TGPSC Group-1 Mains examination row: Telangana HC allows interim stay against re-evaluation of answer sheets to continue

The High Court passed the order in connection with a batch of petitions by a section of candidates who alleged that the entire examination process was flawed due to significant procedural irregularities. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin adjourned the matter for hearing on November 18 upon request of the respondents in the writ appeal. “Interim orders will continue,” the Bench observed.

The state government started handing over Group 1 appointments to successful candidates after the interim stay on the September 9 single bench’s judgment on September 24.

According to the single bench judgment, the final marks list and the general ranking list were quashed, and TGPSC was directed to re-evaluate all the answer scripts by applying the moderation method in terms of Sanjay Singh and Anr Vs UP Public Service Commission, Allahabad, manually, and announce the results. It had further directed TGPSC to take steps for filling up the said 563 posts.

If this was not feasible, the bench had said that “it was inclined to cancel the Group-I Mains examination”. The Commission was directed to re-conduct the Group-1 Mains for those who have succeeded in the prelims examination. The Commission was also given eight months to complete the entire exercise.

During the hearing on October 15, the TGPSC and successful candidates argued for a stay on the lower court’s judgment. They maintained that there was no evidence of widespread malpractice like paper leaks or mass copying. They asserted that the Commission followed all established procedures for the first Group 1 exam since Telangana’s formation. The appellants also argued that the judgment unjustly stigmatised a constitutional body and requested a stay to prevent immediate re-evaluation or re-examination.

On their part, the counsel for the aggrieved candidates contended that the entire examination process was flawed. They specifically highlighted that the evaluation of answer sheets was conducted without clear rules, leading to significant procedural irregularities. They emphasized that the lower court had meticulously examined their arguments and found sufficient reason to set aside the results and mandate either re-evaluation of the scripts within eight months or a re-examination.