1. P- Sudhakara Raju v. State of Telangana

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to constitute Expert Committee to consider the objections of the Petitioners with respect to Question No.'130, 136, 146 and 153 of Booklet Series. C, Question No. 54, 60, 82, 83, 96, 106 and 116 of Booklet Series. B and Question No.4 1, 76, 87, 88, 150 and 160 of Booklet Series. D, of Paper Code. 52101 lor Teacher Recruitment Test to the post of School Assistant (Biological Science) under Notification No.5212017 dated 21 .10.2017. lA NO: 2 OF 20'18 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed jn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of selection to the post of School Assistant (Biological Science) under Notification No.5212017 dated 21 .'10.2017 pursuant to the publishing of Ranking list dated 08.06.2018 by the 2nd Respondent. lA NO: 3 OF 2018 Between:

1. Kankati Ravi , S/o llaiah, aged about 37 years, Occ unemployee, caste BC.B, H.T. No. 17 52826772, School Assistant Biological Science (l-elugu Medium), Local to Medak District, Rl/o H.No. 2-21, Peddakondur Village , Chinnakodur Mandal, Medak District , Telangana State-502276

2. T.Srinivas, S/o: Mallesham, aged about Q7 yeap' Occ: uttemploye-e, caste - AC D. H.T. No. 1752828459, School Assistant Biological Science (Telugu rr,reaiJmt. Local to Medak District, Rl/o H.No. 1-1-100, Vivekananda colony, SiOaipet, UeOak District , Telangana State-502103 3 L]ooari Machendar, S/o: Sangaiah, aged about 27 years, Occ: unemployee, -' citte BC.D, H.T. No. 1752828498, School Assistant Biological Science rf.tuou Medium), Local to Medak District, R/o H.No.1-3, V-Chimalapad M, kangii, Medak District , Telangana State-502286

4. Nimmashetti Venkatesham, S/oI Pochqqlft.,. ' rit"' unemplovee, caste ST, H.T. No. 1752828462, School Assistant Eioiooical Sci6nce (Telugu Medium), Local to Medak District, Rl/o H.No. 5-97, t'laraiana Rao Pet, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District , Telangana State- 502103 -a-g-e9-abqul 2i3 years, 5 Srinivas Kanuqula , S/o: Ramulu, aged about 37 years, C'cc unemployee, -' caste BC.B, H.T. No. 1752826995, School Assistant Biological Science (Teluou Medium), Local to Medak District, R/o H.No. 6-13;,Chinnagundavelly , SiOaiiet Mandal, Medak District, Telangana State-502107

6. G.Shravan Kumar, S/o: Lingam, aged about 34 years. Occ: unemployee, -' Caste BC.D, H.T. No. 1752826957, SchoolAssistant Biological Science (Teluou Medium), Local to Medak District, R/o H.No. 1-12:613' Dubbak ManO?t, Medak District , Telangana State-502'108

7. Ramesh Khatroth, S/o Shankar, aged about 35 years, Occ: unemployee, caste ST, H.T. No. 1752828437, School Assistant Biological Science (Telugu Medium), Local to Medak District, Rl/o H.No. 4-72,lbtahimbad, Narsapur, Medak District , Telangana State-502314 I Koramoallv Naoaraju, S/o Sattaiah, aged about 27 years,Occ Govt. TeacnerfiGT),caste BC.D, H.T. No. 1752826668, School Assistant Biological Science iTelu.qu Medium), Local to Medak District, R:/o H No. 7-63, Kangampet Village , Kulcharam Mandal, Medak District , felangana State- 50238'l PETITIONES/RESPONDENTS AND

1. P. Sudhakara Raju, S/o: P. Ramaiah, Aged 28 years, Occ. Unemployed, R/o 96/A, Radhanagar Sun City, Hydershahkote, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy District_ 500086, HT No.1752806344.

2. B. Mahipal Reddy, S/o: Mallareddy, Aged 37 years, Occ. Unemployed R/o 2- 74, Bayyaram$l and P), Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet Dist., H'l- No.1752826624. 3. R. Srinivas, S/o: Chinna Goud, Aged 35 years, Occ. Unemployed, Rl/o 1-35, Kalleda (V), Kaddam(M), Nirmal District-504202, HT No.1752814659.

