Sale Prithvi, S/ o v. b. consequentially direct the

Order

'l'[rr' :]sr r!' r-ius( (l in thc prcscnt \\' L )a:LItla)ns ls srlrr.rrclr cl,.r'l{'rl Itr tlrc: cornnton ordcr datt'r O9.09 2O25 p;rssr:rl lt-t' llrrs (.orLr I rn W,P.No. 1 1439 ol 202:j r nd biLlt:lr TI-rcr-r'l rr,'. follou inq tlle comnlon r rler rllrtccl 0().O().20125 passcrcl lx this Court rn W.P.No. I i. li9 ot' 2O2Ir lrrrrl batclt ulc rn t(,r'nts thercol, thc prescnt r lt p,:titiorrs lrlt' tlisposcrJ oi. No or clcr as to ct;sts ['cncl irrri nlisccli.ir]eous pelitions, if any, rhall starrtd t:lr l scrl I t SD/- G.JYOTHI AS:; STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 q $ % g q t& \Q Thr: Prirrr;rpal Secretary Higher education' derJ- lrtment' Secret:rrlat T S. Hvderahrld i#'ihar;, ,,,;i Telanqana Publrc Service Commissi' n' Pratibha Bhav:rtt Ni b H;r'; pii,,r l'ias,ii Gosha Mahal, Nampallv Hvdtrr rbad ii J s"ti.' ,, i,ti,rlun6,,na pJoi'c Service Comniission Pratibha Bhavan l''lJ n,i pli.] r.r I , c".6 , i\,4ahal Nampally Hyderabad^ 'f i," "C"t ,., ' ,,'cr^t3ry Ce-n-eral Adniinisiration Dr t arlmertt' Secretart:tt' l S,Hvder t' rd ir',i Ciil i.r. ooRllarR, sAl MAHITHA, Advocate [(] 'ucl, RAtvuLU, Advocater lPtJCl ;;;;6 i. sni rwo ccs , (iP For< Hlii?R'rou6liiortr uiglt r;oun fbr lhe St'-rr" of I ..lJnqJna r' Hvder ltb'r'i IOUTI ir;;'ic;'i' GP t oP srnvrct's ll' High Court for r ? st'te of rehro tn t :,rt Hvderab rrl ft)UTl il*"rcE.'ll,' ,\, ron cENenL ADN/ltNtsTRATlON, - gh court for thc Stalt: ,,1 lelarrqar .r . t HYdcr rrrad [OU I ] ij""-iii. s'ni' p's "nA:AsUEKAR , sc FoR rsPS r oPUCI "eoNorN/PALLY . Tr.ro CD Cr ir,c:; -.' . *:-i:1r.-.1:].::_:, !? -::a::r:ar:a . . .1,-.;_ I I I (Ai.on-g-with anrrex copy of the common order dated og og.2025 rn w p No '1 143!l of 2025) B t\4 TKS \%- :-\ HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.9413 AND 9444 of 2025 ,' irte q r:;1 (J '-2. I i I- t t]1 11 '.9"- i) * u :'7../ DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETI'IIONS WITHOUT COSTS 3,[ rQY {), Y-b---,, dttt' 1 'garu,t W.P.No.11439 ol 2025 dnd botch * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO + WRIT PETITION Nos.11439, 8558, 9032 9965 1 o531, 70927, 12206. 12338, l2a1-9, L3221, 16653 and 18556 of 2025 "/" 09 -09-2025 # Paramcsh Matta and othcrs $ The State oI Telangana and othcrs Petitioners Responde n ts ! Counsel for the Petitioners ^Counsel for Responclents Senior Smt.B. Racl-rana Rccldy, learned Senior Counsel repre senting Mol-rd. 13aseer Iiiyaz and others Sri S.Niranjan Rr:ddy, learned Counsel reprcsenting Sri. P. S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC and others. <Gist >Head Note ? Cases refe rred

1.2025 (5) SCC C)nhne SC 719 2 2O2r (4\ SCC 63 1 3 201O {6) SCC (,14 4 20 l9 {2O) SCC r 7 5.2020 (19) SCC 43O 6.202 r (16) SCC 217 7 2007 (31 SCC 720 8. 19rio AIR SC 2 r 41 2 ljau,t lw.p.t'to,t taz- 11 zozs ona botct

9.2OO7 lt) SC(_' (,03 1O SLP (Crr.il).Nr . _13I I I ol !(lt:l 11.Civil ApPe.rl i,o l.l8Or) oi lL-,2.+ t2. 1970 {11 SCt( ri I i 13.2011 (8) SCr('4.r7 I 4 .1006 (ul S('( l J L 15.2022 (81 S( (' / rl I 6.l() I 1 (l:, S( ( .r- 17.20'21 \7) S(l(l l,rl I 8.:lOO5 (13) S(l( ' - I ) 19. l99O {3) SC( t.17 2O.:r0o4 (6) s('('7s5 21.20r8 (2) SCtc.l-7 22.'2A23 (17) SC( I I i 23.'2021 (91 scr(' l :.1 24.2OO8 (4) SCC ,) r.) 25.:lO r 5 (1) SC'( l().3 26. 1986 (4) SC(i ,66 27.2O l3 1l) scct ;:+ 28.2003 l2) SCC .ll 29.2O12 tl) SC(_' t:, 30. 1(185 (4) SCC + 1 7 31. 1995( 3) SCC 8,1 32.2024 SCC ODI r:r' : t.t 33.2OO3 (7) SCC :18- 34.2o21 (5) SC(' r 35.2022 SCC Onlrrrl S(t t 7O6 3 'RRN,T l W.P-No.1143,9 bf 2O25 ond batch IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD WRIT PETITION Nos. LL439, 8658,9032 , 9965 ,10531 L0927 L2206, 12s38 , t2at9, t3227, 16653 and 18556 of 2025 Bet trree n: Pararnesh Matta ancl others The State of Telangar-ra and others Respondents Petitioners JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: O9.09.2O25 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVA RAPU RAJESHW AR RAO Whetlrt'r I<eporters o[ [-ocal netvsp:rpers may bt: allorved to see the Judgrnents? Whclhcr the copics of judgment may be It4arl<e<l to Law Rcl)o rters /Jou r.nals ? Whethcr His Lordship rvishes to see tlrc farir copy of thc Judgment? 2 3 NAMAVARAF'U RAJESHWAR RAO, J 4 ltRRN,l )w.P.No.71439_ bf 2025 qnd batch HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJES]I WAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 71439 8654 9032, eei), to 53_1-. 10927-1400, 12338 t2aL9 t3221, 1661 3 4rr{ 18556 of 2A25 COMMON ORDER :- The issue involvcd in all thesc \\rrit pctitio,i; rs or)e and thc salre wrth regarcl to the conducting ()l ntittns examinations lrom 21.1O.2021 lo 27.1O.2024 1t tht' -['elangan:r ir-rrtrp I Public Serlice Conrmissiorr ('IGPSC)

1.e r eslloncle n t (l-rereinaftcr relerred .rs "Comntission"), sr-,ekit-rS: lllli'rcltt rcliefs After hear-ing all the counsels, this Court is ir,,. Iinc<l to pass :r common order rn a1l these rvrlt pctltions 2 . The prin'rarv issue rnvolvecl in majorit,r, of' th , rvrit yretitions rs u,ith regard Lo qucrstioning thc cvaluation me:i I rrl ancl several irregularities, such iis. pror:cchtral ancl eva t aliotr (lack of transparency, thirness, r,vror-rg doir-rg, arbitr:trinr -.; ancl deviating the Rules) in conCtrctir-rg the e.xaminations, u'hiclr ead:; to filing ol thcse rvrit petitions. The zlction of tl're respot,. ent lluthorittcs Llndermincs the sar-rctily of Group I Mains Examir I tiorr 5 lnN,t ,W.P.No.11439 bl zozs and botch

3. Heard Mrs.Rachar-ra Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohd.Baseer Rlyaz, Sri M.Sure nder Rao, learne d Senior Counsel rcpresenting Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiralu, Sri G.Viclya Sergar, Ie:rrnccl Sen ior Counsel reprcsenting Sri G.S.Prasen, Sri K.S.NIr-rrth,y, lcarned Senior Corrnsel representing Sri S.Rarn:r N,lohan ltao, learned counsel appearing for the pc titione rs .

4. Sri D.Ramulu, Sri T. R.V. S. S. S. praszrd, Shreyas Reddy, Ms.Aravind Mathuri, M.S.arnirurdh SzLdhu, Ch.Sravani, Sri G.Bhaskcr Redcl1,, Smt.A.Anitha, Mr.D.Rama Krishna. learned counsel appearing for the petitioncrs and they adopted the petitioners' Senior Counsels arguments_

5. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, Iearned Standing Counsel for the Commission/l'GPSC

6. While the argllments are in progrcss, Sri. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel reltresenting Sri Sriram polali, Sri. Dr. K. Lakshminarasimha and Sri Pudattu Amarender, learned 6 lnnu,t W.P.No.11439 tpI 2025 qnd bdtch counsel :rppelrring on behalf of the unoffi<:rirl rcsltondents W.P.Nos.l14.19, 12206,12819 ar.rcl 13221 of 2()2. Submissions of Petitioners' Cournsels. Mrs. Rachrlta Reddv, lelrrrred Scnior Corr : ;r.,1 r r,prr:t.r'rtirrg Sri Mohrl. B:r sr.r:r' Riy:rz in \\r.P lIo. 114.19 ol- ,l .25, subrnirs as follow,s 7 . The Conrnrissior-r issued irlotitlcar ion i'lr. r 2 /:102-1, rlzrted 19.O2.2021 . for Group-[ Scrviccs llotrfvrng .:, r ] vircanr:rcs in diflerent cateqories. AII the llctitior)ers werc i,srrcrl n'itit hall tickets for thr: Prehms Examinatiorr, rvhicli \\,e r c l-relci on

09.06.2021 and thcy have qr,ralificcl the pr<'1i,r s cxamination Hou,ever, the respondents havc issuecl secr>nt1 : rll tickets u,ith ne\\' I'ral1 tickr:t nurnbers to nll thc petiti-, t.rs tor rnains exzrmination sclreduled from 21.10.2024 10 27.1O.. l2.l B. [n tern-]s of letter No. 134/Exams/Ct1 f c(l)zl, clated O1.)O.2024 is.ruecl by the Secre tar-l to tlte Cornrrri , ior.rt,r- of police, 45 centres rverc allotted for the Mains exzrmin:rtio:t Srrbseclur:ntlr,, thc number of c entres were increirsecl 45 to 4(r r:r r t re s,; vide lctter dated 07. 1O.2021. After completion of the mains i I a.mn-rzrtion, the 7 ERN,I |W.P.Uo.lllEg pJ 2025 ond batch results were released and the candidates were allowed to view their indivrdual subJect \\'lse marl(s In their rt'spe('tive logills alor-re. The petitioners u,ere allotted [css marl<s when compared to the other canclidates, rvho rvcre s1'sten-raticall,y lorvcr in merit.

9. After announcerrlent of the ntarks in the mains examination, the petitioners came to kltow certaitt str.rnge inccr trsis te ncie s iu the results and the manncr of conducting the examination. The respondents' response clearly reflects thc serious irregularities committed by them. According to thc respondents their own press reLease, the petitioners came to l<now that the total candldates, who appeared in the Mains eramin:ttion \\'ere 21,O75 (excluding 1 8 sports persons). Holr,'cver, very strangely, according to the marks list of mains cxamin:rtion, lt'hich r'vas issued by thc Commission on 3O.03.2O25, a total of 21,085 (excluding 1B gports persons) candidates came to be listecl, who seem to have received their marks along with hall tickets. Thc respondents' Commission has no answer to the irregularity :ts to how the number of candidates increased, who appeared for the Mains examination, have received their reslrlts suddenly lly increasing ten (10) candidates compared to the inlormation provided by the 'RRN,,J W-P.No.11439 - pI2025 ond botch Conrmissjon, rvhich shows that (1i: r ICpilncies ernd irre gr-rlaritie s u'cre committecl b5, the Comntisstor 'i,hile evaluating the rnain paper-s. When a similar irregulariry:ri r clispirritv in thc conrltrct o1' (i:-or-rp i cranrination \\,21s qLtcsl nr'<r carlicr in W.l'.No. 158 L ,;f 202.3, tl-ris Cour-t L':rnce i I llrc (irorrp I Nol ification ,l0. Trvo ciil'fr:x:nt hall ticket numbcrs u't: , isstrccl to thc r:zrr.rrlidates tbr Prelims and Mains cxarninatior. ( )r,r rng to st-rclt change in h:ill tir:]<et nurnbers from Prelirns to \l rn:;. it rs ciif{-icr-rlt to lrace tlrc rrclcliliona[ tcn canr-liclatcs rvhosr: rrll tickcts ur-c ir-rclLrded nr tlrc' General Ranking List (GI.ll- rrnr[ thc' s:ricl proceclure is a lien and new 11 After alrn()uncement of the rntin cxall r r'lrtron rcsurlts, rccorrntinq option rr,,as provided to a candrclatc '. )()n J)atnent crl Rs. I ,OO0/ - for circh subjcct. AII the pctitioner: iTVC applicd for' rcr:orr n ting oI nar ks

12. A biascrl a pproach was belng follo'"ved b. :rlkrcatrng on11, worncll to on(' ( entre and only men to otl'rer cenr', For example Centcr Code Nos 18 and 19 were allottecl to onL,' ', onlen, r,,.hereas 9 1aau.t ) 'W.P.No.71439 lof 2025 ond botch Center Code No.27 rvas allottcd to only men. The biased ailotment ol examination centres based or-r gender is against Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

13. tl thc Commission has follou,ed randomization in tl-re allotmcnt o[ centcrs to candiclares. then how onlv the nale candidates are allotted to one center and lerlale candidates are allottecl to other center.

14. A totzrl 46 main examrnation certrcs rvere allottecl. Out of the total centres, the cancliclates rvho appeared for mains examination in few centres are piirt of top 50O ranks in the General Ranking List (GRL) and the candidates who appearcd in few centres were as,arded lorv tnzrrks and iu feu, cases not even single canclidate is part of top 5O0 ranks. The answer scripts ol centre wise are given for evaluatron rvithout shulfling and the ans\ver scripts of one particLrlar centre were allottecl to liberal examiner, who awarded marks liberally and the Centre u,here none of the candidates are 1rart of top 5O0 u,as evaluated by the strict examiner. Therefore, no rnocleration technique was followed. Hencc, the entire evaluation \\ras conducted without any mechanism or withor-rt there being any criteria for awarding 10 ERN,] ',W.P.No.11439- bf 2025 ond botch maximunr rnarks and minimum rnarks. The e'L1r-ration cxercisc was carrir:d ()rlt as per the s'hims zind fancies o1' I c: e:<anrinrtrs

15. lt rs srrrprisiltg to note that lrom tl-rc Gi. tlte, c.:rnrliclat<,s rr.,hosc lurll i ickr:ts arc in continuance are gi, , l c,rlcilr santc mar-i<s. Iir.rr irrstzirtct', lbr l-rall trckct No.24090:2+; ) \\rrs u)\-r,n 125.1 al(l for 1r,rll 'icl<r:1 No.21090217 I u,as also siver I5il l,-tr lt ltc r-, resl)('(-t of h:rll ti, ket N0.240905306 rvas given 31..5 rrrtrks nnd in resl)cct of Iritll ti<:l<t:t No.2409053O7 was a: r g:r.cn 373.5 Sinrl:rrly, for lrirll ticl<et No.240905438 was gi 11 '.t70.1 rnitrl<s an<i harll trckt't No.22I09O5439 was also glen 27( '1'trerelirrc, thc c:,rnclidlrtcs \\,:tlt {'x:ict subscquent hall tickct grvc- tr irlenticltI nral ks. [,i]<r.r,r'rsr:. tht: same pattern of marks we ., gi\.i:11 lir:. 13(r9 al-r canrl id:rt c. ,;

16. 'lhe cr rtllration of ans\vers scripts c ) rttnonce(l fl-orrr O1.l 1.202+ irrrrl conrpleted on 31.01.2025. After hrcc, dti,,.s froin thc last clir-v oi'c:r:zrnts, the er.aiuation process \\,it r s1a:tecl u,ilhotrt the:-e being an,,' rrllnllnum trarning, w,hich r.na nc[ator-t. requirernent. I)trring the sard three months, th,, Coulntissjon rs supposcd to ltrrvc: cvaluatccl 21,085 theoretical 1rlsr,\/cr scripts 11 ERN,T lw.p.tto.fiqlg pl 2025 and botch Furthermore, the evaluation is claimcd to have bcen done not once, but allcgedly two times

17. The press note dated l.3.03.2025 issucd uncler the captron "Steps taken for fair and transparent vallratiorr of Group I Services Mains Answer Scripts" it is categorrcalh' rnc n tioned that "thc: chief examiners contniltee u,as /ornrccl for aaclt subje<\ with tninimum of tuo subject experTs based ctrr llrc speciolizalion of llte subjec:l area. Senior prcrrli:.>^.sors liont rrputecl rorir cr.sitie.s acro-s.s thc country Luere {dcntrJicd a-s t/re rncrn bers of tlrc chieJ examrner committce. These chief exantincrs/ auctluators are also nuolued in seueral UPSC exarninctrion.s ottrl eualrrttlions 'I'he eL'oluators haue been identiJied Jor all the .srbfect-s Jiont reputeLl uniue rstties/ institutons acros-s tftc: counlru. Al[ lLrc eualuutors ure colle g e s / in stitut[o ns.' regular Jacultg from uniucrsities,/ qout.

18. The evaluators namely Dr. Vannala Ramesh rctired in 2022 and Prof. Narasaiah Panjala retircd frorn his duties at Dr. BR. Ambedkar Open Universify were also part of the evaluation pancl, which is a straight violation to above sai(l press note. Furthcr, Dr.M.A.Malik for Economics subject \\,as engaged for evaluatior-t The said Dr. Malik is a tutor in a private institution, coaching aspirants for competitive exams at RC Rcclct,v IAS str-rdy circlc, I{yderabad. Hence, the professor, who [aught and trained for the 12 RRN,J W.P.No.11439.- tol 2025 ond batch same cxaminal ion, w.ls allowed to evaluatc the .- rpcrs of his orvn str-tdents :rncl the s:rrne being analogous to one I :ing 1he judge ol his own cirse

19. Thc cvirlrrators, rvho zlre not cortr:ernccl \\.: t,l tlrc respe(.tt\,(' subjects, \\/( r(l al)poilrtc(l as cr.,aluators. For ir-rstiir ccr, for- E,cortorrrr and Devclol)nrcnt subJect, u,hich includcs cltfl'erer I topics suclr as Indrzrn Er'orrornv ancl Development, '['elangan r I]<.onom,,' anci Developmcnt and Enrrironment Problems, I rofcs;sors fi-onr Economics br-anr:h ir,,r're appointr:d, rvho can .1 11 t:valuate tlti, topics rcllrtrrLg to cconotn,\,. rtr,vcver, the t-: tir: r claling [() Developmcnt :ind [invironrne:r-rt was als() e\ i. lual (]d bv l ltc Economy lercrrlt_v. r,,'ho has altsolnteiy no l<norr,. tclgr: about t he subject. Without a;rpoir-rting the evaiuators accorrl ng 1rr the topics for cvaiuat ion Ihe e\':rlLlation ltrocess rvas carriecl rn, rvhich lecl to gross irregr:lirr itir:s :utcl inconsrslencies leading to I 1e vcry sanctit), of the €xarnin:rtion irnd evaluartion being ln jeol:ircl_r.. Similarlv for evaluation of 'lelangana N,lovenrent and State lr rrrnation papcr. the professors frorn politic:rl science and history ,1 :par-tment we rc engased. Srrrcr: tu.o rlistir-rct grollps of evaluators .-ont the dcgrr.r' college ln llislrrrv and politlcal scir:nce clealt in evr rration work, it 13 'F,RN,I )w.p.ruo.l1llg bl 2025 ond botch I lcads to lack ol uniformity in thc marks pattern granted bctwecr-t one centre to another centrc that resulted in unfarr and uneven grading of ans"ver scripts.

20. The questions framed in the mattls exalllilrillirrll paper llrc anal-vtical and lar alvay ft-om reach ol evetluators, rvho h:rvr: tto

prcvious experie nce of evaluating cotl]petitivc i'.xams. 'l'hc evaluation rvas done u,ithout any expertise or minirnum training. Since evaluators atre engaged and allotted subject irrelevant to tl-rerr expertise, significant harm has been causcd to thc pctitioncrs. ln thc abscnce oI uniform tncchanistl lor evalr-ratirrg answer scripts, the answer scripts of the petitiotlers and fcn' others have been strictiy evaluated leading them to score lou' m zr rks.

27. The ansrver scripts evaluated in 90 da1's pcriocl and the allt:ged two evaluation processes were carried ollt. A1l tllc evaluations u,ere conducted by the same evalttators, rvhich is another mistal(e on the part of the Commission. As pr:r the GRL, 2 I , 103 candidates have appeared in the mains exarninartiotr. Eacl'r candidate has appeared for six papcrs i.c., (2 1,1O3 x 6 : 1,26,618) (total theoretical answer scripts). If 1,26,618 papers are evalrtatecl 74 RRN,J W.P.No.11439- l7 zozs ancr botch in ninety (90) days or-rlv oncc withoi_rt sccond t_-.. rlualion proccss, pcr day 1,407 papers havr: to be evaluated. Su . I e\(jessi\rc worl( load, 1ed to c ompromise oi the cre(libility of c,r rlr_riLrion proccss its( ll. Furth( r'. thc said a.s\\/cr scripls arc tll. r 'r:rir.rrl in natrrr.c: anri cach c1ur.sti,-rn \\,as ans\\r.red loerczrtly and irr ltlYticallV, rvl-rir.h reqr.rired de1;rilcd ex:rminittion by thr: experts. l,lven so, tltc: conrmission .onrpir:tecl slrch ovcrloaclccl cvaiuaLt r ) r l)r ()cess \vithin a slrort periorl of lirne.

22. The er.'irlrrati.rt .f thc (,ssa' pal)er was colt: Lrt:lt:cl bv clegret: collcgc lectLrr.r-s li'.m 'ariorrs deperrtrncnts :rnd rl r r r() their iack of familiaritv *,ilh the ruode of' essav t\.1)e answer.r thr: petrtioncrs wert: given less nrarks, u,hercas a feu' of the petiri rrer.s,, who also appcarcd lor tlrc UPSC Crvil Service s E_xaminl I I tn litr thc ve r-v same essav tll)(, anslvers se<.ured higher marks t. ., 1,1 1 in UpSC an<1 only 41 irr tlre jrr-esent cvatlnatiorr. Hence wl11 out having any criteria to jurLlc the ansrvcr, the scriltts \\rerc eva L :rted leading to disparity in th,' cvzrhration process.

23. The same evaluators scrutinizecl both Telr r rr and English mcdium answ(.rs scripts, u,l-rich lead to cliscriminrr ion tn granting marks. Thc rvorrls and thc rgason ing prcscribecl I r one language, 15 IRRN,J W.P.No.77439 ol2025 qnd bqtch i.e., Telugu, may not reflect as it is to an evaluator having English background, r.vho is not conversant with tl-re technicalities and the technical r-isage of the Telugu language. This resuited in bias against thc 1'elugu mcdrum candr,-latcs and lecl to minirn:tl scorcs from centres allotted to Tclugu rnedium candidatcs. The evaluators are selected without any selection process or proving their cxpertisc- 'lhc dcgrce college professors arc selected randomly rvrthout considering their experience in evalu:rting competitive ansrrer scripts

24. With rcgard to Urdu medium candidates, rhey are under the zone of consrderation in their respective category. The larqer discrepancy is lounct in the marlcs of the candidate l-ravlng ha1l ticket No.2409380 10, u,ho securr:d the highcst marks in essay type answers with 97.5, despite having no material or books for preparation under Urdu medium

25. In terms of Sub Clause 15.2 of Para No.15 captionecl Memorandum of Marks in thc notification, the respondents arc obligated to publish the provisional merit list on the commission's rvebsite. Hou,evcr, no such publication is done and the candictatcs were directly allowed to apply for recounting and later GRL rvas 16 RRN,I W.P.No.11439-- 2025 ond bqtch "of issued without anv prior provisional marks list (t1', n to colnpare or contrast. Hacl such provisional rntrit hst been iss; Led, there u,ould be transparerrcy in the selection Drocess, so a{s 1: ascertain hor'v manv candrcllte s mnrl<s arc rcclucc-cl or increas:cl alter thc rc- counting pro( e ss. Further, the inrliviciual sub.jer i u'ise tnarks are not disclosed publicaily. 'I'ht: respondents ought r r irave drsclosed subjcct wise marks likc GRL, u,hich "voulcl and competitive platlorm for all thr: cat-rdtclatc's crt:' lc tr:tnsparcncy

26. The Cornmission issrrecl pru)ss nolc on 1., 13.2025 stating the count of total canclidatcs lallrng unrier 100 r: r-rks prior to the completion of recounttng of answer scripts. As ; atcd supra, the marks of one of the t:andidate, r.vho zrpplied tirr recrrltntir.tg, one candidate by r-ramcly IVIs. Bomnru Poojith:r Rc r d1' lHall Ticket No.24O9 18702) also applieci for recounting of rn:ri ts ansrver sheet and after declaration of final resrtlts after recon r ting, lrer marks were reduced by a total of 60 mzrrl<s. Thc sinnl : - trcatmcnt was occurred in respect of some of the candrdates. I'he candidates, who are having d ifferencc of 0.5 rnarks, u : -e placed rvith differential ranks. llor'vever, the rr:spondents ha'. r r.:ieuely issued press note rvithout knowing such consequences Ll 13nn,t lw.e.r,to.tuts pf 2025 ond botch

27. Duc to flar,vs in the evaluation process, there is no trust in the Commission's evaluation process, as undeserving candidates are at the top in tl'rc GRL and the deserving car-rdidates likr: pctitioners .lre out of lltc zonc of consiclcration. Sincc norv the GRI- IS publishecl, the evaluation of only pctttioners ans\\,ers scri.pts rvould not suflrcc the c:rusc. Thcre is lr neecl to st.rrt again tlrr: entire excrcisc of re\ralll.rtion ancl it is not kno,'i,n as to ho'uv manv candidates marks werc addcd/reduced unfairly and drasticeLllv

28. The petitir>ners sor-rght informzrtion urrder RTI Act or-r O1.O4.2O25 sccl<ing rnformatiorr with regard to crltcrion for' evaluation, Inst ruction to Dvalu:rtors, criterion for rnaxirnurrr marks, double evalualion, third evaluation process, instructions for correction o[ 'lelugtr mediu m pa pers, model answer copics anri selection critcrion firr evaluators. No reply is given by il-rr: Commission, as therc rs no slrch criterion or mechanism fixed before evaluation of answcr- scripts. The petitioners lodsecl grievance with the TGPSC rcquesting to re-evaluate the ansu,er scripts pertaining to Group-I. There is no reply by the Commission 18 .RRN,T W.P.No-11439 - bf2025 dnd batch

29. The respondcnts arc proc€rcding with 1l ( r.ro\t stage of recrultment l)rocess and invitccl the canclirlat:; ltrr r:eltificatc verification cornrncncir rg ft-om 1 6.O4 .2025. l-ltc r iirrr , if tl-rr: ncxt level is comitletcci hrtgc loss rr.'il1 o<'crrr lo , l c irnsrrr:r:c sslll candidates. IIencc. tlrc Corrrt intt'rfercnce is r' .c r ircc: 'l'hc,rcforr., the present Writ Petrtions Sri M.Slrrenclc:r Rao, learned Senior C0u..r ;cl rr-prescDtiltil Sri Srinivasa Rao Madirajr-r in \\,'.P.No. 128 L() ci .20115 statcs as follorvs 3O. The Comntission in thc carlier Nottll<.irli ,ti \,lo.O4/12022, date d 26.O4 .2022 , 503 vncancics zu'c not ifrc r . In vieq, of cancellation of the sard Notifi<:ation, Lhe pr r.: :n1 Notificatiorr No.O2/2024, datecl 19.O2.20'24 r.r,:r s isstrcd fcrr ijr-.: ,. ltrLncics

31. In the Notific:rtion No.02/2024 clatscl lrt r .-lO.t:1, in Para

1.15 it gives cletails of the r.acat-rcics in l(3 (.i,t -qot ies ol- posts (PC.Nos. I to l8). A total of 563 vzrcancit:s rverr: slrr r,., r'r irr it. l'he 2,,(r respondent t:lubbed 5O3 vacarrclcs notifre(l I iclc Notr[ication No.O4 / 2022 , dated 2(t .O4 .2022 ancl (r0 r,acanr.it : iri u hich the 1 .r respondent :rccordecl permissiorr viclc G.O.'v s.No.16, rlatecl 79 lw. Ir P.No.77439 2025 ond bqtch

03.O2.2024. The Commission unzruthorisedly rvithout Llny power and authority clubbed t"'ith 503 vacancies

32. Perrnission grante(l by G.O.Ms.No. 16 datecl 03.02.2024 rs confined to those 60 vacancies only. As the pcrsons in power and the recruitin€i agency were intercstecl in ccrtain identifiecl persons, the Comrnission resurtccl to the canccllatton of Notification No.O4 12022 dated 26 04.2022, by u,eb r.rotc clated 19.O2.2O24 The deceptive and misr:hievorrs schente starlecl fron 19.O2.2024 Through Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.O2.2024 (Para 1.5), it ca1led upon the candi<latcs oi Notific:ition No.O4/ 20'22 dated

26.O4.2022 to apply'afresh' for notillcation No.O2 12024

33. The Commission qavc eligilrility to tl-re fresh applicants to compete for the posts notificd in Notification No.04/2022 dalccl

26.04.2022 by clubbing tl-re past notifrczltion there in with fresh vacancles The fresh applicarr-rts (Most ol them) u,ere not eligible to apply for the posts in Notification No.0'1l2022 clated 26.O4.2022 perhaps the1, did not .lcqutre Gradttation (Degree) even by

26.O4.2022 2C RRN,] W.P.No-11439- '9f 2025 qnC batch

34. The pcr-itioners have appliccl in pursuan: _- oj' Notification No.O2/2024, rlated 19.02 .2024. 'll-rc Commissr rn jr;sued press Note dated 1.1.03.2025 statinli th;tt it has utiliz . I tlrt, sc^,ices of 351 c'ahiator-s lirr corrcctir-rs sc*.. (7) papcrs I rrls, p,bJishe rl the highest rrrzrrks secLrred i, ..crr paPer or thc , \ .lrrirtia, uncler the heading oloverall perforrnanr:c ol 20,161 r:r;rll rirrt,,:r.

35. The petitioners were astonished and shor lr.rl 1o sr.c. their paper rvise arrrl total marks. 'l-h. saicl marks r,r rr.t r-cflect thc correct positi.D. Tl're petitione's lrzrl,e no iota,)l ( or-rl)r about tl-ie ans\\rers to tltc questions gi'cr-r b-1, thcm. .i.lr 1,s,.\,.rs ol the petitioners art' impregnated rvith firll particulai' r r rl rlr rails ri,hich thel' should <'ontain to say it in onc line. The i : :,\\.( rs given b1. them are complcte in a1i materinl particulars.

36. In the present writ petitions, aI thc: p<.tr iorrt,:s got low marks againsl the expected marl<s. The co.tt I : .olt ,)f the u.rit petttroners ts that there is a rnischiel/mislr rrtili, !,/ \\,rong handling of lhc evaluation by the Cornmissi;r .l.itc process follorved by the Commission for r:v:rluation of tri;.'..cr. scripts 1S rvhoii-r' defectivc and it doas rlot mcet thr st:rrrcrarcls 1o repose/instill .onfidence in the c',,aluation. EvalL i rio. is neirher 21, lnnrv,r W.P.No-17439 fi zozs ana ootcn fair nor transparcnt. The Commission pursr.rcd their deceptivc ar-rd mischievous scheme atrd acted dcsignedly from stage to stage and thereafter, the 2"d respondent held the Prelirninary Dxamination For evalu:rtion of the total papcrs, 35 1 /318 crraluators \verc engaged for attending the evilluatron from O1 .11.2024 to

31.O1.2025 is incorrect as thcy \(re re e n gagccl 1n phase \VISC manner 37 . According to the Cornmission, it er-rgaged the servir:es of 48 Lecturers for correcting paper 2 (Iiistory, Culture & Gcography) and similarly different uumber of cvaluators were engage<l for correction of different subjects, but t1-re satd number of evaluators did not attend evaluation on every day from 07.11 .2024 to 3t .ot .2025.

38. The evaluators appear to have not even bestowed five (5) minutes of time for correcting even one answcr script. Such evaluation cannot be called as an cvaluation at all espccially in a Competitive Examination of the cadre of Group-l Service The evaluation was unfair/non transparent and done to benefit the selected/ identified ferv on rvhonl favours rvere sought to be showered. 22 RRN,I W.P.No-714i9- of 2025 ond batch

39. The cardiclates, who were assigned to appe : r from identified centers secured B37o where as persons in othe- oentcrs sect-lred 17ok out of total 618 ranks. The Cornmission mr -kecl iavounlrsn-r 'uvas shourn in |e spcct of lemale czrndicl:rles fr.onr ,:, ntt:r Nos.I c3 at.Lr.l 19 and that rhe scating arrangernent played er vi ai rolc tbr- those rvho secured higher marks i.e., persons sitlinr sicie lr\. siilrr or bel-irnd cach othc: r

40. The Urclu Medium candidate were av,.ard c c trr:ltrececl:nrecl marks ancl latrcled top ranks, even tl-rough onl,1,, r e (9) c:2,-rcliclalt: s appeared fol thc examination, rvhcreas Lr- alnritsl E,OO0 Candidates appearing in Telugu Medium urini: r ulc l)ercent,lqe. The entire selection process from the issu;r r .tel iltception of Notification i\o.O212024 dated \9.O2.2O,2q I I l:1 as 563 vacancies are rnanipulated, martoeuvred and cles rnec ro favour ei few of the candidates.

41. The anal.ysis of TGPSC Group I IVIain Erirr rinaliorr resnlts points to significant irregularities in the eva r ratior-t process, casting serious doubt on the principles of fairr-res: ,rnd ur-rifbrmitv Out of 618 top-rankcd candidates, nearly 83!1, e msl ggcl L., selected ferv centers. While the remaining center-r accour-rtecl 1br 23 16nu,t lw.p.tuo.ttacq lS zozs ona aotctt ooly 17%o. This disproportionatc srlcccss ratc is alilrming, since all candidates wrote the same papc'rs r-rndcr idcntical conclitions, qualification percentages etlso sholvcd dranratic clifibrences- ranging from as high as 7 6'/t' in ccntcrs lil<c 6, l ti. I9. ancl 20 ancl as low as 22oh-38',1, in centcrs sucl-r zrs 38, 39, ancl 42. Thcse ,.r.iclc variations cannot be attriltutecl lit rzrnclorn flrrctrntrons or merit aione, and instead point torvard zi systcnric issurc of non-unifontr correction standards

42. The data further reveals spcc.ific: pultcrns that streltgthen the suspicion of biased cvalnz.ttion. A lar.Ic trunrl-lcL of c:Lrrdiclate s scoring above 45O marks were concclttl'irte cl in lr fcs, centers. Several candidates seated side b5, sicle or rvithin tlte same room secured very similar and unusualh. higlt ntarl<s, indicating potential lapses either in the evaluzrti<trr pror--t,ss or in conclucting the examination. In addition, a significantlv high proportron of female candidates scored above 4.10 ancl 450 meirks in thc liberat centers. Discrepancies were also notir-ecl in thc total nlrntber o[ candidates who appeared for the llains, rvhen compared to officral data, which questions the integrity of tl-rc: ovcrail condrrr:t of the exam. 24 Inru.r W.P-No-77419 - tp| 2025 ond botch

43. There is a huge variation in quir I I r:cl cancliclzrtcs percentage l.c Highest Qualification Percentages: Center ls Cent er I cl Center ( )(- Center.t(i - 76'Yt 7 (tol, 7301, 7 3"/o Lowest Qualification Percentages: Ccnler ilS Center .:2 - Cenrer . t(l .. 38o/,' 38%, '2'2t'1,

14. The al;or.c llcrccntagc rndicates a rna:ii r c r:urec o1 5+ percentaqe p()lnls l)etween tl're highest ancl li vr'st perforrninr: cenlers. Thc pattern consister-rtly demonstr r ,.'s l sl<crve<[ distritrution rhr,ouring centers 18 and I9, r,r sir.re Iegitimalc COII CE TNS OVCi potenti:rl non-Llniformity in evirlr r rlion stanc]arcts across exarlrrinlrtion centers. Such clisparitics t r'fr) si s rnrrltrl>lr: soc:ial categorrcs suggest the need for an in-dcp1 i'x:Lnrinzrlion of thc cvaluatiorr practiccs at thcsc ce nters to crr:r. rc trLirncss irntl uphold the inteqrity of the competitive examinat:,, l)r'r,'-1-qq

45. 'lhe Group-l mains exarnination involved 2 I , lOll cancliclatcs, 6 Papers (excluding Dnglish Qualified Paper) anrl r orrcctions were done tr,,,,ice anct thc total workloacl scalcd up to ,l r ovr: rr,vhc hnir-r,, 2,5?',236 ans\\rcr sc:ripts based on evaluator (l;r i le:ss than 1lr,,c 25 lau,t W-P.No.17439 11 zozs ona oatcr, minutes per answer script assuming a lull working day of eight

46. Every descriptive answer naturally requires quaiitative reading and markrng and moreovt:r double corrections r,.,e re done theoretically doubling the evalual-or work load. Such unrealistic evaluation speed is not just irrLprobablc but statistically and operationally impossible without n-rcchanically or templatc based correction method this amplifies the suspension that br-rlk evaluators shortcut were employed, compromising itidividuerl rnerit of candidates. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learnecl Senior CounseI representing Sri G.S.Prasen, learned counsel in W.P.No. 12206 of 2025 continued thc arguments apart from adopting thc arguments of other petitioners counsels and sul:mittecl as follorvs :

47. In order to clear the doubts of the candidates, a press note dated 13.03.2025 was issued. In the press note, the procedure followed for valuation of answer paper booklets of Group I services mains examination was also specified. As per the saicl press note, valuation of the mains answer paper booklets was done trvice by 26 'ERN,] W.P.No-L1439 i1 zozs ona oin two diflcrent evaluators/ examiners. The (l ricf llxaminers Committee u,as formed for each subject with a r Lir-rilnum tr,vo (2) subjects experts. The said Chie f Examiners i1avt,- ( valuatcd s er.r:r;rl UPSCI exaniuiation papcrs. A11 the evaluators at r r-esul:r r faculty frorn the Urir-ersities/ Gorrernment Colleges/ I:t ;trtutions. ,,\ftcr conrplelion ol ttre valuatron, data r,vas finalized orL

15.i)2.2025 and as a rneasurc o1' abunclant caution, marks ari,:r :cled rverc onr:e agatrr scrutin vect b5, the Commission without knr ,, ring the icler-r t ity of the inclivrcl r-ra 1s. Once the cvaluation is utr: ertaken by the evalnators, tlLe Commission has no role to scrt-lr n ize the rnarl<s which may bavc led to manipul:rtion of the ma -ks arvarded tcr certain candidates also. It was aiso specified tl-i t the data s,as finalized on 15.O2.2025, whereas, the provisior al marks rvere declared on 10.03.2025. The manipulations nL qht have been undertaken in the proccss of scrutiny by the Co:r mission during the saicl periocl and led to several further irre: rlarities rn the declaration of the provisional mar}:s list of the Grcr p-l Service s.

48. The sevcral representations have been made witl-r regard to the procedure adopted by the Commission in respe :t of evaluation and the declaration of the results. A news item was also published 27 hnu,t lw.p.uo.t usg fu zozs ana oatcn on 15.04.2O25. ln response to the sanre, thc Public Servicc Commission issued a letter requesting to publish rejorndcr for thc news published on 15.04.2025 to the editors Sakshi Nervs Paper, Banjara Ilills, I'l_r'dcrabad in response to tlrc nes,s rtem pr.rblisherl on 1,5.O4.'2025, wherein, it was steitcd that consccrrtive czrnclidatcs getting sarne or nearby marks were corlrmon and t hat t hcir percentagc is lcss than 17o. It was also statcd in Pzrra 2 ol thc said letter. 'l'he evaluation \,vas taken by unit of cornpetenl regr.rlar faculty who are r,r,orking in Universities and Governmcnt highr:r cducational institutions by f6llelvjng all thc cst:rl;lishecl protocols and procedures. It was also stated that, Group I N'lains e.xamination Center Nos. I B and 19 are in Veer anari Chakali Illama Women's University (Koti Women's CoJlege) and since it is:r women's institution on the request of the manzrgeme n t of the institution, only r.l,omen candidates have bccn allottecl to tire said ir-rstitution, as rest rooms are not separately ar,,arlable lbr bot h genders. 25ol' of the total women candidzr.tes appeareci through these centers. The candidates also reflect to more or lcss samc proportion of the women successful candidates. It rvas also stated that, 10 canclidates have written the Group I mzrins exatninatir-,tt 28 fRN,) :W.P.No.77439 - bl2025 qnd hotch in Urciu mecli'.tn r ancl out of rvhich, only ont l ) r:arldidatc is figuringin56Sr'andidzrteslist,whichhasll''''rPlLl;hshecltbr- callir-rg of tlre :..LlrriidateS tbr certilicate r,crificatir,l Th.-.ro is alrrar,.s a pr;ssibilitr. olclrr<lidatr:s from one centcr betrtll tlort: itt sclectior) than cotnllirt-1'(i to ()thcl c('nters'

49.Thescre:.alrrtb'notesan(lI)reSS.Ilotesissr:dllr,tl-rePr.rbIic Scnrice Cornrn jssi()n u'oU[<1 sho'"v that thcre $ra:] I o ctltlsistencv itt thc palt('rn of cxatnitlation corlclucte(i, nr.lml ( r of czrndrdates participertecl.tttIlt'Nlatt.tscrouplexanltrrertiorr.l-rml;et-ofcentr:t.s in which tlrc r]xil l]t llta tlor rs wcfc conductcd atrcl he s;t:rtus ol tlrc everluatot s, ',r'-tosc ser"'ices \\/cre availecl fol- 'aluation of tile ans\^rer scripts rrf the czrnclidates The entire plr cess undertakcll by the rcspcticit rlts fl om thc tlate of public:rli rn of candiclatcs eligibleto\\,rit|'theI-trainsexirminationtillltecleclaratioll()f gcneral r'anl.:itt3. Iist ol rhe mains examination i: Lrregular' 'l'hcr-c isacliscrcpallc.r-rr,ithregarcltrlthentrmberrlcancliclates,rvho appearecl lor :tll the seven (7) papers ln tht web-note tlatcd 27 .10.2021. it '.vas notified that 21,093 candidi 1 :s, which inclttcle 18 sports lanrlidate s appeared for al1 ll e' examinations' Tl-rereafter, rn the press note datecl: I 3.03.2025, it wzrs stated tl-tat 29 PaN,t w P No.17439 lpf 2025 and botch number of candidates who appeared in the mains examination are 20,161. In the General Ranking List (GRL), whlch rvas published on 3O.03.2025, the number of candidates, who appeared and ,,r,ritten the examination are 21,085. On 30.03-2025, the marks list of all tl-re candidates r,vho appeared in the mains examination u.ere uploaded in the Commisslon s website who are figuring aL SLNo. 1 to 21,085. On the sarne day, the Cornmission has published the general ranking tst of mains examination upto the rank of 12,622. Thus, there arc variations in the number of candidate s who appcared for the mains examinations held fron't

21.1O.2024 to 27.1O.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners are constrained to frle the present Writ Petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Rama Mohan Rao in W.P.No.18556 of 2O25 submitted as follows : -

50. The Commission's admission rtself reveals the adoption of a procedure alien to its own frame work. Neither the Notification nor the TGPSC Rules authorise double valuation and the "third 30 tRnN,/ w.P.No.l1439 - bf 2025 and batch valuation" rvas also done by TGPSC as allegccl n the counter affidar,itinW,P.No'gg65ot2o2i.landthereforelitisttratlires. ParaNos'17.]and13'iofthcNotilicationNr--).l2024require notice \\'i.r: issued to the public notic€r of changes. -\rel no cancliclates for double / triple valuation on UPSC practice is equaill' misplaced' as the I' I SC follorvs only The Cotnr r is sion s reliance single valuation

51. When thc law imperative i)' declares that lr )er€r 11o statute' rule, or notilication authoriscs zr seconcl or tlr rd valuation of ansrver scripts, thc entire selcction process is r l.iatc'd and that rule applies to the prcsent case 'l'he double anci -riplc valuations carried out in the Group- i Mains are illegal ' and the entire evaluation excrr:ise is void Sr-tch revaluation : lso violates the terms are express provisions of Notificatior, No'02l202'1' "'hose manclatory and bindrng on the C)ommission ar r a1l candidates' This unlawflrl proceclure has gr:rvely prejudice < the petitioners and their ans\\rer scripts were subjected to rndisclosed and unauthorised re-marking. N o'"v the final marks I t st on an opaque mechanism never contemplated by the governing fratnework' and the respondeuts have been clenied both transpare ncy and the leve1 31 RRN,J w.P.No.114i9 '91 2025 ond botch playing field guaranteed under Articles 14 and 1 6 of the Constittttion, thereby casting doubt on the validity of the General Ranking List and frustrating their iegitimate expectation o[ a fair assesslnellt

52.TheHon'blcApexCourtit'tonecaseidentitlederanriner- variabilitl' as the fundamental vice tl'rat can distort a descriptive answererantinationTheCourtnotedthcso-ca11ed'ha'"1'k-dove phenomettou', some assessors are habitually liberal' others l-rabitually strict, and each rnay still drift from the agrced yarri stick even after an orientation mceting Whcn different examitlcrs value dilferent batches of scripts, a candidate's fortunes turll ot.l the accidental identity of the examiner rather than on merit 'lo eliminatetirisClementofchance,thcCourtprescribecla systematic equalisation mechanism ca11ed 'moderation" not mere mathematicarl averaging. Moderation is a qualitative cum quantitative process lccl b1' Head (or Chief) Examiner' t'ho first convenes alI asse ssors to agree on uniform marking norms'

53. A striking disparity emerges in the treatment of Telugu- meciium canclidatcs. Although 7,829 Telugu-medium aspiranls $,rote the Mains examination, on[1' a negligible fraction features in 32 RRN,J ;W.P.No.174j9_ fi1zozs ond batch the final list ol ir63 provisionally selccted can<lrc t tcs. By contrast, out of ten Urciu rnedium candrclates, who sat ll,r Mzrins. one has been selecleci ;r. overall sltccess ra1r, exccedin r,, ) )t1.,, tvhereils the succcss r:rtc for l'elugLr a1.l1tlic:rnts is sr-rpprcssc,i. Iturt inclisl;utably r-rnder 1o..;,. 'l'hc Cornrntssi<t, s .*.1-r l)ress ,ot. I Ltecl 1il O:i_2O25 records thr: 1:rrrguagc -u,isc brcal.l_rrp of IMatrr ptrr.liciltlrn ls as Dngiish 12,323, Tehrgu 7,g29, irr:,<l Urclu 9, yer : h:is rehrsed thc RTI applicati.n illed r.questing trl cliscrose the t r r lr-rzrr.rs .ssrg:recl to 'lelugu scripts. A sr-rbseque,t rr:t1t'r cr:rrr:cl r i +.2o25 c.on[irms that ten (1O) IJr clr-r-mr:clitrm canrlrclatcs tool( t,l candidate arnoltg them was qualitiecl, r.vhil., \'larns:tnd one eclLrivalent transparency exists for'l'elugu_rnr:cliunt outco[](.: rr,hrr:h is illegal

54. The abscnr-.c of compctent .lclugu cvaluai oriented marking bhtcpriut, zrncl the opaqLl( rs, the Iinglish- t:ntr e .rllocation policy constit ntes discriminlLtory lrertment in \ r l:rtion of Art icle: 14 of the Constitution ancl firtalh, unclcrmine [hr :rcdibilit-v of rhc evaluation process.

