Re-evaluate Group-I Mains answer scripts or re-conduct exam within 8 months: HC to TGPSC

Observing that the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) “has not learnt from its previous experience”, despite “two instances of cancellation of Group-I examination”, the Telangana High Court, on Tuesday, directed the Commission to re-evaluate all the answer scripts.

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the HC, pronouncing the verdict in a batch of 13 writ petitions, said that the HC was inclined to cancel the Group-I Mains examination if the re-evaluation was not done.

If the re-evaluation is not possible, the Commission should re-conduct the examination (as per the notification No. 02/2024 issued on February 19, 2024) within a period of eight months of receiving a copy of the judgment, the order said.

Disposing of 13 writ petitions, which challenged mainly the evaluation of the Mains exam papers and alleged irregularities in conducting the exam by TGPSC, the judge said, “The Commission had not maintained transparency, integrity, acted in a biased manner and deviated from their own rules”. The Bench remarked that “TGPSC’s negligence and inefficiency affected individuals”, the unemployed youth of Telangana.

The judge also said that the candidates had to spend substantial amounts on coaching classes. They studied 10 to 12 hours a day while preparing for the exam. Some candidates even resigned from their jobs to prepare for the examination. “The Commission failed in both procedural aspects and evaluation method, which is impermissible,” the order said.

Justice Rajeshwar Rao set aside the final marks list and the General Ranking List (GRL) announced by the Commission on March 10 and March 30 this year. Referring to the re-evaluation of the answer scripts, the judge said that the TGPSC should apply for the moderation method manually in terms of the Sanjay Singh and another vs Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission case verdict of the apex court and announce the results.

Only based on such results, the 563 posts of Group-I cadre should be filled up, the judgement said. The judge said that 713 candidates securing the same marks was ‘unusual’. The judge said the Commission’s argument that 440 candidates got marks in the range of 430-439.5 and it ‘was usual in a highly competitive exam’ cannot be appreciated.

Female candidates appeared for the exam from 28 centres. Seventy one women who wrote exam from centres no. 18 and 19 got selected. This meant 35.5% of women per centre got selected. For the remaining centres, the percentage stood at 5.35. This significant amount of variance was unacceptable and established the allegations of the petitioners, the judge said.