been tampered with thorough scratching, erasing, overwriting, and use of whiteners, particularly in Part-B of the OMR answer .sheets, which pertain to the candidates' actual answers. [nclusion of such candidates is in direct violation of Instruction No.3 of Part-B of Annexure-lV to the notification, which specilically and unambiguously stipulates that "rlse of whitener on OMR answer sheet will lead to disqualification". Petitioners contend that this act of TGSPSC amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has been played, thereby undermining the sanctit5r of the selection process aqd eroding public faith in the fairness and transparency of public recruitment.

1.3. It is also stated, in Writ Petition No.18834 of 2017, the Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao had occasion to consider identical issues concerning the same recruitment process. His Lordship, after a detailed and exhaustive analysis of the factual matrix and the legal position, issued comprehensive directions to the TSPSC, inter alia, holding that selection p.-" p".:-"_. / / -,__-__. J was not vitiated but that candidates who had committed disqualifying errors such as wrong bubbling, double bubbling. non-bubbling, or use of whiteners and erasers, were to be excluded from further consideration. The learned Judge further directed that physical verification of OMR answer sheets must be conducted to ascertain whether any candidate had used whiteners to alter artswers in Part-B or personal particulars in Part-A and that such candidates must be excluded from consideration. It was made "i"", that transparency and adherence to procedure is indispensable to maintain the purity of public employment selections. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reflerence and clarity of record: " 700.

1. There is no infirmity in the selection process to conduct recruitment to Group II service pursuant to recruitment notiltcation No.2O of 2015 dated 30.12.2015, per se to hold that selection process is vitiated. Selection process cannot be held as vitiated merely because the OMR sheets of few candidates who have committed erors such as, wrong bubbling, no bubbling or double bubbling of the information relating to Roll number, question paper booklet number, used Whiteners/ used Erasers were evaluated. Such candidates are identifiable and can be separated. The candidates who have committed such mistakes can be excluded and rest ofthe selection process can be continued'

2. The candidates who 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, centre code etc (1 a 4 used whiteners/ used Erasers, shall be excluded from consideration for certificate verification process in the ratio of 1: 3 and for subjecting them to interview in the ratio of 1: 2. TSPSC may continue selection process after excluding the candidates referred to above. 3. Exclusion of few questions, change of answers in revised final key and prescribing more than one option as valid do not vitiate the selection process on that ground.

4. TSPSC shall exclude 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.

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 [V: CD series and treating Option '3' only as the correct answer to Question No. 113 of Paper IV: CD series to arrive at the frnal 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 frnal 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 ofwhitener, before finalizing the list of candidates for interview, the TSPSC shall physically verify the OMR sheets to ascertain whether any of the candidates usedwhitener to / / 5 change the answers in Part -B and personal particulars in part-A and exclude candidates who have used whiteners. The proceedings of such verilication should be conducted in the presence of Member-Secretary and two members of the TSPSC; should be video graphed; and be stored at least for a period of six months after finalization of selections. lO.lf 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 taken 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 transparency in all these aspects leading to doubts in the minds of candidates, compelling them to seek legal remedy. The litigation is not helping any ofthe stake holders, the state, the recruiting agency and the candidates 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 fully functional web site which shall contain the Service Rules which regulate recruitment in general, relevant provisions of the presidential Order and special rules which govern particular post; ii) Through revision of questions and appropriate answer before they are finally identified. iii) clear instructions on bubbling 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. q1t 4 6 2- (1 iv) Awareness campaign be put in place to enlighten candidates the importance of bubbling the circles and consequences of errors 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 on various aspects of conducting examination. A video can be made to demonstrate to them and also hosted on the website. vi) Preliminary key be notified soon after the examination is conducted. vii) After preliminary key is pubtished and objections are called, a through and proper review ofquestions and answers be undertaken and finalise the key answers, TSPSC shall not indulge in changing the answers again and again. viii) Videographing of entire process of evaluation of OMR 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 status, local candidate status, marks secured, educational qualifications with option to all candidates to search for the information required and to download the matter. x) Strictly follow procedure to conduct selections and to prepare final merit list as per TSPSC Procedure Rules, particularly Rule 6-A' a 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...."

7. Despite these binding and unambiguous directionF, the TSPSC has, with impunity, violated the law declared by this Hon'ble Court. The Commission has relied upon the report of a Technical Committee which was originally constituted only to examine mismatches between question booklet codes and OMR numbers but which exceeded its brief by i I i ... 7 recommending condonation of errors in Part-B of the OMR sheets, effectively permitting candidates who had tampered with their answer sheets to be considered for appointment. such condonation of disqualifying acts is beyond the competence of the commission and constitutes an illegality going to the root of the matter. Neither the learned Single Judge nor the Hon'ble Division Bench in writ Appeal No. 1667 of 2018 ever intended or authorized any such relaxation in respect of Part-B of the OMR sheets. The limited discretion conferred upon the Commission by the Division Bench was confined to rectification of mechanical or clerical mistakes in Part-A, such as errors in hall ticket numbers or booklet codes. It never extended to condoning the use of whiteners or erasers affecting the answers in Part-B, which directly compromises the sanctity of the examination.

2. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPSC.

3. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perllsed the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of TGSPSC in including and appointing candidates who have used whiteners, blades, erasers or resorted to tampering in Part-B of their OMR answer sheets is * manifestly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. It amounts to a clear violation of the principle of fairness and equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. The order in writ Petition No. 1883 4 of 2017, which attained finality, stands as the governing law on the issue and the commission (, 8 was duty-bound to implement it in its letter and spirit. The Commission's conduct not only disregards the binding judicial pronouncement but also undermines the very foundation of merit-based recruitment and the rule of law' The reasoning adopted in the above said writ 4. Petition is legally-sound, consistent with constitutional principles and fortified by the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak o. Raiasthon High courtl, wherein it was reiterated that "rules of the gam.e" governing a recruitment process cannot be altered midway or after the process is complete. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that fairness and transparency in public employment form the cornerstone of Articles 14 and 16, and any retrospective change in procedure or condonation of disqualifying conduct violates the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The rationale of the said order is thus fully in consonance with the law declared by the Honble Apex Court and squarely applies to the facts of the present case. For better understanding, it is extracted as under: ', public services broadly fall in two categories. one, where services are in connection with the affairs of the state/union. Second, where services are under the instrumentalities of the state. In either category, law governing recruitment must conform to the o""'"tt(i"g principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. courts have consistently frowned upon tinkering with the rules of the game ' 2o2+ INSC 847 ) / 9 once the recmitment process commences. This has crystallized into an oft-quoted legal phrase that the rules of the game must not be changed mid-way or after the game has been played." 5 The Supreme Court further explained the underlying rationale of this doctrine in the following words: " The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In all its actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. This is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary State. action which Article 14 of the Constitution adopts. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non- arbitrary. The basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in public love is founded on fairness and non-arbitrariness in governmental dealings with individuals. "

65. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the remedial action taken by the Public Service Commission on the basis of the report of the Technical Committee dated O9.O3.2O17, did not call for any interference. Once an Expert Body, such as the Public Service Commission, constituted a Technical Committee of Academic Experts (that too outsiders) to examine the issues and once such a Technical Committee had recommended the evaluatibn of answer sheets of candidates who had committed errors in bubbling the circles in the First Part of the answer sheets, the scope of the inquiry to be undertaken by the Court is just to Iind out whether the Public Service Commission acted bonafide and whether their decision was arbitrary or unfair and whether there were justifiable reasons for their action or not. [f so tested on these parameters, the corrective action taken by the Public Fervice Commission on the basis of the report of the Technical Committee cannot be found fault with and the writ petitions deserved to be dismissed insofar as this aspect is concerned." t0

6. These principles are squarely applicable to the f., facts of the present case. TGSPSC, being a constitutional body, was bound by the rules and judicial directives governing the recruitment process. Having explicitly notified that the use of whiteners and erasers would lead to disqualification, the commission could not have, after the conclusion of the selection process, changed the standard or condoned such disqualifying acts. Doing so amounts to precisely the kind of arbitrary and retrospective alteration of procedure that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has proscribed.

7. This Court accordingly holds that the report of the Technical Committee, insofar as it purports to condone or regularize tampering and use of whiteners in Part-B of the oMR sheets, ultra uires the notification, contrary to the instructions governing the examination, and non-est in law. TGSpSC's subsequent reliance upon the same to justify the inclusion and appointment of such candidates cannot be countenanced. The C commission's deviation from the judicial mandate amounts to arbitrary .exercise of power and results in deniar of equal opportunity to law-abiding candidates like the petitioners, who have followed the instructions faithfutly

8. This Court therefore, is of the view that petitioners have established a clear and enforceable legal right to be considered for appointment in accordance with the law laid down in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017. The principles of administrative fairness, equality, and transparency as embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution must govern every recruitment process undertaken by a constitutional authority. Any deviation therefrom cannot be tolerated by a Court of law. The present case is a lit instance where judicial intervention is necessary to restore the purity of public employment and to uphold the rule of law. The impugned action of the 2nd respondent in including disqualified candidates in the interview and final selection lists and in appointing them to Group-ll Services is hereby declared illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The TGSPSC is directed to forthwith exclude such ineligible candidates, re-cast the final merit list strictly in accordance with the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2Ol7 and. issue consequential appointment orders to petitioners and other eligible candidates who are otherwise entitled to, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While implementing the directions contained herein, the 2"d respondent shall strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards emphasized by this Court in the above Writ Petition including physical verification of OMR sheets, videographing of such verilication proceedings, and I , t2 preservation of relevant records for a period not less than six months, so as to ensure absolute transparency and to inspire public conlidence in the fairness of the recruitment process. ( v

10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. No costs. t Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// t SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ANT REG SECTION OFFICER Secretariat, To, \ 1 The PrinciPal Secretary, G eneral Adm B. R.K. R.Bliavan, HYderabad , State of Telangana.

2. The Secretary, Telagana State Public service commission, M'J'Road' : rlirmpitty, Hyderabad.-

3. one cc to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU, Advocate [oPUC] one CC to SRI P.R.BHARATH KUIVIAR, Advocate [oPUc] one cc to sRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGSPSC IOPUCI Two ccs to GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, High court for the state of Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

6. 5 Two CD Copies

7. BSR GJP / / , HIGH COURT DATED i 1811112025 ORDER WP.No.2885 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS a &t lat