1. E.Shekhar Goud v. Textiles Department

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to cancel the appointment orders issued in favour of Respondents 3, 5 and 7 to '16 by directing the respondents to prepare fresh provisional selection list by deleting the candidates who have committed scratching/ tampering/ erasing/ used whitener in Part-B p"nd?ng disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.SURENDER RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU counsel for the Respondent No'1: GP FoR GENERAL esritrutsrRnrtor{ Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGSPSC Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 16: -- The Court made the following: ORDER ('11 v HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPIiI(A WRIT PETITION No. 277a7 0F 2019 ORDER: Petitiorlers fitecl this Writ Pe Lition aggrrt r'':d by the arbitrary, illegal :rncl urlconstitutional actlon trl- thc 2ttd respondent Tclangan:r Stzrte Public Servit:c ( "mmission (hereinafter relcrre d to as "TCSPSC'), rn inclutlin5' i urlling for intervicu,s and Lht:re after appoirrting certain cand idzri -'l; rvho had admittedly comrnitteci materittl violations c.rI thc nrandatory instructions gove rtl ing thc cotlrl'r.l':i ;ttrd c"arluation ol tllc (iroup- II Services Exat1linati(ru. 'lhc said virrlations, lrrrtir:ularly scratching, tampeiing, erasing, and Ltst: of rvhiten<'r s in Part-B of the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) shccts. go to Lhc very root of the intcgritl of thc selcction process and s I-ike zrt thc foundation of rncrit ancl lairrrcss rvhich are tl'rc h ' 4marks of public employlnellt Llrlclel l\rticlcs l'1 aircl I6 o[ thc t" rrstirution of Inclia. Thc c:ase of pe titir.,trcrs is th:: t the 2rr 1 r':spondent

2. issued Notihcation No. 20l20l5 datcd 30- t Z.5.tl :;, inviting Applications for recruitmcnt to various posts utldcl- Group-ll Services in l-he Stalc of Te l:inga na. Subserlrrcntll,, by 5e. 17i 2016, datcd ,) 1.09 2016, supplemcntary Notifrcation ) additional vacancics were notified, bringing the total number of posts to 1032, distributed across 13 distincl categories of services. The Notifications laid dorvn the educational qualifications, age limit and other eligibility criteria to be satisfied by the candida[es. Petitioners, being fully qualihed and eligibie, applied pursuant to the said Notifications, appeared for the written examination conducted by the 2"a respondent and performed meritorious\' therein.

2.1. It is stated, ll-re said recruitment process was earlier subjected to judiciat scrutiny in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ Pctition No. 18834 ol 2Ol7 filed by several candidates aggrieved by the inclusion of ineligible candidates in the list published by TGSPSC. [t was contended therein that the Commission, in disregard of its own examination instructions, had included candrdates who had commitfed serious irregularities such as u'rong bubbling, double bubbling, use of u,hiteners, erasures, and tampering of OMR sheets. It was further contended lhat such actions not only violated lhe ; express terms of the Nolilication but also destroyed the sanctity and secrecy of the examination, thereby vitiating the fairness of the process. _) It is further stated, in Writ Petition No t8B34 of 2.2. 2OI7 , atter a cletailed and comprehensive examinertic n of the en[ire recruitment process, the nature of irregulariri :s; alleged' and the principles governing public recruitment' t h is Court delivered a reasont:d and autl-ioritative judgme nt, c: Lr:gortcally holding that while the recruitment process as a u'holt ':ould be annulled, candidates who had committed violatiotrs; such as tamperir-rg, erasures, and use of whiteners in Part E' of their OMR sheets were mandatorily to be excludecl frc nr further participation in the process- The operative portiolt ol the said order is extracted hereunder for readl' reference: '1O0, CONCLUSIONS I- There is no infirmitv in the selection process to conduct recruitment to Group ll sen'ice pursttant to recruitment notifrcation No ll0 of 2015 dated 30.12.2015, per se to hold that selection process id vitiatecl' Selection process cannot be held as vitiated merely bt-ca tr s': the OMR sheets oI fet candidates u'ho have committed errors such as, \\'l-ong bubbling, no bubbling or doubte bubbling o[ the information r3lating to Roll number, qltestion paper bookleI number, used Whiteners/ used Erasers lvcre evaluated Such candidates are identifiable ?nC can be separated. The can(.lidates rvho have committed such niista <t s can be excluded and rest ol the selcction process can bc continLted

2. The candidates who have committed errors in bubblin3' such as nrong bubbling, no bubbling or double bubbling of the nformation relating to Rolt number, question paper booklet mumber' cerl .r'-' co(Le etc used whiteners/ used Drasers, shall be exclucled from consi<leration for 4 certificate verihcation process in the ratio of 1: 3 and for subjecting them to interview in the ratio of 1: 2. TSPSC may continue selection process after excluding the candidates referred to above.