55. The results also reveal startlir-rg clisparitie s rcr()ss language meclia. Althotrgh onry nine cancrirlates r.vrrte tlr,. cxarnination in Urdu, several of 1l-rem secur.ed u npre<:eclented tv iigh marl<s arnd 33 IRRN,I w.P.No.71439 pf 2025 ond botch figured among the top ranks. By contrast, nearly 8,000 candidates wrote the Mains in Teltrgu, yet Lheir success rate is negligible' Immecliately, after tl-re Mains concluclcd on 27 .10 2024, Telugu med ium ca nclidatcs subnrittccl .1 r'c prcsen ta tior-r datcd 29 - 1 O -2021+ reqLlesting f:rir evaluatiotr of Teluqu scripts, but the responclents have neithe r acknowlcdgr:d nrtr acled upon the said re presentation till date. Thc commission has pul)[ishccl the list of Urdu-mcclium candidates u,ho u'ere selected, rvhile u'ithholding any similar list for Telugu meditlm c:zrnclidates Sttch selective clisclosure, coupled with lhc uncxplz.rinecl arv:rrding ol exccptiorlally high marks to the Urdu medium canclidates, renders the respondents' conduct arbitrary,illegal,andviolalivectfconstttutionalguaranteesof equality and fairncss.

56. One amollg the rnost critical concerns regarding the evaluation proccss ol tl-rc Group- I Mains Examination conducted by the Telangana State Ptrblic Service Commission (TGPSC) pertainstotheabsenceofqualified,subject-specificevaluators' which has seriously undcrminecl the cr edibility, fairness, and constitutioual validitl'of the selection process Multiple key papers in the Mair-rs examination were er,'aluatecl not by domain experts, 34 'fRN,I w.P.No.11439 - of 2025 ond bqtch but b1, facultv ntclnl>r:rs from unrelatecl clisciplirrr"' rvhich not only reflccts institlrtional negligence, br-rt also violatcs trc llrinciples of natu ral .justic" STTlreCotltlltissirlrlsr:ckstoblltrtlrelirlt.ll(.1.',('Iltlttldc-.ratirltl to jtlsti[v its and scaling, ttsing thc tcrms intcrchittlgel'lr ' procedure and it is a cle libelate rltelllpt tr) lri:l '; :l tht Cor-rrt l-lr' corlflatlrrg thesc ..:ategtlries. the Ctlmnrissiott o};s. l t r's its farltrre tct imPlement lhe |igorous, two tier rtoc'lt-ratiott l)' i ( (lss presc:ritlccL lor common pal)ers and not only nrischltra( tt ' j('s tllc binding prcceclcnt in onc of the rcccnt jr-tdgnlcnt 1;f l lrr: r\pcx Cor-rrt blrI also undermrncs the transparencv an(l thirnes i li il1 trlo(lcrzition is inlr:nded to secu re.

58. The respondent's Comlnission has ltclrnit r lo t].tc fact that except for enteriug the marks in ttrc O\IR sht'r l here is no tr'icc ol marking or irlclication of evaltt:ttion on the I I s\\rcl'sr:rtpts allcl tht:reasongivelrisbecausetlrereisclotrblee\l.i..rtion..I.GPSCcIicl not want the second cvaluator to l<r-ror'r' th' rrlarking of first evaluzrtor. Horv,:ver, the method is agair-rst thc l rtio laid dowr-r by thc Flon'blc Sul;reme Court -rlingsThe Clonrr:r ssiott's dcliberate Concealment of examiner iclr:ntitics, sttbject-t,l:,r lllarl<s ancl otlrcr 35 tpau,t )w.P.No.11439 11 zozs ona aotcn key cxamination clata, relegated to sealed covers rather than publicly displayed stands in clear violation of legal precedents and the princiPle of transPare n c 1'

59. Wittl rcgard 1o systctlric l;ias ag:rir-rst Telugu medium candidates, renumbcnng o[ hall-tickets from Prt:lims to Mair-rs and the segregation of exatninatiotl centres appear designed to corral Telugu-medium candidates, cenlres such as 14' 35' 32 arld 4O' reserved almost entirely tbr 1'elugtr scripts' recorded markedly low se]ectionratios.Chartslrorr'sTeluguonlycentres(44,35,32'40 etc.) with dismal selcctiot-t ratios \/s EngJish-medium ccntrcs and the Language wise Re sults (TGPSC Group-l Mains) are :- "TcluEL: 8.48% 50 selectecl out of 8'686 tuho appeored English:91".'i-5lOselcctedoutofl2")Sguthoappeared IJrdu: 0.1''/o - 1 selectetl ttut oJ' lO who appeored"

60. The Commission faiied to Ceploy suitablY qualified Telugu anslvers were undervalued' evaluators, so 'weli-st ructr-rre c[ Fourthly, clespite a lbrmal representation dated 29-lO 2025 immediately after the Mains exarns requcsting a Telugu answer key special instructions, anc{ separatc evaluators' the Commission did not respond. Collectively, these practices have concealed a 36 ftau,t lw.p.ur.ltqsg- bl 2025 ond botch success rate of k:ss than one pcr cent for Tehrg-t :tnrliclates, whilc Urrlu candidirtes enjo_v a success rate above l O,l 6I Nearl_v .10!,i, of .ancliclates \\,,rote trr lirlr . : l.:_ \Iai.s a,rl thr'sc carrdrd:rtes haci :rlrcacly (l(]moltstralecl tlrr:lr rrr:r il br- clcaring the' Preliruinary cxarninat ion aheacl or' mo:-r: l.r:rr loru lar<r.r asplrants. I Ior,vcvcr, lvhen drarvir-rg cornpar.rs,. l ri ith APPSC TGI']sc hicles t[rt: ,articipation figrrrc ancr high'.,i rs ..rr. thr: final seler:tion rler( en1aces. It also onlits a c^rcial slr l ( rrrrai diff.rcncr: TGI'SC's ()ror-rp I recruitrncnt is a t.,r,o tier 1_,r Mar ir-r s), u,frer.ttiis AppSC lollows 'r'ss ([)rc Iirns I 1 tltrec-trer t)r,r 'css. (prclims + ltrtervie\v). By ignoring 40 ,2, .[elugu_ml:ci i rrn ]lirr tjcli)ation APPSC, 'f , I,SCt l)rcscrlts ir ancl thc addirior:zrl intcrvicw stagc Mails + lIt skeu,ed ltictur-e th:rt rnasks the stark disparit_r r:t r;eL:c.lion ratios ;inci lirrtltcr exposes a serious transparenc_-y del.rr : n i1 r; rcpLrr t ing

62. With rcrlarrJ to clubious ancl ntanipulat -..r rttrr.tis list, thc IRespondcrrt's cor.r'rmission asserts in its comrL, r coLLrrter (par:r 76, page .1.5) that 'As chrifiet! abot,<,, thc Web note dated 13.O3.2O2:; rlc.toils of cLrndiclotcs, tuho hctue qurLl[fiarl irt llrtglislt tt, rnonclotorq lbr cuolucttinll th.e other atLstuar sc:riltts) . . trlaiIt'rl th( 37 IBRN,I \w.p.ruo.11439 Ipf 2025 ond botch

63. 'lhe Commission is completely silcnt on thc fact that numerous candidates, who did not qr-talifv the English language paper nevertheless had all their othct- arls'nver scripts evaluated and thcir scorcs inciucled ir-r the pubhshed rnarks list ol thc l\4ains Exarnination. A simple revierv of thc total marks list (filed rvith material papers under Anncxurrr P 1 3 :r1 Page No 2 I 3) revezrls multipie instanccs of candiclates ert SI Nos 27, 33, 46, 47 ' 57 ' 58' 59,63,etc.,whofailedtheEnglishclr-ralilier(Mrnimr-rm30ol'for certain categories), but'.vhose totlrl nlarks secured out of Paper I to Paper VI nonetheless appcar a clcar contradiction of thc Commission's own notificatiot-r, rr"hich renders qualiif ing English paper is a precondition for further evalltation as per own admission of TGPSC in Para 76 of thc aclditional common colrnter atficlarvit.AstheCommissionhas;w,ilfulll,ignoredtl-risrnanifest discrcpancy, the entirc total-n'rarks list rcleascd cannot stand lf passing English is a rrandatory' llre conclition for evaluating the remaining papers, how do lhe agiiregiltc scores of canclidates "vho failedEnglishnonetheieSSappeirrirltl.relotal-malkSlist?By including such unqualified candidartes, the Commission has breached its own notification, rendering thc General Ranking List 38 :RRN,] W.P.No.11439' lof 2025 and botch illegal, proce(lLlrally infirm, and tltercforc, thc s:r rcr isr liablc to bc set aside in its r.ntirety. Such :r deviation no1 ( nh' r-rolates tht: principle o1' lcgitrntate expectation, br-rt alsr cor-tsritute.s alt :rrbitr:rty ('x('lltrs(' oI cliscrction, in violation ol-t\r]: I r:s I-1 lrnci l6 rrl' thc (lttnstittrtton rri It'tc]ia. Moreoylr, the s:rid glar r il rrrcotisislclcy It:nds to thc. :nescitltzrblr: conclusron tl-r:it tltr' ti trl r-,etrl,.s list is fr ar:ght rvith Ir-i.,,rcl anrl nranipulation. 61 . Inilirrlh, thc Cornmission sr]brnitter.l wriltc r i;-rsrructions irr the rrpen C'orrr-t on 16.O4.2025. The Crtrnnri:: on cleniecl tltc :rllegations ol thr' pe til roncrs collr)sel anrl opposr thc qr lrrtinq ol' inte riur or der

65. After hr aring llte rnattcr both sides at it r stlr, this (tourt passecl thc lirllou'rng internn order on 16.O1.202:. 'l lrc opcr-irtivc portion ol thc or(icr reads as lbilotvs :- In view of the urgencg in the matter, tl < process of certificotc verification mag go on. Houeuer, no t ppointment shall be scheduled or cond.wcted. in this egard, till Jinalizotion of the writ petition. List on 28.O4.2025 at 2.75 p.n." 39 lanru,t W.P.No.17439 bf 2o2s ond batch

66. Aggrievecl by the samc, tht: Cornmission has frled W.A.No.4B7 of 2025 and the Drvision Bencir of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal on 30'O4'2025 by obsen'ing zrs follou's :- "Sincc tlLc' irnpugnecl ctrd'cr s ltttcrlocLtlt)rtl ttr trtittra u'ltrch can be nrcrlrficrl, nrtllrftecl, tliscontintLacL clc.' ltrl tlrc ltttrncd Srnqlc' after lrcctrirtq b,-ttlt t/re sirlc-s ..ncl QS tl'tc rn'rr1('r r-s odtrritteclly list?d todQll ttt 2:15 t'.tL, Lue dacline inletft:rt'ttce HotLtcter' cotLsiderinq the to bt' kept llature ttf tlrc motter Luhere entire crltpoi ttt trtent s trr abcyanca, ute d(jctt it prt'pt'r' l'1 /h( irrrt'rcsl ')l ftrslr((l' to raquest the tcarnetl Single Judge to dc:ckle lltc' qrlcslron of ttterinl relLeJ axpcclttiottsltl , preferablg, Ltefttre cttntnt t:rtce rrt t'trt ctJ' rhc t'ttstritt'/ summe,r uacotion. " 'lirecl?cL 67 . After disposal of the said Writ Appeai' the Cornrnissiotr has fitcdl'A.No.3of2025alongwithCounterSeckillgtovacatcthe interim order dated 16 04 '2025 passecl by this Court in W.P.No.I1439 of 2025 In their countt:r strttcd as follor'r's:- 6B The avcrments in the writ pe[ition arc vaguc' frivolous and baseless and are merely intended to sta II the CrouP I Services the Comrnission has recruitment. On 07 'O7 '2024 in its publishecl thc details of all shortlisted for GrouP I Mains' preiirns ha1l ticket number has been printecl for:rll the candidates' rvho have qualified for Group- 1 Mains Giving a continuous the cancliclatcs, '"vho have been In the Gror-rp- 1 Mains hall tickets' "vebsitc ' 40 .RRN,J W-P.No.17439 - iof 2o25 ond botch se(lLrcnce lbr herll tickets rvortld bc convcnient I<.r rrirrttng of'ON4ll shccts accompzrnvtng the ansrver sr:ripts, distrilrr I irtti of tl-tt: sarttt across thr: exarnrnzrtiorr ('entcrs ancl also in thc ': Lrrtinatir.rtt l-ralls 'lhis plays :r r:r Lr,. ilrl r'olc in vcriff ing thc r::rncliti,, :s rtppearcd, l]] evalrtrtion turd rrlso rn consoliclation of the clittrt. ih,is ts :'r ir('w s( 1 of Il;rll ticl<t:ts nr.rlrrbcr s qiven ibr ,!lains r:xarnin: I a)rr ,rs u'rrs dorrr in thc' prc,. ious Liroup i Notiflcation Nos.15/2(t rrrr<1 18/2011

69. [n o: cler 1o scrvc an eclr-tal pla-v ground. tlri' ],tnrnission h:rs marlC multil;lt-' r onsult:rtions to :rrrive art a ( ) ralLrsion in tlrr: lnatlcr of sel('cti'lg th(' tcst Ccntcrs. Thc logistii:, :rtrLcnitics antl the hr.rrnart r( sotLree s are arranged in a tnannct . -rart t eclucr:s aut forni of clisr:rinrin:Ltion. rvhit'h inr:ludes cotrsidcr',r iott of ext'lusir', spa(-cs arr<1 syrc'iai arr:rnqcrnenrs. Duc to itts,r 1lt:ir:nt st:rlT for seleCtion of test r'r'ntl ('s, tlre Colnmission depcn I:rnl. on [)istrict Collectors an<t on theil recor n rnenrlation, the Conr rLission llrralizcil the ccntrr s 7O. The NIains eraminertions between lA.2O2.l anrl 27 .1O.2024 rvcrc c--onrltrcted onlt' in the Distrjt t ; of Hyclcr:rbacl Rang;r rccldr aircl NIt'clch:rl N4all<ajgiri thal i Lclurlcs r':rrions Corn rniss ronc rlrt,, Jr_rnsdir;1ion (Hyderabad, ()vb('raba(l ancl 41 f RN,J W.P.No.11439 bf 2O25 ond batch Rachakonda). Initially, 45 Test ccrters $/cre idcrltificd and in respect of fe*, centres, it was noticecl that the stre.gth allotted needs to be reduced owing to the facilities and the ratio that is to bc rnaintai.cd betr.r,ce. candiclates, rooms ancl the humerrr resources 7l. The 'l'est Centre Coclc 21 i.e., (CVR College o1- Engir-reering) initially the strength of 984 rvas proposecl. Hou,cvcr, a proltlem was noticed in Test Centre Codc l9 (Telaneana Mahila Viswavidyalayerm) that Ground Floor is at higher elevatlon \\,ith stcps and PWD candidates cannot climl: the stcps. Hencc, g7 candidates, who were allotted to Test Centre 19 *,r:re movccl to Test Centre Code 21 by reducing its strength from 984 Lo 7g7 to accommodate 40 PWD with scribe canclidates. Anothcr, 43 pWDs rvith scribe rvere allotted to Test Centrc Code 39 (St. peter,s Engrneering College) by reducing its strength frorn .504 to 35g to accommodate 43 PWD with scribe candidates. Dcsprte initiall-y sending Letter No. 734 lExams lGrp I 12024, on further deliberations to avoid inconvenience to the canclidates and 46 Test centres rvere tinalized for conducting the Mains Examination. The said exercise rvas taken up before the Halt Tickets were generatecl. 42 RRN,I .w.P.No.17439 - lo7 ZOZ5 ond botch All Ijail Tickets $'cre generated only aftcr thoror-L: r verification of these types oi issues and after finalization of Tc st Centres, the data was pror:essed for Hall Ticke t generation att the back-cnc1 proccss before it rcached to tl're hence, the candidates are no $':r'r' affected bv t:t I thc sarlie rvas :a ncllcl:rtes zrnd rsc cl-r:rnges, as the process took place r'r'ell before downloadlng tht Hall Ticket,

72. Tl-re Commission ha<I condncted the )ror-rp-l Mains Examinations from 21.1O.2A24 k> 27.1O 2024' Itt this legard, the Commrssion ltad pnblished a rveb note on 27 1O ' O21 i.e., on thc last clay of thc exam urlten thc exarninatiott displaying lhe figures of the canclidates, who r u,as going on, rpeared for the Mains Exam-

73. When the er xan-r is going or-r, rhe Cl'rief Supe r ntendents of all exam centers LLave to manualll' obtain detari[r present frorn cach of tlle cxamirLation halls ar'r of candidates s Llbmil to the Commission. The figures subrnitted by the Chief ir.rperintende nts on the day of exam are subject lo minor varialirl r. 'lhe figure of 27 ,O7 5 publish(rd rn the web note categorica I r' excluded two categories i.e., 1. the Sports persons, rvho wet-:: Court by vrrtue of the orders in W. P I allowcd b1, this os.24113 12024, 43 trRN,l w.P.No.71439 lJ zozs ona aotcn did not 2804612024, 2502812024, 2793212024, 27972/2024' 2872912024 and' 2897812024 and tu'o candidates "vho appear for all sevell papers. After the completion of the examination ancl aftcr receivinSl the used and unusccl answcl- Books atong rvith hard copy Nominal Rol1s, the same is compared to check the correctness of present candidates with respect to the Nominal roll and thc OMR.Answer Book to flnalize thc correct attendance particulars. It is an established procedure at the Comm ission to publish the tental ive atlendance figure s obtained on the go whcn the exam is ln process and to publish the Ilnal details after the evaluation is completed' 7 4. The Commission has released the list of candidates' who have attenclcd all seven papers on 3O'O3 2025 and hostcd tl-re same on the official website, which has reflected a figr"r re of 21,085. Initizrlly, at the time of publishing the web note dated 27 .1O.2O24, the statistics rvere based only on the figures submitted by Superintendents of the exam centres The accurate figure is arrived only after the attendance records are procured from the test Centers and the data is reconciled and consolidated furthe r. 44 NRN,J W.P.No.11439 - bf 2025 ond batch

75. The Commission vide rveb note datecl 10.0.- 2025 accepted online requests lbr re countirrg betr,veen I ( .03.2025 and

24.O3.2025, rvtrich is immediatcly after the ri: ::rse of rnarks subject s,isc in thr: inclividr-ral logins o[ thc c rnclidates. l'l-re Commission has receited a representation zrlonq rith cnclosures dated 01.04.)O2ii on O2.O4.2O2r lrorn one Ms. : rmrnu Poojitha Reddy allegir-rg :r cliscrepancv of marks in Groltl I eramination after the rccounting process with a request to r€( tif1. her rnarks. She allegecl a reduction in total rnarks obtaine: by her by 60 marks betwee n original marks and the recount :cl marks. Thc Commission has considered the representation z l d vcrified with the records present rvith the Comrnissiott. 'i'he Crr nmission could see no change ir-r the marks allottecl to Ms. Bommrt Pooj itha Recldy as against the aliegation of 1l-re s:Lid canclidzrte . ( \ tcr <lircction of this Court, thc petilioner's courtscl impleaded he Ms.Bommu Poojitha Reddlz and later slre filcd a counter aflr lavit disclosing her inability to continue in the rvrit petition as a r(: pondent.)

76. The District Aclministration ancl the Co1le;3 ar-rthorities of the Test Centres bearing Cocle Nos. 18 and 19 ha.' : requested the Commission 1o allot only rvome n candidates r r t1-re Group I 45 lar't.t \w.P.No.71439 Qf zozs ond botch Mains, as it is a women's Institution. 'lhey havc staled that duc to the non-availability of scparate toilets for rnen, it would be appropriate to allot only women candldates to their institution. It is not just the Test Ccntres 18 and 19 had exclusivcly \\romcn candrdates but also Test Centre bearing Code No. O5 (Governrnen t Degree College lor Women, Begumpet), also requested to allow only womcn candidates and lor this tcst center also only women cat-rdidates have been alLotte cl lor n,riting Group I Mains exams.

77. The allegation tirat thc candidates who wrote the exam in the Tcst Ccntcrs 18 ancl 19 are high is not correct. From Test Centre 18, only 5.414.i of the candidates, who have written the exam from the center harrc been picked up for certificate verification and only 4.12o/o of c:rndidatcs from tcst center 19 havc been picked up for certificate verification. Since the Test Centres 18 ar-rd 19 could accommodate more canclidates unlike all other test centres, it is logically possible that proportionate outcome is relatively more. Horveve r, a correiation is drawn based on the number of centres, its capacity and the women candidates to verify the proportionate outcomes for al1 the Test Centres, where the Mains examination is conducted. 'I'he study of the above data 46 tgRN,.t W.P.No.174]19 bf zozs ,'\a oo{rn does indicates tlrat the 'lest Centres, wl-rich had r rclatively large capacity, did rcflect a proportionately large rercentage and percentiles of me asures in several aspe cts. FLLI I rt: r, thc pickup percentage for thc ccrtilicartc rrcnfication frorn tl- r 'l'cs: Centres is

5.4I'k and 4.L29|,, rvhrch is not an abnormal perr r n1,.r9,e. A sirnilar pick up percentagc is also u,itnessed rn fr-' ', other centres evidently. Hencc, it is incorrcct to statc that is:ri rrrcglrlarity and inconsistency

78. The Comnrission has always adhcrccl r( the standard procedures anci gurcleline s 11-I err.aluating Ihc rrrs\\/cr scripts Myriads of sub-jectivities ancl probabilities canno be clragged into the horizon of a ratior-r:r1 inference or :rn allegatic.r i rs preser-rted by the writ petitioners, based on rvhich, it is rvrong t ) st.rLc that there is an endemic selcction ancl therebv 15 AI) i-regrrlaritv and inconsistency. The allegation of irregulzrrity c:rrrrr r stand because the subsequent candidates obtained similar nri ks. 'lhe marks obtained by each of the persons, rvho is placed rr a sequence, is verified by the Commission and even thougir sr( tIle candrdates, who were given hall ticket numbers consecutir., r ,. have secured same marks. AI1 of them have secured clifferent rl arks in each of 47 IRRN,J ',w.P.No.17439 bl 2025 and botch the seven papers and it is only the grancl total' which is same for some of the candidates ln anv recruitlnent exam' r'vherc largc number of car-rdidates writes tl-tc: cxirnl, it ts very commrlrr fcl r many candicliltes to sccure samc tnarl<s and rt is bccar'.rsc of Lhis reason, the Cornmission has pntllishecl the tie lrreak clzruse in the Group - I Recrttitment Notificati<>n' 7g. It is incorrect to statc lhat the evalttation procedurc adopteci by the Comnrission is lerulty Tht' Conrttttssion has conducted the Group- 1 (Mains) examination (Conventional/ Descriptive tl pe) from 21.10.2024 to 27 10'2O2'+' lor c:rnclidatcs' nrlto ltavc successfully clcared the Gr-otLl; 1 I'reliminary Test 1-rcld otr og.06.2024. This exar.nrrration r,'.as parl of the selection proCeSS to frll up thg r'26ancics uncler Notification No 2 ol 2024' dated Ig.o2.2024. 'll-re Mains exam colnl)r-rsecl a quatilying paper and six main comm<)n papers The Gc nr:ral I)nglish paper was purely X-Class; st:ttlclard, and its marks rverc qualifying test, set at thc not considercd for rankir]g. Tl-re six ntain colnlnon papers are as follows: "['rQar [. Cenctztl E-s'sai7 Papt:r II.. Hi-stor-LT Cultut e, urul GertlrcLplrg 48 RRN,J W.P.N,.11439 - ol 2025 ond bdtch Papt r IIl. Ittdiatr Socielq. Con;itlttlion, atul Got'r t ttnc,: Papt r IV: Economy antl f)eut'lo1>tri,:nt Pttpcr V: Scicrtce & Tet lrtutlctclLl rrrtd Dctlrt lttt(.t t) | '(tiia' Pultt:t VI: Tclctttqanct l\1ot:errLu rl rrnal -Sl(rr€' Fctt tt , tott lEat.lr poper Crirncs -15(, rrtari . i,'tolltncJ ()()0 rt t , ;t' BO. Tl-re TGI'SC issued a press Itot(' ot1 13-03.2(r :i, giving claritv and confidelrcc regarding the r:r'nluatioli I)r', '\s, stirtin < ils follorvs 'Tie u,lluation ol' Att;Lt ar -sarl/trls {'()i i rlt'rl(r'(1 01/ 11/20 l1 artd cotrpletecl ctrt 31/Ol./)O25. Irolloutinq is tlv proccthtrc tltel 1t, ualua(ion oJ Ansuter Paper l)ool.:!tts o.[ Grortl, ! o.! -<l | )ili1t\\l lt )r , i-,rs .r1/.]l r s 'fhe Moirt Anstuar scr{rt coftrot,.-' ii prepinted condidates' detctrls ii) 7Jt' )t't Qnd 3n tlle porl tultt're mat ks are au'tttclecl lttl llre ewtrrtiner 7r rt; rl 7)tt' tt i a )tltatttlS ti) Before the uoltLation ,r)rocc.s-s rs -slii, i Barcode Slrcct uthtch corttainecl rrrndidcttc:; rl,'t detaclrcd untl cannot be seen b!1 tlu't'.wtrnuu:r or ar,t at antl potnt of time. I tfu: OMR iri,t pou1r1" ualucttiott ol alI An.stt'c' scr]ras rs mand atortl iu) The ualuotiort ttJ Mctins Ansut:'t Pct1t,'' lrroftl:'l tir<ts- don<: Lwicc bt1 two di,fferenl Vttluators/ E.rantittt'r.s. A1 , ' ccttttpLt'lictrt 49 laru,t |W.P.No.114i9 11 zozs ona aotct, of rtrst ualuation, th? f)art contoining the ntctrlts ctutctr rled blJ the 1'' ualuaLor is clctrtchcd arLcL proceeclecL Jor 2'"i ucllLtQllotL

81. The writ petitroners contentions re garding thc press note eLnd their misinte rprct.rtior-r of the cvlrlrtation ol' papers and the appointment ol unclualit'ied eraminers lbr et':rhration are totall-\' hypothetical, vaguc, and basclcss, it is statcd that thc Commission, with r,rtmost care and cllligcnce has conducted Group 1 (Mains) examinatiou (Convcntional/ I)cscriptiv€r tvpe), and utmost care has becn tal<en rn evalurating tlte answcr scripts of candidates. The Expcrts, hzi,' ir-rg clomaitr Iir-rou'ledgt: ln the respective subjccts, u'crc engagcd in the cvaluation process, and the marks awarded by the exarniltcrs \\rct-e thoroughly verified. No information can be rcvc.rled or was rcvealed as to who evaluated the papers. 'lhe GRL was releitsecl on 30.011.2025, only alter completing the entire process, mal<ing the wrtt pctitioners claim unfounded.

82. The evaluators are vcry tnut'lr rvithin the permitted consideration and as the word 'regular'' only exclucles the 'private teaching persons'and to be construecl onlv it-t that manner to only exclude as the purposive interpretalion adopted here is to 50 ,RRN,I Jw.e.Nosu.t:t - tof 2025 ond botch accommodate an crpertise, u,ho could evalnatr the papcrs that requires high stanrlards of l<nowl:dge .rnd vast .. <pel-rence in t he relevant cliscrpiines and othc:r ancillzrr,y sulr-jer.r,, c'nrrnatir-rg. -l'Itcr principlc "Exltre:;sion Unius Dst Dxclrr.sio AItcntt -, Lt.nr bcr uckrptccl for a purposivt, inte rpretation of tl-re $,or d irr tlte r tr-:ts;rr tl1 thc u,cb note publishtrl. 'l'he Commission prioritizi's I it-rsPtrrerrc.,1. lrrrc! acco rr ntaltilitv at cach and cvery stagc ol th( ( \.inrilta(ion :tncl hencr: to cnsltre high standards of acc<ttrnta Irilil t l1tt, (jortr:nrssion has categoricalll. excluded the Private lacult-r. ii,' tini. involverl in the crrtirc proccss oI cvaluation.

83. The tertr 'regular faculty" cloes not <,xchr,l : rr:tirecl lr,rcirltr mernl)ers. It is a standard practice .i(.ros:, prrl,lic Servi<:e Commissions to engaqe retired facultl, mernb.,r' j t-O I valll:tte lhc answcr st:ripts. Moreover, the Prcss Note rlatcri 1J ().1.2025 .*.:rs issued after llte evzrluation process \\/lls ovcr i lltr intci esr r_rf transparencv and disclosure. The same caltnol i I interl)l (.te(l lo retrospect i\re1v impose obiigations upon .Lhc r-sp()ndent \\.ith respect to tht: examination/ evaluation rvhir.l alr-t,aclv stoocl coml)leted s i fRN,l Yi::'i::1':""^

84. With regarci to Dr' M A I\4aljl<, rvho is working in Government Degree Colleges since 2010, hirnsclf declared that he has not been involved in any privzrte coac'httrg 1br compctitive cxants after cr-rterir-tg Govcrnmcnt Scn'ir:<: 'I-hc violatior-rs ls allegccl by thc petitior-rers are merely bast:cl otl s;pecttlalitlns atlcl a1>prehcrlsiot'ts without any substantial evidenc't''

85. 'll-re contention ol thc rvril petitioners that thc Cornrnission has concealed every slage of t ilt' ret rttittltent l)roccss ' includiug the evaluation procedure, is rlholly int:orrect A clctailt'cl Press Note, dated 13.O3.2025, titlccl 'Stcps tal<crr lor lair and transparent valuation of Group I Services Mait-ls l\llsrr'cr Scripts"' was released in the pubiic domain, conrprehensiYelv outlining the entire evaluation methodoloS' lollorvcd llt' thc Telarngann Public Service Commission (TGPSC)'

86. The Commisslon also rnacl': llr'rbli<l thc exa('t tlrttrlber in evaluators assigned to each subject' clearl-Y (lcmollslrating that subject experts wcre tneti<:ttloush' r:hose t-r tklm reputcd institutions, including senior professors and regular faculty with extensive experience in UPSC and acaclemic ev:llltatiot-ts' 52 RRN,] W.P.No-7143q bl 2025 dnd bqtch Subj ec t Code I Subject Name Number of evaluators PO PI P2 P 4 P 5 1,6 F)n gh sh (icneral I,lssar FIis{on'lnd cr rltr I rc (i coqra Irhy I nd Liin S(x.ie L,\ l(l()nsttlLlltOn ( ior crnrr r tce Ilconornrr.,,rral D"..,"l,rlr.,, Scit rrce irnd Tcr.ltnolor5, Iliolt.chnolog) -li'langaltit ; Qi {!.l llt. rP!9ra r i o rr Mov('nrcnt Iiorntal ron il3 ,) 22 " 22 2.5 23 rr t l_:18 f u i i :o I l8 "ii,t | +o I In or(lcr to l;olster transparencl,, I llel' Dx:rn.riner- co.rmittees \\'ere constituted lor each paper, c.r lr)r i-{rr1s at l.as1 trvo sr-rbject :,pe('i.rlists of national repute. VltlLL.r ton \vzts (.arrtecl out in adhc.cn.o to strict con fi(le ntial ity Dr()r( r r,rs. 'l'lrc nrar-ks rvcre awardcrl on designated barcode shects l lrou t rcvc zr Inq candidate lrientity and were subject 1<l sr -rLtinv bt, the co.rmission p,st vah-rertion, again without rlisr irsirrlr c:r.clicl.t<: dct.rls. Follo"i'rne these rigorous measures, tir:l r ir-L-r'grati.. of barcode datrr u,as carried out and provision rl rnar.ks !\.ere pul.rlishcd in r.::ndidatcs'login portals on 1O.03.2o t.i. 53 lar't,t IW.P.No.11439 bl 2025 ond batch

88. There is no evidence whatsoever ttiat the samc cvaluators evaluated both Telugu and English medium papcrs or tl-rat bias or language-based discrimination ot:c:urrecl'l'hc Cornmission had takcn ac{equatc care to assign cvzrluators u'ell-vcrsccl in thc respective mediums, including Telugrr. tinglish, :rrld Urclu, to the corresponding answer scripts. The evaluators eltgagt:tl u'ertl erll qualificd subjcct cxperts, with acaclemic ancl tcacl-rinq erl;cricnct-', and many of them were senior facult,v from gcivernmt:tlt clcgrce colleges anci universities with proven domaitl 1<rlorvleclge- Allegations that UPSC essay marks shorrld sct-r,'c :rs a bcnchm:rrk for this examination are misp)ac,::d, as the evalttzrtion schemcs, scope, and rubric differ betrvcen thc two examinations and therefore, seeks to vacate the interim orcler passed b1' this Cor'trt'

89. The Commission also filed additlorlal couuter allldavit on

25.06.2025 stating that there has been Iro recruitrtterlts to Group- 1 Cadre in Telangana after 2011 Notific:rtion i e , from cven prior to the formation of the State of Telangana. In such circltmstances, the State administration is suffering from cleartl-r of competent ofhcers at the Group- 1 level, rvhich ir-rclucles v:tcancies for 45 Deputy Collectors, 1 15 Deputy Superintendents of Police, '18 54 W.P.No-11439 - pf 2025 ond bdtch Commercial .i'lx Officers, etc. Thc present Writ I,., itions har.c ireer-r filecl by the ,-lisgrur-rtled candidatr:s rvrth the ir-i , trtiol of srrrlltng thc l-ecruitmr,lt t process.

90. It is I'Llr llrc r st.t.d th.t a challe.ge to thr, : .rn. Main l,lrarrr has alrcrdr- lr,'r'r-t <lismissed b_v this Court Yicl . its orclcr ri.tlCcl

25.O.+.2O)-5 in W.P.No.12431 ol' 2025 with costr; zrncl irsainst rhe said ordcr', \\i..,\.No.589 ol 2025 is pcncling. Thc. saici .rder. c]irlccl

25.0+.2O:1.5 ('on:ititut('s resjuclk:ato .rncl it is impr -nrissil;le lirr the pelitioners t() ('ontinLte to agitate the very same ssue beforc this corrr t for el sr'< .r1d trmc. l'he pctitioners ha'e n.r appr.ach.rl rhis Corrrt rvil l-r r:le;rn h,nds and therefore, the presr tt $/rit pel it ions arc liable to 1--,c dismissed on this ground alone. 9). The Co,rr,issio., ltei,g a Constitr_rtional b.r y, is .rnp.*,t:rcci to drarv it:; own procedures for conductr -rg r(:Crt-littrlr,tlt exalninations. rrrrd tlrr-'re is no recluirement for TI. respon(lcnt to align its l)rac,i('cs \\,itir UPSC. Rr-rle 3(xi), Telangirr lL public Scrr..ice Cornmissrou l?1ll.s st:ltes as follorvs:- 'A r/eci.'ro,r cts to tlte follotuing shall be taken bg tl t ComnLrssion in r r,.spc-i tt1' ctll sc,l,.,ctions macle ttg thent. (t l\rl)i,ttrr antl cand[dot<: po.s.ses-se.s tlt, prt,scribecl rltL:Ll li.attotts Jbr thc post; 55 lnnru.r W.P.No.774i9 bf 2o2s and botch (it (iir) fi,) the basis on uLhlch the n'Lctrks shoLtlcl lte autttt tLt,cL; the minirnum ol'marks for uu:[usktn itt l/re .sr,l,r'lir.rn 1i-st; the manner h uhich the practical e-ranrrrrriltorr, physrcol efficiency test or anLt other test or exaninalion is to be conclucted and (u) any other matt"r inciderttal to the sel( (lton

92. The Commission issued a Web Nott: cit. 16.08.2024 makrng Sample Answer Booklcts available to the can<lrd:rtes. TIte szrmplr: Answer Booklet includcs a reference to both l)rclims Hall Tickt:t Number zrnd Mains Hall Ticket Number. Similarl_v, through Welr Note dt.09.1O.2024, the candidates \verc instnrcted to clorvnloacl Hall Tickcts for Mains Examination one rr-ecI< belrrrc tl're commencement of the examination. The Mains llall Tickct for ear:l'r candidate contains pre-printed Hall Ticket Nurnbers lor borh the Prelims and Mains Examination

93. The candidates were notified well in aclvance (in August 2024) that there would be two separate herll ticket numbers for tl're Preliminary and Mains Examination. The petitioners did not objec:t to the same before or even after the Main Examrnatior-t cond uctecl in October 2024. They waited till the declaratior] of the finai results on 3O.03.2025, which shows that the petitioners :u-e not aggrieved by the process, but rather by the outcome 56 RRN,] W.P.No.11439 pl 2o2s ond bqih

94. There ,,r.ou [d bc a differencc between th(, total can(lidatcs calcLrlated or th. basis of list of al)sentees provi(1, d ,'., thc go,, o. the cla' o1-tirr: r:xiirn, arrrl th. linal ligureS arriv.cl Lt zrller tlr.rouqlr rcconciliatio.. In i,he presoltt casc, thcre is :t liffr:r-encr: of I7 car-iclLdatc's b:tr.r'c.r.r tlrc first figr-u-e ancl the frrrr figtLre_ None .f tl're I 7 czrncir,:llrt.s, *,!t. u,ere inndverte.tly ma r l, ed rts absent i. the abse.tr:e:, 1i-qt trav. bcen figuring in thc fin;rl .. st ol candiclates, wh. havc be,:rr slrortlrsted for ccrtillcate s rtior. Thcrefo*,, 'erifi,r the lturporteci rrrr:r-east. in nurnber.s has not carr:; d a.y prt,judic.t: to thc pctit iolc rs;.

95. Regard,tg use o1' Biometrics. the petitioner; ha'r_, contencir:rl that since the conrnrission collected biometrr< crata of :rll trrt: candidatcs on cach day of the examination. it should havc. publishecl .lc,.rlrriltc figures of attendance conrlri ecl in real tirn. from biometric d:rta, i,stead of tentative figures. n this regarcl, it is sul;mittecl li'rat the primarl, purpose of capturjn I bi,;mg1.i. 6^,, is not for at teLrdar.ce. lrut for authentication of the identity of eacl.r candidate and preverrtion of itnpersonation. ..he proccss ol Capturing ol Biometric Data cannot be usc J for real time attenclance cc,Lrnt, as thc commission does not Ie rmit availability 57 I,RN,J W.P.No.77439 bf 2025 ond botch of internel in any of the test centrcs, keeping in vicu' the potcntial dangers to the integrity of the exarnination process.

96. The process of capturing ol' Bion-retric Data of catrrlidatcs during thc mains examination u,as explained. 'l'l're saicl l)rocess clearly' inclicates the purpose of collectiorr of biornt--tric clrtla is to capture / ar-rthenticate the identify of each candidate at evi:ty stagc of thc rccruitment process and prevent lmperson:rtion arld othel' malpractices. It cannot be used for real time attendancc ligr-tres.

97. With regard to Randomisation and allocation of Test Cent res, there rvas biased allocation of Centres to caudidates ancl certain Ccntres performed significantly better than othcrs. Thc petitioners alleged that the samc has happened since Ansrver Scripts from these Centres went to lenient evaltlators. Centre Nos. 1B arnd 19 are cited as constituting 14.8ok of the total catlclidates in thc top 5OO. Allocation of centres exclusively to womcn (ancl certziin ccntres to just mel-r) has been alleged to shou' Iack ol rand omiza t ion.

98. For the above said allegation, the Commission has explaine d the process of randomisation for allocation of test centres. The 58

11.nx,t W.P.No.71439 - gl 2025 ond batch contcntion oi thc Con-rmissiort is that then is llo lnanual intervention in a11oc'ation of r:attrlidates to th(' -- st (lentres anrl generirtion ol-Llrc Hall Tic:kels for 1he candidates r I Gtoup-l Mains cxamination. lhe allcgirtiorr of the ti,ril pelitir>l--' tlllLr sclcctivcll,, assigned canrLiclate's to parrtir:ri1el test ccrltres is t-. alh'falsc' and is complr:te1v br t sitle ss.

99. As per the ev:rluation proc(rss, the respotl,l rnt Commission divides the Ansu,er Bool<lets front one '['est Cer-r t :- : [irr- eacir paper into srnallcr lltncllt:s after anonvrlising the At-ts'.i rr tlrloklcts Thc buncllcs conl ilining ,Illonyn)oLls arlts\\'ct bool<lcl s lrrt' dtstribute cl amongst ev:rlrrators on ritttclot'rt basis. withott irttv discretion Therefore, tlrr: allegatiot't of the petltioners th: t candidates at certain centr. s pcrlbrmccl betlcr bccetuse tht r - Atrsrver Scripts were sent to lr le nicnt ervaiuators is contrtrry t:: tllt: record and specr-rlative. Moreovcr. there are several evaluatoi'; lirr each paper. Thercfore, it carnr>l ire that all cvaluzrtors [trt- ,ach papcr \verc lenie nt. 1O0. 'lhe pelilioners seek to mtslead this Cor-L t b1' presuming wrong doing nrerely on the basis that candidatt::' with consecutive ha11 ticket nLrrnb('r s secllred the s:rrne mit: I s. They have 59 3au,t |w.P.No.11439 gl 2025 ond botch concealed the matcrial fact that various other candidates securecl the same marks, as the adjacent candidartes. Three candiclates who appearecl from the same exam centre (Centre No.1 1) having hall ticket nnmbcrs 2409L1068, 2409llO97 and 240911138 have secured high ranks- Securing of tlarks depends upon indiviclual merit of each cand idate. Slnce the candidates are allotted to the Test Centres on random basis, the uniform distribution of mctit across all Test Centres cannot be expected. However, it is incorrect to allege that it is suspicious for the top rankers to come from a same centrc. The candidates were placed in different rooms in the same Test Centre No.11 and there is no possibility of anv irregularity that could creep in while the entire examination process is under CCTV surueil1ance.

