TGPSC Appeals Against Single Judge's Orders on Group-1 Main Exam

Hyderabad: Describing the recent single judge order on Group I mains as "perverse" in law, the Telangana Public Service Commission (TGSPSC) on Wednesday filed an appeal before the division bench of Telangana High Court.

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, in his September 9 order, set aside the final marks list of the Group-1 main examinations as well as General Ranking List (GRL). He directed the TGPSC either to re-evaluate the main examination papers, manually or to re-conduct the examinations within eight months.

In its appeal, the TGPSC argued that the findings of the single judge — as mentioned in the said orders — are “perverse” in law and liable to be set aside.

Citing the Supreme Court verdict in Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab SEB (2010), dealt with the issue of when the findings of a court are "perverse", the TGSPSC asserted that the single judge had arrived findings in the orders by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality.

The secretary of TGPSC, in the 80 pages appeal, stated that the orders of the single judge are “erroneous, contrary to law and based on conjectures” while ignoring material placed on record. The secretary described the directions as “mutually contradictory” and contended that re-evaluation is not maintainable without an enabling provision under the rules.

Addressing the findings of the single judge on discrepancies in attendance figures, the TGPSC clarified that the variation of 17 candidates arose from provisional absentee lists reconciled later with final data. None of these candidates, it maintained, were shortlisted for certificate verification, and hence no prejudice was caused.

Further, the TGPSC secretary said that the single judge had considered the arguments of alleged reduction of marks of candidate Bommu Poojitha Reddy. But the single judge had ignored that she had tampered with her marks using PDF editing tools, and an FIR was lodged. TGPSC stressed that the writ petitioners had approached the court with forged documents, demonstrating mala fide intent.

In the appeal, TGPSC submitted that a similar attempt by other aspirants had been dismissed with costs, with directions to prosecute those who misled the court.

Explaining the findings of the orders that several candidates with consecutive hall ticket numbers secured identical marks, TGPSC pointed out that the single judge ought to have considered that in large-scale examinations such overlaps are common. While aggregate marks may match scores in individual papers, it is pointed out.

It objected to the reliance on confidential evaluator details filed by the petitioners. Such data, it said, was obtained illegally by abusing official position and its disclosure undermined the integrity of the examination system.

The TGSPSC further submitted that the single judge had embarked on a “roving enquiry” into the evaluation process, which is beyond the scope of judicial review, and even relied on confidential material submitted in sealed cover. It urged the division bench to set aside the order to safeguard the credibility of the recruitment process.