3. Exclusion of few questions, change of answers in revised final key and prescribing more than one option as r'.rlid do not vitiate the selection process on that ground. 4- TSPSC shall exclude Question No. 111 of Paper IIt: CD series and question No-93 of paper IV: CD se-'ies This is in addition to questions already excluded.

5. TSPSC shatl treat option No. 3 ilr questiorr No l13 of Paper IV: CD series onh as valid ansr,l'er.

6. TSPSC shall re evaluate the mcrit of candidates after excluding Question No. 11 1 of Paper III: CD series and question No.93 of paper tV: CD series and treating Optiorr 3 onl] as the correct answer to Question No. 113 ol Paper IV: CD scries to arrii'e at the hnal list of candidates for certifrcate veriltcation in the ratio of I : 3.

7. For the qucstions whtch are deleted, onlv those candidates who have attempted the said questions shoulcl lrc arvarded marks P

8. As substantial number of candiclates are to be excluded and two additional questions are to be deleted and for one question answer changes, there is no certaint-1 as to sho u'ould be in the final list of candidates called in the ratlo of 1:3 [or certificate verification. Therefore, the contention of special Govcrnmcnt Pleader that petitrbirers are not in the zone of consideration even after excluding some candidates and that petitioners have not suflered lcgal injury and therefore no adjudication is required on various contentions urged is stated to be rejected.

9. As the committee of senior advocates opined that the OMR machine reader rvas not rccognzing the use oftr'httener, bcforc flnalizing thc list Y/ ) of candidates for intervie$', the TSPSC shall physicalty verift lhe OMR sheets to ascertain $'hether any of the candidates used\\'lrit.enet- to change thc allswers ln Part -B and personal particulars in Pa|t A and exclucle candidates {ho have used whiteners The proccedrnl's of sr-lch verificatron should be conducted in the prcsence of Member Se(rretary andl\\.omembersoftheTSPSC;shouldbevideographed;andIestorcd al leasI for a period ol six months after finalization of selectiotr ;' iO. tl any candidate applies for veritication of his OMR sheet itnages of such candidate's manual verification ol OMR sheet be cap:urt:d aud furntshed to him/ her. to rnake 1Oi. Before parting rvith this case, Court deems it necessar! Court is follo"r'ing obscrvatiorls Whenever recruitment is taken u P floodecl with litigatioll on various aspects, about eligibility crltr:r- a' u hicl.r incIude cducational qualificationS, equation of qualilications. a|1e, social status, cream) layer and local candirlature claim in terms ol-I rtrsidential order; parameters of evaluation of OMR sheets; prescribinll ansrt'ers' short listing of candidates; and {ilirl merit tist. There is Iack of transparency in all these aspects leading to cloubts in tht minr'ls o[ candidates, compelling them to seek legal remedy The litigetion is not helping anv ofthe stake holders, the State , the recruitrng ager c''- anrl the canclidates aspirtng for publie employmcnt ] 102 'lransparent procedure shall be the hallmark of selection to ptrlllic emplor ment. tt is high time the TSPSC undcrtakcs throug 1 revict of proc'cdures and shall put in place transparent mechanism feu' of which are mentioned here under 1) A fullv functional s'eb site u'hich shall contain the Ser\ice uhich regulate recruitment in general, relevant provistLrns Presiclential Order and special rules lvhich govern particular )cst; Rules oI the 6 ii) Through revision of questions and nppropriatc answer before they are finally identif led. iii) Clear instructions on bubbling of circles and carrying ol prohibited instruments and firm policl on issue of ei,aluatron of OMR sheets of candidates r,vho have committed such errors be puI in place. iv) Awareness campaign be put in place to enlighten candidates the importance of bubbling the circles and consequences of errors committed by them and/or use of prohibited instruments- PSC can explore possibility of hosting a video on website on bubbiing aspects. v) The Chief Superintendents and Invigilators be given proper training on various aspects of conducting examrnatron. A video can be made to demonstrate to them and also hostetl cn the website. r,i) Preliminary key be notilled soon a[1er the examination is cortductetl. vii) After preliminary kel is pubhshcd and objections are callcd, a through and proper review of questions and answers be undertaken and finatise the key answers- TSPSC shall not indulge in changing the answers again and again. viii) Video graphing of entire process of evaluation of Ol\R sheets in addition to taking the images and preserwing the images. Lx) Publishing the merit list containing all details of candidates on the web site including names, hall ticket number, social status, local candidate status, marks secured, educational qualiGcations with option to all candidates to search for the information requircd and to dou'nload the matter. x) Strictly follon/ procedurc to conduct selections and to prepare final merit list as per TSPSC Procedure Rules, particularly Rule 6-4. {' l xl) Create a web based platform to clear all doubts to canJidates/to redress grievance on any issue and minimize thc candidates \isiting the oifice olTSPSC....'

