Sarawa Lingala v. 1. Osmania University

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutio.n of lndia praying that in the tl"O tn"t"*itft' the High Court may be pleased circumstances stated in to issue an appropriate Wr.it' O'O"t or direction' one more particularly in the nature "t'n" *i[" "r the Respondents in declaring the of writ of Mandamus o"t''"r.i"g petitioner as Not eualiti"i'il'fC'liEi ,'iOzi ,, illeoal. arbitrary, and violative of Artictes 14, 19, and Zt oi i'n"'6*.tiirti"n of lndia"and consequently direct the Resoondents to rectify tn"'peitione';s marks by recording 54 marks in Paper-l' 98 marits in Paper-ll, and a tota'l''a!gr."g't" of 152 marks' Jnd consequently declare her as Qualified IA NO: 10F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thatjn the circum the affidavit fited in support"ot ine petition, itre Hign.Court may be the Respondent No'3 to'"ont'Ol' the representation of the \i.ll]iol+jending disposal of the above writ petition IANO:2 oF 2024 stances stated in pleased to direct Petitioner dated Petition Lrnder ,;ectl jrlrsr,*r#","J::il{;fufr ,.;{i:,1[qf ;rir:,djff t;; ff fl,!?:i+iI ca,tegory of T(l . ,,;t=r, zozq *ni"n"ir"."i"d;:;"::ti?i o-f .t)hvsicat Education outcome of the \1/rit ,etiiion )n oi'.12.2t)?-.. subject to the IANO:3 OF 2024 Petition urrder tl ect ure arioavitlire,il. ,,.rl',ilrif,l;jf;J|',y/:sH[fl,:1,h," circurnsrances stated in the^Respondenr \o.2 5'3 to refer 6;esi,;;'i; il;r ;:_"yliyv r,) preased ro direct 216544815421cf TG-SET Exam, 2024 to an expert for r +rtermining fl1" ."i Counset for the petitioner: SRl. METTU NIRANJAN REDDy *fffiiil"J,ili Reslr,ndents: sRt MALLT'EDDT sRrNrvA,s REDD.T (sc FoR The Court made the lc,llowing: ORDER ""i""r.i" TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B' VTJAYSEN REDDY PETITION No.33771oB 2024 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: ".. ' to issue an appropriate' Writ' Order or direction one more particularly in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the Respondents in declaring the Petitioner as 'Not Qualified" in TG-SET 2024 as lllegal' 'oi ati"t"t 14' 19 and 2l of the arbitrary and violative Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to recti$ the Petitioner's marks by recording 54 marks in Paper-I, 98 marks in Paper-II' and a total aggregate of 152 marks and consequently declare her as "Qualifred" and Pass '""

2. Heard Mr. Mettu Niranjan Reddy' leamed counsel for the petitioner, and IvIr' Mallipeddi Srinivas Reddy' learned standing counsel for osmania University, appearing for respondents' and perused the material on record' It is submitted that as per the National Education Policy 1986' 3. the Govemment of India has introduced a concept of State 2 Eligibility -i'ttt (sET) to provide avenue for candictates to quarif! for the prtst c l Assistant professors/Lecturers in regionrlJ languages and subi,:cts rurique to respective States. The Stare (jove nment has announc't:d holling of TG-SET 2024 during2g,h,29r,,,..;(,h and 3l,t August .2(t2.4 lir determining the eligibility of Telangara r tudents to the postr; of professors/Lecfurers in thr: I_i11j ye15l1iss ,16 Colleges o1- 'J-r: angana. Accordingly, respondenr Nc. - Osmania Universilv is: rri:d notificalion on 04.05.2024 inviting, ap rlications from the eligitrle candidates to apply for TG-sET e.ramirLat;on. ^.i;sistant