4. Noothi Kalakrishna, S/o: N. Laxman, Aged 41 years, Occ. Unemployed, N o 12-83 Sadashivanagar, Nizamabad-so3 1 45, HT No.1 7 52812250

5. State of Telangana, Rep. through Special Chief Secretary, School Education(General Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDNETS/WRIT PETITIONERS

6. Telanqana State Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad-S00 1 03. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W-P. Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 24.10.2018 in respect of Medak District in the above Writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. NARASIMHA Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P.S. RAJASSHEKAR, SC FOR TGPSC Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 to 10: SRI RAMESH BURA Counsel forthe Respondent 11 to 13: SRt M. SRIKANTH The Court made the following: ORDER u HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PE-TITION No. 23517 OF 2()18 o RDER: is Writ Petition is filed to declare thre Final Key dated 03.05.2018 and the Revised Final Key dated 29 O5'2018' published by the 2'a Respondent - Telangana litate Public Service Commission, as illegal, without jurisdiction' and violativeofArticles14,16,arrd2IoftheConstitutionoflndia' Petitioners challenge the Keys for not consiclering their objections to specific questions in the Teacher Recnlitment test for the post of School Assistant (Biological Science) under Notilrcation No. 52l2Ol7 dated 21'10'2017, issuerl by the 2"d Respondent. The questions in drspute include Qrrestion Nos' 13O, 136, 146, and 153 of Booklet Series: C, Quesl.ion Nos' 54' 60, 82, a3, 96, 106, and 116 of Booklet Series: B, and Question Nos. 41, 76,87,88, 15O, and 16O of Booklet Seri:s: D, under Paper Code: 52701. Petitioners request to direct rer;pondents to constitute an Expert Committee to review their objections, on their correct the Final Key, revise their results based entitlement, and grant all consequential reliefs' Petitioners 1 and 3 belong to BC-B cornmunily and

2. Petitioners 2 and 4 belong to OC community ancl all of them f' .-- i i \ ,L, 2 possess requisite qualifications for the post of School Assistant (Biologicat Sciences) and applied for the same under subject Notification; they appeared for the examination conducted on

04.03.2018 as part of the recruitment process which included publication of Preliminary Key on 14.03.2018, with the 2"d Respondent inviting objections online from 21.03.2018 to 3 1.O3.2O 18. Petitioners accordingly, submitted their objections to the Preliminary Key, as detailed in Annexure-I, concerning the specihed questions across the different booklet series' However, the 2nd Respondent pubiished Final Key on 03.05.2018, allegedly without considering petitioners' objections. In response, petitioners manually submitted further objections on 24.05.2018, supported by relevant proofs and direct answers sourced from textbooks ranging from 8ft Standard to Intermediate II Year. Despite these submissions, the 2'd Respondent published a Revised Final Key on 29 .O5.2018, again allegedly without addressing petitioners' objections. Subsequently, on O8.06.2O18, the 2nd Respondent released State-wide Marks List, wherein petitioners secured

65.088, 70.716,70.615, and 69.938 marks respectively. The case of petitioners is that proper consideration of their objections to Preliminary and Final Key would result in { 'i 3 additional marks, as outlined in Annexure II, which u'ould place them within the zone of consideration for selection to the post of School Assistant (Biological Science). They allege ttLat the 2"d Respondent mechanically published Final Key and Revised Final Key without referring to the material / proof submittcd by them' Aggrieved by this, the present Writ Petition.

3. This Court by order dated 04-10-2018 cirected the TSPSC not to fill up four posts of School Assistants (Biological Science) meant to be hlled up by Open Competition one each in Ranga Reddy, Medak, Adilabad and Nizamabad Dis-ricts, lor a period of four weeks. By order dated, 24.10'2018, this Court directed the 2"d respondent not to fill up four posts of School Assistants (Biological Science) meant to be filled up by BC(B) in Ranga Reddy District and Open Competition-S in Medak, Adiiabad and Nizamabad Districts until further orders'