2.3. The above directions, having altained finalitl', are binding upon the 2"d respondent Commission, berng in the naturc of mandalory directions issued in c):ercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The T(}SPSC r\ras, therefore, under a solemn legal ot,ligation to ensure strict compliance with the said directions ancl Lo exclude all those candidatcs who had tampered with or used rvhiteners in Part-B of lheir OMR answer sheets. Howcver, con(rzlry to the binding ratio of the aforesaid judgment, the 2"d rr:s pondent, with uIter disregard to judicial discipline and trrocedural fairness, had included and appointed several candrdates who n,ere lbund [o have committed acts of scratching, -a mpe ring. erasing, or use of whiteners in Part-B of their OI\II{ sheets. Petitioners state that such inclusion is ex facie illegal and resulted in manifest injustice to them. Pe[itioners, rvho were found successful in the written examination, werg i roluded in the 1:2 ratio list, were called for interviervs on I ).O7 .2019, 25.O7 2019, 30.O7.2019, and 09.08.2019, and -lrd cvcry legitimate expecl,ation of appointment in accordance .\i rh merit. -Hgwer,cr, their rightful claim has been defeated cue to the \ \ 8 inclusion and appointment of candidates who stood disqualifred under the express judicial direc[ions.

2.4. The action of the 2na respondent is arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to the doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It not only amounts to non-compliance with the binding precedent of this Court but also constitutes a clear case o[ discrimination against petitioners, who have abicted by the examination norms and acted in good faith. The deliberate failure of T(}SPSC to implement the directions ol this Court in letter and spirit has vitiated the entire process of selection to thc extent of inclusion of such ineligible candidates.

3. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, Iearned Stand?ng Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

4. In this contexl, it is relevant to nolice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Pro,kash Pathak u Rqiasthan High Courtl has elaborated upon the scttled principle that "rules of the game" in pubtic recruitment cannot be changed midway or after the process is comple[ed. It was held that the '(2024) INSC 847 7 9 sanctity of recruitment under Articles 14 and I(> of the Constitution is founded upon fairness, predictal>ility, and Iegitimate expecta[ion. Any departure from declared rlorms, or retrospective alteration of standards, would arLount to arbitrartness and violate the rule of law. The IJor blc Court observed that equatily of opportunity and fairnes; in State action are guatrantced rights, u'hich are infringed il'c;lndidates who are othenvise eligible and meritorious are exclud:d by the emplol,er's post lacto deviation from the prescribed p:ccess The oper:rt ive reason ing is as under: '' The (loctrine proscribing change of rules midrlrrv through the game, or after thc game is played, is predicated on the r rle against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution . Article 16 is onl-r, an instaLrr:e of the application of the concept of equalil, in public elrrplo-vment These t1(,o Articles strike at arbitrariness in State action an<i cnsurc lairness ancl equality o[ treatment. They requirc that State action mllst ltr: basecl on valid and relevant princillles i iike to all similarlr situalc(l and no1 to be guided by extraneous con sidc -a tions' " 5 'l'hc Hon'ble Court lurther clarified that the principle of "lcgitimate expectation" flows from arrness ln administrativc action and obligates public authdiities to act predictably and transparently. 1t held that: ' Candrdates participating in a recruitmelrt pr')cess hal'e lcgitimate expcctation that the process of selection r'vill be [a r and non arbitran'. Tht: rloctrine of legitimate expectation is founcc'1 on the l0 principles of fairness and non arbitrariness tn government dealings rvith individuals."

6. The ratro decidendi of Tei Pro,kash Polthctk is that once the recruitment process commences, neither cligibility criteria nor evaluation procedure can be altercd. Thc Court harmonized its earlier decisions in K. Manjusree u. State o;f A.P.2 and State of Haryana a. S;ubo-sh Cha,nder Marutaha3, holding that while the State mav ensure higher standards in the interesL of efliciency, it cannot retrospectivcly imposc neri' qualihcations or tolerate procedural violations once thc process has started. The Hon'ble Court, speaking through Justice M:rnoj Misra, categorically held as unde r: " The decision in K. Manjusree does not proscribe setting o[ benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process but mantlatcs that it should not be set a[ter the stage is over, in other words, aftcr the game has alreadl, been played."

7. TGSPSC, despite judicial directions from this Court in the carlier Writ Petition No. 18834 ot 2017, deviaLed from lhe prescribed evaluation and verification process by including candidates whose OMR sheets were tampered oJ'whitened acts that directly contravene thc "rules o[ the game" and destroy fairness in competition. TGSPSC's action amounts to retrospective alteration of standards and constitutcs a violation ' (2008) 3 scc 5 12 ' (197.+) 3 SCC 220 -'. ,7 -L,' of Articles i .1 aLnd 16, as held by the Supremc Oourt in ?ej Pra.kq.sh Po.thok.