101. Tlre petitioners in W.P.No.11439 12025 have deiibcrately relied upon forged Memorandum of Marks of one candidate (Ms- Bommu Poojitha Reddy) claiming that her marks were reduced by 60 af,ter recounting, and accordingly her rank fe1l from 130 to

1700. There has been no change in her marks after recounting as elaborated rn counter affidavit hled in W.P.No.17439 12025. After 60 nn,t :W.P.No.77439 - bl2025 and batch discovering the act of forgery,, thc rcspondents undertook the follorving action s "On. I t.Lt.].202jj. the Corninl..;.sion /ras r-ssrir:;1 ihorr., Cause Notice to i,I:;. Bomlntt Pcto-iilln Reclcltl uicle fu[c:mo 1/ 2021 basecL ort fabtu:ated rnctrks: rnemct subrnitteci Conrmisrio ,ltrntlgll 11 ,t prt,-:,.',tut;un 89,tGroup 'Lj her to tlle On 22.04.2025, the Comrnlssion preJerred a (\ tLplaint to PS Cgber Cirnes !'ticlhliqhtlng tlrc oct of for(lery, .ltlcL FIR . ro.758/ 2025 uas reqisti;re..i at CLlbercine PS of Htlr{erabad Cittl t )lice aqattst Ms.B. PooJilho Reddq {nter alia.for th.e olfen<'c qf'.lorgc:t1. Inuestigcttion eqert.st Ms. B. Poo.jitho Reclr, L concluded ctrrcl ct Chargeshect has lteen Jiled beforc th. Chief JudiL'ictl MaqisLt ate, NcunpcLlltl for ct.fferLccs tutLl,,, r/u 43 of the lT Act and Seclio,ls !t35. 353(1)(b) & ic , 61(2) and 62 ttf the BNS. Dunng thc t:ourse of [tu;t Police, it hcts been clearlg estal:lished in the forensic r.t the digital te.cords rcttieued front the, laptctpt, tablel, ph t e[ectronic garlqe,ts bc,longinq lo Ms. Borntnu Poojitha [.a rnarks rnento si.Lbtn{tted bll the Petitionat s in the Hon i 'l has been .dit(d ond forged. Durhg tlt.e course of tn t uas further e.stablslrccl thctt i[s. BomrrttL Poojitlto. l. seies of conur.rsottot'Ls LDith Ch{ttGPT for PDF edrt;r tecLtniques, downloqclecf ancl userl PDIi editors to eci:l ha:; been LcL. Xll Acldl. Secliorrs 66 ssstz.), s37, sttlletiotL blJ lrnintion of te ancl otlter lcLy thctt the , Higit Cctu rl : stigcttion, it e d.cly did ct 1 tooLs an.d tlrc oigrnal marks men o "

102. The Writ Petitions deserve to be disrnissr r solelv on the ground that the petitioners have approached 11 is Court rvhile placing reliancc Llpon forged documents with full <nowledge. The 67 17au,t lw.e.uo.tt<ss pf 2025 ond bqtch petitioners placcd reliance on tlte pLlrported recluction in thc marks of Ms. B.Poojitha Reddlr to support their claim of wrongdoing in thc evaluation process. The Commission in its courltcr-afficlzrvit, pointed out that thc same was tzrmpercd rvith and there is no reduction in her marks. Despite the same, the petitioners in W.P. No 11439/2025 (u,hile placing the IrtR on recorcl) have contrnued to rely ugron the marl<s of Ms_B. poojitha Reddy to supporr their claim and have stated rn their repl_v affidavit that the allegzrtr.ns ol fabrication have been levelecl withorrt any tangiblc evidcncc. 'l'hrs shor.vs |ne malafde conduct of the petitioners, who have approached this Court with unclean hands and have sought to mislead this Court.

103. With rcgard to thc er,:rluation methocl and evaluators, thc evaluation process starts \vith the conduct of Chief Examiners, committee meetings to finerlize the: Answers Keys, Schemes for all papers including arvard of marks, conduct of controllcd/mock evaluation including briefing and trarning of the evaluators. This was undertaken before the commt:ncement of actual evaluation of the Answer Scripts. 62 lnntt,l )w.c.No.tttts- bl 2025 ond botch I04. AIl the cvaluators cngagecl ir-r rhc assr: r , rt cn1 of an s\\,cr scripts were cluJ1. tratr-rcd/ briefecl bt, the Corrr issron. Prior to ireing entrustr.cl with cvztluation cltrties, ear( jL erril lLraLor \va S subjectccl to ll proc(,ss o1- consistcnc,\' ltss(:: ;rcn: 1(] CnsLll e :rdherence to the erpltrovecl Schc'mc of Evalu.r :rn. Only those r:valuators who tnet tlte prr:scribc:d st:rndarrls rrl :onsrstcncy and rcliability u/(lrc permittecl to r-rnclcrtal<c (.. r Iu:Llion rvrtrl<. Iivaluators for Urdu and Telugu rnedilrm script. .\.era tr ained on par witl-r their Iinglish medirrm counterpzrrts. TIr,. ' Lrnr-lerrvent thc: same training rnodulcs and consistcnc\- :)sscssi:r rts [rclrrre being permitted to c.r,aluate answcr scripts. The Schr,.r l, of l:l,aluat ion was unilormly applied across all mediums \v ltolrt cleviation. Furthermore, ther majority of evah-rators were rr. Linecl across all phases of thc cr-aluation process in ordcr to t ; L r rrc r:ontinuit,y, standardization, and fzrirness. Thc Schcrne oi- ir.aiuation rvas follorvecl strictly ancl uniformly througl-rout rll phases of evzrluation, witlrout deviation and accordingly. rl : drliqcnce rvers exercised at evcry stagc

105. The pcutioners have reliecl upon pLr'.; Notc, datcd I3.03.2025, rvlrich stated that all cvaluzrtors rre thc regular 63 BRN,I iw.p.Nollazg l'of2025 ond botch faculty from the uniuersities/ gout. colleges/ insllfulion.s,, ancl alleged that two retired facult_y members have been used as evaluators. The list ol evaluutors are <:onfidential to ensure f.rirness ancl anorryt.r-r i tr,. 'l-hc pctitioncrs, who arc alrcady in governmcnt service, have lrbuscrl tlrcir offrce to securc the list of cvaluators a r-rcl the letters aclclrcssecl l11, the Cornmission to Commissioncrs of Police ancl huvr: fik:cl the same zrlong ri,ith thc Writ Petitions. The Comrnissiorr I escr\/cs its right to initiate appropriatc legal action against the pc:titioners for illegally procuring documcnts and trsing rhcrn in tlte prcsent proccedings as pcr Rule 3(xii) of thc TclangeLna Public Service Commission Rules of Procedurc.

106. The evaluation is anonr,,ntous, ancl the erraluators do not kno'"v the identit\. ol' thc candiciatcs, u'hose papers tltey evaluating. Therefore, thert: can be no possibility of favoritism or

107. The allegations with regarcl to t he third erraluation, there is no separate bar code fbr the third er.ziluation slip, while the slips for the first and sccond evaluation (on the tirst page of the Answer 54 RRN,J tW.P.No.114si gf 2025 qnd botch Booklet) carr' unique bar codes. This has becn rrlerlr,cl to renclr_.r the third vzrhration subject to rnanipulation 1o8. Srnce rril 1>apers arc evarrr:rted tt,ir:c il r strrrt:ir arrove), provisions ltrtr.c lreerr rnacli: on t[-re lirst p.ge ls.il l,r tlt. tr.. evaluations. Ijorvt:ver, the thircl crraluirtion (u I , .it is llcc(,ssiar\. onlv in a ieu, c:asr-'s) is proviclecl for on the thircl l r r,c or rlre r\rrsu,er Booklct. Thc Sarnple Ansrver Booklcts \\ici plrl)lishc(l 16 08.2024

109. The firsr l)eigc of the Ansrver Booklet cont. I ,; tl-r lr. par.ts: (r) details of tl'rc c.andidate, (ii) a tal_rle for first cva rrtiorr (u,hi<:h is sig'ecl 1>5' valrier. crrief examincr zrncr scrutinizcrl : ricl irir) :r sir,ilar ta'le lor tite sccrir-rd er.aluation. The first part is r .trr(r,..r,cl pl lor to se'cli,g tire ltalter for first evalualion, i. ordr:r i( .ltsLlt c tl.rat the paPcr is anorrymized. After obtairring Lhe lirst r:.. r luatir. anri its scn.rti,r},, ancl 1>ri.r to sending the papc,r for a st,r ,rti .valu.rtion, the portion <.ontair-ring the relerencc to the llt: e,.,:rlLration ts renrovecl. 'lhis ts clone to ensure that the scci)r i I cvalrration rs inclcperdcrt rrrd ,ninfluenced by the first r:,, ruation. .I-hircl evaluation, il' rrccr:ssary, is conductccl b1. rcmovir::g ltll rhr cc Parts Hor.r,.ever, the Ansr,,.r,r Book has zr stitcl-rccl l)at I i lrll_lll)q on one 65 lnatt,t lw.e.uo.tttts pl2O25 ond botch side and is untearable and undetlLchablc. The stitched part oI the answer script has the Barcode running along r,vith Answer Scripts. This part of the Ansr,ver Script r:onterinine Barcode remains undctacherl evcn after thc OI\4Rs lor fir-st ancl sccond evaluatiorr arc detached. Orving to the Barco<le otr t he stitched portion of the Answer Script, the third evaluzrtior.t lirrm r:an still be identified u,ith thc same bar code given on thc Answcr Sclrpt- Thc third valuation form also has the provision for signatures of Valuator, Chief Examiner and Scrutinizer. The OMR/Valuation Form is scernned alter each cvaluation in thc intercst of intt:grity of the cvaluat.ion process. Since the third Valuation Form has the signatures of the evaluator, Chief Examiner an<l scr utiuizcr, there is zrbsoluteiy no scope for any manipulatior-t. Ilcnce it is a Ialse allegation that the

3.1 evaluation is exposcd to maniPul:rtiotr :rs it dr>es not herve bar code attached.

110. With rcgard to allegation ol- non public:rtior-r of Provisional Marlcs List, paragraph 15.2 and 15.3 of Notification No. 02/2024 states as follows: "15.2 The mcrrks /i-sf o-f Maitt Dxurnitottott (totQl marks) of all the candrdates uill be drsplaycd on lhc Cotnrtt issiotr's areb.silc. Houeuer, Paper utse lvl<,nroranclurn rtf llfar ks of all cattdldates 66 !nu,t W.P.No.L1439 - bl 2025 and botch can be .icl cs-s.'cl in lheir respcctiue Lotlins lln' tt ' -tiod o[ rtrLe' Lreeli '15.3 lir'qrrr .t [or re(otntiftg oJ' rnarks tttill lx Cot)t'et1t:,r jqi 'l'tt1:tc ilUitten) ol,.l!J Lt; llin l5 ti pttblrcul' )r, (,I 1)-ol.,r:,^ron(tl Mctrks L.st on puLlnrc.1. /-Rrr7,1,9. /-)ttr''!'ltottsctrtcl onlLll lbt. crtc:h ltaix'r Ttcttltrtart'ortlrl t::i11 ,r,,cl iot :. ait,, tlr ll.s I ;lt rO.' L,t t cl tt ttilrrt,.- 1 1 1. The l)etitlorrcrs in W.P.No. 12206/2025 allL,.1 tl rirrrt rlre total marks of illl ( an(lidates werc not published col-lt r \. to Paragraltlt 15.2. 'l'he p( ritioners in W.P.Nos.l1439 l2O2i, r(l 12819 l'2025 allcqcd that tlrr' (lornmission is crred b,\, not pub.r itir-ri1 :r lis: ol nll candidates rell('ctltg their Prr>visional M;rL,: . LrllttifrV t,r Par:rgraph 15.3. in compliance of Paragraph 15 !1rt: C.lonr rni ssict n issr-re d a Welr rrlote, dated f 3.03.2025, informin.:, crlndiclalcs that the Provisionlrl Marks havc been uploacled c'1 tlteir respcctivc Iogir-r accoLu Lts and can be accesse d by sg jng ir) lo LhC Clommission's \\'cl)site. Paragraph 15.3 cli,l not ntau(lal(l publishinq oir(, ('onsolidated list of all cand i<1t:r :s rr:llecl ing thc tot:rl provisional marks ol;tainecl by thcrl. [r onlrr rnerrtiortr:rl publishinq 'pr-ovrsional marks list', whtch was I Ltl)ljsh€rd on tb(l respecti\r€r at cor.trrt of eaclt canclidate. 'l'herr: i rrrt rcerson fr;r pul)lishing orrl c-onsoliclated list containing pr( \ si()r1.ri m:rrks of 67 rRN,I )W.P.No.114i9 bl 2025 and batch all candidates, given that it is provrsional in naturc ancl only concerns the specific candidate. The tlrral list rcflectir-rg total rnarks of each candidate nfter the compk:tion of tl-re process of rccounting n,as publishcd on the u,cbsitc, 111 conrpliance with Paragraph 15.2

112. With rcgard to the other allegatrons ir-r t1-re u'rit petitions, it is subnritted that the petitioners rLr W.P.Nos.1 1439 ol 2025 and 12819 of 2025 alleged that the petitioners' marks did not reflect their performance and persons lorver in merit scored higl-rer marks. The petitioners also allcgccl that ccrtaitr candidates secured much higher marks in UPSC than in t l-re prcsent exam. 'l'he candidates' subjective dissatisfactron u,ith tl-reir result cannot bc a ground to cancel an examination or direct re et,:rluation. The subjects tcsted in UPSC arc diflerent from the subjects tested in the present examination, and moreover the pel formance of candidates may also vary from exam to eratl. 'lherefore, there is no guarantee that a candidate who perforrned rvell ir-r UPSC rvill necessarily perform well in the present exantination

113. The petitioners in W.P.No. 11439 of 2O25 further alleged that the list of shortlisted candidatcs along rvith demographic lgnN,t W-P.No.77439 bl2o2s ond batch clet:rils u,r're rrrrblishecl in the Prr:ss Notc dater 13.O3.2025 i.c prior to rccollrltl-tg. In response, it is submitt( i tltirt tlte pt-ess Notr-' rvas rssrrccl in thc rntercst ol transparenc,r'r ; cl \\.i1s l)ilsed on thc provisional t-r'sults (s'l'r ir: l-r \"'c re sLrbjcct r r r':ri ialirtn al'lr:i t ecot r ntinrl) i 14. Tite petjtioners in W.P.No, I 1439 of 2O2S i r -rh('r allcpe lltat 'tnodcrntion/sc:rling" of ntarks rvas carried o - irr thc l)rescjtt cxarrrinarion. I'lrc trrodet:rtion' or :;ca.[ing'is il nt(. Locl that t:r-ral>lers 11C) ratiorralizlrtiorr of qr irncl totals in f:rvour of few clr, i .plines/subjr:cts and is dclrentlcn. orr thc pattcrn and schemc of l:it cxarr)ir)ation It is adol>ter1 rrr examrnations. at the discrei ( n ()f r-ecr uttutq l;odir:s, t'hiclr involve rnultrple optional sublc( t;. Ilorvr,'r,r:r, rIo such moclcrari()n isi reqLltrecl in thr: Group-1 exiru rn:l.ion lrccarrse all papers art. nt.rnclatory, ancl all candidates tlr.: : tl.rr: vL'r-), salnte e xarn:i 1 15. l'he lrctrtioners itr \,V.P.No. l2B19l2O2S hav,' iLllcrled thzrt thc decision to c:rnct l Notitlc.ation No.O4 12022, clater 26.O4.2022 vi<le the preserrt NotLficzrtiorr No.O2 12O24 dt. 19.02.i.(24 (notilication for llre I)rcs(]rlt exurrninzrtlon) r,as unauth orrz-i. t 'l'hev furtltcr allegcd thrrt pi--r-nrrttir-rg candiclates r,vho rvere not r,, giblr.: in 2022 to 69 \RnN,t ',w.P.No.7u3g 'of 2025 ond botch .,rrritc thc Prcsent Preliminary Examinations No.O4 12022 were cancelled examination is illcgal lrl this regard' the conductecl pursuant to Notification by the responclent on one occilslon 'lhcrcaftct, Court on thc scconcl occasloll ar-rcl set-asidc bv this the cornmission issued the prcsent Notification as ne\\r \racilllctcs hacl emergeci The Commission has the power to cant:el a notification and eligibility is rcquircd to be assessccl at thc timc of issuzrnce o[ the notification' The szrid issue rvas alrelrdv cl-rallcr-rged before this Court ancl this Court and the Ilor-r'ble Supretne Court refuscd to i.Iltcrvenc in the mattcr b1'clismissing thc chalLcngc' 1 16. It is further submittecl that W P No 13221 of 2025 has been filed bY the Petitioners seeking re evaluation of Answer Scripts to Ruie 3(Lx)(d) ol the Telangana Public Thc samc is contrary Ser-vice Commission Rules' which states that: "Ra euahtation oJ Ansuer shects -s/1all not be cntcrtoined rrndcr atly circutnstances Hctu'euer' r('(otLntitl(l ry' marks rt'rll ire considerecltuithtrtl5clays]i.tllltthedoteofpublicoLiottcl|. re-sull's '

117. It is further submitted that paragrapl-r No 15 of the Notification No. 02l2024 only permi*ec1 recountirg zrnd not conformity witl-r Rule 3(ix)(d) Thcrefore' 1n re-evaluation, 10 .RRN,1 W.P.No.17439 - 16 zOZs ona Aatd W.I'.No.13',)2ll?'A2Sisliabletob'::dismissed'llr'-t:isnorcason to rc,e\,:1lllate tltc Altswer Sclipt of thc petitioner t lcreitl alone. [l is scttlgcl lj\\, ',11r1 i1 abscncc rtf :r rlt' provislon lirr t''cvltittirl itln itt thc r clci'tu-.l l tLl' s. c\amlllecs hervc l-ro right to cl:t:t l or ':lcrr'tllcl l'c- evzrIuatioti ] evlrlttatirln is

113. 'lhe c:r'lrItt:liiott proccss ittld scheme ' unilormlv lirlicrvt tl [or all thrce l:rngttage ans\\rL'' scrillls anci thc relcvant cornl). 1('nt subiect expcl ts in the re s1 t ctivt: languages were eng:1q(trl trtl everlu:rtior-r' 'l'hc petitioners hztvt' t vellt:d birselcss allcgations tlrirl thcre \\/:1s :l rliscriminatton I rrl bizrs argainst Telugr-r mcclilitll catlcliclates itl as'ltrd of rnarks, r 'rich led to thclr miuimal sc()1 ils. 'l hc' lletitioners Itilve not prodrtr-'t:' I anv supportitrg data to srtllport lile samc ancl it is purcl'r' base<l r t ltssttntptions' A cor'lrparlsoll ,,\'itll thc selecli<lt-t ol Telugtr Merli'l rt cantlidates irl Anclhra Prrtclesll Ciroup 1 Iirattrttlation tevezrls that the figurcs from botlt St:rt.'s errc broaclLl' sillriLar' Hetlce, it I ; a llascltlss aucl false :rllegati,rr.r tllat the 'leirrgu N'lecliunr :lrndid:rtes lvcl e discrirninatcd a rtd :rrvarded Icss rnarks

119. .lhe illlegirtiorl ol bias lhat Urclu nle dint,r candiclatr:s wcrc favored is lt:rsekrss, as it is evident frorn the nltl l rrical assessr]]et)t 71, tnnN,J W-P-No.114jg bl 2o25 qnd botch that only one Urdu candrdate was pickcci up for Certtficate verification, out of the ten ( 10) Urctu medium candidates who appearcd in the examination. The allegation that n'ithout proper material in Urdu medium, it \\,as impossible lor Urdu cancliclertes to score top rnark in the Essa-r, paper is tiivolous. The Cornmission has taken proper care to :tccommodatc the ev:rlltators from all accommodatcd media lbr evaluation including the subject experts rvho holcl an cxpertise in that fleld.

120. The petitioners have also alleged that the Commission vide Prcss Note clt.l5.O4.2025 declarr:d that ten (10) persons from Urdu medium appeared for all seven papers in the Mains Examination, while web note dated 13.03.2025 reflects nine (09) Urdu rnediur-n candidatcs. As clarifred abovc, the Wcb Notc dated

13.03.2025 cor-rtained the detail:; of the candidates, who have qualilicd in English paper (r"'hich is mandatory for evaluatit-rg the other ansrver scripts) suggesting that only nine (09) Urdu medium candidates have qualified in the English Paper. The petitioners are deliberately misinterpreting the figures published by the Commission at various intervals and raising speculative allegations. 12 E,RN,J W-P.No.11439 'p1 zoZS ona Uoin 121 . In W.P.No. I 2819 ol 2025 iL rs alleged llrat rir ururlly cntcring marks into irrrlir.rdual boxes for (:ach question. :.il) totalinq and thcr-eafter conrl;utin11 ttre grancl total. 'I'l-re pctitj( rci-s rllr:ged that thcrc is a high possibilitl' of mnnual crrot s. Ii sr-Llrrnittcrl thzr I scnrtinizers 'rr e eneagcd to otrvratc tl-rt' silr prtssrbilitlz. r\ scrtrtinizcr checlis r,vhethe r tl-rc evaiua-rtor hrts r,,:rlt r cl ertr:h question and rvhcthcr t htr slrb-totnling and totaling is rr :urratc. Thcrc is also provisiorr [.rr r-r'coLurtrng ol- metrks orr rh, recLuest of thc candidates. 'l')rorefore , the Cornmission iras :ri<en adequate mezlsures to ( nslli'(' thal thcrc arcr no t'rrols in the mzrnual process

122. It is setlle d lar.r, th:rt this (lourrt shorrld r L, 1 interfere with resuits of exarlinatrons. 'lhc pctitioncrs hav(' Ll11 lv feLiled to even build a cirse ol vroL:rtion o1- any legzrl right. '['h, ).tit]()ners must approach this Clour t s,ith clean hands. 'l'he I , lit-ioners relying upon forgecl cioc:,.rme:nts, clespitc clismissal ol'anr L rer Writ Petition challenging (irorrp I Mains Dxn rninat ion/ L,.r,alL: tion Process on similar grounds by this Court cannot benef it fl t r r thc exercise o[ its extraordinarn pov"'crs of this Court lnav,r )w.p.uo.uazg p12025 qnd bdtch

123. IL is further submitte d thzrt thc prese nl Writ Pctitions are frivolous ar-rd lack of substantial evidence and they hat e been filecl belatedly bJ, t [-t" candidatcs (atier fir-rding ottt the result). The prcscnt litigation is nothing. but an attcmpt ol clisgrurrtlecl candidates to stall thc selection llrocess for Gror-rp- I sen'ice s. Therefort:, the rvrit petitions arc devoicl of merits and the samc are liable to bc clisrnisscd, as thc1, :trt: ncithcr maintainablc in law or on facts.

124. I-earned Additional Advoctrte General filed counter affidavit on behalf of rcsponclcnt No. I stzrt ing that though thcre are no averments ancl allegations ulgainst the respondents, since the appointment of the sclectcd cardidates is stayed, the present counter is warrantcd. Hc also subrnitted that the allcgations made by tl-rc petitioncrs ar(' r'apge, baseless and \vithout an]' substance. 'I'l're petitioners have approached the Hon'ble Court after taking Ilnal examination ancl after cleclaration of hnal results with unclean hands ar-rd the same is irnpermissible and also held that it is settled law that in tnatters of recruitment courts shoulcl be slorv and cautior,ts rvhilc clealing rvrth the recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agencies- In the instant case, except 14 RRN,I W.P.No.1143!l gf 2025 ond bo{1 vague allegations no substantial alicgations mad(' ( rrl. llcnce, the writ petrtions rrre Iiallle to be rlisn'rissed. Replg to the Commission's subrnissions .'-

125. All thc 1>etitioners r:oLrrrserls lilecl replv to lrnt(.r alli<l:n,it and made the follou'ing subrnissions: Ms.Rachan:r Re<lcly, Icarnerl Scnior cor .scl statcd as follows : -

126. A specific irregularitr. ,,vas rirrsecl in \V.P.N, 1:2431 of 2025, which is 1>rc:sentll' lrndcr :rppcal vick: \V.4. \' .539 of 2025. Absolutely thcre js r.ro connection. similarity or el. ( n li ntodic-urr.n of proof that res judicala allegetlly' as r:laimed I)]r 11,, ,,,,r respondent wor-rld apply. 'Ihr' 2",1 rcsponclcnt is oncc aqain tr nq 1o cvacte ancl has not taken up t I-re r-t:sponsibility o1 ,.':.1 lrirring ail the irreguiarities pointed out u.ith t:r,rclence ancl 1r, rrq lo bnrrvtteat this Court on thc point of res juclicattt. [t is u.r,i] setllcd l:rr.r, t.hat the principle of res-judicata z.rppiic s onh, rvhcre r I l s:rntc c:ruse o[ action, between the same parties, has alreacl-y bc.r aci.l r.rclicar tecl on merits in lhe eallier liligalion. 15 laN,t W.P No.11439 lJ zozs ond botcn

127. W.P.No.1 14:19 of 2025 was instituted q'ell bcfore W.P.No. 1243 I of 2025, and. the two petitions are distinguishabie on their facts. [n paragrapl'r No. f; ol thr: order in W.P'No l243l of 2025, this Cour( observcd that thc c;Lnclidate tvhose tnarks arc alleged to havt: bcen recluced is t'tot it 1):lrt-v to that petition atld zts learned Standing Counsel confirrned, has ncither filed atiy grievance nor ntade an]'reprcsentation to tl-re TGPSC

128. Issuancc of Separate hall tickcts lor Prc[minary and Mains examinations germatle to Irrcgr.tlzrnties. Pzrra 1'6 of Annexure VI of the Notification stipul:rtcs that 'tro scpar'rtc application is needed for the Main Examination . Thc application submitte cl for the recruitmt:nt is only considered up to the hnalization of selection'. Point 20 of thc instrLtcl.ions printed on the Preliminary examination I{all Ticket further stipulated that a digital copy of the candidate's oMR ans!\rer shcet rr,clr.rld be nrade available in t]-re candidate's login, and that the Hall Ticket together with the Question Paper Booklet must be prescrved until the recruitment process is finally concluded lor an\' fr"tture communication These provisions pre suppose :r uniflecl allplic:rtion process in rvhich the same candidzrte ider-rtifier (i.e., Hall Ticket number) remains l6 RRN,,I W.P.No.11t139 2O2S qnd batch constant lronr Prelirns through Mains and tLt, ll-rirl selectron Hori,ever, TGPSC dcparted frorn tltLs reqtrircntent: rLd rssrred li-esh Hall 'licket nrrrnlrers frrr tlte Mairrs. reporterll-y L:s ng rrnclrst'Joscd parallletcrs sLlch as mediLrnt r)l' \\'l-il ljt(, (T('rL Ll r)t- Ii n qlis tr) , gende r, age grollp, iind varlous |cs('r-v:ltron ctrl( ::)r'tat:;, irrchrdir-rq sooial, disability, and sports quotas. None of llr,. sr gI|r,ntlttron criteria r.as rnentionec[ in the Notilication or.,, 1>lzuncd t :tlt\ subsequent press release, re nclt:rine 1he clr:r:t 1' ,r1'la<lrre :rncl discriminatorv

129. Pursuant to Rule 3(ri)(i,) of thc 'l clensr'rr,: IrL.rrlic St'rr.ict' Comntission Rules of Procedure, the rcsponrlent . ,.lairninil rhat it can do whatever it wants including randornl-v .r tr[ rr,,itholrt any prior intirnation or thc reason frrr tltc s:tnlc, (.,) rrt: r.rp u,ith thc change ol' hall trckcts midrva_v through the c':l:,r itrlti()ll l)r.)cr,,ss, simply for the sake of 'their adnrinistrali\,(' c()n. ('rriclLCe', rvlriclt itsclf resultetl in the massivc irlegulan1ics r ir,r lterve sr-rrfacecl throughout the conduct of the N{ains exarr, i L.rtion ancl thc evaluation o[ results itself, as thc c:rndrr.latr:s ltrrc absolr-rtely no manncr or proce ss of confirming or cross Ycr-il . r,q t hcir rcsr-rlts leacling to tl're r:landestine irregnlarities, 1\-lter ( tlte I'rall ticl<ets 7t Pau,t lw.P.No-17439 lJ zozs ona botcn themselves were selcctively isstred specifically to lacilitate selectt'c ailocation of centres, which is clear from the manner of evaluation and the results that havc been cvidenced by thrs Court.

130. Para No.17.1 of tl-rr-' Notification statcs tl'rat tl'rc canclidates tcr follorv the Comtnisston's rve bsitc for all ulldatcs. inclr-rding anl' changes or modiftcations ancl Pirra No 18.I allor"'s respondent No.2 to alter conditions clrtring thc rccrttitmenl process, provided such changes are dulv informed to all the cotlcerrlecl. 13 1 . Web note dated 16.08 .2O2'+ rr'as allegedlv issued by the Commission malcing sample an:;\\rer booklets available to the candidates, in no wav 'sho',r's', 'ttllnoullces or cvcn 'states', thc fact that there would be two indeprenclent and completely different hall ticket numbers ge nerated :rnd issued to lhc Canclidzrtes for the Mains examination, simply for ttre sakc of ttrt:ir 'aclrlrinistra tive convenience'. The discrepatrcf in the nutnbcrs of candidates, rvho wrote the Mains Examination witllottt final reconcilizrtion of mrmbers, is suspiciotls pointing out tlle rnalaliclc intentions'

132. In the first counter filecl l>y the 2rr(r respondent in W.P.No.1 1439 of 25 states thatt 'FIe ncr: it s r<:iterated tl'Lat after hnru,r W.P.No.11439 - $ zozs ond totch reconciliat[on ttf tlrc OMR sheefs nbrnirtal rctlls etr the fincLl .flgure arriued is 21.O8:1 When the petitlone 1s clern, r rdcrl about the discrepanr:y in nurnbers lrom 21.O93 to ') I . ()3 1o 2 1 . 1 10 (ir-rcLu<[ing 1B sports candid:rtes) the ?,,,1 1( s:Joir( , ri r:orrvcricn(lv an srvered tha r when the pe t itione rs asl<crl aboti l-it rliscrr c panc-r' of the nurnbers acttrally coming upto 21,110, r.' . tl.rc rcsrrlts of thc candidatr:s, ,,vhose marks u,ere rvrthheld. I .ir sr,r:1nt 1o the ordcrs of this Court, not being includecl in the 't,r I cr',r,rnt'at le.rst shorvrng alrout the withhotding in the saicl :rirtrlzrtiort. The adrlitional corLrltcr allidavit in Page: No. 18 starcr; tl ]I ".. ..ThereJrtre, tt is likelq thal there ruouLcl be rt dif'|t,, thr: totcrl cLutditlates calculcttecl on lhe Dcr.si-s ry-1i:;; prouidcd'on tLrc go" on the do!1 oJ rhe e.rurn, urLcl iirt ariuecl at ,tJter thorouglt recortcilrutktn. 1n llrc 1)/c.s(,,i: ct clifferenc'c' oJ l T candidates bettueen th<' .fit st liqru t' 'rr/r:;i:nlcc.s 'nul f iclttras r;.' itetc is ,vi l,te Jittal lig1ure."

133. Pertinently, none of the 17 c:inclirl r r:s rvho \\rerc inaclr.ertently rnarked as absent in thc ab,sente r lis;i have bct'n figuring in thc final list of candidates, who hiL,. r' l.leeu shortiistccl for certificatt: vcrification. Thereforc, thc purp r t ed 1n('re:lsc III nurnbers has not caused any prejudicc to the p' rtior',ers..... It is pertinent lo rlote that there is no explanation rrs o r,,,lren thesr: I 7 79 tgau,t w.P.No.77439 bJ 2o2s and batch candidates are marked as atbsctrt in thc :rbserltces 1ist. thcn hou' the attendance jumped to ,1,1 10 and if thcir OMRs $'ere trlso scanned and total nlrmber :rl rivccl :lt are 21,1 I0 as per tile statement of the 2n(r resl)oncicnt, thcrr lrow coulcl tl-rc,r, h:rvc itt'eu marked absent. When their ovu'tt clocutttents :tnd u'ebt-totcs shorv the drscrepancy, there is no pl:rlrsiblt: erplanatiotl for thc sanlc

134. The 2nd responder-rt itsell is cotrttadicting in thc very same page of the additional countcr atliclaivit. rvherein at one instanc(r it claims that "...Thereafter, thcse ftclLrrcs arc tallied uith the consolidated biometnc clata ttbtorrtccl rtt Lhe tirna o.f the craminatiort each day. A copg of a sample Nomirtal Roll is crrrtr:xt:d hercu'itlt as Annexure R-7..." at Page No. 17 of lhe a(lditional affidavit and tl-rcn in the following Para at Page No. 18 contradicts :rnd clain'rs that apparently ".....The process of Cctlt LrLrul oJ flutrnetric DQIQ cattttot be used for real time attendance c(./u,?1, .1-5^ the Clornrnis'sion cloes not permit auailabilitA of internet in anq of the' test centers, keeping in uieu.t the potential dangers to tlt.c itttcgity of th.e exantinctt.ion process.".. The 2"d respondent is cleerrly confrrsr-d itseil and is deluding this court into acccptir-rEl this irration:rl contradiction as to how would they norv accepted l:rct of Biornetric d'lta \vas not 80 RRN,I W.P.No.1143g - pf 2025 ond botch use(l for attcndance was allegcdlv reconciled \\'l lt tr).tltual and VCI! easily sul)ject to subterlugc manual Jcrminal Rolls' 'l'herr:tbre, the .,'er-y premise of tlte 2,,,1 iesp,r r,lerrt alihorrql'r rcalrqitatr--cl (r ught to bc rejcctecl Il lull, as tht rtrr-,' pr<;cr:s:; of e xarntnation is norv questionablc givcr-r that tIrr' , ,rrr, 51151,i1irir-15 entrics anrl exits, cleliberate fudging of nunt :'rs. r.:rrrrlirlirtcs Lllraccounted lor rvith no final tallv forthcomitrg 1r iris r latc- 135 Once aqzrin contradicting itself, the 2',,, csponclent h:rs stated in its Webnote, dated 21.06.2021, in Anrr, xrrrc [l a1 Point No.5 :rs follou s '......l'ht: sqstent of Biometic ctttcndance tntt,t;rt finqerpfurts ancl pltotogrcLphs of cach cattdL:lr,', cffccticlrr irnplemcnted Luith tha help of one biontr, for clenl 160 canclidates, r uhile aLl the bLometrlc in . been lrrrlner:l across 897 centers in hondlin t Tctbs/Ili'rnetnc tle uice s.. ... " L)' (:Jl)tLLtlntl /ra:; Dccrr 1r iy 1:11111nt11r 1'l1t ir:: lylt,. ';lc, t tt lo lott,'

136. I'he accept:rnce of bio metric for attenclanr., \\,lriln tltcir ourn Web notc spccifically states that in accordanc r r,r,rth the car lier orcler of this Cotrrt, bion-retric was supposed to lt| irtrpientented for the purpose of attendance. The respondents ltrL ,e violatecl therr own notiflc:rtrorls, webnotes and arc provl(li rg 1r()ns('nsjcir[, 81 tfrRN,J I iW.P.No.71439 bl 2025 ond bdtch rational reasons for not reconciling thc bio metrrc attendance to this date.

137. The test centre allocation wAS randorn and categorv agnostic, implying equal opportr-rrritlr hr ali carrrliclatcs. I Iou'ever, its orvn data shou,s highly s1<et,ecl sc'lection oulcomes across centres. u,hich is statisticallv improbable uuclcr a trul\, randotrt and fair p rocess. TGPSC's claim Finding Allocation rvas based on randomly qenerated numbers, categgry agnoslrc No bias bascd on candidate identrt or cen tc r Candidatcs were distributc(l in serial of random numbers I)isprol)ortion,itc sLLCCcss fal( s at specilit ccn t<:rs l !12 centcrs hard 0 () selecllons I centcr had 12.(r')i, of tolul sclcctiorrs II so, seiecti()n rirtcs sh.)ulcl bc mor,-' clistribttled statistir:ally

138. The concept of sampling variabrlily al)ci rrr.tldom allocaltorr may result in some natural variation in cztrtclid:rtc distribution:r|ici success rates across Test Centrr:s. Ho$'cvcr, the magt-titude of disparity observed in the present case, rvherein approxim:rtch' twenty-two out of forty-six ccntrrjs rccorclcd sirlgle-rligit or zct'o selections, while one centre alonc accountecl lbr an extraordinaly

12.60l, of the total selections, far excceds the rlrnge of variatioll reasonably attributable to chance or nortnal sermpling rrari:rbility. 82 RRN,I W.P.No.11439 _ of 2025 ond Lot,n

139. 'lhe Cottrmisston has not provided etnl' stat sttcal evidctrce, ana11'sis, or clal a to srrbstantiate 1.hat such an (r):' renle clustering <t[ suc.ce Sstirl ,rancliclatcs a1 Certain ccntres falls u I Ilrrr the: ilortllcls ol CxpcCtCCl rit]]clomrtCss. IIt tl.tc itbscttCC of sLl.'ll lt'ttoi'. lllrr t:Liittt tltari t:rrtclortrll{t.:sr :llorr,-: explains t l-rr: clisproporti( f ail(' ,-ListL Illulior.l renrains u nstt b st:r nri:rt ed and ult satis lercto ry

140. ln para No.?9, the Commission states that t nl'.'rely rin'icics onc test ccul,re's bool<lets into smaller buncllt's tbr evalrtatton, withor-tt an.\' rnt( I ctllltrc mixing or rerndomizerl :rcllrl1l- \\rllilc llre Cornnrission sL:tl(:s LItirt "sct'cral evalltators" mltt l: rcl ciLch l)apcl . iL givcs no cletarLs ;ts to how many scripts evalual()l ;ccti, hou' cross checl<ir-rg rvas orqanized or ltorv leniency was de1'':ted ancl ('orr('ct' Withourt l r,rtlicl irLoclcration mechanism (as pr r scrir.'ccl ll' l:rrv). rnere ltllr-ncrtcal ltlurality of evallratOrs does n()1 r litrlittatc tllr r isll of co<>rdinatr:cl ol institutional bias. The sai 1 proceclttr:ii 11:L1l underrnines ttre auoltvmitv and impartiality r)l r UI'SC's s\-stc11-I securcs, exposirrg '1'C I']SC's process to centre-brr ,cd identification zlnd potent i:r I lavouritrsm.

141. Ir-r thc irrescut case, 654 candidates formir-t 32l consecutive Hall Ticket yrait-s have obterined exactly identic'r I m:rrlcs, u'['rit'l-r is 83 f an,t lW.P.No.774?9 bl 2o2s ond botch statistically implausible under a lair and independent cvaluation system.

142. With regard to defamatory allegations of lorgery of Memorandum of Marks by Ms. Bomrnu Poojit_ha Recldy, the Commission is aware about the representation of \,is.poojitha Reddy dt.O1.04.2025 requesting to verify her marks as they rvere reduced by 60 marks, pursuant to a rccounting applicd by hcr. Hence, the representation and the marks memorandurm w,ere public records that were known to the petitioners at similar times. The Commission's claims or allegations of forgcry Ll'rat albeit defamatory in nature lack any kind of credibilitv or eviclence as the Commission only initiated the alleged disciplinary action and the criminal actions including the registcring of FIR and thc filing of the Charge sheets only after filing of the present W_P.No.11439 of 2025. I 43. Neither se cond stage nor third stagc evaluations are mentioned or provided pursuant to the Notificatior-r itself :rnd werc subsequently informed in an adhoc manner, pursuant to various webnotes- It is unbelievabie that seven papers cach of approximately 2l ,OOO candidates was cvaluated tn ice and in

8.1 ,!RN,J W.P.No.114;9 bl 2025 ond bq:-;t certair-r instances subjected to third evaluation r,r ron there being an alleged variation of 1501, just within three months. It is pertlnent to no1-e the absence of OMR bar r:r de for the 3'd cvaluation itsclt- js enough to tirrou, the cntire exar Linaltion process into cluestion owrns to tl-re fact that therc is a clc: r orobabilrty of a manual inten'ention, ,'vhen zrn alleged 3.d evalu r -ion is rc<luired that is ncither :rccount:rble and clearil, susccptiblc to rlanipulatron or cl-range

144. The Press note dated 13.O3.2025 clearly st:r es that "regular faatltll from. the uniuersities/ gouernment colle. res/ irtstitutions" which by no stretc-h of irnagination be equa -r d to anvboclv, inciuding rctircd faculty I'raving taught or l:ft government employment morc Lhan 20 yc:rrs back. Therefore, t re retrospective or not 're€Iular far:ult1" clearlr'cloes not include retred facu1t5,, u'ho have no knou k:dgc of the pre scnt status of the e cademia or the stagc at r,,,,hich the given course over rvhich the s rbject expert is cxpected to have expertise The Conunission in Para No.51 ol the ad: itiorral Counter stated as follo'.r,s 85 FRN,I \W.P.No.77439 bl zo25 and bdtch "...The Cornmission has engagetl subject specific expeienced lar;"tltg of uniuersities and gout., Degrce colleqes for the group-l Mctrrts cualuation utork. Degree cottege faculty teach both the Dnglislt crnd Telugu mt'cliun gratluatiort stualents and are competettt enottqh to cuQluate tlte GrouP- 1..

145.TheC<lmmissionisdeliberatelydocsnotCarCthar'iczrrrlrllg or 'cducating a tcchnical course irr a spccific languagc / mccliu m is very clifferent requiring acquired learning and teaching abilities in that specific language from merely being converszt nt irl the sllid Ianguagc. Thc 2rrrL respondcnt's admission clearly undcnvrites t hc fact that the petitioners doubtecl all along that evaluations rI1 Telugu anrl Urdu were clone hastily by evaluators' r"'ho do rlot undcrstand thc technical nuancesi of the language ancl tllcy r'vere asked to evaluate, Ieading to grave injustice being mete<l out to candidate s (,ho had u,ritten their Mains examination irl 1'clugtr or Urdu.