4. Seeking vacation of the said order, thc impleaded petitioners (Respondents 3 to 1O) have taken out an 'A'pplication; along with it they filed counter. It is stated therein that they are qualified and eligible candidates for the post of School Assistant (Biological Science) Telugr Medium and local candidates of Medak District, participated in the recruitment process pursuant to notification No. 5212017 dated 21-l()-2O17 ' The 4 vacancy position included 6 posts in Open Category (OC), Local, General, and 1 post in Open Category, Unreserved, General, totalling 7 posts in Open Category (Loca[, General + Unreserved, General). Additionally, there was I post in Open Category, Local (Women) for Government schools. As per the merit list, 7 posts (6 OC, Local, General + 1OC, Unreserved, General) were to be filled by the top seven rankers. However, the second rarker was selected for the Post Graduate (Plain Government) (Women) post. Consequently, 7 Open Category posts were to be filled by the top 1 to 8 rankers to accommodate this adjustment. The total vacancies in Medak District were 26 plus 1 additional post for Plain Government (Women), making a total of 27 posts. Results were declared for these posts, with 1 post reserved for an Ex-Serviceman. Due to the non-availability of a qualihed Ex-Serviceman, this post was to be reallocated to the Open (General) Category, as mandated by the A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, to be hlled by a candidate eligible for the General Category. Candidates with state ranks 27, 32, 44,45, and 54 were selected, but 5 posts in Open (General), tocal were kept vacant. According to the roster prepared by the TSPSC, the positions ol Respondents 3 to 10 were Kalkati Ravi (BC-B), was placed in Open General + r / 5 Local at the 6fr position; T. Srinivas (BC-D) at the 7 h position; Uppari Machendar (BC-D) at the 8ft position; N. Venkatesh (ST), at the lon position; Srinivas Kanugula (BC-B) at the 16ft position; G. Shravan Kumar (BC-B) at the 17m position; Ramesh Khanoch (ST) at the 99s position (notably, the first ranker in ST category); and Korampally Nagaraju (BC-D) in BC-D General + l.ocal at the 19th position. It is stated, the interim directions grarlted in the related Writ Petitions prevented their selection lor the post of School Assistant (Biological Science) Telugu Mediunr in Medak District. Out of the 27 vacancies (26 + | Plain ('iovcrnment (Women)), results were declared for 16 posts. The Ex- Serviceman post, due to non-availability, was to be allotted to Open (General), but the Sft post in Open (General) was withheld. It is argued that ranks I to 10, including the hrst rz nker in ST category, should be finaiized. Additionally, the 1'1d ranker, belonging to BC-B was a female candidate who ht into BC-B (Women) quota. Writ Petitioners' primary grievance u'as that the answers in the answer key were incorrect. However, t:ven if Writ Petitioners succeed, the merit list would not change signifrcantly and they would remain ineligible for General Catego:1 posts as their ranks were far below those of these respondents. 6 It is further stated that Open Category posts should be hlled up to serial number 11 because the second-ranked candidate opted for a Government school post, thus, they could be accommodated in 10 available General/Open Category posts in Medak District list. According to this respondent, as qualified and eligible candidates, they should not be deprived of their opportunity for employment due to technicalities. They stated that losing this opportunity would jeopardize their livelihood, rendering their education and efforts futile. They therefore, urged to vacate the interim order dated 24-lO-2O18 in the Writ Petition to prevent irreparable ioss. It is alleged that Writ Petitioners hled the Writ Petition without impleading the affected parties, including Respondents 3 to 10 and obtained interim orders behind their back. They argued that the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended that selection process was complete and merit lists were prepared; delaying the process would cause signihcant harm and hardship to candidates like them, for whorri this recruitment was a critical employment opportunity. Right to employment shouid not be defeated by dilatory tactics. Writ petitioners had no chance of surpassing 7 petitioners' ranks, rendering Writ Petition without merit and liable lor dismissal.

