Telangana High Court Suspends Order Setting Aside Group-I Examination Results Issued By Public Service Commission

A division bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, has suspended the directions in an order passed by the single judge, which set aside the Final Marks List and General Ranking List for Group-I examination conducted by the Public Service Commission.

The single judge in his order had noted mass irregularities, bias, and non-transparency.

While hearing the matter, the division bench noted that issues which were discussed by the single judge would not comprise the above-mentioned discrepancies.

The bench further noted that the issues brought up before the single judge included issuance of two hall tickets, additional correction centres, unclean washrooms, etc, none of which violated any law or rule.

"How does this affect the outcome of results, is what we are trying to figure out. Which one of these inferences leads to bias, non-transparency, indecency? Mass irregularity is definitely ruled out. On an objective understanding, selection of examination centres, this is the domain of the Commission; any examining body can pick how many centres, only sanitation should be maintained, in the sense, papers should be opened on time, correctors are not fair...is there any finding to that effect?" the bench observed.

The successful students before the single judge, who were represented by Senior Counsel Rachna Reddy, contended that the Commission released multiple notifications, which amounted to changing the rules of the game as it was being played, which was deliberately done, so as to make some well-fitted as compared to the others.  

It was also contended that the answer sheets were not corrected properly, or not corrected at all. Although the exam was conducted in different vernacular languages, there was only one answer key that was being used as a reference. It was contended that this put the Telugu medium students at a disadvantage.

"None of these allegations are substantiated...how can you say that? Unless we go through the answer sheets, how will you know if this procedure was wrong? No change is given (by the single judge as to the mode of correction of paper). Re-evaluate the answer sheets, you say. If, evaluation was not done in the first place, then why re-evaluation? Findings related to integrity and all are very serious in nature......Whether the material on record pointed to large scale mass irregularities? Or only towards certain alleged non-compliance in the matter of segregation in male female, marks obtained, whether there were enough centres...These are inferences and inferences can be drawn in many ways..." the bench opined.

Senior counsel S. Muralidhar, appearing for some of the appellants, argued that the moderation method was not required at all, and that it was merely presumed to be required. The single judge did not discard the procedure followed for correction, merely directed re-evaluation. That even if there was compliance of the order, it would lead to more litigation.

"Somebody or the other is bound to be upset with the results. And without striking out the procedure, calls for re-evaluation with moderation, without even knowing if moderation is required," he concluded

The Advocate General appearing for the State reiterated that every part of the correction was part of the public domain. It was submitted that an answer key was provided and language experts were called to correct answer scripts in vernacular languages. He submitted that this being the first Group-1 exam since the formation of the Telangana State, the Commission took utmost care to ensure that no infirmity was caused.

Thus, the Bench concluded that the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order on the basis of inferences and presumptions and suspended the same.

The matter was posted to October 15^th, and all parties were directed to file written submissions in the meantime.

Counsel for appellants: Senior counsel and AG A.Sudarshan Reddy, P.S.Rajasekhar, D.Prakash Reddy (Senior counsel), Sriram Polali, S.Muralidhar (Senior counsel) , Aditya Vyas, Dr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha, Rajeshwar Indani and J.Jaya Prasad Thomas. 

Counsel for respondents: B.Rachna Reddy (Senior counsel), Mohd Baseer Riyaz, A. Venkatesh (Senior counsel), Dornala Sai Mahitha, K.S Murthy (Senior counsel), S. Rama Mohan Rao, G. Vidya Sagar (Senior counsel), Sai Prasen Gundavaram, M Surender Rao (Senior counsel), Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy (Senior counsel), Shreyas Reddy Yalagiri, Poodattu Amarender.

Click Here To Read/Download Order