146. One Dr.M.A.Malik was only one of the several er':rluators' whoContinuedtohaveallegiancewithaprivatccrlaching institution- Thc fact of his continued association not in tanclem with the 2"d respondent's guidelines as stated on 13'03 2O25 ivas only brought to the notice of this Court and therefote, trying trr comparc rvriting books for a Dr' B'R Ambedkar Open uuiversity 86 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 ond botch with u'riting fol RC Rcddy Publications is nothing s hort of trying to compare and norrnalise apples with orangr:s. [:;r th are not the samc, howcl1)i-, tlrc l cspondcnt 1S clcsperate [r, -rning to prove oth c r\\risc. A,s l:r: lrs his clcclarzrtiorr is conccruc I lhis Court is alreadv serzecl t ht lrooks that the s:aid uvaluator hr s q.rittcn lbr RC Recldv Publrcr.1rons

147. With rcqurd to third evaluation, it is sper,'r{callv submittecl thal it is not jrrst the barcodc, but thc absence rl a bubbling of marks provisron given to the prior trvo er.alueiti . .rs, subject ancl susceptible to ()MR rerrcling th:rt i:; al.lscnt from 1 r: 3nievaluatiorr. In its explan:ltion, thc 2',d responclent has not exp ainr:d as to how the marks frrr the .3rd evalrrati()n are determ i red ancl nlaced without mzrnnrrl interwcntion, lr,hcn there is no bubbling of the said marks ol valiation betwcen the 1't ancl 2,),1 evaluation arrived at b_t, thc 3"1 er,'rluator. Thc 21,t1 responder I rnerely states zrt Para No.64 lh"[ '...o11)n1g to tha barcode on the .; itchcd poft{on of the AnsrLter Sc riJtt, the thi.rrl cuahrction fornt curt ;till be identtJled tuith the samc ltorcoclc: ryiuen on thc' Ansuter script"

148. The Conrmissiorr lor rcasons best knou r to it ancl for obvious malcior rs rcasons chose 'not to publis r thc provisional 87 \anu,t W,P.No.17439 11 zozs ona botctr marks listing completely blind siding doubly, so the aspirants iry firstly coming up with an irrationai explanation for the suspicious introduction of a completel)' diflerent ha1l ticket for the Mains examination, prcveuting candidates / petitioners lrom revier'ving or verifying any competing detaiis, and then competing the process of deception by not even publishing the provisional marks list, whicl-r would have enabled. candidates to atleast know where they were andwheretheyStoodpursuanttorecountingvis'A_vistheirorr.rr marks ernd especiaily and specifically everybody else's competrng

149. The modcration is thc established legal precedent set by the Ilon'ble Supreme Court and reiterated the same by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements, wherein it was categoncally held that inter-examiner intra-subiect moderation is mandatory to address the aspect of inter-examiner vzrriation ltt descriptive examlnations involving common subjects for all candiclates- The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly explained that while moderation is the method, rvhich is to be used for common subjects, scaling is used for optional subjects, which are not common to a1l. 88 RRN,J W.P.No.11439- bf 2025 ond botch

150. The Hon'ble Supreme Court identified "exa r Liner-variability" as the fundamental vice that cetn distort a cl: ;crip tive-anslver examination. The Court not€ d the so-c:,1 ed hawk dove phenomenon, somc :rssessors :trc habituallr' 1iberal, others habitually strict, ancl each ntay still d rift from t re agreed vard- sticl< even after etn oricntatiorr meeting. When rlilT :ren 1- e xarniners valuc different batches of scripts, a canclidate's I rrtunc s turn on the accrdental identity of the examiner rather Ll r Ln on merit. To eliminate this element of chance, tl-re Cour- plescnbed a systematic equalisatron mechanism callecl mocle r rtioll, not mere mathematical averagine. Nlodcration is a ( ualitative cum- quantitative process led by t1ead (or Chief) Exr. o iner who hrst convenes al1 assessors to agree ort ttniform mar-l i rg norms, then samples top, nriddle. and rando;n scripts from :rrerv exa miner after valuation, rc-marks a subsct himself, and f nal1-v appiics a calibrated upu.ard or dorvnrvard a<ljustment addir:5 or deducting a fixed number or percentage to the entrre batch o any "strict" or "liberal" examiner. Whcre the carrclidate loacl is ,, :ry large, such process checl< continues througl'r additional tic r s of oversrght, 89 l^^r,, lW-P.No.11439 bf 2025 dnd botch moving from Head-Examiner to C)hief-Examiner, until urliformity is achieved

151. Thc absencc of modr:ration rende rs the evaluation process arbitrary and vrolative of 1hc prrnciples of fairness and cqualitl' enshrined in Article 14 of the (lonstitution. The Commission s attempt to justify the Telugu medium success rate by companng it to a recent Andhra Pradcsh rccruitment selectively rather than to its own previous exercise ir-r 20 17 under 20 1 I notihcation is a flawed 'apples to orangcs" cotlparison. Moreover, rvhile tl-tc Commission has publict-y discloscd thc numbcr of successful Urclu medium canclidates in its rejoinder press note, dated

15.O4.2025, it has withhetd the corresponding Telugu-medium figurcs in a sealed covcr. Such selective disclosure is contrary to the guarantee of equality and the requirement of transparency'

152. At one instance on 15.O4.2025, tl-re Commission states that 10 persons of Urdu medium appeared and then previously on 13-O3.2025 vide Web Note they claim that nine persons appeared for the same, and when questioued in the open court, the 2''l respondent is now spinning the story that the petitioners are deliberately misinterpreting the facts and that the former is only of 90 RRN,I W.P.No.174 j9 - bf 2025 qnd botch people \,vho al)l)arently qualitiecl trnglish cxr i.titriLijotr. It is frigl-rtening to rcalise hort' tnrtch lurther thc ll' 1-t:spondeut 1S willing to pusir u ith its fiction abottt spt:cr-rl:itivc i Llt'q rtiotts rvhetr errcr), sinlile otlc of tlrcm lrrc rrlotccl itl f:rcl:; roltr thcir owtt docrrrnentlrtion anci tho sam('has t'rot llcctt exlt)lri "(1. [it'.1'tlt(]r, th(l Corrrnrission statted as fcrllorvs " ... 'L'lrc l1!(:l) Note cluted l.) 0.3.2()25 conlctinetl tir,. t ctrtiL: oJ'tlta condirlates. u,lto hctuc qualtllr:rl rn linqlisLt prtn /l'f iriclt i.'; rnondatory for aualuotinrl thc other (/,r-sr{,.,r scnpl.s/ 153 As pcr thc :lbove staten)cnt, it is manclator . .lirr' ,r cnndidatc to secure eualif5ring rnarks in tht: compulson, r nqli:,h Paper in ordcr for their r-ernaining papers to be evaltt:itt c[. owever, AS obst-'rved from 1l-rc Marks list of Nlain exami I rtiorr, rvltich is pr-rblished on 30.03.2025, it has L'orne to lieht I r rt 1he altlhoritv has evaluated the ansrver scrlpts ol czrndiclirtr : , rvlro lzriled to qualily the cornpulsory English l)aper, therell ,l "t-r'.,arding thc saicl rnandator]. r'equiremenl. 1'he satd actior-r n(,i , rll\r r-tndermincs the sanctity an<l fairncss ol' the examination l) c)ccss, br-rt also constitutes an arbitrary ancl uneclual lreatmcnL r f czLrrdidates, in direc:t contradiclion to the principles o1- natunr -jtrsiice ar.nd thc 91 hau,t lw p uo. t tagg $1 zozs ona batch rules framed bv thc authoritf itsclf and casts doubts on authenticity of cntire rnarks list

154. Tl-rough thr: Commission is vehemently harping on its constitutional atLthontl-. br-rt fails to provide any cletai[s or explanations, especialll, consiclering lts clubious past and thc malpractices in reccnt 1'ears, rvhich led to the cancellation ol sevcral notifications, including ts'o rclated to the Group- I examlnatlon

155. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, Iearned Senior Counsel in his reply submitted that the Public Service Commission hzrs issued the web note on 27.LO.2024 stating that 2 i,093 car-rclidates have appearcd for a1l examinatrons. After the Web Note dated 27.1O 2024' the Respondent Commission is silent rvitl-r regarcl to the number of candidates appeared. Only in the Press No1e, clated 13.03.2025, it was stated that the total canclidzrtes appeared are 20 '161. Thereafter, the Commissiotr has pr-Lblishecl the marks secured by the candidates u'ith their rcspt'ctive Hal1 Trckets numbers, wherein the total number of candiclatcs wcre dispiayed as 21,085' Thus, the contention that there are minor variations in number of candidates participating in tl-re examitlation is incorrect and it 92 RRN -I W.P.N1.1743-. - bf 2O2s qnd bqtch would sholv tha t thc Commission has violatc i the proccdur-c reqrtired for r:orrd,rctrng the main examination inspite o{' thc specrfic obser,.,:it jons ol this Courl on earlier oca:rr olt that :r clonllr is castc rvith :'cqrird to tltc numbcr- of carrcliclat,.t.. ,'ho lerLicilt:rtcrl in thc exanrination and the methoclologr. rlol;rccl bv tl'rt invigilalors r: not in conformitl, rvith tlrc sl LncLrruls of tltt' examrnatron

156. Thc Pr-rl;lic Service Cornmission re ferred t th(, Prcss Not(' clated 13-3-11025 with rcgard to thr: procer( r Lre lbllorvcd in valuatiot-r of ansrver paper bool<1ets ol' Groul 1 sr.rvir-e mair-r exanrination. In the said prcss notc, it is st., ed ]hat certairl indivicluals rrnd organizations are spreaclinr rn isinforma tior r witl1out goin11 into alt the details pertaining to t1 ' Cr or-rp I provisionlrl nr:rrl<s dcclared by th<: Purblic Sen,ic: Contmjssion olr 1O.03.2025. 'l'he said Note rvoul1 clearly sho\. 1hzr1 thc Public Ittaln s Sen rce Cornrnis:;ion has not zrdhere d to the coirrlr ion: spi'cifiecl in thc Notificatrorr

157. The Conrnrission did not oublish the tol rl nrarks of thc candidatcs in irs website. That itself n,oulcl e'(' s(:ope lbr thr: 93 lnu,t 1W.P.No.11439 fi zozs ona botcn irregularities and only to cover up thc irregularitics, thcy issued the Press Note, but the details rl'r:re not uploaded in the website e\ren on 13.O3.2025. It is stated that the valuatiott of the main ilnswer p:rper booklct \\'ils tlolrc t\\'tctc' ltr two cliffcrerlt Valuators/ Examiuers

158. After complction of the first valuartion, thc part containing the marks awarded by the 1" r,etlltator is cletachccl lLnd proceeded for the 2"d vaiuation, is not specified in the Noti[ication No.2/2O24 or at any time bclbre conductit-tg o[ t]rr-' ttli-Lin examination F-urther, the Public Service Commtssiort relerrecl to Rule 3 (ix) (d) of the Commission's Rules and Procedure. 'll-re Public Servicc Commission Rules and proceclure r'vere pul;ltsired in Telangana Gazette dated 14-11 2018. Rule 3 spct:ifie s tlle procedure in conducting the compctitive cxamination lor dircct rccruitment to the posts. The said procedure in lttlc ll clocs not conte mpiate for valuation of main an s\\rer scripts to be cl<>ne by two different vzrluators/examiners. On thc othc r h:rncl, Rr-rle 3 (ix) (d) spe cifics that the request for rcvalrtation shall not be etltertained and therefore, it is obligatorv on thc part oI the l)ublic Service Commission not to undcrtake tl're revaLu:ttion oncc thc valuation 94 RRN,] W.P.No.174i9 - of 2025 and botch is undertaken ltv thr: exantIners There[orc, tiri 1-,t-oi:cdure nov,/ clemonslrated rs rn violation of the Rules atrr the proccrlure notriied by t1-rt I'r-rblic Service Cotnrnission

159. The moclt'l :rnsu,cr lrooklet uploadecl rn thr ,' t'llstlrl 1tu: davs before the \\.I Iti(] rI exitnlinaliorl conLains thc: :lr l tlcilons t() th( czrndic.latcs. Evt rt in the said instructions, thcre s rto l,:lct cncc of conclr-rctitrg o:' c'.'aluatiort o1' answer scripts I)\ Illol r' tllat-r ont' evaltrator. I},cn in ther flrst sheet, though t efcr ( ('(l to clt:t:rils ol Parl I cor-rtai1)s the pre ltrir-rted candiclates cL ,ils. I'art Il :rnrl Part III contaurs the details where the lnarl<s ar itri'ltt dccl bY thcr exanrlner. Evcn in the said booklet, there is no ,l('rerrce lrorv tllt: ans\\,er scr-ipt v;ill be erraluatecl by more th:r on{- exanllncl Therclorc. thr' ..IVCrfil(]ttt that the doublc rralttlLll )ll ol a1l Alls\\r('l scripts is t'nattclatotl, is neithcr speci{iccl in tll no-'riicaliotl tlor publishecl in lhe Cotnmission's Rules and Pl-o' ' rlttre nolificcl ilr the 1'elangzrna G:rzr:ttt' dartecl 14.1 1.2018 16O. Thcre rs no other procedure requirecl t() l)' acl(ll)ted bv tilc Public Servii e (-onrtnission in respect of m:rirl . I s\\ cr bool<lets oI the candiclatcs;. Therefore, the double cr: luation is not 95 FRN,J w.P.No.11439 bf 2O25 ond botch contemplatecl under Rules. It is thc specific case of the petitioners herein that the Respondent (lommission had no role in scrutinizing the marks through ll.te set'oucl r'aluator is spccific, rvhich rcmain unrebuttcd i 6 ] The Commission has no rolc in re cvah.tatitrq the answer scripts to arrive at the marks securecl b)'tl-re ctrndidatcs. No rule or procedure has bcen shorvr-r or clcmottslratccl in thc counter affidavit that the Commission has l)ower to lrndertal<e the valuation of main answer booklet b,\' t"vo clifTerent evetluators or examiners. Further, the Pr-tblic St'n'tce Commissiot-t has filccl the counter affidavit in W.P. No. 9413 ol' 2025 througl-r the vcry same deponent, wherein it was stated that the a\rerage of the first and second marks list wcre considcred as thc llnal mcrit list. If therc is a deviation of l1ok of the total marl<s of the particular Papers betu,een the marks awarded in thc ts'o valuatiotrs (Vai I & Vat-ll) that answer scripts is subjccted to.r tllird valrtation. Thus, the procedure adhered to by the Purblic Servir:c Commisston is corrtrary to the statutory Rules ancl the Notificalion. 96 RRN,J w-P.No.71439 - tof 2025 and botcn i62. Thc Hon ble Suprcmc Cor:rt in onc case hr:lr lhat il thc larv requires sornetlting to be done ill a particulat- t tant.ler. thcn it mur-qt be rlonc ir titat trantler, ancl if it is not dollt tt tll.lt lnallnel. thcn it t'oukl ha..'e tto cxistcllce irt thc t:1'c of Ilrl l-ll'-' RLtles :itlci proce(lurc do Irrit ltro'.,iclc for sccond valttattrlrt or re'r'rtlltlttiolt except rccoLlr)tirrg of marks. Therefore, the s, r oLlcl or cloublt: revaltr:rtior-r is c'orrtran' to larr'r'. Thcrefore , no adllt I (lnac to Rtrlc 3 (ix) o1- tlrc Iir-rlcs attcl Prt>cedur(', lvould shorr' ( haL thc t'tltirc exercise ts trttlLlv iittd ttot existent:e irl the eye ol 1l rr '

163. Thc Ho:r blc Sutprcmc Court hcld in er clrll ia c,l clccisiot'ts, rvher: tt is n,rt |ossible to f incl out the irregulal r v rvitl-t rt'l-et cnct: to the spccilit'cl c:rnclidates, the entire selection lr.r; to be st:t asidc. Admittcdlv, in thc c:isc on hand, double vaLttL iot-l or in othtt- lvords, er'.rlulrtiotr o1-nt:rrks b1, tu'o dil[erent evalr ir tors/exlttl-riuers. or .lrcl vaiuat icn of the ilnswe r scripts are irregLr : I , sitlce thtl ver.1' evalttzrtior-t ol ansrvcr scripts is in <;ontravent.ion '; Rulc 3 (i-t) (ct) r>l the Rules. l llere is tro possibilit,,,, of identifyirr : (her tnct'itorious candidatt:s anci others. 'lhus, the procedure ado.. r-'d is learci to the elirnrnatiou oI mr'ritorior-ts canclida tes. 97 t7nn,t W.P.No.71439 ll zozs ana aotcn ,164. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the sanctity of the selection process comes under a cloud helcl that, recruitment to public services must command public confidellce. Thc t:onduct of erraluatiorr by more than one evalu:rtiot't. u'hich is I-rot pcrmittecl by the Rules, r,voulcl demonstrat€ that tht'rc is a possibility of eroding fzri t h on the process of valuation of ansrver scripts of Group-l (Mains) Examination, thercby, the pcrsons tl'ho are deserving ancl qualihecl are denuded an ol)]lortutlity to firce thc orirl rnten,ieu. and get selection- Thus, as hcld by the Hot-r'ble Suprcmc Colrrt iu various cases, the entirc llrocedure of evaluation of rnarks is liable to be set aside arrd the selection process stands ttnreasonableness and violation ol [lules'

165. With regard to allocation of Centre Code Nos' l B ar-rci 19, thc dctails furnished in the counter affidavit, out of 6,396 u'omen candidates, 1,497 candidates have written the examinittion [r'om the said t\\,o centres. In the Centre code No 5,669 rvomen candidates harve written the examination 'lhus, out of 6,329 women candidates appeared in 17 centres,2,166 candidates were accornmodatecl only in three centres and they constitute as per 98 fRN,Jw P No 1 14 fal 67 zozs ond batcn the cictails furnislrecl in Para Nos.20 b 24, 9.639+ ' r tht: 5613 posts. in the ratio of [ : 1 t'ho u,ere called for certificate r'' ifica tion 1(>6. The <letzrils ,,f 'l'elugtr lvlecliurn carnclidate s rt ri percerltage o1' thc -l'clugLr rnt cliutn cilrrrliclatcs sclcctcd lirr the pr'l ir-r thc t-litio oi' 1: 1 rvcrc also nol fitrnisirccl. It ri'o''rld clearlv del]l ) lstrille tlrat thr: Telugu n'rcdiLrm :;trtdct-tts u,ere dt:ltrived of sr:ler 1 on '-llljustly bl tllan ollc evaluating rhr: rtns\\rcr- scripts ll-l' m( I I evaluator/cxernriner. Sri M.Srrrcrrdt'r Ilao, lt:artrec[ Settior Cottrr ,cl irl his rt:1;lv submitted as foll rrvs:

167. The I lall Ticket number is not mereiy er logi ;ticul tool, but :l critical iclentiicr lbr- tracl<in51 a c:rnctidate's ioul tl.' througholr t tll(l mtrlti-stage 51 lgr'lion proccss. lssuing a new IIr.l Ticl<et nunrbcr for the Maitrs strge brc'aks atrdLt trail, makitlg it ilrpossible for arr indepenclent obsen'er candiclatc, or court to r erify s'hcther a candidatc who a ppczrrecl in tl-rc l\,Iair-rs had actua I / qltaliflecl ln thc Prclirns. [t is 1;rrr ticuhrll' conccrrting bccause . Lt: Mait-ts results anci marks w( rc llol ptrltlisl-rcd pr-rbliclv, and nt I tc t'ise sc'lcc:tiott 99 TRN,J W.P.No.174i9 61 2025 ond botch lists r.vc re withheld and it would [cad to furthe r obscuring transparencY

168. .1.1-re tecl-rnical convenience of data collatior-r callnol 0r'erride constitutional mandates of ftrirness, equalit-\,, etn<l accoutltabilit) under Articlcs 14 ancl 1Cr of the Constittrtion No public explanatiort or notification was issued b,y 1'GPSC in advance regarcling this change, thereby vicrlating the cloctrine of legitim:ttc expectati on.

169. 'l'hc respondcnt's asscrtion in the coun[cr affid:rvit that separatc hall ticket numbers lvere also issuecl iu previous Croup I recruitments under Notification Nos'15/2011 and 18/2011 is factually incorrect. Under Notification No 15l2011' thc (iroup-l Matns exzrtnination conducted in 2012 by the erstr'vhile i\t.ldhrel Pradesl-r Pubiic Service Comrnission (APPSC) retair-rcd the same Hall Ticket nLtmber from Prelims to Maitrs Subsequently' foliowing the bifurcation o[ the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh' separate Group-l Mains rc-exatnination s were condr-tcted by TGPSC ancl APPSC in 2016, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court. In that process, a detaiied Iist of 100 FRN,J tW.P.No.77439' tof 2025 ond botch qualified crancli(latcs lor IVIains rvas published in lr,arrce, the list inclucled both the candidate nirmes and ol'iE i Lal [)rclrminary examinati()n :Jrrll Tickct nrrrnlters, and thc s:: rr: cnsrrrccl [ull trace:rbilitv l r:ri [r-r]nsi).1-cr1c\'. cn:rl;ling plilt :.r nci lrrdicial verillcatior r.

170. [,earr-red Senior Corrnscl appr:arine firr thc l,r jt ic,-ners furthcr Submits that tto arltitr:trt or ol)a(lLrc rc nurnlrt';t tq \,\:ils clortt: irr the name of con,"'cnience. No pick and choost. , :n1 r-c alLocation occurred. Ilalhcr. tlte II:l1l '['ic:l<cts 1br Mair-rs lverr. ssrrerl str-ictl1,rn accordancc r.r.irh the lrrchms cltrirlificcl list, tht I ),\. presr.rvin!] a traltsparent, tlrr. ltncl auclit:rblc trarl ftorn Pttrli,t s to Mains and final selection. Ilr,,en iI srrclr a practice rvas , llorved ol]ce or sporadicaLlv, it (:lrlnot llc clt'enrerl zl prer.crlcrr t r jr-rstifv a nolt- transparent rrtrl irrcqrrlar' ltrar:tice in the pt,: ltt rccruitrnent process. Constittrtional r-ecruiting agcncies Lil<e .. l,SCt :rnd APPSC follow a lrnil-orrn H:ill Ticket numbct- tltrorLr.l oul all stagcs ensuring conrl)l('Le traccabilit-y, al.lclital)ili1_\r iurrl i:rirness_ evcn tI' deemed a pr-t,ct,dent to justifi, such a przrclir:e s,:rs follos.e<l oncc or sporadii r1-y, rt cannot be non transl)al ,rt rLnd irregul;rr recnritment Proces ., Constitutional practice in t h. pr('s€rtt .t 101 ',nau,l W.P.No.71439 lp\ zozs ona batch recruiting age ncies iike UPSC and APPSC follow a uniform I Ia1l Ticket number throughout all stages. The petitioners reiterate that merely mapping Prelims and Mains Hall Ticl<et nurnbers internaily and submitting them lo the Hor-r'ble Court post-facto does not cure the fundamental defect of public non-disclosure and candidatc level unverifi:rbi1ity. Moreover, the non random and opaque allotment of candidates to specific centrcs (e.g, exclusivc placement of select women candidates in Koti Women's College) further proves the practical misuse ol the Hall Ticket reissuance system lor selective scgregation, ltossibly by medrum, gcnder, or reservation c.rtegory. 17 1 . The centres predominantly assigned to Telugu mediurn candidates have shown alarminglv low selection rates, rvhile centres associated with English medium candidates reflected disproportionately higher ranks. This post-exam outcome clisparity substantiates the claim that bias may have influenced the evaluation process based on centre-wise tagging or other undisclosed factors 702 'I,RN,] lW.P.No.7743-q '- 9f 2025 and batch

172. T]ne claim tirat no centrc's scripts rvere er.zrl .. lte cl b1r a singlc evaluator is irrr:L:vant, as the problem lies not 1r ringLe evaluator aliocation, but in tire lack ol- s tandarcliztrtir n, absence of moderation, ancl pattcrrr-b:rsed bias u'r scor-it 1. Ot,cr 1,500 instances of irler-rtic:al scores ancl clr:cirnal rnarks ,r:re irienlrllecl in closc numcrical Flall Ticltct sequerLoes and 68 canr iclate palrs $.ith consecutive I Iall Ticket nttmbers rt:ceived iclent ri : i mzrrks. which is statlstically irnprobable in clcscriptive evaluertior . l'he said acts strongly support the petitioners' contention thar thc evaluration process wzrs no| only opaquc anc[ inconsis tcni ] r .t also possibly manipulated or algorithmicalll. tampcrecl, in c i ar violation of Articles 14 and 1{i of ttre Constitntion.

173. The Con-rmission's claim that onlv subjc, I rna:Ir,r e-xperts were appointed as cvaluators is relutecl by its o.r n conduct and record, includrng absencc of anv public11, rcleased i sl of appointed evaiuators and their qualification:r. RT[ resp,tnse r inclicating that several Cl-rief trxamincrs clid not possess 'aI SC ev:rluzrtion experience, contrary to the claims madc b1. the C r rrrnission in its press note datecl 13.03.2025. 1'1-re appointmerr of cconornics faculty to evaluate Paper-V (rvhich inclutdccl r .rr.ironrncnt to 103 !RN,I :W.P.No-11439 ol 2025 and batch evaluate Paper VI (covering 'lclangana Movement and state formation), despite these falting outsidc their core subject expcrtise. Furthermore, it has come to light that sorne evaluators thenrsclves zrppcart:cl lor Group I Prelrnrs ancl failcd, ratsit'tg serious conflict of intcrest concerlls. Rese:trcl-t scholars and PG students lrom institlrtions like .JNTU H1.clt:rabad rvere engagcd in the evaluation process rvithorlt any lbrtnal authorization experience in public service cotnmtssion rr:t ruitment processes. Ultinrately, the unqualilied or un:ruthorizecl individuals were permitted b1. thc Commissiott to evaluate scripts rvithout prior sanction. No rnoderatioll or scrutiny uechanistn qras implemented despite large scalc cloLrblc/ triple cvaluations.

174. The clairn that evaluzrtors n'ere well-r,ersed in Telugu ancl subject expcrts \vcre cngagccl across all mediums are unsupported by anv evidencc. Der;pitc repezited demands ancl RTI applications, the C<>mmission has; lailed to disclose the number, qualificatior-rs, or subject expcrtisc of the ev:rluators appointcd for each paper and medium. TI-re RTI replies reveal that many evaluators lacked UPSC e"'alua tion erpericnce, contradicting Commission's official prcss notc datcd 13.03.2O25. 704 RRN,J W.P.No.114.t9 bl 2025 ond botLh

175. There is rro <lata has been providecl to c:on iln ihat l't:lugu medium scripts wcrc assessecl fri TeLugrr lzrnllL.. gr: ilncl strlrjccl exports. Thc rrxlss unclcrpcr rliirmancc o1' I 'ir-iqr-t nrccIitrrrt candidates esl)( cially fronr sl)e cilic cer)lr('s llqq(--sts ('ither evalLlator mismalch or- bias ir-r the evalr:ation pr , :ess. 'l'hc :jalne evalr,ration bltrc pr int and ansrvcr keys r-tsccl lirr Lnglish rnr:<tium rr:portcdlv applie rl to 'lclrrqrr c ripts u,ithout scrrlrts \vere necc-ssary Lnguistic acl:iptertion, ri,tr ic l-i p errl zrgo;1icrr l1_r' inappropriate anrI cliscriminatory

176. The lon, sck:ction ratio of Telugu nr( ( r lr] canrliclates compared to Iinglisl-r-rnedium car-rcliclates. rk:s1;it,' both appt:zLring for thc same cxarnination and having acccss to r r s:rme svllzrbus raiscs serious dor-rbts abor.rt linquistic fairnr':. 'inrl e,.,alrrator cornpetence. This cannot be clrsrnissecl as 's; r cttl:rtive", it is statistical evidence of disp ropo r tio nate outt:, r ,.,. puinlirrq to svsl t--mic failure

177. The Comrnission's assertion that no cv1(li r ce r:rists witl-r regerrd to evaluators handling botlr Telugu ancl lr:riish scripts. If thc Commission has not disclosed thc cvurlrr ror ussiqnnr)nt 105 RRN,I iw.p.t'to. qsg Df 2025 ond bdtch records, horv cau it assert rvhat eviclencc exists or not? The burden lies rvith the Commission to prove that evaluators ',vere linguistically and academicalll, matchecl to tl-re scripts tl'rey asse sscd. 178 The Comrnissron has not explainccl rvl-ry Telngu-rnedium candidates were overivheln'ringly clustcred in specific centres of selections. This dispar-ity rvhcn c'ompat-e cl s,ith significantly higher outcomes from centres dominated b,v English-medium scripts, demonstrates outcornebased dtscrimination, regardless of intention

179. The evaluators were "scnior faculty from government colleges" with "proven domain knos'lcdge" is unsubstantiated. On the contrary, RTI replies/ confirrl that the erralr-tators did not have any prior UPSC evaluation cxpcrience contrzrry to the claims made by Telangana Public Service Commission. Some evaluators were already retired personnel. Sotne cvalttators lverc reportedly those who had failed the Group-l Prelims, raising conflict of intercst boncerns. There was no publicll. littown selection or vetting process for appointing evalltators 106 RRN,J W-P.N1.L14!9 - of 2025 ond batch i 80. A bias or cliscrimrnation cun bc svstcnric. i r riicit. or rcsnlt- oriented. Thousands of Telugr.r mcdjnrn r(li(lat('si were elimir-ratecl frorn the linal list. Mass patlc'rns i lr'nticrrl mar l<s u,ere zrr'",artlerl to car-rdidalcs rvitl-r numcrrcallv il.,t' h:ril tir:ket numbcrs indicatr:s a statistical anomalv not l-all.i rr < ,';rrrt'irlr:ncc 1B 1. The Clornm ission has misrcprescntecl ttr,' r', s 1,.y cl:tinring that 3l B er.aluators urorked continr-rouslv Ibr (l( I r\ :r .o 0r':rlt[rtc: the Group-l MaLns answer scripts ancl the r irl lrssr.rtion is factually inc'orr,::ct and misleading. In the ir rriinl ('.rse. tl-re everluators we re engaged ITI batches, not sinrL I irrtr',ruslr'. Eaclr batch rvas typically called for a linritecl period ol r pirroxinurtelr, 15 davs, as is cleerrll, evidenced by the Procecdings : rtccl O2. 12.2024 (File No.CCEACISPL/612024) issued b,t' rht' ( oiu::'rissroner of Collegiate Iiducertion. The actual nurnber of evirl rtol r; r,r'or.king at an1' given tirne rvas far lourer thar-r 318, anr: rhc cltrnrticln of e n gagemen t signihcantly shorter than iarr' ,ecl l,l' the Comrnission. Official records and in(ernal :orr rntrnrcations confirm that the average time allotted to eval'.r iie ( acll i\lls\\,er scrlpt was approximately {ive rninutes. Srrcir lrr acccicralecl evaluation rate is grossly inadecluate fot ass, r:rrrr. clesr:r'iptivc. 701 hnrv,.r W.P.No.11439 ll zozs ona ootcn analytical responses expccted in zr higl-r-stakes, conventional type examination like Group- 1. The said unreralistic workload and time pressure imposed on evalualors sevcrel',' compromised the quality, consistcncy, and objectively of thc evitluaticltt proccss. thcrcbl' undermining the credibility of tl-re linal nrarks arvarcled'

182. With regard to allotment of otrlr' \r'orrren candidates, TGPSC has not placccl on record ar-r1' reclttisittolr lcttcr or official communication from the college :lttthorities requesting that only women candidates be allotted to the siri<[ cenlres. [n thc absencc ) of any documentary eviclencc, such :r c}:tir-t't citntlot be zlcccptecl as a valid justification. Even if such a request l-rad been tnade, allotting only women candidates; to ll spet:ilitr centre withot-tt following the principle of rarlclomizatiorr .rnlolrnts to a pick and- cl-roose approach, which scverely cotnprotniscs the lairncss, transparency, and integrity of tht' eranlination process- Randomization of centers is a ke1' safi:guarcl to prevent bias or preferential treatment, ancl any clevi:rtion must bc Ilackecl by demonstrable necessity, due process, and verifiable records, all of which are conspicuously absent in the presetlt case ' 108 RRN,] W.P.No.11439 tol 2025 ond botch -

183. The petrtioncrs strongly refLltes thc Cornrnirr ion s assertions in Paragraph ll9 of counter affidavit and sul;trit.; th.rt tl.re lacl< of transparencv surrounding tl're third evaluatrtl:l l)r()(ress rilISes scrious dottltls itltout tlre fztirness, cot'lsistcllc:r'. rlrcl ttrtcql it,r' of thc entire \lrLins ansrver script evaluation. [Jni tc ti'.c' iir-st itncl scr:ond er.:rlrt:rtions, rvhich are governed by a stilll l:lt-clizccl s-\'slcIn involving thc ltst: of barcodes, and thc bubblin l 'lf rnltrl<s r)il a designatecl C)i,4 R section to ensure secure atl cl trrr cablc rccrlrding of marks, thc thircl evaluation process does llot irllot' the sztme stzrnclardize cl lbrmal. Specifically, the coiumtl for ltLrcl t:v:riluttiott in the answ( r script does not contaitl a Pre I rrltecl bal<'ode, unlike the fir st two. There is no designatecl sp rc for bu bbling narks in tht ttrird evaluation section. The Cr I ttlrissiorl s own clairn tl-rat a ltarcode sheet is "attached rvhen rt:c I |ecl' illtro(lLlces discretiot't anrI irrcgularity, allowing for thc possr 'ilitv o1- rnatrual entr-v ol marl<s, rt'hich is highly susceptrble to err-'I tnattilltllalion. or sclective titrnpering.

184. The Cotttmission ha.s not disclosed hou'rnat' lttls\\er scripts wcrc subjcctcd to third evaluation, not explaint' i 1he <'riteria lor selecting scril)ts lbr third evaluation, not pr-tblisir :il itnv detitiled 109 lnnru,r \w.P.No.11439 b|2025 ond botch procedure or internal guideline governinEl the third evaluation methodologr and not clarifiecl horv discrepancies (if any) between the three evaluations were resoh,erl

185. In the absence ol the said crucial clet:rils. tl'rerc is :t real ancl reasonable apprchension that the tl'rircl cvaltrirtion process rvas non-uniform, opaque, and r.ulnerablc to abuse. 'I'he cottcern is heightened if a significant numbe r o[ selectecl <:ancliclates belorrg to the group whose scripts undctrv<:nt thirci evaluatiorl, since they rnay have been subject to diflercnt evaluation stanclzLrds, ancl thcir scores may have been recorded r'vithout thc sarne safegr::rrds r-tsed in the double evaluation systern. Therclbrc, thc Cotnrnission s reliance on an ad hoc and non transparent third cvaluation, partrcularly that iacks barcode integration anci standarclrzed mark recording, violates the principles of natrtt'al .lusticc, equ:rl treatment, and procedural fairness ttnder Articlcs 14 ar-rd l6 o[ the Constitution of India.

186. After granting the interim orclcr. the successful c:rudidatcs filed implead petitions by way of I.As. The sericl IAs u'ert: allo'"r'ed on 07 .O7 .2025 counters also filed 110 RRN,I W.P.No.114]9- 61 zozs ona batch The submissions of the unofftcial respondents Sri D.P:akash lteddy, learned Senior C)oiri ;r'l rcprcscntrng Sri Sr iranr I'oLalr. subrnittcd as follorvs

187. Pursuarrt 'o Not[fication dated O9.04.20. : t)rt: proirosecl rcsponclents har..c iltlcndecl the certificatc vcr tc:rt jor-r l-re lcl on 16 04 2025, 17.O+ 2025, 19 04.2025, 2 0,t 2025 ancl

22.04.2025. 1')rc proposed respondents havc ,r'r'n czrllccl for ccriificate vcrill<::ition as thev have secured ranl<.; irr the nrerit Iist of candida,rte s lbr thc rnain examir-ration and tlrc. rrrr: c'ntiLli:cl lor appoilrtment, srrbject to verification of thr: r ertrliczrtes etncl ancillary requirerlents W.P.No.l28l9 of 2025 h r ; beren fiLerl tbr the sole l)Lrrl)oso of stalling the selection pro( ( ss lor Group-l scr\/rccs rvit[-rourl zlnv substantial evidence

188. It is se tt lcd larv that this Court in exercisc ol' its pou,cr of j ud ici a1 rcvt ew rrsually does not interfere wit[' tl-rer selec'tion process undertrrken I'ry an expert body tl-rat too Co ns t itn t io na1 bodv like the Rr:spondent No.2. The only excepticr to l-his rule is wherc there is a case of malfeasance (wrong ,l ring), inherent arbitrariness, r,iol:rtion of statutorj/ rules or systcn r : irregulariLies 111 RRN,J W.P.No.114i9 Ql zozs ond botcn in the present case, none of ttrs exceptions ttave'been e},ead averred, and in any case demons;tratecl with srrfficient evidence None of the allegations in tl-rc ivrit petition meet trrll' of the aforesaicl thre sholds / paramctcrs t-ec1r-rirccl for irltcrt-crcrrcc bY this Court. The refore, no interf'erent e s'ith regard to thc irnpnened selection process is called for. Since it de lays the selectioLr plocess and leerds to uncertainty, rvhich erch'ersel!' affccts the pr'tblic interest ] 89. Whcn a writ pe tition ar,crs arbitrariness zrnd r,trllatirrn rlf Article 14, it is for thc petitioncrs; to substztutiatc the sa[rc rvitll cogent evidence. In fact, one of the para of thc $'rit afficlavit trlakcs it clear that thc main grouse of the petitioners is thart tl'rr: rcsr.tlt of the main examination was not as per thcir orvn sulljcctivc: assessment of their performance This is practic'rlly tht' sub-it:ctiYc feeling of any candidate, who has rnade serious eflbrts lbr a competitive examination but coulcl not unfortunately gct through' However, such subjective assessment and (ronsequent disappointment cannot be the reason for challenging tl-re examination process itself, thereby .jeopardizing larger plrblic t12 RRN,J W.P.No.114)) igf 2O25 ond botch interest and thc intcrcst of succcrrsful caudidate rvlro hirve aIso put seriolrs etforts

190. Thc rle::isron conveyed by ri'eb note d:rtl I 1().02.2024 to canctl thr: cr r'licr nolificatior-r No.,+12022 trnd 1r ::lulr those se.r1:; with thc sr.rllscclucnt 60 r,acancics that arosr sul;scqucnlll' IS pericctly lcgal. No violation of any statutory nrJr' >r Constitutional pror,ision on accollnt of sucl.r trn cxcrcise has bcr I sll(rlt out b1' thc petilionel s c-\cer)1 ibr l;aldh' alleging that it ',virs i'ithout po\\'er or arbitrerry. In anl cvent, the challenge to the t rrcellation of tl'rc e arlicr notific'at ion hzrs alrearl-v bc,:n rcjccted lrl' . lris Court in tr,r,o rorrnds of Ii,.il1atior-r earlrcr in order datt'r[ 15.1O.2024 nt W-P.No.21'r3.1 of 2021 and batch and order rlrr , cl 't(t.L2.2024 it-t W.l'.No.26038 ol 2024 and batch. It is no1 o ren for the rvr-it petitioner-s to zrgitat(' the sarne rssue again. lloreover, having par-ticipaLcri ur Lhe rccruitment llrocess, it is r ot open lrrr thc petrtioners to cha lienq<: the cancellatiorr of the ,- rrliel notillcatron and tl-re valiclit-v ol the present notification

191. Therc' rs r1o constittrtional or statul :: 1. ltar against canclidatcs. ,.r'l-ro h:n,c sradLrated rrfter the isstra':e ol'Notilication No a l2O2) I l-l p:rrticipating in tht: present imprr 3tecl notification 7\3 t'gnu.t 1w.P.No.174i9 11 zozs ond botch Para 1B of the recruitment notification gives wide power to Respondent No.2 in respect of al1 aspects of the recruit.ment ancl selection process. The petitioners; have not even spelt out horv thcre is an "irrcgularity" in the recruitment process, leave alot-lc provine that, it goes to the root of the legahty/ propriet5r sf 1fi3 selection process. The attempt to correlate the increase in the nurrber of candidates cleclarecl to have r'vritten the main examination with this change in hall tickets is a convolutcci attempt and does not, rn fact, convey any causation between the two events

192. Web note d.t.27.1O.2O24, i.er. on the last day of the main examination, cleclared the number of candidates, r'vho have appeared for thc main examination, was 21,093 (including sports quota candidates), whereas in the web note released on 30.03.2025, it was stated to be 21,O85 (excluding sports quota candiclates). They state that there is a mismatch of candidates

193. Firstly, the petitioners ought to hrst explain how variation in the number of candidates deciared to have written the main exam is an irregularity. Secondly, no further fact or material would corroborate this decimal increase to any larger irregularity has t14 ,f RN,I W.P.No.71439 -- ''pl ZO25 dnd botch been cither averrec.l or proved. Thirdly, tlre v 27.1O.2024 itseif makes it clear that the numbet i was collectecl lrom the chief superintcndents ol t eb note dated rdicated therein xam centres on the go ancl is sub.lt ct to mtnor vztriatiott Ntlnc 'r tht: pctittoners had challengerl this c.tvcat in the rvcir note nor rl cl ttrey seel< the actual number of declerred candidate s right upto t final merit 1ist.. Clcarlv this allcgation is an aftr re release of the rthought and a desperate att(rnrpt to make out a ground to somerlr ru, challenge the recruitment proccss, realising that lhere rs rone. Fourthly, respondent No-2 has givcn er rationai explanation or the variation, which is inconsequential, in the declared numbe - of candidates in its counter alfidavit Thus, there is no substanr:' in tl-ris ground raised by the Pc titioners,

194. The petitioners have allegeri that the allct rent of centers with code nutnbers 1B and 19 to rvomen and cocl: rrumber 27 only to men is in violation of Article 14 and 15' Howe" :r, absolutely no averment has becn made as to horv it has lccl 1 r discrimination against or clisadvantage in any milnner to candi'l sex. In fact, no avertnent has been made as ttl ' rtes of the other ,,hat is the right under larv for either males or fernales to haver t :reir presence in 115 I hniv..r Iw.P.No.71439 il zozs ona ootcn every sirrgle cerlter. An allegation of violation of Article 14 has to be averred cogentiy and proved rvith supporting material and it cannot be a mere bald declaration.

195. Ilar-rdoIn ization itself can also lead to allotment of orrll' womcn or mcn to a particular center or it ma1' leacl to jt-Lst otrc man and all lvontet-r in ar particular center, so on and so forth Merely because such an event hurppens does not imply that thc recruitment process is somehow vitiated' Moreover, even if a conscious decision is taken to ailot only men or qromen to il particular ceutcr for any reason, that itself docs not mcan thet there is no randomization because even the excrcise ol randomization can be carried out among all men or all i'ts "vomen' thc case may be. lg6. Respondcnt No.2 in its counter afhdavit has attributed tht: reason altotting only rvomen to centers with code numbers 18 and lgastheproblemsassociationrvithlackofpropertoiletfacilityfor men in these centers. The allegation of certain candidates rn'erc identified to be favoured in also an bald allegation without producing any evidence. To substantiate the allegations macle b1' the writ petitioners, no evidence has been produced' i 16 lnnN,t 'g.e.Nosuls - bf 2025 ond botch

197. 'll're pctitiolrers atlcgecl that evaluation procl;s on ilccount o1' th(l f act that rn certain "identifie'r I cerlters having irrcgular "r'as codc numbcrs 18. 19, 27 and 28, secured ven' l'.i :'r nr'ttnber of top r:rnl<s. It is allcqt'<l thal 83", ol'rarlks upto 618 i rose rvho scored abor,c 45O trt:rr1<s) u'ct e frottt the sc centers- It is Iso rrlleged that 7 6t'i', ol qualifrc:rtton pcr(rentilqes lrre from centel s l8 i'lld 19 Tl-rey havc also alk's,ccl thert in some ccnters, the trltt rbcI of sClected cancliclates hlis lrce tt vcry lort' arld evcn Zeto. :: ccording to the pet:tioners, tltis rs tler:ause iinswer sheets from 1ll rse r:cnters went to lilt<:ral Cxitnt lnors erncl thc ans\\rer sheets in rtl I t:r (lenters went to s tr ict exatr ine rs.

198. The pcLitioners' conttintiorls are bereft 'r' mt:rit for the follor.,,ing rc:rsons. Firstly. Particular centcl-: gcl ling higher number of toP rernlcs and partrcultlr centers gelti: r 1 kr\\' or zcro top ranks is iL pr obzLl;ilily in atll' competitive exam i I rd is not itself a reason to clortbt tho cratnination or the ev r ttrltjtln process Secondly, paltrcrtlar centers getting higher nunli.r r of top ranks is not itself an zrdequalc-- or sufficient indicator tlr rt there \(/as no uniform st.ln(Lrrd of evaluation by evaluators 01 ' proper moderation. tt is equally possible that eve : ri'ith reasonably Iat r'here lvas no 1,1,7 lnN,t w,P.No.174i9 lJ zozs ona ootcn uniform standard of evaluation by evaluators and proPcr a moderation, some centers can et.t.d up getting higher number of top ranks and some centers getting zero Lop ranks. Thirdly, rvhat is relevant to bc noted is not the percentage of ranks in the top 500 (or those rvho secured above 450 marks) that a particular center has gor, but the perccrrtage vis A vis the number of candidates who appcared in that particular center. As explalncd in the counter allidavit of the C,)mmission, the percentage of candidates who got top ranks ourt of the total who appeared in centers with code Nos.18, L9, 27 and 28 was actualiy a miniscule 5.4l\o, 4.120 , 5.25ok and 3.46o1'. It is comparable to the total average of all centers, rvhich is 2.59o/o (i.e. 546 o,, o1 21935+18)' Fourthly, it ought to be borne in rnind that a center which has higher nutnber of candidates in attendance has a higher probability of l-raving highe r number of top ranked candidates, which is also suggested by the Commission in its counter affidavit'

199. Insofar as the allegation regarding disparity in the number of women candidates, who have been selected is concerned, where some centers have given hlgher nnmbers compared to others, this 118 inau,t W.P.No.71.439 - 'of 2025 ond botch is again a mcr€r statistical possibLlitv Thc pctitit 'r Lers aliegatiolts are simply basecl on surnises ancl cotlecturcs 2O0. There is no rne ntion that ir pror,isional r::rit list u'il1 be published anc1 agait't, aftcr recolttrtit-tg' anot I rr List rvill be list of pubLrshed. Ilesllondent No 2 has pLlbllshed ot t t' ntarl<s finalexanrinatiotronog.o4.2025,incompltirnctrvitl-rpara 15.2 rn the pctrtlrl )crs to sccl< a Thurs. there is no right vestcd provisional merit list. Thus ' t he rc is no petitioners to seek a provisional merit iist' ng r. \rested in the Thi r: is rro illegzrlitY committed b1' resPondent No'2 20 1. Any cornpetitive examinatioll in Inclia is l: c uncL to have an evaluation pl'ocess which is cum bersome and l rat itself is not sufficient to infer that thcre rvcre definite crrors n the cvaluation process. In fact, even if there are siollle errors nlt :h are inevitable when human eiement is involve<l, it rv<lu1cl not ': y itself go to tlre root of the matter, so as to invaljclate thc e l irc examination process. Further, respondent No 2 in its corr r er affidavit has lhe ansu'er s I eet lor the third denied that there is no sPace ln evaluation marks to be writtcn, Thus, thc allegari rn is untenabLe. 119 fnn,t |W.P.No.77439 fu zozs ona nottn

202. The averment that same eva.luators scrutillized both Telugu medium and Engiish medium papers is a bald allegation without any proof. Similarly, the averment that evaluators were selected without evaluating thcir cxpertisc is also a bald allegation with no material in support of Lt- Similarly, the allegation of bias in favour of Urdu medium candidates is aiso not slrpported by any material'

203. The evaluators $rere inexperienced or persons without accountability is not based on any foundation whatsoever even in pleadings in the writ afficlavit l{o foundational pleadings have been set out in respect of Lhe prayer seeking scaling' standardisation and moderation ln any event' the evaluation process has been set out in dctail by respondent No'2 in its web note dated 13.03.2O25, whe rc evaluation is done by two evaluators, with a provision for further evaluation if needed' That itself takes care of moderation Chief Examiners Committees constituting experts takcs care 'rf standardi zatiot-t' Insofar as scaling is concerned, it need not be resorted to when the same set of papers are given to al1 the stuclents as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 120 tlRN,t w P No,7 74f9 bl 2025 dnd bqtch - 2O4. The petitioners having parti,:ipated in thc s :lection process without ar-ry clertur at any stage, not' comc ltrrr '' ircl 1.o challenge the seicction process after knorving tl'rat thev ilr''' r-rot go rg to get selcctcd, rvhictr is impermissible. Sri Pood:rt1 u Amarender, leetrned counsel rt rpcaring Ibr the unofficial rcsl)ondents stated as follows : 2Oir. ln vieu' of the interim orcler parsscc{ lr''' ih is Court, Ll-re proposed resltondents are adverscly affcctecl arlrl their-interest is jeopardized as they are au'aitin14 lor issuanc,' of appointment orders. They have studied for several years :rtl I wai[ing for the employment and after being successful in the seL' t:tion proccss of Group-t, it rs being stalled at the behcst ol thc filed rhc writ petition on untenablc grounds, rli 1 affected partics as party respondents to rLr Petitioners, r,l ho Lout making the Writ Petition. Thercfore, the proposed respondents are consl- Linecl to lile tl-re Irnplead Petition as well as the cor-rntcr affidavil. 'hc present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed a1, the threshok'l rn the grou nd of non-joinder of necessary parties, since the pl.li ioners filed the Writ Petition without impleading the successhtl :anCicla tcs, rvho are u,ithin thc zone of consideration for appointmt nt. t2t tFRN,l \w.P.No.11439 bl 2025 ond botch

206. Ttre petitioners raised several grouncls alleging that several discrepancies and irregularities were found durrng the selection process of Group-l examination. 1'he petitioners are unsuccessfui and not rvithin the zone of considcratiort in thc selection proccss and having observed tl-rat tI'rt'r' have secr-r red lcss rrterit in the selection process, raised sevt:r:rl grounds which are baseless, unlounded, without any matcrr:rl basis and rationalc and furthcr there is no legal basis for the avcrinents rnade by them in the Wrrt Petition. The interim order passcd ir-r W. P. No. 1 I 439 of 2025 is adversely afl-ecting their inl ()re st to thc cxtent of not being appointed despite their merit in the selcction process, rvhich is nothing but taking a,'vay the rr right to livelihood, rvhich is guaranteed under Article 2l of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is contrary to Article 21 apart from violatior-r of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ol India. Thercfore, thc r.,"'rit petition is liable to be dismisscd. 2O7. The law is against the pt:titioners they are seeking revaluation of answer scripts by mentioning certain irregularities Ne ither the recruitment noti[ication tlor the rules permit the revaluation of answer scripts and the law is well settled on this 722 RRN,I W.P.No.11439'-- lJ zozs ond botch issue. 'l'hc latr is aiso \veli settlccl on thc grounc lrat tlte proccss of recruitrnent [ray not be st:r]led at the interlor: ttorv stage as lt affects thc lir ciihood of large nlrnrber ol' Ltnefili] { -\'{..1 vorrth. \\'ho havc ber:rr s1uc1l,ing hard for yc:rrs ancl rvzLitiLt; for r.rnployrncnt and the sarre issue rrras discrrss;ecl in s('ver:tl r cr.ir;ions in tlrc Hon ble Apcx Cortrt.