5. The 2'd respondent TGPSC filed count.er zrffidavit stating that the Commission constituted an Experts Committee to evaluate the objections, comprising: (l) H. Na:ender Rao Khatri, Professor (Retired) in Biological Science (Methodolory) and Consultant, SCERT, Hyderabad, (2) Dr. D. Sambaiah, Professor (Retired) in Botany, Kakatiya University, Warangal, and (3) Manikya Reddy, School Assistant (Biological Science), Govt. High School, Sadasivpet, Sangareddy District. The Committee assessed the validity of objections by leferring to standard books. Objections were deemed valid only i:- supported by accurate relerences from these standard sources; otherwise, the answers in the preliminary key were upheld. 'lhe TSPSC asserts that, following this rigorous scrutiny, the hnal key was published on the Commission's website on 01' /OS /2Ola, correcting thc petitioners' claim that it was purlished on 03 /05 /2018. This submission directly addresses the petitioners' allegation that their objections were not r:onsidered, emphasizing that a qualified expert panel re'ri.ewed all objections, -rtl , , .g -. .*.*i 8 The TSPSC acknowledges that, in the subject identified by Paper Code-52101, there were certain oversight mistakes in the Final Key published on 07 lO5/2O18' The Commission took corrective action by revising the key and placing the corrected Final Key on its website on O6/O6/2Ola' This admission of initial errors, followed by rectihcation, demonstrates the TSPSC's commitment to accuracy and lairness, while also addressing the petitioners' concern about the deletion of questions by clarifuing that corrections were made transparently. TSPSC details the handling of objections received as a special case after publication of final key' These objections were reviewed by a second Scrutinizing Committee, constituted by the Commission, consisting of: (1) Prof B' Raj Kumar, Professor (Retired) in Botany, Osmania University, Hyderabad, (2) H. Narender Rao Khatri, Professor (Retired) in Biological Science (Methodologg) and Consultant, SCERT, Hyderabad, and (3) Marikya Reddy, School Assistant (Biological Science), Govt. High School, Sadasivpet, Sangareddy District' This Committee met, scrutinized the additional objections, and submitted its report on 19 /05l2Ol8. Based on the reports from both the hrst and second Expert Committees, the TSPSC finallfr.f, the key, and the state-wise marks list was subsequently published. This step underscores the ) l I I I I 7 9 Commission's thoroughness in addressing all objections, including those received late, to ensure no valid concerns were overlooked. TSPSC directly addresses petitioners' objections by stating that these u,ere verified against the Objections Report submitted by the Experts Committee. The verification conhrmed that the petitioners' objections were deemed invalirl during the initial scn-rtiny of objections received on the Preliminary Key. The Commission further notes that the latest Final Key.was published on 12/0612018, and it declared that no further objections would be entertained on the Final Keys. This submission negates the petitioners' claim of non-c,tnsideration by affirming that their objections were evaluated and found lacking merit based on standard references, and it clarifies the flrnality of the key published on 12l06l2Ol8. TSPSC emphasizes that petitioners' allegations of procedural lapsr:s or non- consideration of objections are unfounded, as evidenced by the structured process and the involvement of qualified e rxperts.

6. Heard Sri P. Narasimha, learned c:ounsel for petitioners, Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing ,lounsel for TGPSC, Sri Ramesh Bura, learned counsel for Respondents 3 to t0 1O and Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for Respondents 11 to

7. Learned counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Shaik @ilani a' State oJ Telongana (W.A.No.i089 of 2023 and batch), that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur llniuersitg u Sannir Guptat and Central Board of Secondo;ry Educdtion u. T'K' Rangarajan2. Learned Government Pleader for School Education

8. relied on the judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 1188 and 119O of 2024 rendcred by the Division Bench of this Court holding that the persons who have participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the very same selection' g. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajasekhar placed on record the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijag Singh a. State oJ tlttar Pradeshs to contend that Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views against views of experts; Court should never take upon itself task to re-evaluate the answer sheets. Importantly, sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing ' (198i) 4 scc io9 t (zo rg) z scc 6za ' (zo rt) 2 scc ;sz or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. if an error is committed by the examination authorify, the comprlete body of candidate suffer. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possibie. Basing on the said judgment and other precedent, this Court dismissed Writ petition Nos. 21239 and 22320 of 2024.

10. Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for Respondents 3 to 10 relied on the judgment of the Hontrle Supre.rre Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. The State of Rajasthan'Civil Appeal Nos. 3649-3650 of 202O) I 1. Petitioners' primary contention is that l-SpSC failed to consider their objections, supported by standard textbook references, rendering Final Key dated O7.05.201g and Revised Final Key dated 06.O6.2O18 (or t2.O6.2Ot8, per TSpSC) illegal. They argue this failure violates Articles 14, 16, and 21, as it denies them equal opportunity, fairness, and livelihLood. TSPSC counters that it followed a transparent process, witJr two expert t2 committees evaluating objections against standard references, and that petitioners' objections were deemed invalid. Respondents 3 to 1O argue that petitioners' low ranks preclude their selection and the interim orders harm their employment prospects.

12. TSPSC's counter afhdavit details a structured process, with expert committees comprising qualified academics and practitioners. The two committees, evaluated objections using standard books. However, the TSPSC's assertion .that petitioners' objections were "deemed invaiid" lacks specificity. The counter affidavit does not provide question-wise hndings or explain why petitioners' textbook references were rejected. Petitioners' objections, detailed in Annexure-l and supported by textbooks from 8th Standard to Intermediate II Year, suggest a prima facie case for review, as they claim additional marks would place them in the selection zole, per Annexure II.

