PSC Says Allegations On G1 Exam Baseless

Hyderabad:Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court deferred the hearing in the batch of writ petitions challenging the alleged irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of the Group-I Mains examination held pursuant to Notification No. 02/2024, post vacation. The matters were part-heard and adjourned to June 11, 2025, due to paucity of time. The judge also directed the TSPSC to produce in a sealed cover the original marksheet of Bommu Poojitha Reddy, whose results are alleged to have been manipulated, and issuance of notice to her. Arguing for the TSPSC standing counsel P.S. Rajasekhar argued that the petitioners had approached the court with unclean hands and that the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. He contended that serious and baseless allegations were being made against a constitutional body without substantiating the core charge of marksheet fabrication. Standing counsel argued that unless the petitioners crossed the first threshold of proving fabrication, the merits of the case could not even be considered. He referred to an order of a coordinate bench in a case involving one Rahul, where costs were imposed on petitioners for producing fabricated documents. Standing counsel argued that the same principle applied here. He pointed out that the person involved in the marksheet matter was neither a petitioner nor had initiated any proceedings. Senior counsel Rachana Reddy argued that the TSPSC was making allegations of fabrication without substantiating them. She contended that a single judge’s order was not binding on another coordinate bench, citing Supreme Court precedents. Highlighting inconsistencies in the number of candidates who appeared for the examination, she pointed out that the number first stated was 21,075 but later rose to 21,085 in the General Ranking List (GRL), with no proper explanation. Senior counsel also raised concerns about the transparency and fairness of the evaluation process, pointing out that TSPSC had not disclosed how many evaluators were appointed for each medium i.e., Telugu, Urdu, and English, or their qualifications. Senior counsel argued that 40 per cent of candidates wrote the exam in Telugu and 11-12 in Urdu, and questioned whether chief examiners were appointed for those languages. “In a scenario where a difference of 0.5 marks can shift a candidate’s rank by 5 to 10 positions, failure to disclose evaluator details undermines the integrity of the evaluation process,” she argued. Senior counsel also pointed to the absence of OMR sheets, barcoding, and proper biometric tracking in the Mains, arguing that such procedural deficiencies allowed for possible manipulation and undermined the credibility of the examination. Drawing from the Supreme Court judgment in ‘State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya’, Rachana Reddy contended that if appointments were made based on a process marred by probable fraud, the entire selection must be set aside, or everyone involved suffers. Due to paucity of time, the judge posted the matter after vacation.

HC stays GST demand on GMR wing

A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising acting Chief Justice Sujay Paul and Justice Renuka Yara stayed a Rs 68.26-crore Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand levied by Central authorities on the annuity amounts received by GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Limited between September 2017 and September 2022. Senior advocate Dr S. Muralidhar, representing the petitioner, argued that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) had acted without jurisdiction. He contended that State GST authorities had initiated and concluded proceedings for the same assessment years i.e., 2018-19 to 2020-21 with showcause notices that were subsequently dropped. Referring to Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, Muralidhar emphasised that once proceedings were initiated by one authority (in this case, the state), the Central authority lacked the power to reopen the same case. The panel observed that the objections raised by GMR in its replies to the showcause notice were not adequately considered in the final adjudication order issued on February 26. The panel said that there was prima facie illegality and accordingly stayed the operation of the impugned demand until further hearing. The panel left the question of an alternative remedy open.

Fee reimbursement before HC

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ plea filed by Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology challenging several government orders that prohibit the collection of tuition fees directly from students belonging to SC, ST, BC, EBC, and minority categories. The judge took on file a writ plea, contending that the GOs were unconstitutional and arbitrary to the extent they prevented the institution from collecting tuition fees directly from eligible students or their parents under the state’s Fee Reimbursement Scheme, also known as the Reimbursement of Tuition Fee (RTF) Scheme. In its plea, the petitioner contended that the impugned orders severely hampered the financial functioning of private educational institutions by indefinitely deferring payments, making institutions dependent on delayed reimbursements from the state. The petitioner argued that such restrictions violated the right to equality and the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation under the Constitution. Alternatively, the institution sought a direction to the respondent authorities to disburse the full tuition fee amount to the institution immediately upon allotment of students, but prior to their actual admission for the academic year 2025-26. The petitioner contended that the directions sought for would ensure that private institutions are not pushed into financial distress while fulfilling social welfare obligations. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the RTF scheme was aimed at ensuring equitable access to higher education for disadvantaged students, the current implementation with delayed reimbursements and prohibition on direct fee collection has become a point of contention between the government and private colleges. The judge posted the matter for further hearing after the Government Pleader sought time to obtain instructions from the respondent authorities.

Firm in Chinese apps case gets relief

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against key accused in a case linked to the infamous Chinese micro loan app scam. The judge dealt with a criminal petition filed by Credfox Private Limited and three others, who allegedly participated in a fraudulent loan app network allegedly linked to Chinese nationals. The judge found no substantive material on record to prove a nexus between the petitioners and the alleged offences, including criminal conspiracy and cheating under the Indian Penal Code. The judge noted that the Chinese investment in the petitioner company was lawful and duly reported to the Registrar of Companies (ROC). The judge observed that, despite more than two years of investigation, no victims were identified by the police, and no incriminating evidence surfaced. Statements from witnesses confirmed the genuineness of documents relied on by the accused companies, prompting the deletion of forgery and cybercrime charges. The judge also took into account the dismissal of disciplinary proceedings against the chartered accountants of the accused company. Emphasising the lack of a “meeting of minds” required to establish a criminal conspiracy, the judge ruled that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.