208. Thc petltioners rire not',vithin thc zone of r rrrs rleration for appointm('nt ancl the_r' zlre unsuCCessfr.rl cancltcll tCS :tncl as thc proposed r-espoDclents zrre in meriL, tl-re selectiorL i r()(.css ougltl t() havc bccn pnrcer:dccl lurther an(i thcir appointrn nts shoulci rrot l;e st:rlled :rt lirc behcst of some l)rtrsons, u,ho ha., , rro k:gal lt:rsis. 'l'his Conrt ought to have seen that the proposecl r r sponclents havc also proccsscrl very same recrLlitment process :: to Lhat of tltc petitioners arci at no point ol time, the1, 11,.r, uoricccl elnv deviations anrl witl'r tl-reir hard rvork tl'rey r;otrlr srrc.c:r:ed in thr: selection proccss. 'lherelore, the contcntrons -aisc.c[ bv tltc petitroners ;rrt, basclcss, hypothetical and sntltor t :r:t1. mater i:rl proof. Henr:e. the writ petition is liable to be dismi.; t'rl

209. Dr.K.Lakshrni Narasimha, learned counsel :,1 pcrrring lbr thc unoflicial respondents whose appointmellts h:e.. : [r,,r,n stal]ecl 123 fRN,J \,W.P.No.17439 bl 2025 ond botch despite their lawful and meritorior-ts selection- 'fhe Hon'blc 'Srlp."*. Court has categorically he ld that -iudicial revrew of pubhc examination is limitecl to sitr:ations $'llcre there is clear proof of itlcgality, fraucl or viol:rtioI-l of stattltol-\' rLllcs' 21O. With regard to lack of tra lls l)'lre llc]r in evaluation procedurcs,thepetitionerscontendedtlli-ttlloprtlvisionalrnerit list u,as rcleased prior to the GRI- and that the proccss lacked scaling or moderation mechanistns. TheY failed to dcmonstrate how the absence of these features; c()l)stitutes a virllation of rulcs or resulteci in prejudice. Moreovr:r, notle of tllenr havc sltorvn a breach o[ the evaluation guidelines r-rotified by TG PSC in the recruitment notifi cation. 2ll.withrcgardtooMRliormatanrltl-iirclr'alulatiol-t implementation, it is stated that a recurrit-lg therne is thc clatm that the clesign of oMR answer l.rool<lets ciid [rot allow strfficielrt spaceforthirclvaluation'Thepetiliollcrsstzrtcth:rtthirclr,aluation rnay not have been unilormly applied Horvever' tlotle of the petitioners have produced their own answer scripts or cited a specific instance where thircl valuatiott r'vas recluircd' but not conducted. Despite not alleging arry pcrsonal procedural violation' 724 RRN,] W.P.No.71439 'oJ 2025 ond botch many petitiorcr s conclrrde with s\\,ccpinq praye rr irtr ie-r:valLratlon of a1l iLnsrver scrlpts, jrrdicialll. monitorcd asses! r ent un([er [JPS(] sLlllclvisi()n, ,)r' (::rncellation of the cntirc ex.rnul r tiotr. 'l'hesc ar r: dispropot tlonale r"cme clics sougilt rvithor-rt pr ool ,, r'rr:tla l'iclc. ll lirrrl ol-st'stcntic fl rr it t r-e

212. Nonc (,l thc petitioners hzrve ltroviclecl Iteil' hzlll ticl(ct nurnbcr, tjre rrr..rrks au,arclecl to them, or th(t r position tn thc General lianl<ing List. Nor havr-, they producecr rreir or,vir ans\1,{'t- scrlpts .J1 (lcrn()nsl rateri anv irt cgularitV in th,: ,.' :rlu:..tion ol tirc tr pirpcrs. WitnoL t disclosing their inclividuar Ircr;;)rntanLC 1,r I)ointlng 1o ar1..'(lcvjation in their own case, thc -titi(rners cirltltot st rstain :.r challcnge to the selection process. I trs ihndami:nLlrl omission renclr:r's the $'rit pctitiolls vague anci r pcculativc. 'l'hr Comrnissron h:rs aclherr:d to the selecti6n nlsf|tlr oloqr,- r'rotiticri rn acl\rance arr([ lro cleviation from the establishe i nrlr:s it:rs bccn sho\\,n lrv t he ne titioners

213. l'hc Hon ble Suprente Court held tha. rh(, process ctl- aq,:rrdrng mar l<:; is u,rthin thc exclusive dolt Lin of acacl.:mii: c-xl)erts. Coults cannol substitute their orvn ass(: smcnt for thirt ol- evaluators, rlor can tltcy order re evaluation n les;s tlrr:re is lr 725 hnN,J P-No.11439 2025 ond bdtch statutory right to such relicf. The recruitment rules applicabie to TGPSC do not provide for re-cvaluation, and t1're petitioners' demand is legally unsustainable. Evaluation protocols adopted by an e xpcrt cornmission descn e defc'rcncc in jucl icial rcvicrv

214. Tlne law rs u,ell settled that an exatninatic.rn cannot be cancclled or set aside ir-r its entirety unless therc is clcar and compclling cvidcncc of pcr-vasive malpractice or ir-rstrtutional failure. The petitioncrs have not even allegecl and cstablishccl an1' suctr sltslernic fraud. The Suprertre Court has r:alttioned itsainst granting drastic remcdies like rc-conduct of cxantirtations uuless tl-re integrity of the process stands wholly vitiated

215. The pctitioners appear to be lnotivated by a desirc to rcopen the enLire selectton process ()n the bzrsis t-ri gencralized clis sat isfaction. They contain no concrete proof rtf prot:eclural breach or legal infirmity. The wide-ranging reliels sought-such as cancellation of selection, re exam uncler UPSC, or utniversal rc- evaluation are grossly disproportionate to thc nature of lhe grievances alleged- 726 l6aru,t 'tW.P.ruo.lU-lg- bl 2025 dnd botch

216. None of th,: pctitioners }tavc eslaL.:lished .r r r' sPccific i1!Llrv to themselves. ltronc of thc petitioners have dr,, losecl their hall t ichet number, tire rnarks sr:cLtrecl by thcm, the tnk olrtairtecl, or cvcr-l::r coPy r.,l' f lreir irnst,cr scripr. 'l'he pclttiollr' : ItrsI (lltircl\' ()rl statisticarl gr aphs, ccntre rvise assumptions, , .r-rd gcneralizetl clissatisfaction. Such specttlatrr,,r: itverlllcnts ,.i i lrottt rndivi<lttal pleading or cloL'lrmenls arc legall!' unsustainabl ' In tl-ris aspe( ts in one of the .jrr<lgmclrt thc Apex Court ol)se11,('( thzrt cauclidzrttt s sr-rbjectrve exl)('c1 ati()ns do not givc: rise to a juslir i rble claim

217. 1'hc T(il'}SC concluctr:c[ t]rc cvatlualion l r a str ucLtllcci manner strictlv in accorclancc s'tth the recruilrt ettt trotillcation Doublc valuatio;-r rvas implementr:d for all descr ptive papers b-y ir-rdcpendcnt i valt-t:ttor-s. Ansrt,cr scripts wel barcotlec.l lrncl anonyrnized, t'nsurinq that nerthcr centre, gen(l( :-, nor canclidate identity infllrcrr..:ed the process. 'lhird valuat L( ll wils itrvol<ecl rvherever the r,irliatiorr bctrvccn two cvalllalors ct r ssed the notiliccl threshold. Tht' proceclures :rdopted b), TGPSC il , consistent witll acceptcd starrrl:rrds ancl u..ere disclosed in ardvanr', . The pctitioncrs have not c1e1n()rrstri]t( (l ar-rv cicviation florn tlte r; norrns iD thctir individual casc s 727 RRN,I W.P.No.11439 I'pf 2025 ond botch

218. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repcatedly emphasizcd that academic evaluation is the doma in of expert bodies ancl is not subject to judicial scrutiny except it-t cases of demorlstrerbic m:rla fidc or statLltory violation. Ir-r the said aspects, tl'rc llon'ble Apcx court repeatedly observed that courts must not interf-ere rvtth thc' sanctity and academic asscssment.

219. The recmltment process involving over 563 vacancie s and morc than 3,00,0O0 candidates cannot be invaliclatec[ merel-v because a i'err, candidates are dissatisfied or perceive anomalies Thc Suprcrnc Court has t-rcld that cat'rccllertion o[ :ltt cntirc examination mllst be a last resort and only rvhen t hc proce ss is vitiatecl bl, fraucl, Ieakage, or proven illegality. In support of l-ris contention, he rclied upot'r the judgmcnts of thc Hon'blc Apcr Court. 22O. T|le Comlnission has demonstrated transparency at e\rery stagc of the recruittnent process, including everluation and publication of results. The stay order has been adversely affectecl candidates, rvho have worked hard and are awaiting appointment orders, czrusing unnecessary delays and hardship 128 RRN,I W.P.No.114lf bl zozs ana botch

221. 'I'he intcrveners aclopt eill thc above objectit r s attd rely uporr the comprehcns:r'e counter filcd l;y TGPSC in \ r'.P.No.1 1'139 of 2O25 for purDoses ol- defencling the integril\ rf tlre selectiorr proccss :rtttl sc-r:litttg vltcatiort of tlrt' irrtcritrr otrl' thtt-cilt. rvhicll advcrsely impacts the f-irralizirtiorr ol appoinlmc'rri l itt the prr:st:trt case zrs wcll 'Analgsis of case laus and findings of the Cou'-.: Analysis ol-casc l:rrvs subnritted lt-y all tlr,' uotlnsels Mrs. B. itirclranli Rerlctr., learnt:<l Setri r - t'cunst:[, to substantizrtc hcr':rrguntcttts, rcliecl ttpon thc folio,." ng c-ase lztr,l's:

222. The alleqat ion is that the s<:r,,eral Elross r - egr,rlarities er.nr,[ illegalities occr"trred lr-r' thc' Cot:r tnissirtt't s,hiiL r:valuating thc answer scripts. In sttpport of hc r argttrnents. s[ e rclied on the judgment of th(' Apex CoLrrl irL State of We;t Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharya Chatterie and Other:

223. The r--asr pcrtains to 2O 16 \t/cst Bellgal Scl , ol Comtnissiolt had issuecl a llotification for regional and St:rtr l,cvel Selectior-t Tests, before thr' r-csLllls u,erc clecl,tt-ccl t,rit pctilrot is llled agair-rst '(2025 SCC onlirrc SC 719) 729 laaN,t W.P-No.114i9 bf 2025 and batch the state's failure to gralIt age relaxatron Thc casc wcnt to SupremeCourtfinallyconclu<ledlvithrnr.rLtiplereliefs.While cleciding thc above ('llse, several obserr"rtitltts werc made bv t[-rc Apex Court rr.ith reg:rr-cl to c:rtlccjlatiotl rrf tllc exanl itlar tiot.l s :ttrcl held at Pitt-n.7 as follou's:-

7. l'his Cotrrt in -sr:r,r't rtl casc.s /tn.s t'.uurtincd tllc qLLestiott tultc'n tltc enlirc sc1<'clion 1)roccs-s -s/.tottlr1 bc' stntcli rlotun in ca-sc qf tr regtLkt rilra s. lt tt:iii lx: apposite Io n:J-er Lo sontc ol the dtr''tsiotts as the ralio rtttcl reasc.tt'ritq, In Ltur op[nion, is clear cutd does nol sttfJer frott cLtt rtrat)iction-s. /rt Sac/trrr [Otrntrr u. Dalhi SubordinotL' Scrt'lcc Se,lection FjoarcL (DSSSB)2S, tltts Court obscrt'cd that clclennoing rt,han tltc r'-rrrnt irr o liot t proce.ss a-s []illoreal by irrcqulaities r?qulres an n-dcptlt facl lltttlirtg irquirg. 'l he ansruat lies it examttttttg uthetht'r tLrc trreqttl t t riae-s tr-re rc -sysiernic enough to undorrtine the sanctiltl of the proccss. 1tr -sornc ca'se-s, lhc irregulanlics nn g borclcr on or ca,cn aorr-stlf urc fraud. uthich scucrely damaqc's the creclilttlity c.nrl k:.r1ilLrttacy o-l'thc process ln 'such crrses, l'hc on1!/ optiort i:: lct cttnr:c'! t/tc rcr-srr1I <'rtliralry These arc situation s uther<: it is clillicutl lo sePQIQlc the lai ccL from the unlainted porlicipottts' ancl thc' irregltLlantrcs cLrc rt'tclcsPrectd' indrcat[ttg a rnalaise or fraud thot hos conltPted the Proces's On the otlt<tr hancl' tlrcre rtre case-s rr,/rerre ori.r1 srtrne parLrcipatts ltaue cornrnitted [rreg|uktitie:s 1rr -suclt <-rr.sc-s, it trtttLl be po-s-sil.tlc lo seqrequle Lhe wrottgtlot'rs fronL tho.se rt,ho adlrcrcd to the rules. 'l'hr: innocertt should not suJfar.lbr rhc a(rio,r.s oi tlu' tL'rongtlottrs Lly segreqating the qu t4' tlLc selcction procc-ss J'or the ttntaintt'tl candidatcs can procecd to its logicrtl cctnclttsiotr. 7'iri.s ctligns Lutth llrc pinciple of equatily of opporlttrLittl uttder l\tlicle 1{>(1) of tlrc Constttutrott of India' os uell 130 'RRN,] iW.P.No.11439- - lgf 2025 ond botch !,\c irLrtoct'trl at( os the fundain cttlal t ety.Lirctrrcrtl oI i\rlicle 1,1 t:l'tit.: i orr.stilrrtiorr. tuhrch rna.ldalt's a liit. eqtLiabla, und reasctrtal:l<l , I 11 6,..;.; fn7-67 must l)a iarlicr? l() r'n:;ure: tlrtt 'at u't]eu1Ll t I . r( ) t t( t( I t ) a' rS lty cctttc'ellL, , -i/(, ( nllis penllzed n'oll(/sl(1(' [-ii proce:;:;. 'l\, iret'L tlt, ltlnoccnt turrl I ltt: tt'nttt(!tlot:rs r. i rtlIt1 u'ctttltL it,rr r, trt,ttitr,l uiololc Artl^!c i I .l'l)rt'('orr.s/i/rrlirrl]. Lu7-cqltQls t'e,t(,11tl Iltt' outoct,nl .,.Itott[tl ttot 1,,c, ,Dr{lri::i , I ll)) lnulLs . t(,t 111riltcl the11 rlirl n,)t ct)i nnl lltallq. .t Dt. d.sl/re borlg r-s .srrlycct !ct.ltttlt,trtl t)trlr()1. t;t(' l:tctcLtl tttttst relt rt'ltLlr t lu,. clc.tst<ttt of rts r! t|tttlr] of discl c.tiotl

18. In Vanshikct Yadau u. Unton <>J India3(,. ti,is ( r : t)i):t,t.t.(:d that e lLoLi,ttic li(,r/, ,lur.t-I Ltc trloltictl Drl n.s.scssir4 j , {'\t.'t)t of unfair rnecrns 'tscrl ttncl lDhe.tlt]t It i.:] p.ts-si/)1c to , t'xttrttt, tlte tainted can;ltclt: lc,s /irrrn ihe unlttintr'tl onc,s ?irr,aartll r,..il ,ilsltrc that allcqutin.. of tt,LtiT;rut-tict, rtt -stzltslrurrr(ricc1 !. I litut tLLe materiel ort re(r(1, irtthLdirut ut t ticlalLL. r,T,r,rr\ )l)ott.. this concluslon- Thcrc tnltst l)c at l<,esl sotne c|rrl.nr-c.,t'; : tc, r^,turt to reach such a collcftrsior. HoI|c,'t.:cr, the slortrlorrl oJ t,,' 'r,ttr:,' rteec[ not be. unclt tl1,l strict. S-pecificn lltl, llP rQlet(tl ort r,:,:, t { tu'L ti not point to e si/Lgla. cl<'lirtrltue col?(rlr:iton tllel ltoll)teclic. ( < ut t('{l el o sAstcmic brc1. Ai'r,i rilLclc-s.:, I/r( ,L /nl./sl ltL ,t tcc.l- .,sr/,,iritr7 o,f sAstemrc molai-(€,, Qs t t,llectecl u1 tlt( ntetctiati ltt,l<tre t:t -t.ltr.

224. In tl:,e abovc casc, thc Apex Court o[ scrvccl ccrtairl principles 1br cancell:rtton of cxitrrlination u,ith req r -cl t''r thc extoltt of unfair in erraluaUon zrnd un(lcrrnines tl)c inte q ty ol-the cntirc sclection process. 'l'hc Comrnission ado[)1L'c[ er': ] ratior-r method certain proceclurc irrcgularritics sLtl)l)()rt i)c titioner's allegations I I 131 t1aN,t W P No.l1439 11 zozs ona ootcn Iootr Therc is no transparency and fairncss in thc condr-tcting of bxamination. To support her argutnents, the learned Senior Cou:-rsel for t[-re petitioners rclied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and others2, rvhcrein tl-re Apex Court helcl as lollori's 'A. Brutacl aontours oJ'Lhe litrclcttictrt ). Tltts judgmcnl ul-sir.s ({ .fatruhur cortuncltum ut serutce jurisprudence. The cortstitLrnonal ualtLes which urrcie'-r gird Artrcles 14 and 1 6 mandate tllat sdcctorL ,Dro.cs.sc.s concluctetl by pttblic authorities to m.ake r<'crttittrt e rLt s lroue to ba fQir, tronspQrenl Qnd accountable. All too olien, I'ttnuut falliltilitA ancl fotbles intnLde into lhe sclcclrcn proa(]-s-scs. Sr:1t:clto7r inuolt,c-s inlcttsc comPclition and tlTere, is n<t dearrh ctf indiL irhnls Luhct tra cutcl L.ertd tlrc: Rules to clain an urfair leap irt the roca. [rreqLdaiti<:s n tltc pntcass giue nse to nisgtuings oucr tultcther r,'lc Proccss ltus deni<:d equal ..cce-s-s to all persons. 'l'he sanctittJ o] the selectiotl proce-s-s comes under a cloud. Tlu: det(clion of irtdiuidual turongdoing by candiclates matl result in ectlotl beitg taken to erclude those uhose credenttals or performant'<: is tuinterl But tuhen the entire lrrocc-s-s is tatntecl, thc autlnrity irL cltorcle of cotlducttnq [t ma!.l decicle to r-ancel lhe.scleclion os a u'hol<:. ,lttdiciol reuictu is then inuokecl to challenge llrc: de't'rsion lo cuncel Ihe enttre proce-ss. The quiding prirtctples houe euolletl r>tet tlt<' pasl Jlue tie'cades as netu challenqes eme-rged ctnd noL,aL Qttempts t<t sLtborn the lec-litimacg of recntitmcnt procc.ss€'-s hcLuc cottrc to tl1" forc. Tl'Le Delhi Htgh Courl in thc prest;nt casct uphcl<l thc uit:u.t oJ the Central Adninistratiue 'l-ibunctt (.l'ibunat ) tlnt the cunccllatktrt rtf lhe ent[re process tDas inualicl but it conliruecl the relieJ'to sLr condlclates tuho had moued the proceeclings bcforc the Tribunal in the first instonce Lrke other case.s orf its genrc, tLtis batclt of appeaLs call-s the court to balance ILDI conpetinq consideralions; the need to preserue public conftclence u'L and tlt<' sc.ncLitl] oJ'se:leclion to public posts ond the requiremenl of oL;se,ruinq,/irirne.ss 10 c(tndtLlates uho tnuest time ond resource-s ii attcmpttnq to cleor throucll'L a selection. Both ' (2021 (4) scc 637) 112 \aru,t lw.e.t'to.lla-to * bl 2o2s and botch these con.';idet'ctttons ha|r' ar (.) r?sl ifutior.ro l fowt,'r heyoncl se,n.,ict, ond ttclmitistrattr.,,: laut prirciple::;. T trctuelled t() tl1€ cout"t.tot rcsohltton lnd the poth ohcn l to reuisit artd euolue tlte lart' on tl c :;rtblctct. l,otl qotn(l isstrl ltcts / !.,411r ir(,.s Lt.s F. Thc posttrctn in lcLtu ,irc lhgc,l. .3.5. ln decirLiq llris brtt<'h o/ S/-Ps. LL<, rtcad n()r ra it ' ,, Oucr lhe /,rsl Tjtc c&,r'odc.;, -s.,r', rQt (1.,atstotr:; ttl tl , : r)1. ' ltar.t. clealt uillr llv .titnrlr rrne:rLt u1 rssr;r, rtl tL,hctr l/rc tr , ,,sts ll- rrrr :, (-t to liLt) e,yominatron c:lrr .slollal t,rlr(rt(,al as-s(,r? tictlh1, tltt, it l.ssLc furn..j upotl LUh"tltcr tltc tr\,alLtIQtiti(,.s in t/r,:, r, r^s,-5-.; 11621,r, token plact rll {r .sy-sl|r1ia 1t,r,c1 s,, (t-s Io r,ittrrfc l,lt(. - ,,itt/ (Lfllt(, process. Tltt:re ora ca-sr:-s urltich lx det LLpott (.rr c/o.s j ,. t Utlo l.h( domaut of fraucl cs a rc.srrlt oJ Lulttdt thc crtthltr!{lr1 ,t [t'q] iutct(:tl o.f the proc,,ss is clenurlecL. T)?i.s (r)n.sflaltlc.s ott<, entl ()i . t st..)t,t.tnLUt uherc the eutlontu crtrLdu.tinq tltc cs.arninalion o' |,r ,,r.ti,trt LIL,, -seleclion /)roc(t-s.S conle.s 1o lllc ('ollCli{sion a,/tatf (,.. i rc:t t ttf superteninq eu?nl or circr{,n-s/rrnce-s, lh? proces. l.rs 1o-.;/ rls legitimacy, lea,,,ing no opllotL bLtt to (culccl ir irr rl.s err-i. t1 1,. hL re. rt rTecision along those line-s rs faA-r,t, iL docs rLoL il trtL:r,rtrt r lctt-i findinrl e.tcrcisa into itdiuitlrLel octs irlrolt'ttg tlr,, '..,, ,)/ nr.t1 practiccs or utjrtir ntt,ons- V/her<'e rccoL[a,(, to ttttl,t, r,rcatrs l]ars tctken plaa: on ct syslcmic sc(ft,, r/ ,ttuy be d(.ltc.ttll :tt ;. tit ct,utc thc tuintec[ frotrt tlte utttoi lcal I)t7r1i(tl).Lttts irt litL' pro<:t,:,: i.rirgt: sc.ttlt' irregulari cs rntltLdircl thosc Lt,lt;,clt heue tlte aJii t t,l rl:ntlirq equal access t<t sim[ktrlq circurnstctt,cacl canclirlates ir , :u((/i,siit., of a nralais<t uhich hcts erorled tltc credibititl oJ'th" p,, , ,s.s. ..lf th. other ?nd ttf the spectrum or(, c(is(,s tt,lLc,ra :;onre o.[ tit ) tr.1t tllt /it in the proce.ss tuho appeu ut tlu, ,-::anrinarloi? or s(,r . r()/r t(,-.jl arl? guilty of trrc'c1ulonlies. ln srtc;l'r tt cose, iL rnuq rrtrll I, ,rrossrbk, lrr t th( t \ u.'l)o segreeate /rcrson.s tulto ara rlttilttl ,t,r ruronq clointl lr,) haue adht'rad to the Ruk's and to r:xcludt' tlrc .f ot',, ,t f'r,tn lltt, proCc.SS. .lrt suc/t a Cat-se, l/r(rsc LL,iUJ (u(: uuLoCCtLt \) ttrLU doitlq shoulcl not pay u prict: for tlutst, t.t,lut at t' ectLloliltl tLlttl lo bt, ittuolwtd irr irreclulanties. l:]U st'uregeling tlrc ttt,) r .loe r.s. fht, selectton t)f tllL,- untainted r:ci rr d rri'rr lc-s <:att lrc otl t , ,, / fr, /)o-s.s tnuslcr b! tal:inq thc .selccliorl 1)rr)a.,-s.s- fo rls loriir , ' .., )l..rrr.jrori 'lhrs is nof a rnere t etter oJ' ctclnr.rtislratiue proc., t. r /Irt ns rr pinciple oJ serulce yu-isprtuLerut, it .f[rL(ls ernbo,i ' t trt bL ll.i<; constitutiotvtl dutg bg ruhiclt ltublrc bocLies ]ruue t,t - f oi,tr1 rtritl reasorrablq. A fair ond reosonable pk)ce.s-s of s€tl((t, )/r lo l)o.slsi subject to lhe norm of cqualit! of opporfitnitu Llrtde,. r icla 1b(llis a constitutional requircmerLt. A _fair ancl rcasonalt[c,r r,,ac-<ri is .t fundamental requirerrLent of Ani:le ]1 cLs ute,l ll'ltcr( recruiltnent lo publlc e tnploytnenl slrrrzrl.s uilirrled (r.!i ! ) r s(,r1u(,/ rL.., of sgstemtc fraud or rreclLtlaitit,s, the enlire pr(\. ' :; lte cones illegititnate . On the other hand, L|l:erc rt l-s po-ssi/rir ) :;{t.ir"qQtc 133 RRN,J 'lW.n.lto.lla* of 2025 ond batch person-s LLtho haue hdulged in rnalprat'tices nrttl to penalise thenr for their u,, onq dourtl, it tt'oulci be r.orJ'cut io i/n,?)os.r lhe Ltrrrcle,n oJ' their Lorotlq doinq ort thost: r.Ltho are .fi c<' fronl tairLt. To treat lhe innocett artd tlrc turong docrs equolltl by suLtiectit'Lg the Jbrtner to the conscqtLenc'e of tlrc cancellatiort of lhe erLlire procc-ss ttlortld be contraru to At1rcle l1 becatLse unequuls tLtould the-n be trectted equally. 'l-lte reqrri.arnent tltctt cL JttLlt[ic ltctcltl tntist clcl in .lctir orttl reasorutl:le tenns errimates lJrc antire l)roc('.s.s ttJ selectltttt. T lrc clecisiorrs of tlrc recntiting borLq are lrencr' sttl..r/r'cr rc judiciQl cotltrol subject to f,hc .scltlc(/ pinciple tltal tllr recntittncl QLLtlloriItl mtLst hcntc a rncasura oJ'discre:t[ott to luke cl<'osiorts itt <t<'<'ordcrrtc'e tuitlL lctut uthiclr ure lsest suited lo Prcset L)e llle -s(rlt l il-tl ttJ' the process. ivou if i.s in the backdrol.t of the:;e pnrtciltk:s. tlult it becomcs appropiate to aduerl to ttte prec<'clcnl-s of this Ctttttl rultlclt holcl the JicLd.

66. Rec'ntitm<,nt Lo public .s(,r t)r(.cr5- /rlrsl (onr,ilattcl pttblic conJidence. Persons ruho are recnilccl ore irtlt'nrled to frtlJil pultlic functiorrs n.s.sociatcrl tuith llrc J'uncti<ttrtttcl of tht: Gouet nntent. Where the entire process s fnttttcL to ltL'.f1art'cd, it-s conccllation maA LtndoubtcdLg cause hrtrdship ttt rt fc'ru l.olto trny rlot specillcolllJ be fotLnd lo be ituoLuccL ttl Ll]t.otllJ doitg. DtLt titQl i-s nol sulJictent to nullifg Llrc ult rnte clc:clstotl Io cuttu.i un exutrtittati<tt t uhere the ttature ol the utrong cloirul r'ttts thtotgh thc entire proces-s .so a-s lo scrrou-slt7 inplrtle tt\)n t|le leqtimacy of the examinatiLtns tuhich haue lrcen h<'lci for rccn{tlntetlt. l3oth llrc High Court and the Tibunal hat,a, in our uic'LL'. errccl in lclying cxchLsiuc focus ort the rcporl ol'the sttcortd Cotttrrultee tt,'Lur:Lt tLtcLs cortfined to the issue of impersonation. 'l'he rttpotl c,f the saconcL Contmittee ts onlg one facet of the motter. 'fl't'= clt'pttttl Cltief tninisler luos justtfiecl it qotng batlond it cttrd rtltimuteltl rcc'otrtmc'rrchncl Ll'Lat tlTe entire process should be <tutct'llc'ci oit l,lre brr-sr-s of thc J'urdtngs which tuere. ariued at in tltc repori o.l llte Jirst Cornmittct'. TLtose ftndings do nol stancl oblitcrat"d rtor luts thc Tnltunal fottrtd atty fault with tlrcse lindings ln thrs ui.rt.' oJ llrc tnQlter, both tlrc judgments of the Tnbunal and thc Iiiglt CrtLttt orc unsustrtitrabLe. "

226. Witin regard to the judicial revie\v in the case on hand learned counsel for the petitioners relied Llpon the judgment of 134 RRN,] W.P.No.11439 - of 2025 and botch 'Chairtnan All Ind.ia Railwag Recruittnent Boar C aftd Another Vs. K. Shyarn Kumar and Others3 held as follov.: '' )2 jrtrircittl t t't:t?tLr cotlLt?ntiorLallry is cortccrrtcd tu[th tlt ' qtir':,tiorr oj tr tl IrtL,.trttl lltsLice qnd the corut l. /lr)l /nllalr 7rrn.sar, :ror t .lrtc'.<,t t,ad tt trli rlr, rne.nts c.,.f llrc de,'isiorr bttt ltoLLt lh(' / Lir(,/r tr'{i.\ t aaclrc [ It t)Ltrtrt|tl ct.l Ctuil Seruicr Urrion-s u Mirr, . -r Jitr cu,ri ,Scrulc( /G( /iq) r'risc7 tha Hottse oJ l-orcls ralionrrlisc 1 ire rTr,rurrrl.s rtf judtrLl tt'i it.rt-: ctncL ruled. tltctt lltr' ba-si-s of judicial , tretl r:otLlcl ite hitlhligl) 1t.i untlct three pr[nceol hcad-s, rrarnr , tllt'qallttl. procetlrtrctl 11'11.,rct1tie,t.r1 ancl trrationq[ity Illegoliig os, groLLtttl tl lttclicitri rct ir'rr rrrcrrn.s tltat tlLc. deasion rtakt'r mast tnd( t statul conecltll t! t' lrrtt ltlo.l r?qulatcs /ti:; dect-sion makinq ,orrt,rs artrl /nr{-sl qir (' t l,tt'cl to il. Grouncls -suc/t c-s ctcl.rng ultra ttt , s, t'rrors ol Ittttt ortrl/t,r /aal. ()ncro[s corrriifiorrs. improper pur!) ) e, rcleuent unrl irrcle,a,rt ,/irctor-s. actirq in lxrd J'aith, fettenrt,, clisc.etiotL. unaullpns,'t! rlclcqatton, faiLtrc to uct, etc. .fall undo ii : lLertdurq rllegr.Llttrl' . l't o^ctlurctl improprtetg rnay bc duc to I t : fctilure lLt compltl rtiilt tlr tnarldetoru procedures -such crs brct'r of naturll jrr.sficc. sir, /r c.s rrrrcli ctll.erant pqrT? 1, abs<:nce of b t . th<: cltr.ty to act f]i,l4. | ,ett tttelt. ?xpcctatrc)ns, rttilure lo que reast) t :, et( ''.

227. 'lhe al-o\'c ()ase is supp()rting the all( qations of thc petitioners c()Lurscl such as the Commission rvhil, conch-rcting the examinations rhcre are several irregularr S procedLrrzrl improprict,l ancl irrationalities tal<en place. In su )h situation, the '(2010 (6) scc 61a) 135 lRN.l :w.P.No.77439 bf zozs ond batcn | -. judicial interference is required. 'Ihese three things lead to filing ^ bf the present wrlt PCtlllons. l

228. Rejecting the Comn.rission submissiotts '"i'ith regard maintainability that al-tcr having lailcd, challenging the selection process by the petitioners is not correct Tl-rc lezrrncd Senior Counsels Sri. G.Vidya Sagar and N'lrs. B. Rzrchana Reddy relied the judgment in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahcni r-t' State of I Bihot'r, wherein the Apex Court hr:ld as fbLlou's

15. Furthcrntore, be.litre bt'girtrtitrg nrrrrhT-sts o,r tlrr: L'9trl l's'sttc'>^ inuolued, il i.s necessr{rg rolr-sr ad.lres-s tht' pre'lirttinctry tssrtc ?hc' maintainability of th<: uery chctllencl<' hq the oytpellortt llos beerL questionecl on the ground tho.t slre hor"irtcl porlakcrt in tlu; seLection process crrrrnot later challcttgtt it cLue t() rrtt rc -fotLLra in st:leclion' The counsel for the t espon(lents rcliccl tLpotL (t c(ricnrr o/ rlcci'sion's of this Court to subst(ntiate his olt jt'ctiLtrt '

16. It is uell settlecl that thc pritcipla oJ estrtlrytrl prcL'etLLs a candidate from choltenging tlrc scle(lion lrro('('s's aJit:r hattinq faited in it as iterated bA this Court ut a pletlarcL ttf jutlgmcnts inctuding Manish Kumar Shahi u' State of Bihar (2O1O) 12 SCC 576 : (2071) I SCC IL&S/ 2561 , obst'n'irtq a-s.lbllori''s: /SCC p. 584, para 16) " 16. We also agree uLith the Hultt Court [fuIi:.rislt KtLrnctr Shahi u. State oJ Bihar, 2008 SCC ()tlLttla l\lt 321 : (2OaS) 1 PDR '(2jr9l 20 SCC 17) 136 'RRN,J W.P.No.114. t- Vtl 2O25 ond botch 931 thot ttfi et L,atintl lrtken ptLrL irL llrc T.troccs.s u/sek,r I trL krrcrulru1 fulLy tt,ell t)tal 'ttorc'lLtrut ]9\, ltcrrk..; ltctue beetr eartnt I i,'d.JoL uiul r.,oce fc.sl, :Lu' ,tp!,t llent is not cntitLcd to chalk,ngc I | ' t rnt'tLa or /rrocc.s r^ ol ;t l( 'tti)t, S!.r:h1. ri tlta appellant's nanu' i , i olt|u,arccl itt the rt<:t t lt:.!. ltt' 1t'rt'tltl rtol llqt:t: ct'ett dreune(l r t cltollr,rLgintl llre sclcclir rt 'l'1rc ioptu llqrttl utrttk<:cl !tisrliclrttl ol tl t lliclit Ccttttl ).)t, ol'tltc'(i)rstitralon o.f Ittdia oriu .t':.t ht,.lbunrL rrncl<'t Artr lt l/1at hrs rr'rrrrr' ai,,r's not iiqrtre vt tltc nter[t list pr:':t tt'cl itry tltc ( onrtrti.ssict. 7lti.s lortrlrrct oi tl'tt' <t1'tltt,llttnt clcctrIt1 ,/ .. .,rlrl,(,.s hinl li'orn clur,stiorti,tg ih? s( l?cltotL artd tl:,r.: Hitlh (itiLrl tl. , tt,tt LornrrLit enu crrot t,y r<'l'u:;in91 tct L'nt<'rluit tlu: tlril pctiliotl." The urtclar't1ittL1 oltiec'tirta oJ iltis pnnt:r1tle is 1o 1rrer,,,,r t'etlilidatcs frorn trgittrl cttt't!.lt'r,sltr-rl al rpn-sirleralictrt, artd to er)!)t t orr iirrlra-ssc u'hercrn L;'err1 c)r,;rlntnllad ccrnclidatt:, lrruitrcl ]iile:t) I .. s( 1('ction, challenglc: il ir il' , i r.)Ir(, of (1.'ttinq o .sccorrrl c/rorrcc , tnsr'lar cts f 7. I kttt,t:, er, r{,€ r)ur-sl clifii're ntio te' .from this princtt ', the cond ;ete. it11 cr1| t'ainq to pertici)ete irt tlu' si lr. i,rn p,-oce-ss or g accelt!s t)e presr.rtbcd proccclurc end not tltc rllr r. tlitLl ur it. Irr e situatnl tolrcrc ct catv.Lidate allr:qes ml-sco,l-sLructrc r (l stetutorlJ t u.Les arrci rli.scrinrrrrrrtrrrrT aorrscqrlcrrccs ctr[s rg !lt, t fi'ont, tltc serre cut ttctt l:e cotttlonal tnt'rely l)eceus.' ct ,', tltclate has partalen n it . 'l'lv corlstilullotlql -sc,licrnc i-s .sarcr, ) i/ rrcf ond lls t,rolctlrort u! (tr)!t n:r tnnc'r is irnperrni-s-sib1e. lrr facl, o r',i ttlirlotc maLl not ltttuc l,)( u..; ro a:i.s(u i1 tlLr: incuraltle i egalttg or clct r. ltttiort of thc prouisio|L:. of ihg ('o7151i|ulrorr, rrril<:s.s he / sht: panr, t )et{.s in tllc seleclion l roc( 'ss. ''

229. In the r asc or hand :rlso, th(j petitioncrs (luestioning the deviation of Cornnission's own principlcs, rul( s and con(litions 131 Inrv,r lW.P No.71419 bl 2o2s ond bdtch Whenever deviation taken p1ace, the candiclatcs can approach the t)ourt 230 With regard to violation of instructions to appliczrnts, learncd Senior Counsel appearing for tl-re petitioners relred upon thc judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND O?IIERS Vs. G. HEMALATHAA AND ANOTHERS, r.vhcreir.r the Apex Court held as follows:

8. We lruue giuen our anxious considerat.ion 1o lhe srrbrnr-s-slon.s madc by tLte learned Senior Counsel .fbr t.lu: Resportdt.ttt. 'l'Lre Instrucfions isstted bg the Commission arc rnancl.atorq. hctuincl the force of lau-t and they haue to be stt k:tly cornplied LL;ith. Stnct adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instntctions is c/- porctmount impoftance. The High Court tn e-rerci-se oi powers under Article 226 of the Constittttion canruot modi,l'y/ relox the Instructions issued bg the Contmission.

231. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Commission has failed to maintain fairness and purity in the examination process. To support her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon'b1e Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu qnd another a. A.I{alrritnani and others6, rvherein the Apex Court held as follows ' 1zozo1 to scc 43o) " ((2o2tl 16 scc 2 I 7) 138 t'gaN,t W.P-No.11439 -. 11 zozs ana mtcn

15. ht Gohll Vtshuaral Hanubhai u. Stdte of GuJant (2at17) 13 SCC ti21 : t2018) i .SCC ff&s) 801 , this Court Ltekl : tt -'C 1:tp. 62ti 29, pare2l) "21. Pui.tlt oJ tLLa cxamin.atron proc.-ss Luhether suctL proces-s pet !.o1.ns ro ar-s -s e-s-s 11€,nI of the acacLernic cu:trtt t suitnbility of ctLncLiclutes frtr crnplotlntcnt undc.r tllc :! unquestionctble re(luiren?,t,t rtf tlrt: ,crlrctnalit11 o!' ar t proce.ss^ RotiontLitrl i.s an ind isTr:rr.srz ble a-sIic( I ad.rninistraLton tLnd<'T ottr ConsfitLttiotL The- cLuthotitrl t i tctke apprctptitltc tt.cLtsur?s t.o rrtctintctirt the prir cxamirtation Droccs-s is ttn.qrrc stktnrtblc. 1r i.s Ioo 11 L pinclple of lcttu in light o.f tfu uctritus carlle r decisiorr: lhat utlr:re there uret allegoltons of the occurrence ', tnalpractice,:; irt ttrt; course oJ tlte. cctttclttct o.f ctrttl proce-s-s. llrcr Stale or its itlstnLtnc nt alltics are cnt[tle(L 1 exatnlnatiot Tltt eottn htt\ on nutnatolt.. o.co: tot-.. oction oJ'the Sfate or its irLstrume,ntcitttes to cancel . tuheneuer such act[on ls beheued to be rtece.ssary on sorne reasottttble muteia| to itt(ltcate that tlu? exarrtiri:t is uiticied They arc also not oLtlitled to scek prooi of ar t fcrct uhich titi(ltcd tLLe e,xaminatton lrrocess. " ::: ttttt,.na.tkt rt tiisJt,nent or i.s nn . ((tritLation o.l' public Lhe .)tete to tl l o.f anA '.[ s"1t[cd a 'J tltts Coul Ittnle scale ,:rct.nin.atLon t c-cutccL thc :proucd tlte :urrttr'"C-tions h.e basis of ion process tr orul. euery

16. Ma11 br:, the <:ctnclidcttes who hctcl ct chunce d bctrtcr . ek:ci.<;d and appointed cts Lecture:rs in thc' Gouenmtent Polytechtt|: Cctlleqes on the basis of the rcsttlts of tlrc written erctninatir t tuottld be [nconueniencc:cl due to enother examination beinq conc tcted btLt a ser[ous dottbt entertalned by the Bctartl obout lhc mot r ilucle of the manipulatiort i.n the exetninotion hcts to be, qiuen due tu,: thtaqe.

232. I*arned Senior Counsel appearing for he petitioners submits that u,ith regard to the evaluation n r thodology, the 139 lr^r,., W.P.No.77439 bf 2025 ond botch Commission has failed to evaluatt: the answer scripts in a prope r manner. The Commission has not followed the moderation method. in sLtpport of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of thc Hon'blc Apex Court iu Sanjay Singh and Ann V. 'U.P.Public Seraice Commission, AllahabadT, wherein the Apex Court helcl as foilows 'These pelilions under Arliclc :12 oj' the CottstitLtlion of Indio hot'e been J-ilecl by thc tttrsuccessfitl tandiclatas tuhrt appectrec] in th<: e.yamil(ltions conclllcted bll tllc lJttor Pradesh Public Se'ruice Commlssion l'Commission for short.) for recruitrnr:nt to the Posts oJ Ciuil Judge (.Itutior Diuisictn).

