V. Djvya, D/o v. Venkat Rao, Aged about

Petition Under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the web note dated 19-07-2024 for the cancellation of examination against the posts of CDPO notification No.1312022 dated 05-09-2O22 after announcing the merit list, completion of selection process and publishing the provisional selection list on 03-02-2024 and issuing the web note dated 30-07-2O24 tor re-conducting the examination on 03- 01-2025 and O4-O1-2O25 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice apart from violative of Article 14, 19(G) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondent no.2 commission to issue appointment letters as per the provisional selection list dated 03.,02-2024. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 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 stay the operation of Web Note issued by the respondent no.2 dated 3O-O7 -2024 for re-conducting the examination against the posts of cDpo vide notification No.1312022 dated 05-09-2022tor 23 vacancies, during the pendency of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI GODA SIVA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Ms. GODA RAMA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : Gp FOR SERVICES (WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI p.S.RAJASHEKAR Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : G.p FOR SERVICES (HOME) W.P.NO:26754OF 2024 Between:

1. B.anoth Anusha, D/o Banoth Rajanna, Aged about 28 years, !1^eqql_oy99, R/o Pathipatty Mandat, Mutugu District, -50635i. 1Ut 2131400786), Rank -17. 2. Methri Shireesha, D/o Methri Shankar, Aged about 26 years, Occ. Jr. Research Fellow, Rl/o. 1-BOl2, Chennapur,-Gandhari, Kaniareddy District. (H.T. No. 2131702972), Rank -1. Occ. No.

3. A. Niharika, Dio A. Sanjeevaiah, Aged about 24, Occ. Unemployee, Rio. 12- \t!tp_r^U^t!y9.lr!ir9ar, Kalwakurthy, Nagarkumoot District, - SCj%24, (n.r. ruo. 2131703083), Rank - 32.

4. V. Djvya, D/o V. Venkat Rao, Aged about 27, Occ. Sr. Research Fellow, Rl/o. 1-2-3851118, Domalguda, Hyderabad - 500029, (H.T. No.2131803178), Rank _19.

5. S Nikitha, D/o K. Rajeswar, Aged about 27 years, Occ. Unemployee, Rl/o. 2- 57, Maha Lakshmi Street, Mudhole, Nirmal District. (H.T. No.'2131200070), Rank - 8.

6. J. Prilanka, Q{o J. Ravinder, Aged about 37, Occ. Nursing Officer, Rt/o. 20- 199,__C-gq{ry.$rgar, Godavarikhani, peddapaili District, - 5OsZog, (H.T. No. 2131701855), Rank - 64.

7. T. Eswari, D/o T. Komar-elli, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Attender at Ayurvedic pgqa(1e{ R/o. 9/96, RC Peta, Tekulapalli, Bhadradri Kothagudem-District, (H.T. No. 21314OOoo1), Rank - 4873 (V.H.).

8. P. Komuda Priya, D/o P. Prasad, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Extension Officer (!VO.ar!_CW -Deprtment), R/o. 14-4136, Venkata Sai nagar, Ghatkesar, Medchal District. - 501301 , (1 I .T. No. 2131702525), Rank - 3't . .....PETITIONERS AND 1 Telangana State Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Pratibha Bhavan MG Rd., Nampally, Hyderabad - 500103.