13. In this factual backdrop, it is very important to go through the law placed before this Court by the learned counsel for petition6rs. In Kanpur Uniuersity a. Sannir Gupta (supra), it has been held that 'If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to t3 penalise the students for not giving an answer u,hich accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an ans."{/er which is demonstrated to be wrong.,

14. Court observed that In Shailc Gilaai,s case, the Division llench of this 'the Court should be v,:ry slow in adjudicating the matters, more so, when the teanr of Experts have held that questions were properly framed, but in order to instil confidence in the unemployed youth and wh<.n questions are doubted by the candidates in the form of objr:ctions, this Court is of the considered view that in order to resol.,,e the entire issue once for all, this Court deems it fit and prope- to refer all the disputed question to the body of an Independent Experts afresh and finalise the selection after duly taking the second opinion from the Independent Body of Experts and this would cause no prejudice to the Board nor to the candiclates and it would clear Lhe minds of the unemployed youth ancl it will instil great confidence in the recruitmenl agency itsclf.

15. In view of the above legal precedents, the judgments relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for TSpSCt cannot be taken into consideration. It is further evident thzLt TSpSC,s admission of "oversight mistakes, in the Final Key published on

07.O5.2O18, corrected on O6.06.201g, ihdicates inir_i2l 6116.", "*.**isEElt.-. l4 raising doubts about the scrutiny process. The second committee's review of special-case objections, culminating in the hnal key on 12.06.2018, suggests responsiveness, but the lack of transparency regarding petitioners' specific objections undermines the fairness in selection process. The purpose of inviting objections is to cnsure accuracy and fairness, as held by the Honble Apex Court that objection-handling must be transparent and reasoned. The TSPSC's failure to disclose reasons for rejecting the petitioners' objections violates this principle.

16. Respondents 3 to lo's vacate stay petition highlights the practical implications of the interim orders, which withhold 4 posts across districts, including 5 OC (General) Local posts in Medak. Their contention that the petitioners' ranks (with marks of 65.088, 70.716,70.615, and 69.938) are too low to affect the merit list assumes the Final Key's correctness, which is the disputed issue. Their reliance on Article 21 is noted, but the right to livelihood applies equally to the who allege deprivation due to an unfair process. petitioners, Their claim of non-joinder is weakened, as the TSPSC, the is a party, and the petitioners' primary decision-maker, challenge targets the keY, not individual selections. However, 7 I l5 impleading Respondents 3 to 10 ensures all aflecteri parties are heard, aligning with natural justice principles.

17. The interim orders datcd 04.10.2018 and

24.1O.2O18 protected the petitioners' interests b'r preserving posts pending adjudication. However, prolonged withholding risks prejudice to Respondents 3 to lO, necessitatin3 a balanced resolution.

18. ln light of the above, the court hn,ls that the TSPSC's handling of the petitioners' objections \sas not sufficiently transparent or reasoned, violating Articles 14 and

16. The failure to consider textbook-supportec olrjections potentially deprived the petitioners of marks, afl'ecting their right to equal opportunity and livelihood under Article 21.

19. The Writ Petition is disposed of d irecting the respondents to constitute an independent Expert Committee, comprising three subject experts not previously involve<l, within 4 weeks from the date of this order, to review thc petitioners' objections to the disputed questions, consiclering their submissions in Annexure-l and textbook references The Expert Committee shall submit a reasoned report within 8 weeks, addressing each objection and specifying whether the I I l6 ) petilioners' references are valid, with reasons for acceptance or rejection. No costs.

20. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/' Sd/- P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTAN T REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, JT \ \ ral Department), J 4

1. The SPecial Chief Secretary, School Education(Ge Secretariat, State of Telangana' Hvd erabad 2. The Secretary' Telang ana State Pub lic Serv ice Commission, Prathibha Bhavan, NamPa lly, Hyd erabad-500103 One CC to Sri P Narasimha, Advocate I iwo CCs to GP for School Education, Hig h Cou rt for the State of lelangana, at Hvderabad [OUT] Fi.i"'ddiJ sii'P. Rdiashekar' sc for TGPS9[oPUC] 5;;6c io sri nameisn Bura, Advocatet-qP.gcl 5;; cC io Sri u. Srikanth, Advocate[oPUC] Two CD CoPies oPUCI 5 b 7 I s \ HIGH COURT NBK,J DATED:2810512025 -|:- H l': f4 /€ Q,^ 2 E JUri ,0r( t) (-) (_) ORDER WP.No.23517 ot 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS CDor"e fu- }8E..*.=, -