23. Wlrcn o large nutnber of c'anclidalcs ctppcar J'or an examtnation, it rs ncce-s-son/ to har.e uniformlrll and con-si.stencg in ualuation of thc ensuar- scipts Where the number of candidates taking the examination are lintited ancl ttnlLl one exatnirter (preferably the poper-setter himsetfl eualLt.tles tle artsuter -scnpfs, it is to be assumerT tlt{LL there uill bc urifornLilq irt llte ualuat[on' But wherc a larqe nrLnrber of cancliclatcs takc the cxatincttion, it tui[l not be possible to get al[ the onstL'cr'scriPts cualuated by the some examirrer. ll. tlrcreJorc. becomc's rlcce.s.sa'y tct distnl;ute the anstuer scipts antonq seueraL e.tominers jbr ualLuttion Loith the paper-setter (or othcr senior pcrsotL) nctinrl as tLrc Ht'ucl Dxatniner' Whcn tnore thon one cxaminer eurtluc e lhc; ttrtstucr scripts rclating to a subject, thc subjectiuitrl of the respectiue cxamine'r tuiLl creep [nto th'e marks aunrclecL l.tL1 him to tlLc artsuter scipts allotted to him for ualuation Duch exatnirt<:r utilL ttppty ht-s otrlr tlurdsticlt lo asses's the- ansuter scipts. Incuitoblg therefore, eucn tuhcn cxpeienced examiners ' \(2oo7) 3 scc 720) 140 IRN,/ WPNo11419 bl zO25 and |totch t ?ce.iu.: c(ll(,1 brrlclrc.s of ansrter scripts. thcre t: lifft't'etrce itl et)e.ralJe nrarTts rind 1lle ranqe of ntarl;s att,ardt'cL, ilu' 'bU cLt'l'ectintl tlte. nt'rit c'. ilcltt,itlual candulolt's. 'i)ri-s c;;rrr1. t/iert'ir I'rrrr l: Dot,t,' tJ'lbct. Sctlte ('.r.rrllncrs art. iibe'rctl irt t'ttlttttltott ru1 I , t6l t,) ort)(1t'(l ntrtre trutrl;:. S,.,rrrc c-r:rrrrrlner,i cr(, -slrrci rttul tctti lo r7r ' , 1c..:.: utorAs. Some rntttt ],e ntocicrate arul ltolrtttcetl irt rttL,c,rrltr r. rrtrI.; Dut,tt otn"on(l tllo';('ttlto er<'Ltber<tl or tlto.sr,. tthct (rrc:;tnct lterc ntcty ltc: uaiarrce rt thc rlcqrcc: (y' sfrictncs.s or lrlrcrr ttl Tltt:, tectr;:; that tf Llte some u.nstut,r script is gTruen to dtjf'<,rerrt e-\(rmrna' . tltt'16' i< all like.lilund 'tJ rlillrt.ent rrtarks being rr-s-sirynr:rl. ll a it,,t i rLtt'll t.utittt'rt ottslu(r sctlpt goas lt) a sf/i(,1 (,-\:arrnirr('r und (L nt('{'t )(-'l(, un.strcr sciPt qoes to a Liberal exanurer, tltc tnecliocrc onsLttt t t(:t Lp nlaA be attarrled rtt)r(, tnarks thcttt tha e-\:cc11cltf c/t.su.'c' s ltt In otlltr tuord.s, tli,:r-c ts rerlucccl ualuctlhtn bLl q ::tric! tL:rti':er antL : |1,,111.,11 61.5 't'rthctrtcerl t'ctittalrort Lty u lib<,rctl c,-rcrnrirr<,r. Ihr; 'c.yaminer t.,oictl:illtll or 'Hert)l:-Dot,a clJect . f itcn lt r ,. tl,(,rc l.s (l trced to It,olt e ct procedtLr<' ta (,flsr/r.c rt ril,'nnri ltf(,r .s(, llrc Examiners so that the effe.ct d 'e-xuntitar sultlcctr', t t \)t t,\anluLt:r uaiabtlitg is tnirtiniscd. Tht: proceclure odc4ttc:tl Lo l( t tce ,'tarrLir,.'r subjec:truri;1 o, uaialtilitll r-s knorrrn us nLo(lt'ra't ) 7lrr, c/crs-sir: rrtc'lltod oJ rLo<lcratioTt i:,^ rzsJbllor{r-s l li) The prrpet.setter of thc strb.ject nonnelllj act- rs titc I[ear{ Examiner for the subject. Ite is sc:k:r.ler1 firtrt ,,t i)/tg.it ,scr?ror academicrctrts,/ scholars/ sent.)r c'luil st toonts/ JtLrltt, : V,tl,.rc tlte ca.se of a lerqe tLLLmbcr of ccttttliclalas, i]or(, t]tQn () l, d,\rl,lln('r rs oppornted anrl each ctf thctt is ctllottacl orourtd .JOrl a |.\l/, / s.rrpr.\ for uoluotrrtrt. e,YamIner ts lii) To aclieue unifctnnitg in uahntion, ruhare r',' r(' 1lt(tt onc iruo[uecl, tt meelinq of Ll:l, ]lee(l -E-varnr', r ttillt all thc is helrl soon after tlrc exantiruLlio,i 'heil discu.s.s tlrc questrcn puper, tlt<: pos-srbk' atl,..,r r,/-.s lncl tltc examiner:: tLroroughhl 141 hnu,t lw.p.uo.t ugg bl 2025 ond botth Luelghtac]e to be giuert lo uLtt[ous a.spects of the ansuers. '1het1 also carry out a sample ualuation h the liqht of lh.etr dt.scus.sions. 'l'he sample ualuation of scnpts by eoch of tlrcm is reuieucd bg the Hcad- L)xaminer and uariattotls irr a-ssrrTtttng rrrarks ore J ftLter di-scu.ssed. Aflcr such discu-s-srorrs. o ('or.j('r.sLr.s rs ornt,<'d at irt reclord to lhe nonns o]' uahLrttion kr bc e(l()pl((l ()rt lltrt brrsi-s, the r:.Yattlinur:,- ctre rcquirecl ta conrplctc iirc r.QlLteil()tr of rrn.stt-,r't .sc/tPt-s. BtiI lhi.s bz,/ [tself, does not briq obortt rrr,iforrrtttlT of as.scssnc'rtt itltcr se the exnminers. Itt sptte ol tl'Le nornts oclre<:r.l, ntorty exofiLlners tend to cleuiate .from Ute el,1tt:ctt,d or ugra<;<l ,lorrIi.s, a-s llteil cuuliort i-s ouertaken bll lhelr proPcnsif t7 ./L.rr striclrrr'.s.s or liberalrty or crrolicl-srn or carclcs-snc.s.s duriq th<' cor/r'.s(' ol laluation. Tttreforc, certttlrt further correcti t,r: sfr?.s Dec'rrtnt',1('('ar^-s(1,-Il. (iii) Afte:r lhe: ualuoliorr is < oirrplr'lt'cl bI/ lltc cxaiutt(;rs, Lhe H<:ad Exemutcr corrrltrcf.s (L rendon .QnLPlc suruelJ ol' thc corractcd nnsu,er.scrrpfs to uctifll ttltcther tltc ttc.trnts cuolued rn the tneetings of examiner huue ac'uallty lrct'rr Jullott'cti ltry the t.t.aminers 'l'he process of random surrt1tlinq u-su<tlly cort-st-sf.>^ of scruliny of some top lcucl anstuer scipts utd:,^onle aUrriuicr DooL.s selcctcd at ranclom from tLLe batcltcs of .ifl.srt'('r -scrr/ll.s t.'ctlrretl b!/ each exorrtirtcr The top leuel an.stllcr boolts of t'acl', c.rarLin<'r orc: reualued by tlrc IIe:ad Examiner tulrc carit:s oul sLtcll correcliotts or a[terattons in the award <tf rnark.s a.s llr', in lri.s -il(lqnlenl, con-sider.s best, lo achieue untfurm.ity. (For this purpose, { nece.s.srznT certcLin stcttistics Like distribution ol' condidotes in lrtrtotrs tnark.s ranr;es, tlrc aueraqe percentage of marks, the lrighest ancl loLuest tttLtard of mttrks etc. maA also be preparcrl in respec! of tlte uuluatk)tt of <tach examiner.) (iu) After ascefiaininq or o-s-scs.srnrl thc stt:ot.dards cdoPted by each examiner, tltc llead E.ramirtcr mo'1 conjirnt the arLard of marks tuithout any change if the e,ranincr has .fblLorued the agreed norms, or suglJesl upuard or clort'ttrL'tu C rrutclerolktn, tlte- quantum of 742 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 tol 2025 ond botch noder(Lti(ni t at LJing ctccordin.l to lLLe ck'qrc:e of liL.+:rtLit ,. itr rnat ltircl ir, rcgcrrcl lo thc lal,r leuel attstL.,ar /rorrks ,, I iaacl l.)rq'r,,:ttcr, lu:; atuard of' rnarlts is ucc:y.tt:' i tr'<lartls tht oth.er (LnsLt)er /too/r.s l;e1orl llr<, tctD 't , ,rro-rimrrrrr '?r( .rsura o,t ttttifttntittl trtl,:,r sc llrc r,,.r;rrlrr. rira rrttxlar Llt'(.t (ts l)t,r tlta re<'orrrntcrtrluttctrts lttttl, iiwtmitcr. .)r.Jiiratlte.s.s 't!itt;i Ltrl thc r:, /i101. A.s . trt tt'lti<'ur: il,,,ttlrrrr1.s ,r 'i',.. Ilc,ctcl it:) If ut tl.r' ()ptniorL of the l{ead D-rqrniru r th<:rc hos , rrrele.s-s rlarktng Ltq any ercttrLit'tc.r, fot tulticlt 't t; lttLt'c ortU :.tctttclurtl tttoclerThon, lltc enst{.'cr s(l--Iras I txctrnitcr r,rt, teualu<,d etth"r bLl the Ltcctd ]iycLrrtut liromiru'r t,)lto ts founcl to haue follor.t.terl tlrc orltr.ttl l t | (ttQlt('. or : ilrrsiDl'lo t,t (I l)tl str.17 )t 0 )q ol lt{,r Itt) Wherc lltt'nLlntbar of cancliclttlr:s is L,<'rq lttrclt'ctn . Qt<, nllitctt)11s, rL rnorl be diJ'ficult Jor otr<, Ilatul E:,1t. iirt: tuorl; r'' trll tlLe: E-vanrincrs. Irt -sr-icft a .srtr/({ti(lL. ),, Eromincrs is introduced. l;or eur:rq ten or fiu?ntrJ t'\ rt ili be o ,:ctcl Examitter LUho checks thc randonr stttl The' ulork of tlrc Heud ExcLrniners. in lrrnr, is r:/rr:r i Etqmint'r i ) cti sltra proper rc.srrll-s l, { \ l1l1l,l l('l.S r') lr ) a].S\C.SS ti' t,,' leucl ctf ntrtors, tltt,re

1.;: r 1.; a llq 1ta. L ltt1 a Ohic.f l itc aboua pr('cedurc of 'mocLeratrctn rt,ortltl ltrt(t ' )oufortntlq a/rr,l con-slstencq. [t sltoLrlcl be tlt)teti r t r r i.fo nnil t 1 o/. c, )nsl.sf cf ?cg in u a Lu cr I i o n i.s irnTro.ssrhk: t, r lirre at c, sr,t,eral e,rcunincrs arrrl tLu' iJitrt is t : rrtctxinttLrrr r utrftnnittl. " cr t: tclerrLblc r(ir..1r-sollrte :tttIt,t tulu:t e :rr a-1chr(,i'c 233- In the prcsr:nt case, the Commission has 1; il cn rliffercnt and contrll(lictory stilnds. In their own itdditi()nal ( l .l ton ooLulter alfidavit in pur a No.70, they said that mo(lcr:liil rs not rcql.rrred 1,43 tlnu,t w.P.No.77439 6l zozs and batcn in Group-l examtnations ancl on the same issue, while argurng thc matter before the Court subnritte(l that the Commission lullv followed the moderation methoclologv. 'lhc very same Commission submittecl thcir argumctrts at-rci rr''hc:n tllc Court rarscd objectiolr rvith regarcl to the key, the Cornrnissiorr rcplicd that the kcy will be provided only in the objective t-v1le ancl since it is a descriptive typc, therc is no key. AII the evaluators are cxperts in evaluating the English, Telugu mediurn papers Tl're action o{' the : Commission reflects n itl-r the above ol;servations that they have I not followed any method in llrooer nl:lnller.

234. The very same case is rclied on by the learned Senior Counsel Sri M.Surender Rao ancl st-tbtnitled that "in the:rbsence of a moderation or scaling uc'chztntsttl to balatlce inter evaiuator disparities, the result stands vitr:rtecl [r--r''rb trar ness and unequal treatment". In the present czrse, the Commission failed to put il1 place any moderation, stanclardization or uniform evaluation matrix, despite involvrng multiplt- cvalltators, doltble evaluation, and multi phase asscssment undcr diflcrent chair persons leading to unbalanced and inconsistent marl<ing and also the Counsel brought to the notice ol the Cottrt that the Cornmission's own 144 RRN,J W.P.No-77439 ol2025 qnd botch afficla",it (parr "/o ol additionai comtnon cottrr t 'r-) states that moderation lrrirs "not required", bccartsc a1l papcl; itre llatldatorv, at in t.he Courl it clairns full conrpliance rvith Sr 'NJA Y SINGfI's CASC (strpra). 'l'his contracllction confirnls I il lro g('llullle rnocler.rtion tr:ts clotte. The average otllv t I ' Iloci trr':'tl s the banclirlatcs r.rLrCquallV and violates the Constittr't rrtit) gttltl'ltt'rtecs of fair ncss trncl cquality rcndcring the cntire eVr , -r:rtiort :rr-1ritrat1 anrl voicl Sri. NLSrtrender Rao, learnt:d Senior Cot:tl I rl Ic sLll)p()l-t his arg,ulncnts rcli,'cl upon the followirLg case liltx's:-

235. Witl'r rt'q, rrcl to fairness, learnecl Senior Ct L nsel relic(l uPon thc jrtclgnrerri rrf the llon'ble Apex Cor-trl tn Dr.,l P.Kttlshreshthq and Others Vs. Chancellor, Alta.habad (Jnitter;itg and Others ' rvhcrein t he \pcx court helcl as follows : ll'(' rr)all di:;p<'l tuto mAstiqltcs bcfore u'e i'ltttta rlra tc'ttl iO. r.sslrcd. lrrd lhc selccliort committrte rtct illeclally 1 :;()ltiti(l to t]1t' .,tiert)iLu 1)[]c(r.ss to piclt ottt the best ? Wc iitlli ttrrl '\ttr1 adminis!,.L tue or quast juclicial bodg cLothecl u'ith " tt'crs rrttcl lell rrnlbll<-rt' I ltrl pntcerlures is.frec to deuise il-s olLttt l)! i 'ntrrl"'. llexiblt' rtrrcl jitnt ir,,ttlhT t,iable' procc-s-scs oJ transactirq btis ' r'.s-s ;tLltit ct ttl' ar)r1r..;c rir lrte ba.sics of natu ral juslicc: fcrit .' tq n actit)tt, "1.rtnt,rsosL'ltltl L45 lau,t W.P.No.174]9 bf 2o2s rrnd bottl reasonableness in coll<:cting decistonal tnqlc:ric./s, ctttordance oJ arbitranness and extraneous con-sidcratiorr s atd othertuisc kecping Luith irl thc [eoding str inqs of the: latL, We Jind no Jlaru in the methocLologg of interuierus'Oertainltl, cos.l.s a,'1s(' t.uhcre the art: oJ' interuietuinq candidates delenorale:; .f rofit strQlegll lo slratagetrr ond un(lelcctoble rnctniptrlcttton ry' rz.stt1ls is u.l..iet,cd bq rt'rrtcttc conlrol faclrcs ma.sked a-s r.,ipn L,occ lc.sf: l hr.s, if tt[ktrL'etL, l-s -srrrehi a sabotaqe of the puity ctf proceeclitcls, ct sttblcrfrttlc trllterebtl lcrlal means to reach illeqal ends is achier-,cd. So ir r.s th(11 cout'ts irlsi\1, rts the lear-ned stngle Juclge ha-s, in llti-s t)erLj cuse, sugqcsled on recordtng of rnarks al in[<:ruic'ttt:; Qnd oller fair t'hecks like guidcltrcs for marks and rernarks .Lboltt condtdat?s atld tlrc like. If the court is ske,pficcl, tlrc recorcl cf rhc' Sclcclron proceedings, tncltLdirtg the notes regardttg thc intct uieit'-s, trtcty ltaL;t: to lrc rnode o.uailable. lnteruieuls, a-s strc'/t, ure n<tl bcttl btrl polluLttrg tL Lo uLtLtilL illegitimate encls is l:ctd. Dr. Marlit Lt Lt<'r l{inq.Ir. LaQS iqlTt Luhen be u)rotc. "So I haue tned to make it cleer that it i.s ri'ronq t<t trse tmmctral means to attain moral ends. But tloLLt I nuLst ofJhnt tlrut il i-s ju.sl rr.s Lurong, or euen more, to use rrtorql tnL'(tns lo pr?sert,e imntoral ends."

236. Learned Senior Counsel appeanng for the petitioners submits that the examiners who make the valuation ol answer papers should be well-equipped fbr the job. [n sr,rpport of his contention, he relied upon the juclgment of the Apex Court in 746 RRN,J W.P.No-7143g of 2025 and batch 'President Board Of Secondar!.t Vs. D. Suuc nkqr & Anre, whercin the Apr':: Court held as follorvs :- "lL ha:; to i,6 1'r1-5111.361 lLnt the /,lrorrrincr.s ri,ho rrro/ic it; r'ahLatiort of atisttrr J)()Dt'r-, rtrt rt'allq ecytiltpc'cl lor tlrc ytb. [ . Dor.itrloutll cortsirli:rrt1:,rr lr -srrc/r , ases rs tlre aliLitry ct.l tlrc l,-.rarr,t,t t. Tlr,, Rcxtl L.l rtn-s lrounrl,,,, tlLtttl ta se.lect.srrch 1tr:r-sort-s cr-s ,lrrarrrri i,s r.i/to hcLe iitc cQDe(i11. ( (Lpebil:ttl to trtakc t'(rlualiotl anri thr.r, :noutti rcttlitl cqnipperl I tr ;l,e loit 237 . 'fine Ho r'lrlc- Snpreme collrt in D,Suvanka r 's case (sr.rltrar), laid (1o\\,n rhi('e m:)ndator-\, safeljuitrcls frlr irn\ c\rallulrtiltg author it\,' I II TI Subject-spe<'iJic cotnpetence - onlq exarninars rr t lij et1.u1tpt'ci lbr tlte yt); t'raU rnltt<: arrslrer sr:rrllls, and etrclt tr, ;! ltt.iottcl lct lhe sarnt rlrs, rT;1ite os the paper o:sses.sed. Conststency oJ marking - ulcl c: intcr-exu rnitre r t.,,t.t riion t'rocl<,s c'recltbrlittt, l,/'., -st/sfarn mrJrLSt prcL,ent ct situaton t r t rc lor tlu' :;eul(' etl ii c, ont, ccutdidate qats highar ntarks tllttrt t roLl.cr." Judiciatlg rewiewable dutg - lf an exatntnutrJ ' . t, I q torls tct ('fr-sr1ft, Il o.;r' scr,/i,r7rzru ds, {'oLtrts nteA intefibre clesr : tht.: 'tiy nuLl ,, rttttirt',- tlttnlitt't 'ttAtt( rS.

238. 1'GI'SC s ( iroup I Mains process violatt,:r eacll principle First, thr. c', rrll Lat()r- lists filcd by the Comr I ssion show no !,(2O07 (1) SC( (,0.1 1,47 lax,t w P.No.174f9 61 2o2s and batch dedicatecl sociologr facultv lor Paper tll (lndian Societv), no Dnvironmental-science specialists lor Paper IV, no domain cxpcrts for Telangatta Movement (PeLpcr Vt) zrnd tlo domirin-u'ise llat-rel 1or thc six-scction Gcneral Essa5,; scvererl assessors are deqrt-e-collegc lecturers or long retircd teachcrs r','ith no advancecl s'ot'lt in thc sub.lects they marked. 'lhis squarcLy viol:rtcs Strvanlcerl''s mandate thert "carc should bc taken to sec that thc cxauitret's . l;elong to the samc faculty," and reduces tlre exercise to a "tnockcrv of the svstem of valuation.".

239. ln thc prescnt case, all tl-re three safeguards rvhilt: evaluatit-tg the ansrver scripts deviated by the Commission 24O. ln MANDEEP SINGITAND ORS Vs STATEOF PUNJAB AND ORSro, thc Apex Court hcld as follorvs '18 Anicte 32O(3)(a) oJ the- Cottstitutiott, irter alro, 'slales th'IF Stote I'jublic Seruice Commis-siorr "shcrll be cottsultecl ort all rnatters reluting to methocls of recrulment to ciuil seruicets arLcl Jor ciurl ;ro.sts". Thc prouision appcars to bc ntantlatory rLs th<' tt'rtrcls "shall be consttlted" suggest- All the sarne, tltc' learncd c'ounsel fctr the respondents Luould rely on a 1957 Coastitution Bench rlectslorl of this Coutl irr Slate of lJ.P u Manbocthan Ltrl Sriuaslat'o 1 957 SCC "(SLP (civil) No.23141 of 20241 148 fRN,t lW P No 1144t bl2025 and batch Orrline S(' -1 uthich had lakl (loun thLtt lhe pr L t s,rr//r r.i ttul trttttttlulctt g l)Ltl n1.et elu dtreclcn tl > ; ln Zetit Mataalcls! 14 44. u. Stqte ofllq!1qr,t thtlo | ) OOI t ) i tl .SCC 3lrt. llrj-s Cor{i? lairl clor.ttrt tlt<: r1<.rraral pnt,(! ) ? /hdr ,S'lol(l ,(:ra)n .slro,/l(,r trc tlrt'rtti,lad rit srrrriir/ 1trittt:i1.tlt's ettt' 1,)ltlti r!ol bta tt' rtn'tlir'lct ttt,rtr tr ilttttl l-lri"rs Iius C-ottrl notccl fls l, i ii.\ - )/ irt,('nl rt,.1r,tn oIiltc. ,Sta/('()/ if.i ittslntntt'tttctlittt'; .l rrrlrl tol orriri lr frrrr. lt t:ir tolo atcl alxtL'r.'brrr<L bttt sltortlcl lt, tL'[tl t'Ltt ttnrl :t!]llc\iirtt' of ul[ectiort rr QUcrsi,rrr It ;ltouIrl ncilhar bc rlrscrirrirrr, , ,ri ,1()r /ii 6'rl crltpLtr<'nt[t1 cliue an itqrtt . ;tott ,i lttcts, Itttctrtritrsrl attd ncltcttistn. 7]rc rlcr:i.siorr sLLouId b.: ,te(1. btl tltc opl)lic(tttot ol k.notutt lttirtcrytLt's orrl rttles artd tr, 7c'netttl sutlt rit'rri.siort sit,,rtitl lx.: 1tt c:clicta itlL' ontl tle <'.itrzert sltort' , krtor.r. t.Lth<tr a l,r' rs, lrril 't ,r ,lecisiorr is fnAr:rr tutllrcLtt otlll pnn.clplo I u]iLltoltl coltl rrrIc, rt i.s rtnttrt.clrc'lultlc, arrcl suc/r n r.lccision is rrr,llrc-sis lo l/rr: rlr,r-tsrrrl ',il c't in nc cortlttncL' u ilLt tl1( rttla ol r' /i,ide .S'1i Unirnt .tf Jnclia 1,.\l!l 1967 SC 1427' AIR 1t. 1.13.1 f ' I Lrllqt Cr,,Lt,t .-Irr:-srnf tn paro l4 a'.ti ilaii T .\[l/G.sso/r 1i(/lr.,l,r]er t6gffu ,trl983) I ::( C 166 ..\1R /91i8 SC l57l )" (Entphasts t t tr;irletil . 241 . 'l'hc .lbo\,(' cilsc lerw is sul)porting the rr gum<:nts of thc c-orrnscl for lLrC l)ctition('rs wi[h regar(l lo coIl(lLlcting the examinalions in a tair manrl('r llnd there is;r liscrimination in finalizing tl'rr' r csult

242. While il('Liling the subrnissions of the rr:.r ron(lel1ts counseI qrith regarcl to the rnaintainability of the r,'it petitions, the I I 1,49 fiaN,t lW.P.No.114j9 bl 2025 ond botch petitioners counsel relied r-rpon thc Full Bcnch Juclgment of thc Hon'ble Supremc Court i.e., RAMAVATAR SINGII YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERSTT, the 3 Jutclgcs bcnch of Hon'blc Supremc Courl. hclcl thzrt High Courrs it'r thc country arc guardians of Frtndatrer-rtal Rigl'rts & cotrstittLtion ntld sl-rould not mechanically dismiss rvrit petitions seeking cnforccmcnt ol furtdermcnterl rights on the ground of 'clelay ilnd laches', rvithout considering all relerrant factors.

213. In the present case respondents opposing the llting of rvrit pctitions orl the ground of delair the facts remaitrs that whrle certificate verilication is announced the petitioners allproac[-rcd this courl. Iler-rce the contentions of the respondetlts i:atlnot be taken up.

244. Whlle clenying the submissions of thc respondents counsel witl-r regarcl to the res judicata, the petitioners counsel relicd upon the Full Bench judgment of ttre Hon'blc Supreme Court in Mathura Praso,d Bajoo Daiswql and others Vs' Dossibai N.B.Jeejeebhoil2, rvith regard to res judicata in the above case " (CIVIL APPEAL No. 13806 OF 2024) " 1t ozo 1r1 scc 6r3) 1s0 IBRN,] lw.p.t'to.llqEg b1 zozs ond botch took thc vieri' that thc doctrinr: of rcs jtrdicatlr telolgs to the domain of proct'drrre anrl a decisir)Il olt al1 issric r I las'u.ill be r-r:s judictrta in a subsequent proceccliltg Ltt:t$,ecn tlt(. jam(, parties, if thc r:ausc of lrltiorr of thc sultse<lLrcnt proccecling:, lre lhc samc ils in the provisr,)ns procecdings. but not rr.he n clrL se ol action is differen t.

245. In the pleserrt casc irriiiallv tltis coult rranted intertrn directior-r on 16.04.2025 thclcalier sornc of thr: :anrlidates ftlecl W.P.No..1243, ol 2025 and thc same wils carnrr r 1 befbre another bench and lhr same \,v.ls distnisscr.l on 25.04.2()'l.r Bv conneclrng the sanre to lhrs case Comntissir>n argucd befor,' this court once writ petition is alreadl, dismissed ancl Lhe presen I casr: is liable to be clismissccl on the groLlncl of rcs jr-rclic:rta cannr) oo :rcceptecl.

246. While d,rn1 tng the submissions of lhe resp,nclents counsel with regard 1o Ihc evaluatior 1tr-ocess, the p(, :ionr:rs' counseL submitleal thrrt thcre is no incliclrlion oI crraltr:rtr( n irr the ansrvr:r scripts, is conlrilry to larv. Whilc supporting ilrs arguments, the learned counsel for the petitiont:rs relied trpol he.judgment of 151 lnnn,t 1w.P.No.11439 gf 2025 ond bdtch CBSE Vs. Aditga Bandopadhgagta. He also submittccl that unc.ler similar circumstances, this Court has repeatedly applied that ratio. Dr.P.Kisl-rore Kr:rnar (2016 SCC ONLINE I'rvd 364) Dr.J.Kiran Kumar (ancl the Division Bcnch Ruling W.A.No.757 oi 2019 reiterated once again in W.P.No.27869 of 2021 , as a binclilg precedent. Here by contrast, the total obliteration of tl-rc mark trial frustratcs the very "vigour of evaluation" that these authorities deern mandatory- In the said case, the Supreme Conrt held that every examinee has a "legitimate expectation" that his ansrvcrs u.ill be lookcd at allprcciated and cvaluatccl ancl that thc resulting rnarkings constitute disclosabie "information". In the present case, lhere is no marking in any answer scripts. Hencc, the above judgment supports the contention of the petitioners. Sri. G. Vidya Sagar, Iearned Senior Counsel to support his arguments relied upon the following case laws:-

247. With rcgard to legitimatc cxpectation, failure in fairness in action, learned Senior Counsei relied upon the judgment of the " (2011 (8) SCC 497) 152 IRRN,] w.P.No.71439€ of 2025 dnd bqtch Apex Court tn RAM PRAVESH SINGII AND OTHEI'\ i Vs' STA?E OF BIHAR AND OTHERSTa, u,herein thr: apex court ht: c as follor'r's: tshior. rl htl cttttfl'. 111v irlr " 15. What i; lc(titim.Qte cYpeclQtbrt-? Obt'ittusl!1, it is rrL'' It is an exp,.:clalbrt of ct l,etleJit relirf ot' rernc:cly, tltot ' t JTotLt from cr promi-s<' ctr estctblLshe:cL prctclicrt I'he te:tt t practice' rcfers to cr requlcrr, {rolt.si-st€rnr prc:tlictabt< contLuct, proce-s.s or c.Lcttuitg oJ thc decisiott maliinq |i expectcttton slutnld bt' legittntote lhat is reasctnal:lt ualicl. Ang expectatiotl tuhich is La.secl ott sporacLr'' ranclont acts, or whlch. is unrectsortcLlt [e ' tllogical or irt''' t a [egitirnak: cx,oectcllicnt. Not bcing a nqltt, it ls ttol r I sur-h. ll t< o t o"crpt aclministratiue crction. [t is proct'dural irt chctrtrc:t<'r t' requiremenl of a highu degree of f,tinte-s.s trt aclmtrrr:'1 as a conseqlrcnce. of thc protise rrLade' or proclice (: short, a pcrson can be sakl to httt'e a legttinuLtc ewt porricular lrrattncnl, t[ 'tnA r, P'c\, t lalion ,tr l)n)mi:.t authoitA, either expr<:ssly or irrtplit':dlg' or if' tltt consisaenl p(.t:;t practice oJ LlL,-' cttttLtoritq git"es t "' expectatiotr lrt the norrnctL colrr-s(]. 1\Ij o grorlrld -for t itlL" t of the doctine is rathcr tueak as its -slor l.s .ittst cLbtt' action' but fcLr belou 'promissortl e stoppcl'. It rnay L r expectdnt: [e) to Gn opPafiutlitLl t.o sLLoLL' cause before L't is dashed; or (b) to an explancttktl- as to the cous! appropiate crt.ses, courts m(lu qrant a cLire;ctiort' ' Authoritll to foltotu the profiLised pro':edure- or c-sr.7bilsir' tegitimate exPectation, euen uthett made out, does n()t ' the expectlnl to ct relief. Public interesl, chctttcle' iru p;t! t the expectant or anA otlLer ualu1 or bonaficlc reaso' t. Le,qul right. L1 ordtrn riltl 't,.strtbLishetl .t nrl ct:rtairt tltor[q. Thct l.ocltcal oncl r cusuctl or itl crt nnoL be Forcaal;Lc as tl reuietu of rsed on the cllrue act1on. ubltslted. Irt ctatiort' of n rn.ctcle l:tq an .egultr ancl n Jlr such tlre 3fficucll fairn e-s-s in 'lq entitle art ) exPectatrcn 'tr clc:n[al. In :quiring the cl practicc. A ' tuatls e-ntitle 'y, ccnt.clttct of liuen by the '" (2006) 8 SCC 381 153 ERN,I W.P.No.1143g Sf 2025 qnd bqtch decisirrrr nraker, may be suJ-.ficiertt to negctttue the 'legitimale expe.ctation'. o- Hindustan Developnent 16. In llnion Corporation [1993 (3) SCC 499], Lltts Ccturl erplained the rl(lttLre ctnc) scope of the clocttirrc oJ lcclrtirnaLc exPectatiall tltlts : Indirr the c'\pactatiotl cannoL be tltc same rts "For lc:qal purpos€::;, anticiPation. It is different fr(tm. cL rrlrsh a destre or a hrtpe nor con it amoutl.t to a clctirrt or clemttnd rtn the ground of a ighL' Hotueuet eafiTest arL(7 sinccre- a uri.sh, a ,7cs[re or cL hope tnrtq be cutd hotueucr confcLentl.rl onc tn.lt/ loolt: tct tham to be fulfitled, theu b!1 them.selues cannot amouttt lo art Qssert(lble expectatictn oncl ct mere disappoirltment does not atlract leqal consequence's A pious hope etterL leadiq to a trrcraL obliqlcLtion cannot amount to u leqitunote cxpactutiott. '[lte legitirttctctl of Qn expcctatittrt cqrt Ltc inferrcrl only if it is founcled on tlrc slnction of laut or custom or an established procerlure folktttte-d in reqular and natural sequence' Again tt l-s di-slinguisha ble from a genuine expectotion' Suclt expectatktrr shoulcl be justtfLLlblll le-gttinLate und protectable' Euer11 such leglttunatc expectQtian clocs ru.tt bA itself ft'LLctifll into a riqltt anrl thercforc it .l.oes tLoL (1moun! to a igLLt ln tLLe conuenttonal se[.se

17. This Court alsct explainecT tLLe rerneclies Jlttuing by applAing the principtc of lcqitu not r' cYf"totion' " it is generallLl ctqreetl thot legitinlte expectation giues the appticont sltfJlcietrt locLLs s lctncli 1 c.tr judicial re uiew and l hat the d.octire o.f leqitinlLte expectrttioru is to be confined mostl! to ight oJ' a fair h.eaing bafore o cicc[sion tuhich results in negatiuingl a promise or ruithclrcttaincl an und<;rloking is tc.ken' The doctntle does rtot giLte scope to (:lain re:lief straightatuag from Lhe ctdrninistratiue authonties as no crgstalliz'ed' ight rz's such is

15.1 '1nt't,t w.P.No.714i9 191 zozs ona ooin ntuolued. 'fhe protection cy'' .:,-rr, h lec1[tintul.e expecto,t requirc tILc litl[i[lnrcnt of tl'te e\)ccLution uLh.ere cLn ott r [nterest rcquircs oth.en.oiset. lrt rtther rt ord:; u,l:ar, legitirnate expectotiotL is not Jitiltiic:1 btt tal.ilg a por:i':i tlrcn deciston maker sfuttLkl jusltl'U the cle:ntctl ctf st,t I by showig some oucricLinrl Ttttit[ic in-tcresl. Tl,e t' subst(Lntit'e protection ry'- -slrch (':Pectaltolt is cort r'" does not qront an altsolute riclilL ;o a 7:artrcttLar pt:r, t ensLlres Llrc '"ircutnstence.s i,i t.r ltich iltcl e-Vrd(rio 1, denied or reslictecl. A cctse ctl l(ttilitnata cxPe(:tQliu tuhen tt bod11 bg represe.nl{ttiott or bt1 ;tctsL prru: expectatiol'L u'hich it utottlcl ltt: t.ttith.irL it:; Pat.ucr: : protectton is lirnited to th(1t ?)lcnt ctnd. cr jrrclicirLi rt'. ruithin those limits. BLtt a-s rli-sctt.s.sccl tLltoue a ytcr:,r,t his clairn on the cloctin<: ol latJttinat" rrPecloltot' instance, nlu-st sall.slu thot therc s ct lotutclatiott r t locus stanrli tr.t make such r.t. cloint. Irt cortstclerinq th. : factors uthich giue ise to -srrch leqitimol.e cxpect,l ! present. The: tlecision taken b4 lh'? aLttlrcrittl m usl /) ' arbitrary, unreasonable on.d ltot tuken itL y;ublic ittlt ' question o.f poticg, euen bq t.uctyl o.l chanqe ctf old polt ' cannot interfere utith a clec[siotr. Ir, cL !]tuerr aalsa' l(.'il. su,'h fact, ond circuntstnt'r" s qiuit"t nsP lo expectdtiotl, it t ould pimanltl be o qttestiort oJ fcLci. i are satisfied and if the courl l.s .srr li.:rri€r tl lltrtt ct cct-':t expectation is made out thcn the ncxt qu<'.stion ruotLl i failure to giue an opportutLtttJ of hc,ctrincl beforc ; affecting such legitimate expcctotrott i-s lalcert, ltcr:' failure of justice and u:hether on lhut qrouttd tl'te c|,t'-. be quashed. I_1 that be so then r.uhot shotrLcl lt<: Lltc rc i matter Luhich depends on seueroL jctctors tt cLct:s n.ot idiq pu.bli<: o P': rsoft's hr rTei'i.slor t c .\P :C! o I i() o- tre tt,t,n il' pl0t( d tlLeL n It sinplq trt rrc,! lte: .t'<tultl onsa :c. rtroust.cL fttiliL l'lu, ir:tt ,'ctn be i.rt tle first d l,t.rr-s /rr -s tttu::;c'.ueroL ,n nrrr-sl b<: fottr tl to be -st. 1l it i-s .r , lhc aou rl-s !r tlt'irc ar(: lerlillrnate the.ic larsls '.i lc'.1)itin t.etc lx; rL,hetlrcr tc clecision lr..srr lle r1 lrr '^lon -s,Itot-rlrl i i.s r rTarrz a 155 taax.t W.P.No.11439 oI2o25 ond batch l

248. Learned Scnior Counscl .rppearrng lor the petitioners further 'submits that thc Commission failed to tbllorv its os,n Rules and Regulations. In support of his contention, the learned Scnior Counsel rclied upon the juclgilrcnt of'thc: i\pcx Coltrt in I(RISILIVA 'RAI (DIED A.S PER LRS) AND O?TIERS VS. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY (THROUGH REGIS?'RAR/ AND OTHERSTS, wherein the Apex CourrL held as follotvs

32. Furtht, r irr lhr: cos<: of 'latct Clterrtitu[s L,L:L. \/s. Com rrt ls-siorzet o/ Custorns (preucntut'), JamnugurS, il hos bc'crt lcttd clcttt:rt thQt tlutre can be no cstoppel ogaittsl lcttu. If t]Le. lctrt.' rcqLttas sonu:tLrint1 to be done it ct l:tafticukLr fitetult'1, i,/rcit rl //li{sl 1t<' Llortc itl ll(tt tttcttltl,cr, and if it is not donL' in thnt trttrttner, tlrc:tt it ttoulc! haue. tro e-risfcttce in the eye of the laru. Pat aclraph 18 of tlrc s(tlcl lLtdlmet ts as follotas: " 18. 'l'he 'l'ibu rrul's jurLqm?trt l:zs proa:t'clacL on lhc lla-si-s thot eucn though the.sarnplr'.s utere draLun (ont[eru to ktt.tt, the ctppellartts uould be estoppet-l becaust' th?ir t ( Pre scnt(t / it,'t' Ltra.s presenl uhen the samplas u'<'re clrarun atul the11 clicL not ob.icct i rrunecli crl c'111 . Tltis is o compk.telg part'ersa findirq botlt on f'ctc:l ancL lrtttt. On fact, it has been more than cLmp[t1 prot,ed t]ttrl no rcPres('ntalt|e of the appellant tuas, irt foct, prcsetlt al the linc li1(' Cl{-srorn-s Inspector took the scmples. SLL{ K. tll .Jctrti u.tltrt tL,cts allc'gctlllJ prescttt not onlA stated that he chd not reprcsent thct C[euring 1\t]('tlt ol tha appcllants in that he u)as not their enrpktLlec 'but also statecL tltQt lte tuas not present tl)hen the -samples tL'erc tokcn. In .fctct. lherc:.fot e', there utas no representotiue of the apl)ellQt'Lts u'h<'tt tlte.sontplt:s u'ere taken. " (20221 8 Supreme Court Cascs 7 l3) 156 'RRN,] W.P.No.1143g' 2O25 ond botch In latu tzqurtlLLl the' 'l'ibunal oltqll u) lruue r,'r ize'd. lit t no estoppcl eqcinst laLL) $ the lau.' 'cc-luire; tllat sotttt iru o porlicttlc,t ttt(lrt rLe r, if nlu-st bc lctttt' iI tlrtt rnaI tlone in thot tt)(irlttc.r hrrs no eTislertr',- irt tlu Ir1t'c'.f kt:t herc' cant lrc ) rnq lx-. done . onrl if not t qll '

249. 'lo supl)ort his argulnelrts that ille Corr: I issiotL llas no1 followed theit oq,n Rules, thc lertrnc-d Coltnst'l i'lie<l r'rPrln tht' judgnrcnl of lht: Apex Cor-rrt ir-r BEDANGA TALUKDAR I/-s SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN AND OTIIERS'6' ll/hel-('1 the alre x court held as follou's

29. \l/e h.| rc consiclercd thc entire nottar u] dc'tQil. tt: t tit t)!'ttti)tt' LI t tr lltrtt ttll i-s rorr ttr':11 settled to need at;r1 f'ttrrltcr t'ailt ' eppoiftm(nts to public offica hLt"e ltt lx: rttatLL t ('()tt.it)rttttlll Luith Articlt' 11 of the constilrrtion o.l lrrclru. [rt tttltt rr]I)r(l's' lrrr('rc must be rLo orbitroincss resullinrT frotn onq uncl t' lrtt'c,rtr L;t'rrtcl sholun to any cand[date. Therafore' tht' sclcction ]lr1 i ':js llls to l)a conductetl stictlg in accordonce u[th tlrc slqrrr r t'r1 srrlcc-lrt'rtt procetlure'. Consequently, uthen a 1:ortic'trlar schetL" r'- rni'tttirttrr'cl it an aclttct:.i:;ement, the s(rmc ltc.s to lte scrultulot, . t r t t t-r I t r I r i I I t , ' r I Therc cannot be ang relaxation it the l.erfi1s Qtld ' 'llrliorts of t/rc acluetTiser nt'nl unles-s such a PoLLer is .sprtilica119 '1 - rrr cr' 'Sircrl pcnuer cortld lrc reserued it thr: raleuttnl .Stalllto/r, 'ttles. I) etr il' poLL)er oJ tektxalion s prouidecl rn lht: nLk's, rt rrtrsl s/i1l b<' nrcntlorled n the ad-uetlisentent. ht lhe ttbsc'rtce oJ:;: t t lxttur irt lltc Rule.s, it L:oulcl still be prouided in the Qd1'crtis(:rnct llrttL'r'r't-t' litc' pou-ter of rclaxation, iJ exercised has to be qiucn clL, 'tttl.tlictLq 'l lris u;oulcl bt trc' t'j.ssanl to ensure tltol thosc <'tLrtrlirhr rttt'tL becttrrtr: cliEble cluc 1o the relaxation, are affordecL {Ltt cqlt' ')t)!\)rtttlttL'l Lo '1 " (201 1) I2 SCC 8s)

1.51 iRRN.t W.P.No.17439 bl 2025 qnd bqtch apptA and compete. Rckttulion of on.t1 conclitiotl in Q()uellsemetlt tuiLltoul duc publicatiott tuottlcl be conttar! to lhc mondate of qualltll containcd in Articlcs l1 an.l l6 o.f the Constltl.{liorl ttf India.

250. In the case on harrd. lor Group-I, thc Cornmrssion issued Notillcation with certaill Rtrles ancl llegrtliltiolls atrd the sallle h.rs to be followed Being a cotr stitutioL-ra] bocll'' thc-\' h:n'e to lollot' tl-re Rules of procedure. Surprisingll', both are not followcd in a proper manner

251. With regard to ntetitrtai uatrility, ltlirrnecl coutrsel lor the petitioners relied upon thc judgnrent ol' the Ape-x Court in ABHIMEET SINIIA AND OTIIERS Vs. HIGH COURT Of JUDICATURE AT PATNA AND OTIIERSTT' wherein thc Apex Court heid as follows

35. At the outset. it i-s rrlrPo-site Io (rri(,lrc.s.\ t/te i.s-stie of lllt' maintainabilitA of the ont P"ILtion:;. [t is aru1ttr':cl bt1 llr (]rtrLlortL NaraAan anrl Mr. Ptn'ish 'liten<lra ltlolltart lectt rtt'd c'ttrrrtst'L tltttt after hauing pafticipctted rtt the rccnitrtl('/ll p()cc-s's thr: turit petitioners hauinq not .srtcceeclerl, connol tLtt tt ctrcttrncl ttrtl challenge the recntitmeti f)roce.ss or thc trir c.s o-f tlx' Re' rttitnu ttt Rules. It is submitted thol rtll c(]rtrlirlrtrr"s l'rtetu abotLt thL' prescnption of minirnunt nork.s Jor uiucL L'ctct" tuall be.fore tlrc selection process conrmcncccl ctnd tlrc pr[rrciplt' of estoppel u'ill operate clqainst the u n.s ti r:rx's'sfu L clttllettgars. C)tr the otlLcr horrc{ " (20241 7 SCC 262) 158 tyt't,t W.P.No.11439 - $1 zozs and batch the lcarrterl. colrtsel r <prc.sc tlting tlle u.ttit peliLionet :; ll1c. pnnciple, o-f estoppcl tuoukl ltuue rto tt|tltlituLiol ctra glaing ilieqalities in tlrc select[c.'rL process. lirultt trct applicable uhen tLu, arbitrairte.ss affects liLrv)t. und?r .\fticies l 4 ctncl ) (t of tlrc ConstttLrt[ctrt oJ lrtdrtt. tqued tll,atl e slol y.rc/ ts rtol rlclltl:: .)6. As erqrtcd bq the lactrnacL counscL.for th? I ltqh ( ( t, ;. th(' lr(le I Trosiliorr is tllet a.ftcr participatinq in the rauttilrnc)rl r 1).r(,rls 1lt.' ilet4c litt' rr rrsrir:r'r.ssy/ u1 carvl[dotes cannot tl1rn orortrrcl on<l , recntilrnenl proce-s-s. Llcttucuer, lI i-s rrlso settlccl tltut 1) tt inc ftlc, ol t'stopy,l connot r:tuerrful<' the lart. Srrc/r 1<,r7al l', ti!t[r' u tts rcitc.rel?cl itq tlrc Suprcmc CoLtrt in Dr.(NIalor) ,4.:lc,r'- r .!.rlrrri I s Union of Inrlio, tuhere tt tuas obserued os rrnrlcr ir i, ./(,r ,/ i " 17 llt)ll)et er, 1.tE rnLtst diffcrential'z from this Tina':, tltc, carrdiclrtt: ltly ctgrc,t'tng b partic+)atc rn l/ri, sc/r. i,r ,r/i)((,.'s ctnlrl atccpts the presciberl procedure oncl not tlrc illt t:. ftl t\ tt ln e situat[on uh€re a cendldate allege.s m i.scon.s t ntctk),' : i stoutl()nt rulcs attd disciminating consequences ansing lhereft t r , lh< .srrrnc cantlol be c:ondoned mcrell.l because a condiLlclte ha'., itrtrthc,tt rtt tt. '[hc. constitutlonal sclrctlc ls.sacrosancf and il.s |r,r t 1 t,1 .u tttitl rrrcrnncr i.s imperm[ssihl<'. Irt Jhct, a candiclatc, rnrttl r:', lirr.r l,rcris to as-sail tlte incurable tltegalitA or d"erogation o] tlk ! , )i. r.sr,-,,r.s .r/ {hc Constitution, unlc.ss he/ she participaLas in t,, set,r'tiorr proc c.s.s- " Sri. K. S. Murthy Learned Senior C'r r ,nsr:l ftrr. thc petitioners to support his arguments relied ul),) ] the lollori,ing case laws:- 159 lnaN,! w.P-No.17439 :of 2O25 ond botch 252 With rcgard to the procedural lapses of the Commission and in the interest of student commltnitv, merit should not be basualty Supporting his argr-tmt:nts, the learned counsel relied upon thc GURUNANAK DEV IINMRSI?Y Vs. SAUMIL GARG 'AND OTHERS and the verl' sau)e UJWAL Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND SARASWATHI LIMVERISTYTS, whcrein it is statccl zrs follot,s "11 What is paramtuutt i-s lire inl('re.sl o.f tl1. sttldt:tlL community. Meit should tlot b<'Q crl.sLtr.tllr/. llrc: leel thttL tlta infercst-s of the students u.tottld bc orlaqtnt<'ly srLfcgrtttt dcr'l tJ tta (lircct thc appellctnt (Jniuersitrl to tt'rllllot? th(' onsl.('r-s o/ l/rc aforesaid eight qttestions Luith rcfcrert<:e ttt lltr'- key alrt.sllrcrs prot'iderl by CBSC and the Urtitersrty <tf Dclhi rulric'h ort: sorttc ancl ttol taith reference to the kerl c{,l.st{'crs prcn'iclctl lttl tLrtt appellant Un[uer sitY ".

