TGPSC appeals against single judge’s ‘Group-I answer scripts re-evaluation order’

Stating that the single judge order directing it to re-evaluate Group-I main exam answer scripts was erroneous and replete with findings that were perverse in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Telangana State Public Service Commission on Wednesday filed an appeal petition in Telangana High Court seeking suspension of the order.

The Commission said in the writ appeal, likely to be heard by the HC soon, that the single judge order was contrary to law and failed to consider the detailed submissions made by it. Even the final directions of the order were mutually contradictory, the TGPSC Additional Secretary R. Sumathi, the appellant said. While directing the commission authorities to re-evaluate the answer scripts, the judge said otherwise the court was inclined to cancel the Group-I main examination, the appellant observed.

The Commission contended that re-evaluation cannot be done since there was no rule to provide such relief as per earlier verdicts of the apex court. The TGPSC Rule 3(ix)(d) made it clear that ‘re-evaluation of answer sheets shall not be entertained under any circumstances’ though re-counting of marks was permitted. Stating that the single judge order was based on surmises and conjectures and not supported by evidence, the Commission said the judge arrived at an erroneous conclusion that alleged discrepancy in number of candidates appearing for the main exam had turned out to be fatal for conducting the main exam.

The Commission said the petitioners who sought cancellation of the exam resorted to fabrication of the marks of memorandum of one candidate Bommu Poojitha Reddy. A writ petition with similar contention (12431/2025) was dismissed by the HC through an order pronounced on April 25. The HC even ordered prosecution of those petitioners while imposing costs on them. Those petitioners filed an appeal against this order.

The appellant said Poojitha Reddy was not a party to the writ petition in which the single judge passed order for re-evaluation of the answer scripts. The judge wanted the petitioners to implead her in the plea but they failed to do so. Instead, they arrayed her as one of the petitioners. The judge did not take into consideration her affidavit that she had no grievance against the Commission. In this backdrop, the single judge’s observation that allegations of fabrication of marks was defamatory was ‘in fact perverse’, the appellant said.