Telangana staff nurse recruitment: HC orders MHSRB to reveal petitioners’ marks, consider their case

The petitioners had questioned the MHSRB’s decision to change the exam rules and introduce a normalisation of scores system. They opposed an addendum issued on June 12, 2023, that changed the exam from OMR-based to a Computer-Based Test (CBT), arguing this was arbitrary. They claimed the original 2022 notification did not allow for normalisation and alleged their own marks were reduced because of it.

They also argued that the written test held on August 2, 2023, was unfairly conducted in three shifts, which created varying levels of difficulty in the question papers. They objected to weightage marks being given to regular and outsourced staff nurses. They also challenged the increase in advertised posts from 5,204 to 7,094.

On their part, the MHSRB cited logistical constraints in testing over 40,000 applicants in a single shift as the reason for the addendum. They insisted the normalisation formula was publicly shared and followed national standards to ensure fairness. Quoting the legal principle of estoppel—the rule prevents a party from asserting or denying a fact or a right in court when their previous actions, statements, or conduct have led another party to reasonably believe something to be true and rely on that belief to their detriment—the board also argued that the petitioners could not challenge the process after participating in the exam and failing to qualify.

The court noted that although the addendum introducing normalisation was published months before the exam, the petitioners did not challenge it until after the results were declared. “After getting lower marks after normalisation, the petitioners’ case cannot be considered. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed,” the court observed.

“Unfortunately, the respondent authorities did not disclose whether the petitioners are qualified or not after adding the weightage marks. The respondent authorities did not even disclose in their counter-affidavit whether the petitioners are qualified or not. They even did not disclose whether they have kept vacant 11 posts or not in view of the above interim direction,” the court noted, recalling the interim order of January 30, 2024, directing the board to keep 11 posts vacant pending further orders.

Considering these points, the judge directed the board to consider the petitioners’ case.