253. Learned counsel for the pctitioners contrildlctillg the arguments of the Commission wi1'h rcgard to thc follorving Rtrles i hnd Regulations supportil'rg his argurrrellts, the cour-rsel re Iied the Apex Court judgmcnt in N.T.DAVIN KATTM' upol-I KARNATAI(A PSCre. In the sirnilar contention, reliccl upon another judgment of the Apex Court in INDER PRAKAS'EI GUPTA " lzoos 1r a1 scc 749) " (1990 (3) scc 157) I60 RRN,I W.P.No.11439 of 2025 ond bqtch Vs. STATE OF J & K AND OT)IERS2o, rvhercj.' it ..r..as held a:; follows: "2,':.'i'lu Jarnmu & l(ctshmir lvlc:rlical Etlurpt , t iG(t7t.1i.tll Scrr rcr-'-s lj(Lttitntcnt RtLlr':;, 197') ctdrnitterlltl rpt rt : ;trc-rt tL,ti,. t Scci rrrr '.14 ol tltc Junnut antl l,lttsltrnir Con-sritrr;i ,r r,/ri,.lr ,.. rrr pQ,-, tn(Lt,r,ct Lr:Lth t\rlt'b.lO9 ol alt( CottstitLttion o1 I 't,,.l"lri r,.r.,,' Rulr-s ar,' .)t.tttLtorL/ ir1 nalrtre. Tl1t, Public Scrurcc (r r r|i-s:;,r,it r. r, bocl:1 crrct:etl rLncler rlrc (:otlstit|ttion. Eeclt Stet( / rri.iriL., i' otLtt /},ltlic Sert]tce Cotnrnis.siorr 1o tneel thL .trtsLi rttitrttl rt't1uin,n'< ttt lor llrc purposc: ol tltschcLrgutq it.s 11'r' . un.l?, !i,i' Corrslilulion. Appo[tllrne. ! to scruica irl cr Sfnr, r,rir-sl b,,:,, co,1-.,-o11o f r( c tL;ith tltc con stittttion ct I prou[s[ons anci .L cor:lr. rntr!;t tLtillt lh<' (l(tonoltrJ ctrLd frc'edom of execLLtiue acrr.) I .S(,cr (//t l.i ; (r- Ilr(' rl(]Ds1'lltrlion irnposes clulry tLpon lhe Slri r ro i.(),r(1,i(.i (,-yonrn(]lrl)n lor eppointtrtcnt to the .seruice-s ol ;tt ' Stula. Iltt' lliblic S,,r ''a c C'orn rnr.s.slorr is al-so rcquirccL to bc cr t ;tllle(l ot.- iit. ntalters anutilat'ated u.ttdcr Seclrorr ]33. While goit L lltro,.rc1h iitr. .sclcclior rrroc('ss tht: Corn rri i-ssror1, llou)euer mu.., ;,.rttttlot,,l:i .iblk:rt' tl'c sl.ilirforl/ ntles opercLtir:q the field".

254. Cor.rtr:rclicting the issuarLce of two 'r rll ticl<r'ts, tr) slrpport his arguments, he relied upon t1r r judgmc.nt HEMALATHAA'S c@se (supra). In the said , trcigntent. il ls stated ers follor,vs: ''8. l!rr lr.lrrc c\iuat our consitlerat[on to the subt,,.s-ston..s rnrrrlr: lttl tht, lturnc:ti sattior counsel for the respondent 7 r , irr.strrrr tr,,rr.; " (200.+ (4, scc 7ii(,) 161 iaan,t W.P.No.774jg bl2025 dnd batch ssuecl by lhe Commission are manclalctr 11. Ilutirq llrc forcx: ttf lctut ctnd theg truue to be strictlA conlplied LLtill). :;ln(l adLtarcnco to the tcrms and condition', of the in'tntcli,trts r.. o[ 1tttor,t,'tttLl tlnlt,ttltnr^, I Ience, the Commission if not folloued rlre rttl.'s. rrrnrliliorts^ tr.,hir'/t lns giuen ir the notificatton arul the qaz.lte . lt o/ir()rrna.s Lo (lcuioltnq thc rules artd conditiorts of the. N ottllc(Ltio n llozt'l!? "

255. Learned Counsel for the petitioners opposilrg the contentiotts of thc respondents with regard to rcvalulttton rclicd upon the Judgment in RAIV VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. S?d?E OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS2I. ln tlte siiid carsc thrce evaluations of the ansrver shccts ol, more tiran 36,000 canclidales who took the examination for recruittnellt as Traitled Gr:tduztte Teachers way back in January 2009. [n t]-re saicl judgmcnt, ltre Apex Court held as follows " 30.1 If tL statute, Rule oJ' Regukttion qouenttn(i Q,t (.YatrtinaltQtt permits tLut re eualutttion of an attsuter shct'l rtr scrtttrrtrl ctf rur answer shcct as a matter of right, then thc oulllonltl cctrttluc!irLg tltc cxamincdion maq permit it; 3O.2 If a stcttute, Rule or Regulcttion gouerninq Qn cx1tntrrclttott does not permit re eualuation or scnttintl of an ansuler.shecl / n.s tlistinct from prohibiting it) then the cout I tnaLl Tterrttit rc er:uhLaticttL or scrutiny onlg if it is demonstrated uc'ry clcarlq, LuillloLtt anlJ " rnferential process of reasoning or by ct procc'ss rtJ' rttt iotraltzatict tt " " 1zora 121 scc 357) 762 RRN,J lW-P.No.11439 of 2025 ond botch und onltl itt tL.rt. or c xct:lttiottctl co.ses l/ral a rrutteiui,.:,' 't hrr.; bct:tL committerl:" 25€t ln tl'rr: prescnt r-'asc also, thele is no fair cvil itation. L)ue tcr lack of in tr:gri'.-r It) cvalrration process, injustice ,r ts tlone to the major 'l'eiLrglr ntcdiuln canclidatcs. Hcnce, the ab::,,c iudgtncnt is supporting the r:ontt.ntir)ns of thc petitioners' cr>u:: sel rvith rr:garcl to rc'evaltratiorr To suppolt thcir argurnents, the Commissio I ('lCpSC) rcliccl uporr the follou,inil cirse larvs.

257. \n TA.IVIR S/NG^EI SODHI AND OTHERS 7s. S?A?E Or. JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND O?'HERSzz, has gi.c:n Proposition that the CoLlr ts grn. r-allv avoid interfering in the :rr lcction procoss of public crnplo,r':nent, r-ecognizing the irnportzLtl of rtrainlainirrs the ir-rtegritS, oi lhe sclection procf,ss, as it involvr: high degr-ee of cxp|rt ise i ln(l ,lis( retroll.

258. It is l-rtrlhrtr stated that the candidates, h lillg taken part in t lte select ion pl-ocess srithout demur or I rotest, o.utnot cl-ralk:nge the' s:rnre a[tet' herving been declared lrn iuccesslill. The " (2023) 17 SCC r 4 7) 163 hnN,t \W.P.No.77439 bf zoz5 ond botch oniy exception to such waivcr is existcnce of n'rala ficlcs on peirt of the selected board.

259. In the above case, the contention of the petitiorlers is that the entire selection process u'as vitiated as the eligitlility criteria enshrinecl in the Advertisement Notice datecl O5.05 )O08 rvas recast vide a corrigendum dated 12.06.2OO9 u'ithout anv justiiiable reason.

260. In the case on hand, there is no corrigendunl lLnd itl thc Notil'ication itself the Commission stated that tl're candi<lates have to regularly follow the Commission's website to know' the changcs ancl the modification in the said examination time to timc, but thr: Commission clid not follow their orvn condition- 'lhe reforc, the saicl casc is not applicable to the case on hand.

261. ln VANSHIKA YADAV I/s. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS23 has given proposition that it is settied law that the cancellation of an examination is justihed only in cases where the sanctity of the exam is founcl to be compromised at a systemic levcl' Canccllation can be ordercd only it it is not possible to separate the taintccl " 12u)+1 9 scc 7,13) 764 ,RRN,J |w.P.No.114jg bl2O2s and batch cancliclates from r.rritainted ones. In this case, coLr t exirmincd the succcss rates fronr cerl ain ccntcrs (lvhere malpral.r ce was allegecl) ancl lound no :rbn,trrnitlit),. 'l'he lr:eLk of tl're questir,: p.tpcr q,ils not founc[ to be s1 stcniit: or '.i'iclcsprcad.

262. ln the r:rrse on htrnd, Ilrcrc is no leal<age of r .testion pilpers, but sanctitl. of erarr is found to bc compromisr r anrl therclorc. thc ubovc casc is rrot alty>lic;rlrlc to thc casc on ha:t [.

263. In SADANANDA HALO AND O?IIERS Vs MOMTAZ ALI SHEIKH AND OTHERS2a, h:ls girrcn proposition hat the validlty of recruitrnelrt czlnnol be judged on the basi: of rnicroscopic details and thr: coLlrts cennot assumc investigatorr ro1e. The I{igh Cotrrt did nol hilve :rn-y tangible cvidence regar lne the process being [arc:ica I e:{ccl)t tlte self ser.,..ing statemerr macle by thc unsuccessltrl ,.::rnclicl:r t c s. 261 . In thc above t'asc, the le arned Single . ' Ldge conducted investigatorl' r'ole b,1, clrJling lor recorcls of candicll tes participatecl in interview er nd appoinl ing :r committec lor scn ir-rizing tl-rt: saicl " (2008) 4 sccr {, r 9) 165 laatt,t W.P.No-11439 bl 2025 ond botch records and relying upon such findings ol the scrutiniztng cornmrttee

265. ht the instant case, there is no investigation urith regarcl to condlrcting ol the exantination or that the Court did n()t alll)oint an]' committee tbr scrutinizing the recorcis, but the actlon ol tl)c Commission is reflecting unlairness ancl malafides. Therelort:. rl're abovc case is not zrpplicable to thc c:rse on hand.

266. In PRADEEP KUMAR RAI AND O?.HERS Vs. DINESII KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS2S has girren proposrtrorr that acquiescencr: by participation an<l challenge to selectiotr pr()('ess after participating tn tntervieu'and dcclaration of adversc rcsult, held, is not maintainable. Once candidates had participatccl in selection process without raising objections, they cannot be: allou,ed to challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful and either candidates should not have participated in the interwicu, or they should have challenged the proceclure immediatell' after interviews were conducted

267. In the above case, there was preliminary rvritten examination, i\4ain rvritten examination and intervierv ancl thcrc is "(20tf, I1scc +93) 166 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 - bf 2ozs and bdtch a gap of almo-st lour rrronths betu,een thc interwic\'/ rtrd declaration of result. Ho\\'ever', the appellants did not chal enge it at that timc. Thus, ri .lpp(,ars tllat only rvhen the :r,l)ellants foLtnd thenrselves to bc ur.rsuccess[ul, ther. <.hallcngecl l] :' interr.,icu, and the szrme ciutn.)t ltr: lllorvcd. l'lte i.andiclates r.: tnot altltrobate and reprobate itt the s:rmc tirne. llithr:r tl-rt: cancljt rtcs should not havc participatc,d in thc intcrvicri, :rncl challcngc.(l r te proccdure or the_r, shoulcl havc cltltllengt'd inttne.cliiiteh, alier 11t,. iittervieu s rverc conducted.

268. [n thc casc on hancl. therc is no qucstion c I rlelay and thc process is nor vc.t finalizecl ancl \','hen tlte Cont n L lsion called for Certificate Verifir:atron, thc petitioncrs questior L, cl the Group I examinations. l-hcrc{bre, thc zrbove case is not rr lplr<:abic to thc case on hand.

269. In S?A?E OF M.P. AND OTHERS 7s. NA.ttI)LAL JAISWAL AND OTHERS26 and RA?NAG.IRI GAS AND paWER PRIVATE LIMITEDzT, has giver-r ltroposition that the allega t r ns of' malafides need proof of hiqh dcgrec and that an aclminist-ati\/e action is presumed to be bonlrfidc trnlcss the contral \, s satislactorily 'u (1986) 4 scc 56(r) " 120r31 I scc 52 I 167 lau,t lW.P.No,114lg lg1 zozs ond botch establishccl. Wherever allegatior-rs of tnala fides arc made, it is necessary to sive full particulars of sucl-r ailegations and to set out material facts specifying the partic:ular person against ri,hom such allcgations arc madc. 27O. In the altove cascs, the observation of the Apex Court is thert the interference of the Courts in India is only on limited grounds, such dS, illegality or patent mate rial irregularity in tl-re constitution of thc selection cornrnittec or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved rnal:r fidr:s affecting lhe selection etc. 27 l. In the case on hand, the Commission has not followed the procedure stipulerted in the Notification and violated their own Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the above cases are not applicablc to thc casc on hand.

272. In JASVINDER SMIr AND OTHERS Vs. S?A?E OF J & K AND OTHERS2s has given proposition that no specific allegation of zrnl,mzrla fides or bias against the Board for selection or anyone in thc Board nor any such pleas substantiatcd. The observations by High Court that there was conscious effort made for bringing " (2003) 2 scc 132) 168 8RN,J W.P.No.7143g - of 2O25 ond bqtch some candidatr:s rvithin the selection zone cilnn( t bt: saicl to bc justified.

273. In the altovc case, the c;rnclrdates approar:hr r tltr, Conrl trtler completiot-r o1- tlte al)l)ointrncnts;. But. ur t ,. I l)r-csent, t he appointments ar(' not art all finalrzr_'d, only thr: clr.Li, iieci canclirlates list \\'as announced altcl that the certificate vCr i ;:atrOn is under proc--ess. Thcrclbrc, thc abovc case is not zrpplica l I : t<r the czlsc on hancl. Unofficial Respond.ents relied upon the fotlowt t .g case lauts. Sri D. Prakash Reclcly, learned Senior Cotu-r s , 1n silrpport his subrnissions rcliecl upon the follou.ing:

274. As per tlre Judgmer-rt o[ the Apex Cor I t irr SANCIIf? BANSAL Vs. JOINT ADMISSION BOARD2e. sut;r:-r ts tlr;rt u.hcn a bonafide procedure is acloptecl to achieve the prrr 1:r -se of the cxam, rvhich is trniform and non-cliscriminatory, it is r ot :rr-bitrary or ma lafld e.

275. In the abovt: case, with regard to judicial ini ,r-ferr:nce in tl-re selcction process, particularly with rcgard to 1 I <lr.finitron or '" 1zo rz1 t scc t s7) 169 fau,t lW.P.No.t1439 bl 2ozs ond batch arbitrarincss, allegations of malafics, anct the principle that subsequent disclosure of cletails by the authority pertaining to the selection process does not, bl,itself, r,itiate the process. 276. In the case .ln hzrnrl, s,hzrtever procedure adopted and lolloued br th" Commissiurr rlid nor cxplaln anyrvherc in thc Notiljcation or the web notcs or by rv:r,y of corngendum and that the procedure follorved b1, the Commission itself is illegal- Therelore, the above c:rsc is not applicnble to the case or_r hand. 277. Learned Senior Corrnsel appr::rring lor the unofficial respondents submits that merc suspicron of arbitrariness or mala fides is not enoltgh to set asicle the selcction process and it must be proved. In support of rris conte.tion, he reried upon the juclgments of the Hon'ble Ape-x c.urt r, AsHoK r<uMAR |ADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA3o and MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF J & Rs1. 27a. In the case on hand, the Commission has adoptcd two hall ticket methods where it is not there in thc Rulcs (onc is for prelims and another one is for mains). The Commission has not published 'o (l 98s) 4 scc 4 I7t I ll99S) 3 SCC 4861 110 RRN,l W.P.No.11439' of 2025 ond bqtch the provisior.r marks rr,,herc spccificalll, rr rr .ti.,ecr in Notillcation ers point No.15.2 totzrl marks hst u.i I be published in the ComtnrssioD's r,r,e b site. brrt the santc rvas r): l)Llbiisilted. It reflr.r:ts the C,rrnmission devi:rtecl their orvn rnctir l.'l'lrcrcfbrc, thc above c.tse u,or,rlcl ,ot s.l)port the case t ) tlre rr'rofficial respo nde n ts

279. B_y r,:l.ying on thc judgments of thr, .\1tc:: Court in Deependra Yadau I/s. stcte of M.p. s2 arrd s: nchit Bansol,s case (supra), re learnecr Senior counsel strrrmit; rrr:i: tht: cr.r-rrts rvill not gcnerrrll-y interfere rvilh tl-rc sclcction pr(rr, ,s5 Ir,-,c11r"" ., ." a specialized e xercise undertaken bl.an expert ltr.: L. irro statutorl. rule is violatecl :rnd that Rule 3(ix) is also not violr t .d. 2BO. In the instant case, the Cornmission has.,.,r l;rtccl thcir owr-r Rules anc[ Regulations and therefore, the Cotrrt r.it irrterlr:r.e rvith the st'lection process, where there are violation () sIa1utor.\., rllles and nralafics or arbitrariness. Thercforc, thc abor,,, casr. wou ld not support thr: subrnission of the unof ficial responck,, rs. 2al. Lezrrned Senior Counsel appearing fbI r hr: ur]officral resportrlents sr.tt;mits that ever] if :r.y l:tpses are ir rr.tccl out. the " (202 I SCC t)nlnn 7)4t 17 r fnv,t |W.P.No.11439 fi zozs and botcn Court shall first sec thc intemal checks ancl l:alances put in placc by the Commissron to satisfy itself and not straight away interfere ',vith selection process. In support o[ ]-ris contentions, he relied Llpon thc juclgment ol thc Ape\ Court jn RAN VIJAY SfNG.E[,s case (suprtr).

282. He further contended that -I'GPSC has cxplained the reason lor change in number of ccntr cs artrl cliffcre nce in numbcrs of candidates. It has explained thc proce<lurc for cotrnting ancl cross- checking attendance. lt has cxplerinc<l t he app.rrent anontaly in high number of selections from ccntrcs l13 ar-rrl l9 and the methocl adopted to allocate students to test ccntres lt1' randomization. Thus, the rnechanisms adopted by TGITSC rnake it clear that the apparent lapscs actually clo no1 exrst. In an.v w:ty, they don,t underrnine thc process becausc: of thc intcrnal checks and bala nces in the mechanism.

283. Once thc Commission apltlied thc r-.rndomization method to allot centres and hoq, certzrin cel-rtres rl ere allotted onlt. to female candidates, particularly two ccrrtres in l-rigl-r in number. If randomization is properlv erpplicd, the szrme cannot be happened Further, there is no proof of concerned College askir-rg to provide 172 'ERN,] W.P.No.11419 - of 2025 ond batch onlv fcmalc ,:rrndiclatcs in their Collegc. It r. onlv thc mcre submission of the crornmission and there is r r ; proor' iiom t he concerned Cr llr:ge. 'I'herefore, the ahove case \\ rlci ,.t suI)l)ort the czrsc of tlr,. rrnofficial resltondcnls.

284. Lear.,.r I Se,ior C.unsel erppearrir.rg ir r iht, rr,.lIic:iai respo.clents s.brnils t hat i.terference by the c, r ri-t rirr- the rn.re askrng '.vill l<,'c p the e xami,atio. rcsult ir-r L.rr.rr , r t:rir..rt.y :r.cr t I-Le unofficial r-eslr.rclents have sr-rfferr:d a [ot. To sLlr) rort ]-rrs <.ase, hc relied trpon tlrr' .irrdgrnr:nt of the Hon,ble Apcx Cc,r r t n.t RAN VIJAy SING.EI's case lsuprii).

285. In the ir)stant case, the candidates pllttin! riSh cffbrts an(l I'rard rvork, s,: o1e thr: r:xamination very lvell, but Ir t: ('ontrrrission gave sirrglc diqit rnarl<s to ccrtain canclidatcs_ I rc Cornt'nission has not explarnc<l hou, it has given less rnarl<s tl r the e,xltntinat,on satisfactorily. Thc contentior. Counsel rs tli:rr the selectecl candiclates rvill s;rr continuc. Bu l he sarne theory vzill be apphcabi ttqh t her,v x,rote o1' I lic Scnior lir rf t l-re s L:ry '.\'hi:, wl.ote t Ite exernr satisfactorily but awarcled single digit marli; aborre case rr,tttld not support the case ()l 'llte're [ore. t lrc r: Lie rr nofticilrl respondenls_ 113 ljarv,t lw.p.uo.tttts ll zozs ond botch

286. sri Lakshmi Narasimha, rearncd counsel for thc unofficial respondents relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in IIOI Vs. RAJESH P.U. PUTHUVALNII<ATHU37 and stated that the entire selection proccss ca.not bc canr-'e llcrl on gencralized allegations and must be based ol-l sltecilic ancl proven irreguiarities. 287 . He also relied upon the judgmen t of ttre Apex Court in MAMSH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIAT4 ancl stated that the larger public interest must be ltonafide ancl not rnvoked casualll, to derail valid selections or statltfes 2aB. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF U.P. Vs. KARUNESH KUMAR35 and stated that the candidzrtes who participate cannot later challenge the process and that the certainty and Iinality in public recruitmcnt are part of public interest.

289. He aiso relied upon the juclgment of the Apex Court in KRISHNADATT AWASTY Vs. STATE OF M.p. l2O2S SCC ONLINE SC 1791 and stated that judicial revierv in recruitment is " (2003) 7 scc 285) " (2o2t) 5 scc 1) " (2022 SCC Online SC 1706) 714 RRN,J W.P-No.11431- 9f 2025 and botch narrow and larger public interest must be cle :r r r. e stablished to justif_v interference.

290. In the ir-rs;tant case, therc are no generrir l alleqations and rvhere the n:ilahdes, trnfairuess, wrong cloini,. the Cotrrt can interfcre and *.henever there are certain allegaii.: ts :,tcl r,iolation of the recrurt:ne nt rules, the judicial review can I ,( enlrtrtained. As mal:rfides, unlairness, r.vrong doing and transpar. -rcv taken pl:tcc, there is no otlLe r go except jr_rdicial revicw. 291 . Sri Pooci:rttu -{marender, lezrrned coLrnsel i r the unoilicial respoudents : eli,--d ulron the following judgnre . :s Of the .,\pex Court rvith rcgard of maintainability, revaluat ( r) .tncl juclicial revle\v (1) MANISH KUMAR SHAI Vs. STATE OF BIIIAR AND t TI{ERS l2olol L2 scc 576). 121 MADAN LAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE oF J & K A\D OTHERS (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 486). (31 Dr.N?R UNMRSITY OF HEALTII SCIE,iVCES Vs. Dr yERRA TRINADII .A.IVD O"IIERS (20221 18 Supreme Court Cases 216). (41 RAN VIJAY SI]VGH ys 3s7). (5I PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. CIIAIRMAA,, BIHAR PUBLI1 sER yrcE coMMrssroN, .PA TNA (ArR 2OO4 SUPREME CO,J rT 4116). STATE OF U.P. (2OLal 2 Sup eme Court Cases 1,7 5 ),3att,t )w.n.uo.tuse ll zozs ond ootcn (6I TEI,ANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RECRUITMENT BoARD Vs. SALWADT SUMALATHA AND ANOTHER (2cr241 4 Supreme Court Cases 336). l7l oNLINE AP 366). oSMAMA UNMRSITI, HYDERBAD Vs. A. SREENA IAH {2OOZ SCC

292. Wit [-r regard to the rnaintainabilit-r,. lcarnecl counsel firr the unofficial respondent subrnits that having participated in the selcction process, the candidates cannot ch:rllenqe the Notification as per the law laid down by the Apex Cor-rrt in the above juclgments. But, in the very samc juclgments the Apcx Court obsen,erl that u.here malafides, trnfairness and \l,rong cloing takes pla<'e, the Court s can interfere.

293. Hc further contended that the writ petltioners have not raised an-v legal ground regarding violation of an1, statlrtory rule ancl infringement of their fundamental rights in order to grant relief as prayed for. Moreover, the petrtioners have not explained as to how they are prejudiced securing less merit and rr,,oulcl have been secured more merit and within the zone of consicleration. In thc absencc ol rulcs, request for rcvaluation carrnot be pcrmittcd. 116 'RRN,1 W.p.No-7743s - bl zo2| and bqtch

2921. This Cr,1111 i. of the consiclerecl view that r'[hc Comrrission did not follor., the proper methociolo$/ and if the.r ( rs uniairncss in th<- er':rlutrtiotr. the Clortrts can interfer(: 295 I-ellrr-nerr ,.ounsr:l lor the Lurofficiill responci,, rfs sLrbrnils tltat thc rvrit l)e 1 r ronct-s ltavc rtol ma(lc an-). rl1- he rrrcrilrtrious candidatt-s as l):rrty rcsponrlents to the writ petil ( lrs rrncl thev are necrcssar),ancl irroper Parttcs to the tvnt petitions 29(;. \,Vitlr rcr iri (l to the.iucticial rc'ie,,v, r.vhcrcver r ralerli<tes, r'rong doirrgs, illega rrrcs toor< piace, trre courts can r terrrrc. ir.r thr: prescnt clrse, ir ll tht: rssut:s r:rist:d and discussct Hence, t ltesc: cast: larvs tvorilil not supl)ol-t tl-rc unofficial rcspoltl cnts.

297. O.c of tl)€. colttcntio,s of thc u,offici;rl Lt,.; r,n<terrts rs that sintc forrrratir)rr .)f the Tellrngana State i.e-, orr )2.ob.2o14 it.cr cvc. prior- to rlral, tr. Group-l rccruitment hacl t:,i<cn plarce. As :.r consequence, rhc public intercsrt suft'ered a l, ,t for wallt of employme.t b' the rr.ernpro-r,ed c rncl clates- The' , ilnrli(r:rtes. who havc: bee. *'arti.g for tireir.iobs, ttreir hard u,ork r rrcr rirr-'rit rn rrre selection proc,'ss, th.ir right to livelil'rood is der i :cl. * hicl,r rs ir.r 771 lnN,t )W.P.No.17439 11 zozs ana aotch violation of Article 21, apart from violation of Articles 14 ancl 16 of the Constitution of India.

298. The same theory will also be applicabie to the canclidates urho might be more meritorious burt lor thc u nfair evahration u,ere arvarded single dieit marl<s. 299 The specihc allegation made by the unofficial responclents is that the r.vrit petitioners are aggrieved clespite having secured lower mcrit, r,vhereas the unofficial respondents qualll-ied thc preliminar-v tests and subsequr:ntly appeared for tl-rc main examrn att on 3OO. in the instant case, after successfully clearing the first stage, the candidates undertook the meLin examination with fr-rll effort ancl dedication. Unfortunately, some of them received single-digit marl<s, rvhich is questionable. Moreover, any allegecl violations attributed to the unofhcial respondents r,vould equally apply to the writ petitioners. After the formation of the Tclangar-ra State Commission, the Commission failed to follorv a proper system, Due to the Commission's inefficiency, the examination was canceiied trvice, for which the writ petitioners arc not responsible. !RN,] W.P.No.7143;' pf2025 and hqtch FINDINGS OF THE COURT :- 3O 1. In the instant case. the Commission rs,: red Notification No.02 of 20!14 on 19.02.2024 inviting online I rplications lrom eiigible cancliri: r.es rhrough a profi>rma erpplicaiit,r for the posts oI Group I Serr,i:r.s in tirc State of 1'elangana to fill o 563 vacancies in various departments. Subscquentl,y, tlte Coln,r j a preliminan, 'lcst on 09.06.2024 antl thcre:rftr:r ;sion conductecl :rnnou nced thc prelims rcsuiis rn respect of czrndidates rvho : -lalified for the mains examltation. Tire Commission conrl.ur: ed the Mains examinirtion ircrnr 2 1 . ', O .2024 l<; 27 .lO .2021 at-ttl :r nnounced the results of the nrains exarnination on 30.03.2021. Thereafter, the Commission cal[ed lor r:ertific:rte verification fr-orr

16.44.2025 to

27.O4.2025. At liris juncture, some of lll unsuccessfi-r1 candidates airproaclter-1 this Hon'blc Clourt ein,r filed the r,,,rit petitions questiorrrng thc Group-l mains examin. t on, specificallrr regarding the concluct of thc e::amination ar-Lcl the methocl of evaluation. 3O2. After hearirrg thc matter at length, the enti e jssue can be divided rnto t\.,'o prarr-ts, i.r:. (1) Proceclr-rral aspccts. 2) The mcthod of evaluation. 779 lgan.t lw.p.uo.tuts bf 2025 ond botch 1) PROCEDURAT ASPECTS : a) b) c) d) c) 0 c) Issuing of two hall ticl<ets for the Group-I Examinatior-r. Allocation of examination centres in a biasecl nranner. Inconsistency about t lte tol a I nurnber of cancliclates. rvho apP,'arcd for the mairr t.xanrrnntion. Multiple evaluation o1' :rnsrve r scripts. Publication of provisionerl/ total marks list. Disclosing of un qualilied canclidate's hall ticket numbers in the Mains final marks list. Increasing vacancies iry addrng new vacancies. 2) METHOD OF EVALUATION:- a) Thc selection of thc evaluators. b) The procedure of evaluertion. c) TeJugu mcdium candidatcs wcre neglected. d) Highest qualified candiclates in specific centres e) Commissiot-t arr,rardcd thrs samc marks canclidates. to certa in a) Issuing of tuo Hall Tickets for the Group- 7 Exa nrination:

303. The Cornmission has issued two hall tickets for the prelims and mains examinations. Tl-re Prelims Hall tickets contaln details like District Code, Exarn Center Code, etc. Since the Group - I Mains exams are conductcd only in the GHMC area, to avoicl 180 faN,t W.P-No.17439 - bJ zozs ond botch conlusion on the District Coclc and Exam ( r:r1cr. Cocic. thc Commission ]r:ts decidcrl to allot separate hall tir: :ct riumbers for all the candiclat.'s picke ri up for Groult-l Mair.rs. r trcl rlte sante is purely etn adrninistr-atrr,<' issr-rc {ist per t}te conrill sslon, and it is within the purwir:u, of tltc Cornntrssior-r. 3O4. Tl-re Comtnission lirrtl-rer started that pr-ovi,1 te lr contir-ruous sequence lor I'rall tickets woulci ire convcnicnt Iot rrinting ol OMR sheets accompanying the answer scripts, distril;Ltt nq them ar;ross examination centers and also in the cxarninlrtior, tzrlls. The same plays a crucral role in verifl,ing the car-rdiclalr.l. s,h,r :rppcerred, evaluated, and also in consolicltrtion ol the clat:r ''lttrs, a neiv set of hall ticket nrrrnbers lor thc Main e-xaminirtiorI rzrs been given, as was done in th<: prer.,ious Groul.r - I Notificatirtl Jos 1 5/2O I 1 & \a /2Ot r. 3O.5- On the other hand, Mrs. Ilachana Recl,-1., . lear necl Senior counsel for the petitioners sta.ted tl-rat cvcr in the UPSC examination, rvhrch is a natioltwide exarninatLr>l onjv one hall ticket is issued and utilized for the entirc exarnin.,l on 181 fnr't,t tw.P.No.114i9 pf 2025 ond botch

306. There is absolutely no mentron or hrnt of the issuancc of hall tickets in Notification No.O2/2024, dated 19.O2.2O24, and no further rveb notes harre been issued and that the very intention of the respondent in issuing separate hall tickcts is suspect givcn the many illegalities and irregularit.ies that have been follor.vcd. Regarding issuance of trvo hall rickets, the explanation given bv the Commission is unclear.

307. After reviewing the Commission's explanation that, regarding its administrative t'easibility, they irdopted the said procedure. For this type of direct recruitment, the Commission has to follow the Telangana State Public Service Cotnmission's Ruies of Procedure. In the said rules, nothing was stated regarding the issuance of two hall tickets. Further, thc proccclure followed by the higher Commission, such as thc UPSC, ger-rerally, the State Commission ought to have lollowed the sarne syslem. The Commission erroneously issued two hall tickets to the candidates. The unsuccessful candidates questionecl tl-re Commission's action in issuing two hall tickets.

308. The Commission did not providc clarification in a propcr manner as to what benefits the candidate s '"vi11 receive by issuing 782 IRRN,J W.P,No.114lg- bl 2025 ond botch two ha11 ticket numbers. When the UPSC conduc ted prelims ancl mains examinations it issued only one. ha1l ticli r t nurn ber to all the candiclatcs. and u,hat necessitated the Conr r -rission to issuc two hall tickets is a questiorr. TI'rc clanficat i n given br.' the Commission rs nol convincing.

309. Although t}-re Commission st.atecl that the sr rne process was follor,ved in prcvious Group-l Notification Nos. 15 r 1 201 i anrl 18 of 2011, no material has been placecl before this coir '1 , arncl it is also before the bifr-rrcation of the St:rte. 31O. In these circumstances, this Court is of tl-re rpinion that tl-re entire exercise, beginning witl-r tl'rc issuance of tr.,'o halL tickets rvas not as per the notification or rules. The Corni rission's actiolr creatcs doubts about thc conduct of thc cxamina'L r lt. b) Allocation of Examination Centres in a biase fl. manner: 3 1 1 . The Commission changed the r-rr-rm bc r of test centers from 45 to 46. Initially, a5 Test Centers r\.erc ( entified in the GHMC area in all threc Commissionrates. As pcr- | rc commissiorr, in respect of centre 2L r.e., (CVR CoLlege of Enei Lcering), it r,r.as noticed that the strength of 984 candidates allort :d needs to be 183 )6nN,t W.P.No.7743g 11 zozs ond botcn reduced and also that thcre was a problem r-roticecl in Test Ccntre Code 19 (Telangana Mahila Visr,vavidyalayam) that the Grouncl Floor is at higher elevation with steps ancl pWD candidates cannot climb the steps. Hcnce, 87 candidates, rvho rvere :rllotted to Tcst Centre 19, were movecl to Test Centre Code 21 by reducing the strength from 984 to 711 to zlccommo(late 40 scribe candidates_ The remaining 43 PWD rvirir scribc canclidates rvere allotted to Test Centre Code 39 (St. Pt:ter's Engini:ering College) by reducing its strength from 504 to 3 l 2 pltrs 43 n,ith sc:ribe. Wherever pWD with scribe candidates are to be alloftcd, it is mandatory to allocate onlv six members in a roorn rvith a capacity of 24. Accordingly, the strength has been reduced. As sr_rcl'r, there was a shortfall in centers in allotting total strer-rgth, and the Commission identilled one more aclclitronal Test centre (Centre code 46 Princeton Institutc of Engineering and Tcchnologr). Similarly, a few more changes tool< place for uon-scribe candidates also. Further, all this exercise undertal<en before the Hali Tickets were generated, or-rly after thorough verification of these rypes of issues. After finalization of Test Centres, tl-re data lvas processed for Hall Ticket generation. A1l this '"vas a back end process before it 184 t5au,t W P No 1141.^ fi zozs ora trrtrn reached to the candidates and hcnce, they are i'- r1o \\rery affectccl by these changes as the process took plac, ,i,ei1 before the dorvnloading cf Ha11 Tickets.

312. The 4Cr centres rvere identificcl and selectr:rl l aseci on various parameters, inciuding lhc fcasibillt,\, of t he , , rrtcrs to rcach centers. A1i three Commissionrates wcrc inr.olr', r- it-r the conduct of the examination. S. No Com mrs siionerilte i 1 2 3 Hvderabad Rachakonda Cyberabad 'rl \r (,rlr-'rs t8 2o ]E 3 13. The Commission produced a letter rl.r cd l5.O1 .2025 regarding the publication of a rejoincler to ttrc r-i.. .s ptrblished on

15.O4.2025 about to the Group-l Serwiccs recruitr r :nt. In the saici letter, the Commission disclosecl several lssut,. surch as the method of awarding marks and selection of evaiu: tors. as tvell as exam center Nos.18 and 19 i.e namelv Vet Nari Chal<ali Ilamma Women's University (Koti Women's Colie::). Sir-rce it is a womcn's institution, that the request of le institLltions 18s FRN,J )W.p.No.17439 6l zozs and botch management, women candidates have becn allotted to thc said institution, as the restrooms etc., are not separatery availabre tbr both genders. These centers are e>:crusivery for rvomen candicrates, and around 25ok of the total rvontcn cancliclates appcarccl in the exam through these centers. Hence, the selection of tl-re candidates also reflects a proportion is more or less the same among the successful womcn candiclates. 3 i4. The Commission stated that while allocating the examination centres in a fair rnanner they applieci a randomisation method. If thc Con-rmission had follorvccl thc same approach, then how were centers l8 and 19 given priority only to female candidates? This leads all petitioners to doubt the conduct of thc Group-I examination. The Commisslon mentioned in particular center numbers 18 and 19, Veera Nari Chakali Ilatnma Women's University (Koti Wome n's College). Tl,re College authorities themselves requested thc Commission to allot only female candidates to their College. 'lhc Commission, to that extent, they mentioned in the pleadings, but clid not provide any documentary evidence. The objectLor-rs of the petitioners rvere that once the same college was utilizecl lor both male and female 186 W.P.No.77439 ll zozs ona aotch candidates in the UPSC examinatior-rs, u.},r I ir-rsis tcd tl're Commission to deviate from that systcm? I r :: Clornmission's action indicates that they did not follorv thc pr o1,, mcthod. 'l'he Commission, in their arguucnls r retndontisation rron herc statcd r.vhat necessitated giving priority only to female ,::, )ciidates. 3 15. Tl-rere is no proper answer from the comrr l ;sion. X{ctreovcr, they statcd that the Commission prioritisecl fcrr:. lc canciiclates to protect their freedom. If both genders rvere a i rtted t he sarne college, securitv issues might arise. Under the s rrner concl itions, the Commission prioritised female s, Thougi-i thcr,r Ls rro ruli: in thc Commission's Rules of Procedurr: or in the Ncr fication to give priority to the female candidates, the Commissior ' ; action amollnt to a violation of their own rules of procedure aniL notilica tion . On the other hand, the Commission ciid not give pr.r< i tv to phvsicall-v challenged candrdates and accomrnodated thent ii th(. 2n!i and 3,d floor buildings, urhich are far away from the Citr. The acts of thc Commission reflect that there is discrimination n allotting the centres.

316. On the one hand, the Commission clai:: s that it has considered social justice, logistics, and an r nities for all 187 t1au,t W.P.No.11439 2025 ond bdtch candidates in the allocation of ccntres; on the other hand, it has not followed the same. Tl-re said action of the Con-rmission amounts to a violation of the princrples of natural justicc

317. Furthermore, the meaning ot' 'randomisation' as per the: oxford dictionary is as follo'"vs "Randomisat[on is a stalrsrrca/ 1)roatss r,] rohich rruLclotrt mechonislt is employed to select a samplt: ftorrr tt ltolttrlation or o-ssrrTr -sr/4'ct.s to different groups. Tlrc goat of randornisation i-s lo nuntntzc s'(,/ccrion.s bicrs ctncl cnhancc the stcttisticctl ualidit4. " 3 18. If the randomization rncthocl r.r'as r-rscrl lor thc :rllocatrorr oI centers, then how was majority of fernerle candrdates allottecl to only two centers? It deviates from thc meaning ol tl-re randomization. The purpose of this mcthod is to rninimize the selection bias, but whereas the conrrrrission :lcrtcd aqainst it c) Inconsistencg about the total nuntber of candidotes uho appeared Ior the mains exa ntination :-

319. The commission, rvhilc publisl-ring the total nunrbt:r of candidates who appeared in tl-re mains examination declared multiple hgures at multiple tinrcs. The Commission, on 188 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 - tpf 2025 ond botch 27 .1O.2024, clcciared that 21,0911 inclucling 1 I sports pe rson s appeared in the Nlains examination. This stat : tics is collectc'rl frorn l lte Chiei Strperintendent of the exam ccr t :rs 'On the Go' rvhcn thc cxz,.rtrin:rtion rvas irt progrcss, tincl thc', .r'crr "Sultjcct 1o rnirror- variation" On 30.03.2025, the Commisstc r announc crl thc nuntbr:r 21,O85, but out of them. 25 cancliclerte's -e su Its u'r,rc nol incluclccl in tlrc total marks list ol candidatcs as 1 €'r t he or cte rs ol thc Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the figure of ) i. )85 canciiclatc s. irrclr-rcling 25 r:anclidates, comes to 2I,l I O. Agarrr. he (lommrssion issrrr:cl a l)rcss i-Iote on 13.03.2O25, in rvhich thc Lr ,.rre ?0.16I t'a s reflcctcd. Tlre Commission has reportecl thetr a total ()1' !i)2.1 candidates feriled to achieve the minimum quai lying rnarks in trnglish p:rper of the exarninatior-r, '"vhich is manclrL on7 ti,rr cr.:tlttart t, the remairrin-rl papers. Therefore, the figr-rre publis I ed in the press notc clated l3 03.2025 reflectecl 20.l6l candidates (21 ,085 e24) [{orn,ever, the Commission did not calculate he attcndancc properlv. 'l'he :rction of the Commission reflects clif :rent figrrres ztt cliffcr-er-rt times, and it also it rcflects the Commisr, rn's neglige nct' in find ing out tl-re correct number of candidatcsr who zrppcarecl. 189 haru,t W.P-No.17439 b zozs ora ootrn Thc negligence of a constrtutional body like the commission cannot be appreciated

320. The cornmission, after five (5) nronths, suddenl-y relcasecl a final marks list dated 3O.03.2025 wrth 21,085 cancliclzrtcs having written the Mains, and absolutell, no explern:rtion about the sudclen increase in numbers d) Multiple euqluations of answer scrtpts.'

321. The Commission. al'tcr cornplction oi the Grorrp-l exar.nination, conductecl a triple evalrtatiort tnethotl. The first tu,o evaltrations contain Barcodes and br,rbblings us pcrr thc web notc dated 13.03.2025, but in the thircl evaluation therc is tro Barcocle and bubblings. There is no sucl-t rnethocl prcscrLb<:d in thc Notilication and Rulcs of Proceclurc. Tlrc Cornrlissiorr to substantiate their act compared the serid triplr: evalu:rtion ntcthocl with that of the neighbouring State of Anclhra Pr:rclesh, stzrting that APPSC also conducted the eva.luzrtion in thc suttre manncr

322. However, the fact remains that the APPSC evaluatecl thc: Inalns answer scripts just like the TGPSC. Nevertheless, thc evaluation conducted by the APPSC all the thrcc evaluations 190 '6Ru,t W.P.No.174i. 'of 2025 ooct ch lollou,cd thc sanre method r-rsing I3arcode and rr tltling. Thc thirrl evaluation c on(luctecl b_r' the Commission cli1 i rs. Due to this lapse, tl-rer-e ts every chance of rnanipulating c marks ir-r thc: thirrl cr.,:rlulrlion. -l'hc acts of the (lommission rcl,ct rhat tht:.y cltrl not lbllo\\r lrni' tcr:ognisr:d and l)roper ev:rlulLti, n rnt'thorl. artrl mor-eovcrr th,: ClomntLssion issued .r press notit on 13.03.202J. inclir:ating the point numbcr (iii) th;rt Dor-rble. r aluralions of :rll answer scripts is mandator-v. Horver.cr, in thc s rir[ Notific.trtiorr. thr:v did not e-xplain or provide ztny details rcrlr r<lir-rg thc- thLrtl ev:rlnation- l1 scems thal the Commission lott l\, \,iolale-<l tltt' Notification and Rr-tles of Pro<:edure . 'lo sr I stanlrerte thcir. deviation, the Commission, in their common zLtl, .rtional coLtntcr- affir,iavit filccl ln 25.06.2025, subtritted that provi ions har,'e bce:-r rnacle on thc first page itself for the trvo evalualio -;. Hor,ver.cr, th<: thircl crralulttion (u,hich is necc:;sary only in I l-cu, casc:s) is pror.icled for on the 3,,r 1rage of the ansrver bool l:t. 'l'lte sample answer bool<[c'ts u,cre ptrbltshed on 16.08.2O2,+. '. Lre Notification ri'as isslrcd otr 19.02.2024, and the mains exar rinations r,vc rc conrltrcterl fronr 21 1O 2024 onlvards, which thc ltrerlims werc: conclLrctecl on 09.06.2021. Tl;le Commission issLr.d t}'re sampk. 191 RRN,T W.P.No.11439 9f 2025 ond batch answer booklets after the pre lims, ancl nearly two months bcforc the Commission announced the triple evaluation mcthocl. Thc acts of the Commission vitiated the sanctity o[ tl-re Group I rn a1n s cxaminertion. l'he entire process of evaluation gives strcngtlr to tl-rc contentions of the petitioners, and it cannot be deniecl e) publication of provisionavtotal rnarks list:

323. T]-re Notification para-15, lrnder lt:acl memorandLlm of marks, Rule 15.2, reads as follows: "The marks list of It'lairt Exctmtnation (total mc-rkst o.f ctll tltt cuntliclcLtc's ttill be clisptulled on rht' Cotnrnt-s-siotr'-s tucb-srlr'. Hctutctucr, poper wlse Metnorandum oJ Marks oJ alL candtclnlt's t-ttrr bc accessed [n thetr respecliue logins for a pciod of on.e tueeh." Rulc 15.3 states as follows :- "Rcquest for recountinq of marks utill be considarecl litr Conuertional Tgpe (Wntten) Test onlg within 15 dalls oJ((r pul lcati<trt of prouislonal rnarks list on paAtnent of Rs. 1,OOAr' (Rupcas one thousand only) Jbr each paper throuqlt online pagrtt<'rtt onlg."

