In a pivotal interim directive issued on Wednesday, the Telangana High Court has overturned a previous single judge’s order concerning the Group-I services main examination, which was conducted by the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC).
This interim ruling is a major step forward, effectively unblocking the TGPSC’s ability to finalize the recruitment process for 563 Group-I cadre positions. These posts were initially advertised through a notification released in February 2024. The High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, clarified that any future appointment orders issued by the TGPSC would be contingent upon the ultimate outcome of the ongoing appeal petitions.
The appeals were lodged by the TGPSC itself and several ‘successful candidates’ who had appeared on the Final Marks List (FML) and General Ranking List (GRL). They challenged the single judge’s original verdict, which had nullified both the FML and GRL, demanding either a re-evaluation of the main exam answer scripts or, if impossible, a complete re-conduct of the examination within an eight-month timeframe.
The bench has instructed the Advocate General (AG), representing the TGPSC, along with the legal representatives of both the ‘successful candidates’ and the respondents, to submit their written arguments by October 10. A comprehensive hearing on the matter is scheduled for October 15.
Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy, speaking on behalf of the TGPSC, asserted that the examination process was conducted flawlessly, with meticulous efforts made to ensure all details were publicly accessible. He emphasized that the Commission adhered to all legal and procedural guidelines. Reddy highlighted the historical significance of the examination, noting it was the first Group-I services exam since the creation of the separate Telangana State in 2014.
Chief Justice Singh questioned the foundation of the single judge’s conclusion, which alleged that the ‘TGPSC had not maintained transparency, integrity and acted in a biased manner and deviated their own rules.’ The CJ commented that ‘Integrity is a delicate expression’ and such an inference should not be made without clear evidence of malintent or favoritism. He also raised concerns about the single judge’s observation that candidates studied ’10 to 12 hours a day,’ querying how such personal study habits were known to the writ court. The bench further inquired whether the evidence presented in the writ petitions truly indicated ‘large-scale mass irregularity.’
The High Court bench sought detailed information from both appellant and respondent counsels regarding the normalization, scaling, and moderation techniques employed during the evaluation of the answer scripts. They also probed whether the single judge’s order was based on non-compliance with specific procedures, such as the selection of evaluators, examination centers, and the segregation of centers for male and female candidates.
Conversely, the counsels representing the respondents maintained their stance, arguing that ‘the whole examination process suffered from procedural irregularities’ and that the evaluation of answer sheets lacked proper regulatory backing.