4. It is sut,rnitted that online applications werc co,rnl(:nced on 14.05.202a. anJ rhe petitioner applied for physicat Erlirca.ion and she w.as ir;r,rred Hall Ticket bearing \o.,1:04 030046. The examinatiot had two papers paper _ I and Iraper - tI, each containing 50 ctu:stions and each question carrying two (-ll marks, totalling to lr00 rrarks. The qualification criteria w.s the r:a ndidate should appear 1,rr both the papers and should have ;ecurr:cr at least 40%o aggrelqate rr;Lrks in both the papers taken togetrter .cr ( ieneral (Unreserv'erl) Oatr:r4ory and,35%o for the reserved cate,gory i.i:. OBC, SC, ST etc. 4 't., -8"' l It is submitted that TG-SET was conducted on 11'09'2024' 5. Petitioner appeared for the examination and the provisional key was released by respondents on24J92024' As per the provisional key' 'n Paper - I and (27 questions the petitioner secured 54 marks correct) and 98 marks in Paper - [ (49 questions correct) aggregattngto 150 (sic' 152) mirks' When petitioner checked the final result of TG-SET which was declared on 16'll'2024' she was shocked, as the result showe$ 52 marks in Paper - I and 98 marks in Paper - II and she was declared "Not Qualified"' It is submitted that the petitione 6. response sheet and found that as per respondents and the response sheet' sh Paper - I and 98 marks in PaPer - II' wronglY shown as 52 marks in Paper r immediatelY aPPlied for bY the the keY Published e has secured 54 marks in However, in the result it is I and 98 marks in Paper - II. 7 Counter affidavit has been frled bY the resPondents, in which it has been stated that as per the frnal key' the petitioner is 'Not darcd 20.11.2024 was Petitioner's rePresentatlon Qualified'. 4 forward t:rj r.l the service provider i.e., M/s. TaLr I el5ultansy services; Pri'i'itte I-imited; they verified the final key and submitted necessar). i n lt,r mation r ' 03'12'2024' which was ur'l':arled in the official r'r:hsrr: on ,h" same day evening. The irnsv,ers to all the question:; wer"': decided by subject expert and thr: C,:rtificates Verification i: tL continurous process, as intimater -- rrvvwJr' as mumatec' in thr: speaking order daterr ,5 l -r.2024.

8. Learned (ounsel for the petitioner submitted that. fte dispute herein is .egarrl rrg marks not being awarded to ttLe peliti.ner for question Nc,.,50 o1 paper _ I. The answer to question No.50 ir option No. l. Hov,,,-.ver. in the official key, the answer is shown as option No.2 or 3 or zl w..rir:h is apparently incorrect. 9' Learned coirlsel for the petitioner further subrnittt:cl tl at the petitioner apoear3i in the Shift _ I (moming session) zLnd n her question paper th: rrisputed question was shown at sl.No..j0. tn the Shift - 2 (aft,lmo,:,rr session) the same disputed questic,n is shcwn at Sl.No.85, whi:rei t, the answer is shown as option No. 1. The question No.85 o't;hift - 2 (aftemoon session) is plar:ed on r:cord ,/ 5 f same is served on the learned standing counsel tbr and the coPY o Osmania University' appearing for respondents' 10. Learned standing counsel for respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Viiay Singh v' State of Uttar Pradeshl wherein jt was held as under: *30-2-Ifastatute'Ruleort:g'l'utio1-governingan "*u-i,,utiona*"o?ntHit'""*fl'il"rJtff fi ilfit',H::fl ir i' i' ffiITH1tT"$.,l*;t;;"o" '"'tinv ^o"rv demonstrated'"'y iJutiy't *ithout any""inferential process bv ;;;:;t' oi *ti*utitution' and onlv in of reasoning "' rare or exceptional- J*t' tf'ut a material error has been committed; 30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the ; a candidate - it has no expertise in the #;";;;; ilutt"i*a academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key *r*".t and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examinadon authority rather than to the candidate'

31. ... 32....

33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the leamed Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness ofthe key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and ' (20r8) 2 scc 357 6 as tlec,ir- r r h.v this corri'rr,,ur ; ;. il;n',T,;1::::., ", obcasions, rhe exe cise It is subnirtec rhat speaking order dated o5-12.2a24rvirs the experl contrrittee by considering the objection and it was rejr:cted. Ther t *" riabre to be dis.rrrssed. :o , merits in the wrir pet.'tior and it is t of lhel'etitioner, rassed by ll. The oreljrrrnary and-final key for Shift_l (Moming l,iession) and final kr:1' fo' s;hift-2 (Aiemoon Session) are sho,vn be,r,v: shil!-t (lWornin Session T'I II'.SI( :.I, EDUC ATION PRErnrnlp. Y KEI f,:r:tivl

