HC Upholds TGPSC Gr-1 Recruitment

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday confirmed its interim directions of September 25 last, setting aside a single judge’s directions and permitting the Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC) Group-I to complete the recruitment of selected candidates. These candidates had been given their appointment letters after the interim order, subject to the court’s final order. Thursday’s judgment comes as a relief to these candidates.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin pronounced the judgment while disposing of a batch of writ appeals preferred by the commission and several successful candidates, who were aggrieved by the common order dated 09.09.2025 issued by the single judge.

In its detailed judgment, the division bench examined the recruitment process, the method of evaluation adopted by the commission, and the grounds on which the single judge had intervened in the matter. The court observed that there were no allegations of mala fide, fraud, or proven systemic irregularities in the conduct of the examination. It held that in the absence of any demonstrated violation of statutory rules or arbitrariness, the directions to order re-evaluation with moderation or to re-conduct the Mains examination could not be sustained.

The bench noted that the method of evaluation had been uniformly applied in the larger public interest and that no candidate could be said to have been prejudicially affected on that account. After undertaking a detailed analysis of the evaluation procedure and considering the submissions of all parties, the court concluded that the single judge court’s reliance on the principles laid down in the ‘Sanjay Singh v UP Public Service Commission’ case for ordering moderation was misplaced in the facts of the present case.

The division bench held that the integrity of an examination conducted by a constitutional body like the PSC could not be doubted on the basis of surmises and unsubstantiated allegations; therefore the alternative direction for re-conduct of the examination was found to be unsustainable.

Emphasising judicial restraint in matters relating to large-scale public recruitment, the division bench observed that intervention in examinations conducted by constitutional bodies should not be undertaken in the absence of proven mala fide, arbitrariness, or systemic irregularities. On these grounds, the division bench concluded that the single judge had erred in directing re-evaluation with moderation or re-conduct of the examination.

The controversy arose out of recruitment to Group-I services for 563 posts under a notification dated February 19, 2024. The preliminary examination was conducted in June 2024 and its results were declared in July 2024. Candidates who qualified in the prelims appeared for the Mains held in October 2024 across 46 centres and the results were declared on March 30, 2025.

Aggrieved by their failure in the Mains examination, certain candidates approached the High Court by alleging inconsistencies in the conduct of the examination and deficiencies in the method of evaluation.

The single judge, by a common order dated September 9, 2025, accepted these contentions and directed the TGPSC to undertake re-evaluation of Mains answer papers by applying moderation on the lines of ‘Sanjay Singh vs UP Public Service Commission’ case and thereafter announce fresh results, followed by filling up of 563 posts.

In the alternative, the court directed cancellation of the Group-I Mains examination and ordered re-conduct of the examination within eight months for candidates who had cleared the preliminary stage.

Challenging these directions, the TGPSC and successful candidates preferred writ appeals. During the pendency of the appeals, the division bench, by interim orders dated September 25, 2025, had set aside the single judge’s directions and permitted the commission to proceed with the recruitment process. The division bench also noted that the appointments were the subject to outcome of the appeals before it.

Pursuant to the interim protection granted by the division bench, appointments to the notified posts were completed. After hearing all parties at length, the division bench reserved orders on December 30, 2025, and pronounced its judgment on Thursday, confirming its earlier interim orders.

HC Defers Revanth Quash Petition

The Telangana High Court was on Thursday not inclined to issue immediate interim relief to Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy in the petitions filed by him seeking quashing of FIRs registered against him. The FIRs had been registered on a complaint of then Bhupalpally BRS MLA Gandra Venkata Ramana Reddy, following Revanth Reddy’s speech at a public meeting on February 22, 2023.

Revanth Reddy had sought quashing of FIR No.s 41/2023 of the Mogullapally police and 100/2023 of Bhupalpally police, registered for alleged “intentional insult aimed at provoking breach of peace” (Section 504) and “creating or promoting hatred or enmity between groups” under 505(2) of the IPC.

Venkata Ramana Reddy had alleged that Revanth Reddy had levelled defamatory and demeaning allegations against him, calling him a land grabber and accusing him of pilferage of petrol and sand, and involvement in misappropriation of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

The High Court made it clear that it could not quash the case without hearing the de facto complainant, nor stay further proceedings including the petitioner’s appearance before the trial court.

HC Reviews PIL on Electoral Reforms

The Telangana High Court on Thursday examined whether a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking electoral reforms was maintainable, after a petitioner urged the court to intervene in matters allegedly falling outside the scope of the Representation of the People Act.

The PIL sought to look into issues faced by independent candidates, including the process of symbol allotment, alleged paid news in favour of party-backed candidates, and the absence of a structured grievance redressal mechanism with the returning officers. The Registry of the High Court, at scrutiny level, objected to the registration, gave a number and placed the PIL before the Chief Justice bench for examination.

Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, along with Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, made it clear that questions relating to legislative or policy reforms lay within the domain of Parliament and not the judiciary. The bench indicated that the court’s consideration at this stage was limited to the maintainability of the PIL.