8. Llpon careful consideration of thc submissions advanced on bchalf of the parties, this Court finrls substantial forcc in the c(lntcn tions of petitioners_ The I cr:orcl clcarly discloses that T(]SPSC did not fully imptement thc rlirections in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 20lT regarding cxcltrsion ol candidatcs ri,ho ltacl used u,hitcners or tampered rvith part B. The purportccl verification process conduct.(l t,y the Commission is perfunctorv, mechanical, zrnd lacks transparency. Thc justilicatio;r offered by resporrdents rhat errors were minor an<l did not aifcct the fairness ol.the process is u,holly untenaltle in view o[ thc express language of the earlier judgment, u-hich rnandates exclusion of such cand j,lzltes. 9. Thrs Court is therelore, of the considcr.di view that the sanctit) of ir pultlic recruitment cxamination 1s sacrosanct and cannot bc compromised on grounds of ccrr rvcnit:nce or cxpcdiency. Thc: rulc of larv demands that irutl)oriries, 1l) parLicularlv constrLutional bodies like TGSpSC, act within the four c.rners ol lcgalitl. and abidc by the judicial dir c,:tions u,ith utmost fidelity. Non cornpliancc ivith judicial orclr rs not onlv undermines the authority of this Court but also , rroclcs I he 2 t, public trust in the fairness of competitive examinations. Accordingly, it is heid that inclusion of candidates who have indulged in tampering, scratching, erasing and use of whiteners in Part B of the OMR sheets is contrary to the binding judgment of this Court, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. TGSPSC has acted in disregard of judicial directives and has thereby denied the petitioners their lawful entitlemcnt. 1O. This Court further relies on the principles reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tei Pro.kash Pathak that any alteration of the evaluation procedure or selective reiaxation of the disqualihcation parameters after commencement of the recruitment process strikes at the core of [ransparency and equal opportunity. The ratio enunciated therein that "state action must conform to valid, r8levant, and transparent principles alike to all simitarly situated candidates" fully supports petitioners' grievance that inclusion of tampered OMR candidates constitutes arbitrary deviation from a judiciatll,- settled recruitment framework.

11. In light of these binding precedents, this Court has no hesilation in holding that TGSPSC's conduct amounts to a clcar case of violation of the "rules of the game doctrine, as { enunciatecl by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Te1' Prakash Pathak and by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18lll)4 of 2017 and batch. The principle that the process mlLst be fair, transparenl and in accordance with pre declared ncrl:ns, stands violated. This Court further obscrves that the corLstitutional principles of equaliry, fairness and transparenc 1 in public employment are not mere lormalities but binding olllLgations on the part of thc State and its instrumentalities- A rl/ deviation therefrom shall invite strict j udicial scrutiny and eLppropriate consequences in larn'.

12. In the result, the Writ Petition is a llowed. The impugned action of the 2"d res pondent in cailing f<rr interviews and appointing Respondent Nos. 3 to 16, who havc .leen to have committt:d scratching, tampering, erasing ,qrld use of whiteners in Part-B o[ rhcir OMR sheets, is declared illegal, arbilrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of thc Constitution of India. The szrid appointmcnLs are hereby quash:d and set aside. The 2",r lespondcnl is diret'ted to forthririrh recasI lhe provisional selection list by excluding al1 such rlisqualihed candidates and to includc petitioners, in accordan:e: with their merit, for appointment to the r.spective posts in Group-ll t I l+ a Services. The entire exercise shall be completed within lour weeks from the datc of reccipt o[ a copy of this order-

13. This Court further directs that TGSPSC shall, henceforth, cnsure strict adherence to the recommendations made b1, this Court in Writ Petition No. 18834 o[ 2Ol7 in paragraph lO2 of his judgment, particularly relaLing to maintenance of transparency, physical verification of OMR shee[s, vidco-rccording of evaluation and publication ol all relevant details on its official website to ensure accountability and to reslore public confidcnce in its functioning. No costs.

14. Conscqucntll', Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closccl //TRUE COPYII SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 ,,6ecrtoru oFFlcER To, 1 2 a 4 5 The Principal secretary, General Administration Department, secretariat, B.R.K.R.Biiavan, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Secretary, Telagana State Public Service Commission, M J Road' Nampally, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU, Advogrte [OPUC] One CC to SRI P S.RAJASEKHAR' SC FOR TGSPSC [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FoR GENERAL ADMINISTRATIoN, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies 6 BSR GJP --i.t&ita& HIGH COURT DATED:1811112025 ORDER WP.No.27787 ot 2019 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 011 a 8i- a SI,1 25 tlolt g ,! \ .A a PATCIIEO l/5 tl.-r \