50.The lnost ef means ol citize r s control over adminishation is / l. Eiection 2. Pressure (i,oups 3. Advisory comnritlees 4- Public 0pin i,rn FINAL KEY

50.Th e most effective means ofcitizens conhol over administration is... l. Election " 2. pressure ,' 3. Adyisory Groups / q. public commiftees shift-2 Aft ern PUBLIC AI) FIIiAL I(EY 50.The most ;ffec of citizens co adminis tration is. , . / 1. Electic,n oon S ession ) !{INIS TR4 TION tive neans ov!-r

2. Pressure G,oun: 3. Advisory 4. Public OpiniorL ",r.- 'tt.*, Petitioner has ch,r ; :n option No. l. In the speaking orrler rlated 05.12.2024 rlassoc by respondent No.3, it is stared trrat the petitioner has calcr- lated total marks based on preli.minary key which was lirr.er ,: o|rected by the appropriate committee; due to a technical errrlr in tl' subject of Physical Education' tho prelirn Lnary 7 , a l^tar it was rePlaced bY ID key was uploaded instead of final key' but later it the final key; as per the final key the answer for Question is option No'2 or 3 or 4 and not 1; the final key uptoaded in the w;bsite for information there was no error in calcrilating and deciding final the correct and fihal key' has been subsequently the candidates; No.26544815424 marks based on

12. In the opinion of this Court' the question No'50 bearing Id No.26544815 424 is abasic ind simple question and option No'l is the correct answer' The question does not need any expertise' In fact the preliminary key was correct and final key was wrong' The judgment in Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case' Further' there is no explanation forthcoming from the respondents as to how the same question at S1.No.85 of the Shift - 2 (Afternoon session) shows that option No'l ResPondents cannot applY different is the correct answer different sessions' The correct yardsticks for same question in answer in both the sessions shoul d be the same' It is not the case of respondents that the same question has wrong answer in the Shift - 2 (Aftemoon Session)' Thus' the action on the part of I i i / e { 1i;- !1t. 8 responden t ;t rfhorities ir question No,i () bearing and uns.srairrr,le. r not awarding marks t. the' pe;itioner for D No.26544g 15424 iserbitrary, improper I3. In rujsq cf the above, the writ responderu. petitioner,r; Paper No. I b'i adding two (2) marks, .mar.i:r; to 54 in paper No.l and petition is atl6ws,l Jirecting arrtrcrities to recdfr the marks of the Iretit,oner in thereby, corrr:r:ting the 98 in paper },io.2, total i2 marks, thereby, declaring the petjtio ler as perm t rhe "Qualified,, in I G_SET 2024, and consequentll., petitioner fcu.cerr iicates verification in physical of TG-SET 11024. .-hereshall ation 51ljsg1 aggregating Educ be no order as to cosrs. Asa seqr_rl thereto, miscellaneous pending in the urir 1,s1i1i6n stand closed. applications, if any, Sd/- S..MALLIKAR, ,\Asbrsrnlrr n \, //TRUE COPYtt ', \ i , . i SECflOT Ii3J6"r?- Cl-,anceil rr. Osmania University, Tarn#a, Hydr:rabad. - JUNA RAO EGISTRAR I OFFICER 'elangana -- To, ,

2. Ue^Clgiryan, TG - []ET, Vice.- CJrqlc_eil_or, Osmania Uni\/ersiry, C ffice of the - ' '" TG-SET Second F'rcr, Biock - l, PGRR Cehtie ioi oistan,:e eiii,,. iion, Osmania Univerrsi\, Hyderabad- 500 007. --elangana,

3. The ttlember' Secr(rtary, TG - SET, Professor of Commerle, Osm tnia - - ic'e or t'reiG-SET Second Floor, Block - ll' l)GRR C :ntreJor Unlr"iiitv, oi"trni"'gar.atror, 'lsminL University, Telangana' Hyderabad- t '00 007' -Of

4. One CC to SRI tUE--TU NIRANJAN REDDY Advocate tC'PUol 5. One CC to SI?l lM'\LIPEDDI SRINIVAS REDDY (SC FOF OSMAIIIA UNI) loPUCl

6. Two CD CoP ers KKS HIGH COUR'I' DATED:2.ttO6,tZO2S J I ORDER WP.No.33t71 of 2024 AL-LOWING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS r TELa o o 9s s ,' l-, \ I ?( a) \ \ .( :t I Lp