2. The State of Telangana, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government,. Woman Welfare Department, Dr. BR Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner, Woman Development and Child Welfare, Vengalrao Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction, order or writ more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus. d. Declare the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the web note dated 191712024 and 3Ol7l2O24 in so far it relates to the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and therefore violative of Articles 14, 19, and also 21 of the Constitution of lndia, e. Consequently direct the Respondents to take the selections held and finalizing by the selection list on 03.02.2024 and issue orders of appointment together with all the benefits that include financial and seniority from the date on which they would be entitled to being appointed, but for the high - handed cancellation of the examination, f. Further direct that the Petitioners are entitled to exemplary costs for having fo rced the unemployed youth into this unwarranted litigation and to ensure accountability direct that such an amount be paid by the State and recovered from the concerned officials who are instrumental for the entire issue. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 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 suspend the operation of the web note dated 19.07.2024 and also the web note dated 30.07.2024(in so far it is related to (CDPO). Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI GODA SIVA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Ms. GODA RAMA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P.S.RAJASHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : GP FOR SERVICES (WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE) The Court made the following COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION Nos. 21L25 and26754 of2024 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue raised in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order. 2l Seeking to declare the web note dated 19.07.2024 issued cancelling the examination in respect of the posts of Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) vide Notification No. 13/2022, d.ated O5.O9.2022, after announcing the merit list, completion of selection process and publishing the provisional selection list dated O3.O2.2O24 and issuing the web note dated 3O.O7.2O24 for re-conducting the examination on O3.01.2025 and O4.O1.2025, as iliegal and arbitrary, W.p. No.21125 of 2024 is filed. 3) Similarly, W.P. No.26754 ot 2024 is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.I in issuing web note dated 19.02.2024 and 3O.O7.2O24 insofar as it relates to CDPO as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioners together with all benehts including financial and seniorit5r. 4) Heard Sri Goda Siva, learned senior counsel, representing Ms. Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and 2 WPs 21125 &26754 2024 . PK, J Sri P.S. Raja Shekar, learned Standing Counsel for TSPSC, and learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for the respondents. 5) According to the petitioners, since they possess the qualihcation prescribed for the post of cDPo, they have responded to the notihcation No.l3l2022, dated O5.O9.2022, issued by respondent No.1 for Iilling up of CDPO posts, participated in the selection process and have appeared for written examination on 03.O 1.2023. Thereafter, respondent No' 1 has issued overall merit list, based on which, a provisional selection list in the ratio of 1:2 was drawn out and published on 22.02.2023 ' For 17 posts in multizone-I and 6 posts in multizone-ll, 56 names were shown at 1:2 ratio. Thereafter, the petitioners have also attended for certilicate verification. Before the said process was undertaken by the first respondent, some of the candidates have hled W'P- No'25757 of 2023 before this Court questioning the action of respondent No'l in not announcing and publishing the final selection list of CDPOs and issuing appointment orders. Vide order dated 16.1 l-2O23, this Court has disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No. I to conclude the final selection process for the post of CDPO in Women and Child Welfare Department, pursuant to notification No. 13/2O22, dated O5.OT.2O22, ryithin a period of three weeks. Thereafter, respondent No. t has announced the linal list at 1: 1 ratio on O3.O2.2O24 ' Thereafter, on 03.05.2O24, respondent No.l filed review petition vide ) 3 PK, J WPs 21125 & 26754 2024 I.A. No. I of 2024 in W.p. No.257S7 of 2023 seeking review of the order dated 16. 11.2O23 passed by this Court in W.p. No.25752 of 2023. However, the same was not listed before the Bench. While so, since there was inaction on the part of the respondents therein without any reason' the petitioners therein have filed c.c. No. 100g of 2024. BotL- the said matters i.e. Review I.A. No. l of 2024 in w.p. No.2szsz of 2023 as well as C.C. No.1OOS of 2024 were about to be heard together by the Court, respondent No.1 has .issued web note dated lg.OZ.2024 cancelling the written examination held on o3.o1.2o23. In view of the said development and recording the same, the Review as well as the contempt case were closed by this court vide order dated 22.02.2024- Thereafter, another web note d,ated 3O.O2.2024 was issued by respondent No. I irxing the date of re_examination as 03.01.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present writ petit ion s.

5.1) l,earned senior counsel appearing - for the petitioners has contended that respondent No.l has conducted a series of examination in tble year 2023. But, unfortunately, on the allegation of leakage of paper, the examination pertaining to selections relating to Group_I Services and Engineering Services Examination (AEE and AE) and Divisional Accounts Of{icer have been cancelled. While so, W.p. No.96OO of 2023 was hled by one Sri Balmuri Venkat, who is not even a candidate participated in the selection process, and ottrers stating that 4 WPs ?1125 &26754 2024 . PK, J respondent No. t has cancelled Group-l and other examination where paper is alleged to have leaked, but not cancelled the examination conducted for CDPO and the same is bad in law. In the said writ petition, respondent No. t has filed a counter aflidavit stating that there is no allegation of leakage of paper insofar as recruitment of CDPO is concerned. Recording the same, this Court has disposed of W.P. No.960O of 2023 vide order dated 10.12.2O24. Thus, the learned senior counsel vehemently contends that in view of the specific assertion of respondent No.1 in the counter flrled in W.P. No.96OO of 2023, there is no reason for respondent No. I to cancel the examination insofar as recruitment of CDPO is concerned. Further, in the Review Application, respondent No. 1 appears to have taken the stand that the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which has looked into the allegation of leakage of paper in respect of recruitment to the posts of Group-l Services, Assistant Engineers, Divisional Accounts Offrcer, TBPO and Junior Lecturers, has also gone into the factor as to whether there was any leakage and the SIT seems to have only stated that the question paper in respect of CDPO examination was a,lso available in the pen drive. Showing the same as basis, respondent No.l cannot resort to cancellation of examination. Respondent No.1 ought to have considered severa-l other crucial aspects before concluding that the examination needs to be cancelled. 5 PK, J WPs 21125 & 26i 54 2024