324. The Commission, as per the above rules, ought to hiu,e published the total marks of a1l the candidates along u,ith provisioneil subject-'"vise marks. Without doing so, the 192 TRN,J W.P.No.114i9- 'of 2025 and batch commrssiorr sr:nt individual subject wisc marks -o ttre inclividual logins whic:h is rncorrect, arbitrarl.ernd rriolativc r I their orvn rules and regulzr tir, n s.

325. 'll'rt' (lor.missiorr, *'i r..t acceptil.rg tlreir n.: rtake, tri(,d their levcl l;cst 1o ('ovcr the said nrist:t1<r: and statccl :rs rllows: "Parzrqrrrph 15.3 did nor manclate : ,rblishing once cor-rsolidale llst of all car-rdidates reflecting total , ovisional marks obttrirtccl bV thr:m. It onl.r,. mcltionccl pr_rblislr ng ,,proyisional mar ks lisr " *'hich p.brish.d on thc re sPer;tiv( .ccor-lnt or each candiclate zrrcl also not o.r-y that the finar Iisr reflecting total mzrrks of cach candidltte alicr the complctror-r .i the proccss of recollnting \\,as published on the commissir,r ,s Website in complianci: rvith Paragraph 15.2,,. One way the C.r r rmission stated thal Rulc 1 5.2 ol tl-rc Notiricar ion did not ma,ci r e publishing a consolidatt'c.l Iist of all canclidatcrs along with 1hr ir total marks, and on thc .tlrer hancl tlte1, st.ted rhat publishini .he total ntarks of a1l canrlrd.res after rccounting o, 30.03.2025 rr in compliance with Paragr:r1th 15.2. It is nothing but deviating rom their own procedur<'s lr.d the saicl acts reflect that thcre ir;,o fairness or transparencl'rt the s],s te m. 193 knN.t lw.P.No.11439 tpl 2O25 ond batch

326. The petitroner's object that the Commission violatcd their own Notiflcation, . completely flouting Clauses 15,2 and 15.3, thereby forcing a deliberate secrecy between the initial (provisional marks) that u,as clelibcratelv not Lrploaded gencrallv but onl_v sr:nt to candidates, logirrs individually and the linal GRL rele:rsed on

30.03.2025 grving room to the Commission a lot of rnischief ancl several situations wherc marks could be randomly changed

327. In this regard, in the vacate stay petition, the Commission did not disclose whether they have followed Clause 15.2 and 15.3 of the Notification or not ?.

328. While providing an oral expianation regarding this aspect, the Commission stated that the non-disclosure of the provisional marks list would not causc any loss to the candidates. Holr.rcver, the reason given by the Commission is not convincing- If candidates intend to apply for a recount, they need to knorv both their or.vn marks and the total marks of other candidates lor comparison. If they suspect any discrepancy in the total marks, they may seek a recount 1,94 lau,t W.P-No.1l4]9' fi zozs ona ootch

329. The Commission submitted that, changes i r the system will not cause ant. disadvantage or loss to the carc idates. The said submission is not acccptable. I[ 1s not the q -r ]stion of loss or gain. Once a constitutional bod1. lramcs ccrtair Rulcs, must and should thev have to fb.lloiv.

330. It is incorrect to suggest ttrat tl-re comrnissrr n failed to follorv its own rules and it cannot be qr-restioned. Can:: clates r.vho have appeared tbr the examination ha',,e everv right to c uestion rvhether the Commissron has follou,ed its on,n prescribecl ules, regardless of g.hether thcr. ure seiccted or not. fl.Disctosing the unquali"fied cq.ndidates, holi ticket numbers in mains Jinal marks list:-

331. The Commission filed an additional ounter-affidavit on 25.06.2Or5. In the sard colrnter in para ,lo.7fi reads as follows: - "76.Furtlrc:r, tl:re petitiorLers luttte also alte.1 .d that the Comnrr-s-sron lidr: Pre-ss Note dete(L i 5.Oq.2A2.t clettt red that lO persons .ft'orn Urdu ttedium ap;,tcctrecl for aLl set.ten. : ryers in the Mains Dxamitatiot, uthile uteb note cluted 13.O3.2t.. S reJlects a ftgure 9 [Irclu medtu.m canclidatc:; As ctai,fiact ab-t e, the Web Note dctted 13.03.2025 cotltaile(! the detalts of th,: candklates who haue' qualtfietd ln EnqlisLL paper (tuLtich is ti(. tclator!1 for f nN,t )W.P.No.11439 11 zozs ona utcn cualuatitLq the other atswer scr[pts) suqgesting that onhl 9 lJrclu carrcltrltttcs hauc quoltJiecl irr tite English paper. The petltolters ora deliberatclq misintcrpretil{l the figures pubtishecl btt thc Comrrrissir.,n at lctriotts uieruals and raistng specrilrrtir.,c alIegal torts. "

332. The Prrrport o[ rr-rle l2(d) of the notification is as undcr. 'l'lre paper ol' Gcneral English is a quatifying one. .l-he minimurn (lllalilying marks in this paper are ..for the candidates belor-rgs to OCs, sports man and EWS- shoulcl not be less than 4Oo/,' i.e. (60 marks) BCs- not less than 35% (52.5 marks) SCs, STs and PI I - not less than 30,/o (45 marks),,. The marks obtained in this paper are not counted lor ranking.

333. ll the Commissior-r l]ad followed the above metl-rod in evaluating answer scripts, canclidates who scored less than 3oyc, out of 150 rnarks in General English (eualifying paper) rvould have becomc ineligible for the evaluation of their remaining papers(papcr I to papcr VI). But surprisingly in the marks list of the mains exatninations sho',r,s as follows:- Sl No Il,rll f icl<et \,,! '27 .l.l '16 l-r{)90I 035 -t+o; )o I o4.l 2,r090I o59 Cercr al Ellglish {qLr:rlil}rng test) I50 marks 27.300 NIarks secured Out ol 9OO of a erltoVl 72.OOO (total 4+ 000 I 5.:0 o 88 500

103.000 t'i l3 ..., . ', .; l 1ii 1rt rrr,J

2.10(_r0 I 06 I ll ()(;r) l{)75 r+rxri]l riio -,t1)(tolr)sl) l l i r _, Il)qi) t. jSt) .t 1r() iloc I - t O(lr) l i( r i :, to9|: , l ) :, 1(r()olo:.1 r96 l5 5(lr) )-[]r) ILlrr-l .i rll", (lo i) i -lTi. i.i I -t: 6| (;l L).

5.5()li 8(r ) Rau.t iW.P.No.11439 bf 2025 and bdtch I l i l

334. ]'he alrov<: tablc incltc:rte:; thert candirl Lrcs rvho werc c{isqualified in thr: qualilying exanr. i_e., Gencral I rglisl-r, but their othcr papcrs we .c also evaluatecl ,nd tot.l rrlar-l<.r *,r_,rc, p.biishe<1, whir:h contra<licts their o'"v, Rurer;. This itself clt r ronistrates how the transparercy maintainecl i;y the cornmissior . e valuation of the answer scri pt s.

335. Thc cornmission, lteing a Constitutional l3ori in the process of Group I rnains exalns, clevi:rted from the lr nclaton, rules, rvhich is ur)acccptable, and it shou's that there is ..! ) trlnsparency, fairncss and integritl, in conducting the cxamln. ton. It appcars that Commission violated the principles of nattrr; L .justice, u,hich rs u r.rconstitutio.al. 'rhe acts of the commission ::r: rerlect that it causes injustice to the unemployecl ,vouth rvho ha,. e a strong hope 791 finrtt,t W.P.No.71439 11 zozs ond botch of serving Governmcnt employmetrt and has been waiting for the last one decade

336. In this regard, the Cornmission is remains silent, and no information rv:rs disclosed in an.r or their affidavits. Their o',vn notification clause 15..5 reads as follotvs: "Rejected, Inualid, disquahfiecL, ineliqibte candidates utlll not be issued any Memorandum of Marks antl fees pctid. b11 such candidates, if ang, utill be forfeitecL to Gctuernment eccount, Lt)ttltout enteftaininq en!/ con espondcnce in this regard. Request for reuoluatton tutll not be entertained under ang circumstances as per Rule 3 (Lr) lcl) of Commissiorz'.s Rrrle.s of procedure.,,

337. The commission clearly deviated from the above mentioned clause by eval,ating the other slx answer scripts of the candidates who were disqualified in the General English paper and also issued a memorandum of marks in respect of them. : g) Increqsing uaco,ncies bg adding neut uacancies:-

338. The commission in the eariier Notifi catron No.4/2022 dated 26.04.2022, notified 503 vacancies. Due to the cancellation of the said notil-ication, the present Notification No.2 12024 dated 19.O2.2024 was issued, increasing the number of vacancies by 60 and the total number of vacancies notified is 563. The l"r 198 ,fRN,] lW.P.No.1143s pf 2025 qnd botch respondent accorded permission Viclc G.it Ms.No.16 clated 03.O2.2024 for 60 vacancies only. The main cr r rention rarsecl by the petitioners is that fresh applicants u.ere nri eligrble to appl1, for the post .1s per Notificati or.r No.l / 2022 datecl 1.6.O,1.2022. Thcy may not have acquired graclua tion by . (j .O4.2022. The Cornrnission r esponderi to this allegation anrl stat d tl-rat it has tl-re porvcr to cancel the notification .rncl that elir ibifity must bc assessed at the tirne of notificertrorr issuance. This issue was alreacly cl-rallr_.nged in this Hon,ble ln,bie Suitreme Court refu.secl to intetwene in thr: mattcr bY clisrnissing the challcnge. Hence, the petitioners, counsel .l guments lvere rejected on this aspect. Corrrt and 2) Method of Eaatuation and its imltact: a) The selection of the evaluq.tors:

339. After completion of the mains answer scripts r:-x,r ltnation, the Comntission evaluatcd all lionr ) I1-2O24 Lo 31.O1 2025, i.e. 90 days. The commtssion is s uecl p_, ss Note dated 13.03.2025 with regard to evaluation and to translr, renc),, as per the said note ,,a11 evaluators are the regular thr:r.ity from the 199 fnu,t iW.P,No.1143e bf zozs ond batch alreacl_v anonymity, the Government Colleges / Ins titu tio n s ancl tq,o retirecl also been used als evaluators. To that the Unive rsitics / Govern m c lt t faculty members have substantiate allegations, the Commission stated list/evaluators arc confi<lential to ensurc fairncss ancl and that the petitioncrs, r,",ho service, have abused tl.reir office to secure thc list of evaluators. The lctters addrcssed by the Cornmission to thc Cotnmissioner,s of Police have been filt:d along r,vith their wrrl petitions. The Commission reserves the rtgl.rt to initi:rte appropriate legal action against the petitioncrs fbr illeeallv procuring docurncnts and using them in the present proceedings, as per Rule_3(xii) of the TGpSC Rules of procedure. Ir it is right, the commission, has to take action against their orv, employees r.vho s,ppliecr the details of the evaluators. Instead, rvitltout cloinq so, threatenrng the petitioners rs tncorrect. 34O. Regarding "regular facult-v,', the Commissron statecl that it does not exclude retirecl facult-y rn<:rnbers liom this dcfinition. It is a standard practice across the p.blic seruice commission,s from retired faculty membcrs to cvaiuate the answcr scrlpts. In this, the Commission observecl two things. One is regular facultl, do not 200 RRN,J iw.c.lvo.ttazs gJ 2025 and botch t- rgr_r purposc, oltll excludc rctirccr facrirt'a'cl seconcr or-rc is star-,r rrcr lrractic.c across tl're pr:blic sen,ice cornntission to use rctll_e(1 I r _11111. ile,nrl>ers as er alLrrtors. Both t,rr-e clilTerent. As Pr:t_ 1 te (jon.rrr.tlssior_r,s Notilir:ation, for- thc cvalulltion crrrployccs will be r:onsiclered, \vhereas the petitioncrs rr I :qecl th:rl retrrecl employees tvcre also consrdered for evetlt:atrol \,1oreovcr, the press notc rlzrtecl 13.03_2025 was rssucrl a11,. thr: cr,,trluettion process colnpleted, it-r the interest of transpzrre n(.. . an(l disr:losure. Onc of the cr:rluator_ Sri. Dr. M.A.Malik, rvho u_r I t<ecl :rs a 1tr.iv.rle tutor, was uscd as arr sy2lLta16r. Thc pctition(,t: i,ll.tSC llt:ll the person lavourcci in his orvn students. The Cotnrnr; ion ttrsl<r:rl rrvith substantiating the allegation about this evalrratc)r.stalecl tlt:rt thc saicl evaluatot. has been rvorking as an assoc.i r e profcssor at Gor.ernrnent [ )ecree College since 2O 1 O ancl hr: nol tatrqht single class rrt R.C.Rcdcly IAS study circle -si, LCe thcn. .l_hc Comrnissiorr to that cxtent produced vide letter clar :tl 20.O4.2025. The Contntission said that tl_re said evaluator rr rrtro.tcheri tlte adrrocale to issLle a legal t'totice to all the pctitiol ,rs of W.[).No. the facts remains is tl-r:rr lhe partrL.rriar 1 1439 of 202.5. Horver.er, evaluator wt-ott: the book on Inclian Economy for (.i -oup_l a Init Ilt s 207 lnnu.t ) lW.P.No,7t439 bl 2O2S qnd bqtch which is pubrished in the year of 2024 itself. In the saicr book, while introducing about the author (i.e. Dr.lr4.A. Malik) stated that for the past 22 years lte is contributing insightftrl zrrticles on the ccollorn.y lor competitive cxarns in ti,rc Anclhra.J-r,of hr, l.cJugu Dai.l_y Nervs Paper and for Vivel<' a rnonthll, ntagazrne bi, R. C.Reddy publications rt seems that tr're ,uthor guides the stuclcnts of tire R.C.Reddl' IAS study circle in Hl,clerabarl, ir-r one *,ay or the othcr. Knowing lully about the author particulars, the Cornrnissior_r rvithou t erccepting the same threzrtened to file cases agilinst the rvrit pctit iorrcr.s. 34 1 . With regard to regular facr-rlty, the Comntission,s reply is tncorrect saying that the regular laculty cloes not exclucle retirecl faculty members. As per thc scrvice lau,, regular taculty ntcans.,a person u,ho is currentlv in satrvlce on a sl-rbstantive post, either on probation or confirmed. appointed according to rules, I{e is still drawing salary and discharging duties.,, It seems to overconte their lapse finall_v the Commission char.rqed tlte meaning of regular faculty b) The procedure of eualuation : i i I I I I 2A2 '7av lW.P.No.11439 of 2025 ond botch

342. The T'GPSC issued a prcss note on 1.1 ,ral.2i)-2S provicling gre.ltcr cl:rrrtr. irtrcl c:ortfidi:r_rce regar<1ing the r.1i11;11io1 i)t_o(:(__ss The press n()t(' st.itcd .rs fbllows 'l'ltt'tttlt.,tltc>n .onlpl?lt'(i ,ttt .'l I tal )025 o/ _AnstL)(,r scn[)ts u)rfLrrrcncecl ott t, O)4 iu,ri 3 4.3. fre l]61y1,1,, is tltC procecltrre that was . tlloryr:4 ibr t.lte ValLl;ltlolt of ,ite Ansrvcr paper Booklets of Grotrp I Ser.r,iccs l\,lai.s exa tI I il 7'1rc Alrt tt t\nsrut:t scnl)t (otltatrc 3 parts. i) ji , cr r tt clic I ctlt,s t I e I oi I :; ti) 'l'116, 2,,,tsr,4 3,dpctr1 contarns t,t, trtrtrks rtrc, r,tt,ctrrk,d btl thc (,\anluter. ttl llefort: tltt, tktlrtttltott,Drocc.s-s is started, the OMR J,r rcotlt Shecl t, lri<,h ,,tttltt:t,,,tl ;at,.ltt1tltr,.,t11r71[1n,7,,,rr"r,:',r7r':':;:::r'rro"irl:r:,'rr',or,ilr""o'u" I tntrllt lutes L Arrturt,trt of Mcrtrts Anst.ut:r pctper Bookret ttas ti t t,. tltrtr,,, t 1,,tlt,n11,1.;,,r-.,,,,,,;.. .. E'rctnrirters' Aft<:r conpleti ' t ^. :ontainiLq the ntarks atuardr:cl ,ll tiii D()ul)tc t.otrratictrt rr/..111 An.su,er sc ipts is man.lotorlj. r"i 'r'Lt<' :,,, i,tthtatiort, tr,r, porl ,l<trs/ t rtlttctlor Ls (k tocitcd rtnd proceaclecl for 2,.,r ualuatiotL... 344. ,\s pcr I hr. :rbovc note, donble evaluation for. ll scrlpts is rn an(Ja tor.\.. Hcnce, the evaluation \&,as . ) er The sarn r: r'r,alr p rt.rs the both answcr scriJrts, u,lt ich 6211.156c1 prejuclice to c,,retluated tt';tp 1rU tit? i. L,lC a tt s\\,('l l; urclr,; rccl Telugr. ancl Enslrslr the cr, r cliclates. l.irc 203 If RN,J )W.P.No.11439 bf 202s qnd botch Commission clenied all the allegations as baseless, untruo Initially answer scripts was evalu.ted by tu,o .ifterent evaluators. Ho."vever, in case where the case of a ciriTerertr.e rn marks awarcled by to t',vo cvah:ators, exccccls 15,2r a thircl cvaluatiorl is carrrcd out. Chicf Eraminer 6l6ssl1, monitor the evillLratiolt I)rocess to ensure tl-rat the scheme of evalutrtion is str ir.tly implernented in terms o[ uniformity and fairness.

345. While arguing the matter, this Court asl<ccl the Cornmission if there is any procedure for the evzrltration .f.all ans\\re r scripts altd any kcy to that extent? Srrrprisingly, initrzrlly, the Commission statcd that there is no kc-r.. Ti-re Comrnission replied that all r:valuators are subject e_xperts and th.lt it is not the multiple choice qucstion paper to prepare a l<e1,, but rather descriptive type answers. Again, the court, exc rt,r sir.,el-r, asr<ed tr,re question, for example .in paper VI of the 1.el:rngarra Mo'emcnt, one candidate will write with full informertiorr rvithin one pagc some other candidates u.ill rnrite the same in ten pa:les, uncler those circumstances, how will the evaluators give the marks?, For this question, there is no new answer and repeatecl as statecl supra. The Comtnission answer reflects that there is no proper mc _rocl to 204 evaluate the .l1ls\ver SCripts. Iirrbscquenl lr . f RN,r .\ ,W.P.No. i1439 pf 2025 ond batch th r-. Contrnission the:-r: is strll no engaged Scntor Counsel ancl evt,'n then alsr r propcr ans\\.ei- 1() the Court,s satislactron. Agrr r thr: Cotrr t :iskr:ci rcgarclirlg to tilr' kcr', any rncthod fo. au,ardr.rr rrar.*s j. crilfcrcrrr ans\\'ers For rhat' the rearrecr Se^ior counscl srr teci ih.t ,.ihere no such l<r:\, tLs tlrt: Court sajcl, but tlte Comnus: ion preltirrr,d l<e-y to all thc' qrir:stion papers,. and thcn, the Corr r aske cl tltr:m to produce the s:lntc rn a scalecl cover an<.I ir:corcl i n p I.1.. thc Cortrmission llralll, proclu<:ccl zrll the certifiecl i r pies ol. thc kt:.t. ans\1'crs ru tl,c s<.aicd cover ir_r the opcr_r Cor-rrt. I is pcr.tinent Lo meDtiolt hcr-e tltat the Comn,rrssion cl,rar_rged its vo ce trm(,to tirne, and it is obser-vecl in therr own afficlavits on ltree occllsions. Firstlr', thr. Conrntission subrnitted ir.rstructions I>.fore the Cor.rrt in the saicl inslrttt'tior-rs ,ollrirg is r,r:ntioned i, it rrut i,.ral submisslons r-cpl-vinq to this (.oLtrt as stuted suprit. scconcll\,, :rfter granting interr:n <lir_erctio, filt.ci vitcatc stay petili.) _r, i. thc saicl vacate stay r)etit ior trre r:.nrnissi()n stated that .. valued thc scr-i,ts *'t'' versr:cr i, 'felugu evaluated .. :lug, mcciitrrn ans\\.er scripts :,.ncl aclequ:rtc srrltjr:ct exl)crts wlto \\ ( re enq:rgecl to evaluate parpers in .l.t:Jugu, tinglish, Urclu mediurns. , Jn aclclitior_t cx.miners ^e 205 r.nu,t JW.P.No.11419 bl zozs and oatch the Commission did not provide any information regarcling on thc method of evaluation or preparation of the ke_v. Finally, the Contmission filed a cornmon additional counter affidavit. In the said aflidavit the commission statecl as follos,s,.The cvaluation process starts with the conduct of chiel. exarnrner colnmittee rneetings to finalise the answer keys ancl scheme for all papers ir-rcluding award of mzrrks conduct of control/ r,nock evaiuation tncluding briefing and training of evaluator. This w,as undertake'r before the commencement of evaluation ol answer sr:npts.,, Ancl zrlso statccl that ,,cvahtators for Urclu and Teiugu mcclirrm scripts u.ere trained on par with their Engiish medium counter parts. The evaluation scheme was applied uniformly across all mediurns u,itirout cleviation,, In these three aflldavits, there is in utconststency in their own staternents regarcling the evaluation procedurc. So, all these acts of the Commission reflect that there is no proper evaluation, transparency and fairness. 346. While explaining the evaluation methocl, the learned Senior Counsel appearing lor Commission said that on 03.OZ.2O2S there are three methods of evaluations in our Country r normalisation and moderation. The Commission ha s scaling, stated that 206 8RN,J :W.P.No-7143i b1 zozs ona batch scaling anci normalisation is not applicable in his examination. The Commission ful11,- Ibllorved moderation mer 1 od in evaiuating the answer sc.ipts. ()n 25.06.2o25, the co.r rrrssion f ecl :rn additional c()rnrro' .r)untcr :rffidavit. In rr' sarrl aclchtional common counter aificlavit, the Comrnission exp I inecl r,vhich type of evaluation follou.,cd in para No.70 is ns follor.r,s: "The pe1tttners rru \l/.p.A,rt. j 1l39 of 2O2S funlu:, r rleqe I hctt no 'ntoderatr.ttr/ scahncl ctf rrrrrrk-s ur.r-s canied oLtt ;,i the present examrnat,on. lt ls submitted that ,nloder(1tian, t,r sca[inc:, is ct methocl tlLot e:nables rut ion qliz,rttiott of q ranrl tota[:; it, ,.duo1tr oJ JeLL) dtsciplinr.:s,/ sttllj€(..ts end rs tlepenrlenl on tlte patt.t ,, unci scheme of tlnl L xtrnt.irrttticlt. IL ts uclctytlecl in examir.t 1 otLS. at ttLe discretiori of recntitit.q boclics, tult[ch inuolue rntttr ple optional subJecl.s. I lotuet,r:r, rro srrch m<tclcratiorL is rec1tirt,tl i the Group I examinalion becatLse ctll payters are rnttnclatorg. ar.cl -t I carLclidates take the L,crlJ sarrle p.L.lm.s. "

347. Shockingl.v, the Conrmission has givc L r:ontradictorr. statements and tI-rc Coult un6lslstood that the ( tommission dicl not follow an]'proper nethod and instead relied r; rle11.. on its orvn selected expr:rtise evaluators. .l-he cntire err:,1[ tation process undermine the sanctity of thc Group I examinatron

348. This CorrrL wishcs to ciisclosc the marks of one candidate accordingly the petitror-rers aflidavit rvho studied r:r:ry day for ten 207 'pau,t W.P.No.714t9 2025 ond batch to tq.eh.,e hours while resigning the Corporate job after trr,eJve 1.ears, experience of his .job appeared for the Group_I examination. 'l'he hall ticket numbcr as per th. .fficlt^.,it is 2409ig176 cvaluated this cancliclate answcr scripts an<l arv;rrclccl the follou,ing nrarks:_ Papt:r 1 P:rpr:r-ll Paper-lll Paper I \,/ P:rpcr \r P:rper \rl 3 3 marks 45 marks 1 O marks 8 marks 2 marks 7 marks

349. The Court r,r,as shockcd aftcr secing the arvarding ntarks ro this canclclate i.e., out of six papers, this cancliclate arvarclc.rl si,gle cliilit marks in fr^rr sr-rbjects :r,d one sub.iect ten marks. Surprisingly in paper VI i.e. 1i:langana Movemcnt ancl Stalc Formation, the candidate awardecl single digit marks seven (7) is lrcr]/ shocki.g. In similar circunrsta,cr.s, who got the lon,er ntarks in the exatnrnation, several candjdatcs applied for recounting at huge cl-rarges i.e., each paper Ils. I,OOO / . This is one proof likervise there are several candidates, r"vho were a,,varded singlc clgit marks and even in sonre centres selection percentage is .,0,,.

350. The Commission hacl arguecl that in all the rvrit pctitions nowhere stated by the petitioners as how their papers awzrrded 208 RRN,J W.P.No.11439 of 2025 ond bqtch lower marks 'lhe subnrissions ol the commissi,, r tir,lt onl-\. to stop the appointnrents Petitioners approached lt i ; IIon,ble Court which is unacr:r:pta lrlr,, unre:rsonable anci irnpel 351 . Initiallr.. ttt i1s rvclr nolc. rhc Ccrrnntrssi,r stt,t(.(l that two tn:irrrlztton. rvhrch q,as :tlsl ,_1,j1,,;1p1ctd rn its coltnter alficiay jt. I_l o\\.r: r,r: r.. )e trl lon, the Commission cltcl not iltt-.nl lon all,ytlring about i tirir.rl eyaluation and later it lllcci an lflldar,,il rlrsclosins tlre irrrl l :rle.ntation of a third evaluation rrl the \.acafe evalnations r isst [t le it'at l (l

352. tseing a ccnstitLliionlrl I-roch,, ri,hilt, rer.nrrrr I ,ltlsr itrr_, place, the Cornntis s jorr musl lojlo\\- its orvn menttoned in the IRuir.s of pror:cclure. Undcr I. r lcs s trictlt. IlL,l , .3(r) rcacls taking AS AS follo',vs " (x) Noh.Lnt hst<rrrlitt(l anrllllt!tq c,ctrttttinecL in lltr,:;, Clommrs.slon rncu,/ i tt <-ort sul trttictt t LL,t ! l.l ! itc Gou<, rttrn:,, ; /rll?)o.ses of t|r-rtrttn , tt: 1,t tDnt I,tttt,. ,tl,t, cn\,,.s {)/ ,1,. , procadura e: ntorr tt . t)1i... tti,l I ltese rules.', ,ttnt, :lt, lttttt)lrtiat,

353. The abor.c Rulc inclicirtt.s that rntroduce any new systcn) rcgarding the conclLrct o, and evaluations, it utltst lbllou. the. proceclllre o utlr r) ., 1in tl-re rules t'_rit rnrnations if the Comtl i s ;ion rv:rnts to for the direct recruitmcnt 209 )5au,t lw.P.No.ltazq bf 2o2s ond botch process. Spccificallv, thc Corntnission n'ru s t firs t consult with the Government before system lor recruitment in an-y particular case adopting suclt a

354. In lhe instant c:tse, the Cornmission hzrs never applied tlt<: aloremcntioned rule ancl no spccific rulc has been piescribed lor evaluation and there is no cliscussion in their arguments. The obseruations of the Court about the sealed couer information are as follouts:_

355. The Cornmission proclrrcecl sr,..1ls6l q61,spq, seven in nurnber of seven papers including the qualilying exam key, in the open Court in three languages. 1) All the sealed covers conslst of question papers ancl 2) AII three lernguerge papers Additional Secretary. are certified by the 3) Paper 2 original key not founcl, checked soft copy rvith true copy and the same was inforrned by thc Commission 4) In Paper-S, somc pages lack a signature 21A natt,t )w.p.ruo.llqgg of 2O25 ond botch 5) Firs tly, (iood, 3O-3<l evaluators for gr.acling. st rc.h 20-29 rn sofitc instructions \\..r -c gii,cr_r to thr: :rs, O 9 \/et-\: )oo1_. 10_ 19 ltoor Ver1, goocl ancl . O erncl abovc IS excellent (Marks un,:lcr cxccllcnt calcgot.\ to br: aw,:rrclr:<l in consultatiort rvith the Ch iel. Flx:rnrincr). Sc.r r ndl,,,. some kc1,s givep otrrr:r grading i.e, (.) ? vorr,: poor, il J r oor. 5_(r goocr, 7 very good, abovc g outstanding. Notc obsi r vecl ers :tu,ar<lc<l lnore than eight marks t I_re CItiel' Ex:rrr r nc.r shoulcl lte consulted. Thirdly, O 2 r,r:r1. poor, 2 3 poor, i r gooci, Cr 7 r,t:rl, good, B above excellent. Marl<s unclcr the c r :clk:nt calegory are to be awarded in consultal ion u,ith the ( hrel- Ilxaniiner Fourthly, O 1 very poor, 2-3 poor, 4 5 goocl, above exceilent !r 7 vr.rv goocl, g (r) Regarding some ke,ys, therc are no geltlr rl instructions u.hich lor others there are genet-nl itrstruction:; 7) Sealed covers containing qucslion paper i :rlso. But, all the question papers are onl-v rn [>ilingual Engli,. L anri Tclugtr, and there are no questions in the Urdr-r languatr.:: in anv of tlrc question papers. 211 lgalv,t lw.e.uo.ttate bf 2oz5 dnd bqtch B) tn relation to the answers With regard to the ke.y, therc is no proper explanation Some of the keys showrng only no description ancl some ol the there is sub-headings and keys, therc is an e labor:11c cle scription_ Some keys showing two types of gracling l)gures

356. Based on information, this the above observation of the sealed cover Court believcs that the Commission did not follow a uniform methocl to evaluatc the answer scripts. There is no discussion in the entrre contmission,s arguments regarding of the evaluation of the a ,nsrver script s ancl the awarcling of grades. , while fi-xing the grading there is .r note if any candidate arvarded excellent/outstandi.g marks, evzrluators have to consult the Chief Examiner. Even this also nor.vi-rere, cliscussed in the entire arguments by the Commissron, ar_icl there is no mentron regarding grading in Commissions counter. It was verv shocking. cf Telugu Medium candidates were neglected:- 3 57. One of the allegations is that who u,rote Group_I examination in Teiugu meclium, their answer scrrpts are neglected and not evaiuated in a proper method. To substantiate the Commissior-r,s arguments as u,ell as in the coltil ron retticla'rt, thev submitted as follows: 'W.p.No.11439 of 2025 and batch "Degree coliege flacult_v teach both tlre Commission. r Slisir ilncl Telugr and are corit I. 3tcrrrt enough to malns cxam papers_ Iir r ail languaqes, mecltum graduation stuclents evaluate the Group_I adequate nurnbers of the evaluators rvho ha'e t:..i ght teaching in the 'rnd who are respective mediums have beer: lcntiliccl b_v thc The Commission thoroughlr iclcntifjes ancl the Country. accommoclates the subject cxperts lrom acr,r ,, r Again, this answer is showing thc ambiguity ol. t re s:ancl of the Commission. There is no specilication on ho6, r;rn,r- r:valuators are allotted lor. Errglish script evalrralion. a.1r*,, ; r.rpl ,.\alrrulion and Urdu script evaluation. In a r-r_y answcl verslon and .lelugu version may nol be the sarne i rrtp--s. English [' te re, rnust be a different verbatim in trnglish ancl Telugr_r aspect is that on 16.O4.2025, the Commission issrrr d instructrons rn the open court. In the said instructions, one o; lhe rlocunrent with heading ,,lmportant instructions of the czrncjrr r tes,,. In tl_rat -r\n: lher shocking point No.32 read as follows 273 'gatt,t Jw.P.No.t 1439 bl2025 and botch 358 "For eualuation purpose, lthctugh Enqllslr uersion tuouLcl be "o'no' circumstance) a balancecl English/ Telugu and urcht taken as a referenc_e unclr uretu tuourd be takert orrar" uersion of the ,ut .1.rt pop.r.:,ompanng As per therr orvn it.rstructions, rf the evaluators are experts in the_v co uld havt: ha cl a relerence in eacl_r questlon Of L,)ngiish version taken as a English, Teiugu, Urdu, language. Then, the reference under normal circumstanccs r.vo r-t lcl not arisc. 359. The second answer referrecl llv the Commission is that the evaluation of the Telugu mcdiurn candiclates anst\rer scripts lully .1ustified. To support ti,reir the comparcd the arrgtlnten ts, neighbouring State APPSC Teiug,u rnediuru qualifiecl candidates with the TGPSC Telugu medium qualilyir.rg candidates Hou,ever, the reality is that, AppSC follou,s thrcc-ticr s_VStcm r.c., prelims, matns and interview. That rneans, .lclugu filtered rneclium candidates are in three stages. Whereas TGPSC Group_l candidates filtered only in two tier l e., prclims ancl rrralns. If this is the reality, how the Commrssion comp:rred the qualifving Telugu students of Andhra pradesl.r and the Teleutgana State, it is very mrserable and also they saicl in thcir arichtional counter as follows :- 2L4 'RRN,] W.P.No-714i9 pf 2025 ond bqtch ' A r:omparison taith the selection of tl-rc c,i Group I ('xaminatiott in the Anclltrct pr ctclesh tt, frclures lrom both the Stotes ere broctclly ba.se1e.ss. " sl//r / 1. 't 'iclole,s lrt rc als iltat tlte licncc zl l.s

360. 'l'o supporl their arguments, as documcnt lio..1 c_:aptionccl as 'Andhra praclesh public Ser_vice Cornntiss i( n, Vi javau,ada. Statement ol Candidates for Meclium Wise lol Group-l Scruice stated that as l)er the Tabular form 20 16, (1) l9Oi,r r:a nclidatcs appeared. Out of that, 11 from telugu, 59 frorrr I nglsh. total 76. Likernise (2) in 2Olg, 2482 for.lelugu rnedilrlr). r053 in Englislr medium, total 9,679. Out of the said numbcr . .l l.ronr 1.e lugr-r, 151 from English in Total 165 candidates were s.: cctr:cl. It-r ,2022 (3), 1834 lor Telugu, 438I for trnglish, total 6:t: I candidates out of this nine from telugu, 1O2 1i.ot: selectecl -l'he English, lotal 111 In 2023 (4), mains examination r.vas not yet 11. L:rlizccl secolr tabrtlar for.m of Lh . rne <liurt n ist:

361. Whereas in Telangana State, at the indicating the TGpSC, Hyderabad, details number of candidates picked up for certificate ve fic:rtion in Group-I (Notification No.2 of 2024). The saicr .r.abuiar trnglish mcdium 12,3g1 candidates were appearccl 506 candidates picked up. Tetugu medium g,69,+ Out r.rf them, Lppr:arr:d onil. 27s lpau,t lw.P.No.1j4?s p1 zozs and botch 56 candidates picked up Urdu 1O canciidates appeared onlv one candidate picked up. The Conrmtssion, whrle comparing thc success rate of Telugu medium they saicl tl_rat there is no unusual difference in the sele ction c:rndiclzrtcs lor the Teh-tgu medium. Bu1. reality is that in AppSC selection rvas threc tier svstem candidates will filter three phasr:s prelims, mains and rnterview. Then the final number of sclectecl canclidatc wiil be announced. Where as in Telangana TGPSC canclidates r,,,ill filtered in two phases i.e., prelims ancl mains. Under the said circumstances, how the-v u,ill thc Commissron corlpare the selected Telugu candidates from Anclhra to Telaltgana the arguments of the Cc ,mmission is unacceptable. It means, Hor.vever,

1.e , ()n 24 0:1.2025

362. In W.p.No.16653 of 2025, nearly 1 10 candidates who appeared for the Telngr-r mediuni made a representation before the Commission frrr revaluation of their Telugu scripts and some others also appliecl lbr the same. At a stretch, a several number of candidates sceking r-evaluation, it indicates the agony of the candidates, rvho Telugu. It gives strength that rherr_ transparency in evaluating the Telugu answer scrlpts rvr ote satisfactorily in rs no Ia irness anci 216 tERN,J lw.p.No_llass lgf 2025 ond botch For the English medium, 12,381 canclirl:r 363 s attended, out of which pickecl up 506 i.e., 89.BBoh. Telu 1 r medrum 8,694 canclidales altcnded, out of which onlv 56 c:rt i, idates pickeci up t.e., 9.95,h,. Urclu mcdium, 10 cancliclates attr:n lccl. out of r.r,hich onlv one candiclate picked up i.e., 107.. U1;o r examrning the comparison ligures above, it is clear that injusr ( e has been done to the Telugrr rncclium candidates d) The highest quatified. cand.id.ates in speciJ,i.c centres.

364. Regarding the highest marks tire Cr r trnission statcd that in paper \,/l m:rxrmum marks is tOO and r r carrdlclate has achieved a highest marks in paper VI. For the : rndiclates, who have not appliecl lor recounting, the Commission lt ts not changed any marks. Or.rly for the candidate, who h:: s .-ropliecl Ior recounting, recounting has been unller taken ars I er norms anci procedure. It is entirely incorrect to state that t,:: mar.lcs lvere changed without recounting. 36s 19, the highest lemale The petitioncr,s allcgation is that in Centre Cc r e Nos.I B and candidates were selected. I c substantiate Counsel produced document rJo.I rvith the this, the Commissior_r,s 277 faru,t 1W.P.No.17439 !o7 ZOzS ond batch caption Group-l Services (2 / 2024 Mains e xamination centre rvise overail and female percentage of picked up (563). Accordingly their own document, female candiclates rvere :rllotteci to zr total o[ 28 celttrcs out of which, in cc.ters l g .ncl l r), 7l {cntale ca.clicl.le s ',vere picked up. It means on a\,cr.;rse 35 5 girts llcr celtrre were selectecl, rvhereas remaining 26 ccntres, 139 lcrnalc candiclzrtes were sclected. It means ol_l averase 5,3 s girls pcr .-(,r)trc wcrc selected. The figr_rres are show as d isparit_v betrvet,n the t_rverage of the two centres and the average of the rematning c.entres. IJencc. tl'rere is a significant amount of r.ari:tncc ri.hich is unacccptablc, and these figures establish the ailegations oi.tl_re pctitroners. 366 Regarding the ailegations of thc unofl.icial rcsponcrcnts, it is that rvithout disclosing pctitioners, hall ricket nuurbcrs and marks, the petitioners do not have locus stancl.i to qucstiolt thc examination. It is incorrect to say because the pctitioners hlccl their hall tickets and memorandun_r of marks as enclosures in the writ petition. The other aliegation of the unofl.icial r-csponclents is that the writ petitions are not maintainable lr.ress t^e successftrl candidates are made party respondents. it is also incorrect to say that the fact remains no petitioner is questroning thc selection of succcsshrl c:-trtdidatcs the uzrit pctitioncrs c]u,:,s the t.ornrnission such as proceclural irregr_rlarit i,. Morco,.,er, tlrr: se.lr.r.tion process ts under wav. 'fRN,t lw.P.No.11a39 tpl 2025 ond botch Irtrntl tlrr: acts t.if rr rt rl evir iuation e) Commission awalded candidates : the srrme ma;- cs to certain

367. Sr \.cral canciidates r.r,ho wrote the lr LLr.r t:xarnination r,.,,ere arvardcrl satnre ntarks. J.ltr: commission. i11 i:s common countcr afficl:Lvit. zrcceptecl that the same marl(s r,.t.rr: qrantcd to 7lq ,..rrrdidat, s. rvlrir.h js lrrrrsrral. The r.omntissr ) I ot, titJs irsplcr stated that in the rn:rrks range of 43O-439.5, 44C :::rnclidatr:s hacl got samc marlis u,hich is usual in a highly coml]e t tive ex:trn. This arglrmc|lr of tlrt.con:rrrission js nor apprecialed srr r,. l.;rlrle I r.efcr.s to the szrme rtrarks but Table II refers to range of rr arks. It r.an bc understood thrrt in zr competitive cxam a numbcr have s:rme mar-l<s, but not with acljacent hall ttcko simil:rr rnarks obtainecl by unltatuftrl. Accorclingl_y t-tunt bers. 'fhe more than 5OO can I da tr:s is look their additional co I lrrorr coLlnter disclosecl. For clarili.iltron. a fe\\r lf yte:rson s can afhdavit trvo taltles r.vere particr_rlars are lljvelt I;elow : 279 TABLE-I 16au,t lw.c.r,to.lttss bf 2o2s qnd botch S.No. I I I l 1 2 3 4 all Ticket H No. Hall Ticket No. tuar[s - 2 10902170 240905307 , 2.to905$a ) 24O9Ott410 2409 1043s 24090247 L 24097 5308 24090s44 2409064 1l 2409 to440 I

253.00

373.s0 27 o.sa 30 I .50

393.5t) i Number l candidates the same marks. 28

5.1 16 t50 51 TABLE.II , ] Range of marks 500 550 490-499.5 .+80_489.5 ; 17O 479.5 460-469.5 in"mber of candidates 52 2<) 62 92 r54 l I l 3 68. The Commission comparison in betu,een sarne marks :rn<1 range marks is legaily unsustainable and dcfectrve. Conclusion: 220 Paw lw.p.uo.llqy tof 2025 dnd botch

369. Aftcr alai.ysing the submissions of all t] c counsels, casr: laws, and tlrt, I,ate,a I av:Lrlable on recorcl, ,_r : Court fcels th:rt thc Cornmj-ssion, s,hile conclucting the Group I Mains Ex.rminariorr 1..,d not mairrrAinn,t r---^_^__ ,aintaineci transparencl, lttegrtty, acted in , biaseci mannci arncl deviated their own Rules. 37O. Due to rh:r Commission,s negligence ancl inelliciency, the affected inclir.ichtals are the unemployee youth 01.,.elangana Stelte. The candiclates have sllent a sr_rbstantial anlo i tt on coaching classes, studvilrg 70 to 12 hours a day and sontr: candidates hacj resigned their jol:s ibr the sake ol.preparation 1o. tl-ris exam. The Commission failecl in both procedural aspects tnd evaluatiorr method, rvhich is imperrnrssible.

371. Aithough, there i Group- 1 examination, previous experience. have been 1_rvo instances ol :ancellation of the Commission has not l:arnt from its

372. In view ol llre forcgoing discussions and a I o taking into consideration tl-re fircts and circumstances mentione I above, these writ petitions are ciisposed of rvith the follorving direr: ions: \au,t lw.P-No.1143g )pf ZOZS ond botcn 22L (") Thc Final Marks List da ted 10.O3.2025 as rvcll as General Ranking Lis t (GRL) {ated 30.03.2025 arc hereby set aside. (b) The respondent authorities are chrecteci to re-cvaluate all the ansrvcr scripts of the Group- 1 mains examination by applying the moderation rnethod rn terms of Sanjay Singh and Anr. Vs. {J.p.public Seruice Commission, Altatmbacl (2OO7 (3) SCC 72O), manuail1. ernd announce the results. Based upon such results. tlte rcspondents author.ities are directecl to take steps for filling up of saicl 563 posts. (oTHERtvrsE' (c) This Court is inclined to cancel the Group_l Mains examinatior-t. Thc rcsponclent authorities are drrectcd to rc-conduct the Group I Mains examrnation in Notilicatron Nc.t.O2 /2024 clated ).9 .O2.2024, for those u,ho havc succeeded in the prelims examination 2)) d) Thc abovc said excrcise should bc cornr r:tecl r,ithirr a perio<] of eigi-rt (09) ,ronths from the d€rlr )f rr:cerpt of a copv of this conir_-ton order. Pau W::;:::';,,,, As :t sc11.rc1, pr:rrrlilrg rrriscellancous aprplir::t jrrns, if any shall stirnrI closCc] No orrler a1s to cosls NAMAVARA PU RA.T DSHWAR RAO,J Dale: 09.09...)O25 Note: L.R. Copy to b,: nrerr-l<ecl (B/o) Prv