5.2) Learned senior counsel has vehemently contended that respondent No. I has ignored the basic factors, which it ought to have gone into, before jumping to the conclusion that the examination need to be cancelled. The parameters that are liable to be looked into before the allegation of leakage of paper is taken note of and cancelling the examination, as held by the Hontrle Supreme Court are (l) whether the question paper which was available in the pen drive has at all percolated to any third pxty; (21 what was the date on which the paper was made available to the public; and (3) what were the centres where the question paper was leaked. The above basic and crucial aspects were ignored by respondent No.1 before coming to conclusion that the examination need to be cancelled. Therefore, the action of respondent No. 1 in issuing impugned web notices cannot stand the scrutiny of this Court.

5.3) Learned senior counsel has further contended that respondent No.1 having stated on oath in its counter affidavit filed in W.p. No.9600 of 2023 that there was no leakage of question paper in respect of CDpO examination, the very same issue cannot be the basis for cancellation of the examination. Mere statement of the SIT that the question paper of CDPO examination was also available in the pen drive, itself is not suflicient to conclude that there was a leakage and the same cannot be taken as basis for playing with the lives of candidates without implementing the judgment of this Court rendered in W.p. No.2S757 of 6 PK, J u/Ps 2l 125 &26754 2024 2023, dated 16.11.2023, and prayed this Court to pass strictures and impose exemplary costs on respondent No. 1 for forcing the unemployed youth into spate of litigation.

5.4I Learned senior counsel has further submittecl that earlier, the examination was conducted in conventional OMR sheet based method while the one in the present writ petition is stated to be held in Computer Based Test (CBT) method. Though respondent No. 1 claims that CBT pattern is fool-proof and safe method for conducting examination, the same is incorrect. In fact, the CBT type examination conducted for the post of Horticultural Officer was also rescheduled. Hence, the CBT type examination cannot be said to be safe. Hence, the cancellation of examination in question is totally unwarranted and illegal. It is further stated that as can be seen from the grounds of review filed by respondent No. 1 in W.P. No.960O of 2o23, some of the material were already available with respondent No. 1 by the time of lrling of counter in W.P. No.9600 of 2023 and when that be so, respondent No.1 ought not have filed the counter in W.P. No.960O of 2023 in the manner it was filed. lrarned senior counsel has pointed out that earlier on O3.OL.2O23 the examination was held in one session for all the candidates and deviating from the same, respondent No.1 has issued the web note dated 3O.O7.2024 stating that on O3.O1.2O25 and O4.O1.2O25 the examination would be conducted in CBT mode in multiple shifts duly adopting the normalisation process, which will 7 PK, J WPs 21125 & 26754 2O24 create further unwarranted perpetuation of litigation. In the matters of this nature, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it very clear as to what are the parameters that are liable to be looked into before the allegation of leakage is to be taken note of and cancelling and respondent No. 1 ought to have taken note of the same before cancelling the examination. Therefore, the learned senior counsel prayed this Court to . pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned web note dated 19.07.2024 atd 3O.O7.2O24. Reliance has been placed on Vanshlka Yadau o. Union of Indiat. 6) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, while drawing the attention of this court to the date of events right from issuance of notificarion No.t3l2O22 d,ated, OS.O9.2022 till issuance of impugned web note dated 19.07.2024 and,3O.O2.2024, has detailed that amidst of the allegations of paper leakage in respect of Group-l and other examination conducted by TGpSC, a complaint was lodged on | 1.O3.2O23, basing on which, a case in cnme No.64 /2023 was registered at Begum Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 4O9 of Indian penal Code and Section 66 (BXC) of Information Technologr Act. During the course of investigation, nine persons were found to have been involved in the case and they were arrested on 13.03.2O23. Later, the case lile was transferred to CCS, Hyderabad, and crime was re-registered as Crime '2024 SCC OnLine SC 1870 8 PK, J \ Ps 21125 &26754 2024 No.95 /2023 duly adding Sections 381, 4l 1, 42O and 12O(B) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 43, 66, 668, 66C,70 and 72 of Information Technolory Act and Sections 4, 5 and 8 of Telangana Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997' AsperthepreliminaryreportdatedlT-O3.2023oftheSIT,thequestion papers pertaining to three recruitments viz., Group-l preliminary test, Divisional Accounts oflicer (DAO) and Assistant Exccutive Engineers, were found in the pen drive of the accused persons' Therefore, the TGPSC has cancelled and postponed the examinations in respect of the above three recruitments, as a precautionary measure, based on the evidence collected by Police and SIT from the accused by that time' subsequent to irling of w.P. No.960O of 2023 seeking to cancel certain recruitment examinations including cDPo and to conduct afresh on the ground of alleged paper leakage, TGPSC wrote a letter to the police authorities, SIT, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, seeking/ requesting a formal declaration that the examination paper in'question \r'as not leaked' In pursuance thereof, letter dated 27.12.2023, was received stating that based on the statements of the witnesses and the evidence collected, it was informed that there was no evidence of leakage of CDPO and EO examination papers by A.1 and A.2. As such, the examination conducted in respect of cDPo and Eo were not cancelled in order to ensure that the candidates who prepared diligently for the said exams were not unfairly penalized. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 9 PK, J WPs 21125 & 26754 2024

09.71.2023 passed by this Court in W.p. No.2575T of 2023, TGPSC again addressed letter dated 15.02.2024 to SIT and other concerned authorities for clearance in order to proceed with further selection process' However, vide letter dated 15.03.2024, sIT has informed that during the course of further investigation, they received an interim anaiysis report from CFSL dated OS.O4.2O2S on the pen drive seized from A. 1 in crime No.95/2o23 at the time of his arrest and the said analysis report disclosed that the question paper of CDpO was also found in the pen drive along with other question papers. Further, vide letter received from the police Department also clarified that cDpo paper I & II were found in the data retrieved from the pen drive seLed from the accused. Considering all the above, TGpSC in its Special meeting held on B.o7 -2024 decided to cancer the examination herd on O3.O1.2023 and 08.O1.2023 for the posts of CDpO and EO respectively by exercising its discretion in order to ensure integrity and fairness in the recruitment process. Hence, absolutely .there are no merits in trre writ petitions and the same may be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on: 1) Tej Prakash pathak v. Raja.stlwn Hlgh Courtz; 2l Order dated 23.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.l58l1 of 2023; ' 2024 SCC Online sc 3184 10 PK, J \NPs 21125 & 26154 2024 3l C,oftftlil Vlshtnrai Eanubhai o- S;to:te of GuJarats; 4l State oJ Tr;;mil Na;du tt. A. Kalainania; 5) Judgment dated 27.09-2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.942 of 2023; and 6) Order dated. 19.02.2024 passed by the Hon'lele Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.4450O12023- 7l This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. 8) As can be seen from the material on record, there is no dispute of the facts that pursuant to Notification No.13/2O22, dated 05 'O9 '2022, for filling up of cDPo posts, TGPSC has conducted written examination, drawn out the overall merit list in 1:2 ratio, published the same on 22.02.2023 and also conducted certificate verification. At that stage, seeking to cancel certain examinations including CDPO, W'P'No'960O of 2023 was filed on O4.O4.2O23, wherein the TGPSC after seeking clarification from the concerned SIT and Police authorities has hled a counter afhdavit stating that there is no evidence of leakage of question paper in respect of CDPO examination. However, as there was delay in concluding the final selection process, some of the candidates have l-rled W.P. No.25757 of 2023 wherein vide order dated 16' I 1.2023 this Court ' (2ot7l t3 scc 621 n (2o2t'l 16 scc 2r7 J 11 PK, J WPs 2t t25 & 26154 2024 duly considering the assertions of TGPSC in its counter hle d in w.P.No.9600 of 2023 that there was no evidence of leakage of question paper, has directed TGPSC to conclude the final selection process for thepostofCDPO.Consequently,theTGPSChasalsoissuedl:lratio list oir O3.02.2024, however, no appointment orders were issued to the successful candidates till date. 9) The primary contention of the learned senior counsel is that TGPSC having stated on oath in its counter filed in W'P' No'9600 of 2023 that there was no leakage of question paper in respect of CDPO examination, now cannot turn around and attribute leakage of question paper also in respect ofCDPO examination' Learned senior counsel has also asserted that basing on the above said statement, this Court has also disposed of W.P.No.25727 of 2O23 on 16' 11'2O23 directing TGPSC to conclude the final selection process, which they failed to implement' 10) But, as can be seen from the record, in W'P'No'25727 of 2023 TGPSC has already filed a Review Application ot 12 '06 '2024 seeking to reviewtheorderdated16.ll.2023wherebythisCourtdirectedTGPSC to conclude the hnal selection process, on the ground that during the course of further investigation of matter by the SIT, the question paper of CDPO was also found in the pen drive seized from A' 1 in crime No.g'l2o23atthetimeofhisarrestandfurtherconcernedPolice t2 PK, J WPs 21125 & 26754 2024 authorities have also clarihed that CDPO paper I & II were found in the data retrieved from the pen drive se2ed from the accused. 11) For better adjudication of the matter, relevant portions of the communication received by TGPSC are referred hereunder.

11.1) Relevant portion of Lr.No.44lDD/CCSlHydl2O2a, dated

15.03.2024, addressed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, CCS, Hyderabad City, to TGPSC, is as under: "During the course of further investigation of case mentioned in reference 4tn cited, received an interim analysi s report of CFSL vide report No.CFSL (Hl / 406 I DF I 10 1-108/CAH/ 22-29 I 2023, dated: O5.04 .2023, ort the pen drive (Data) seized from A- I (Pulidindi Praveen Kumar) at the time of his arrest i.e. on 13-O3- 2023. The analysis interim report by CFSL disclosed t1lat the below mentioned question papers, exams conducted by the TSPSC 1) Group-l preliminary, 2) EO (Extension Ofhcer), 3) CDPO (Child Development Project Officer), 4) AtrE (Assistant Executive Engineer), 5) DAO (Divisional Accounts Officer, 6) AE (Assistant Engineer), 7) TPBO (Town Planning Building Overseers), 8) Jr. kcturers and 9) HO (Horticulture Oflicer) were found in the data."

11.2) Further, after collecting the detailed analysis report from CFSL, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has addressed another letter dated O5.O7.2O24 to TGPSC stating and conhrming that as per the report of CFSL, Paper 1 and 2 of CDPO examination furnished by the TGPSC t3 PK, J WPs 21125 & 26154 2074 were partially matched with the file available in the pen drive seized from A- I . 12) In view of the above correspondence/communication, the TGPSC has taken the decision to re-conduct the examination and scheduled the same on O3.O1.2025 and 04.01.2025, by exercising its discretion in terms of Para-XIII of the Notification No. 13/2022, dated O5.O9.2O22, which cannot be faulted with. 13) Though the learned senior counsel has pointed out three parameters to be fulhlled before concluding that there is leakage of question paper, this Court is of the considered view that once the question paper is available in ttre pen drive of an individual, it would be suffice to draw inference that there is leakage of question paper. Further, the parameters of identifying the beneficiaries of the examination paper found in the pen drive of A. l, the date on which the said question papers were made available to. the said benefrciaries and the centres where the question papers were leaked, etc., are certainly \ time-consuming factors to come into light. It if were to be the requirement of law that such identification is a must and until such identihcation is completed, it cannot be concluded that there is a paper leakage, it would not only result in great inconvenience to the administration but also result in loss of time even to the innocent candidates. On the other hand, by virtue of the impugned action, not t4 PK, J WPs 21125 & 26754 2024' only the innocent candidates but also the petitioners still get an opportunity of participating afresh in the examinadon process to be conducted by TGPSC. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel in this regard cannot be sustained. l4l Coming to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Vanshlka Yad.aa's case (retered supra), on which much reliance has been placed by the learned senior counsel is concerned, it was a case where the alleged malpractices were restricted to particular centres and in that context re-examination was directed to be conducted in that particular centres. Therefore, the said case is distinguishable to the present case on facts. 15) For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Court holds that there are no merits in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SDI.P. PADMANABHA REDDY R ASSISTANT EGISTRA /ITRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER 'O .. ,*O CC'S G.P FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE' High Hvderabad. (OUT) ;?i:t8tB8'ff-;',LlH:fi tl*ll$il??fr :J3,'"'J,,u,"nn,n,"' 3. iffi"cc 6 ii Eo on nnr'anuKs H M r' o*"o13to"! ;. il;6c i; SRr F.s.RrunserHAR (sc FoR rG 5. Two CD CoPies ffi l"cate [o pU c] SA BS HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 oB 1 H E g14 ? 1o ;n,, mz5 * rrA eHTc $( COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.2l125 AND 26754 ol 2024 DISMISSING THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS.