Back
AP High Court Slams APPSC: No Re-Run for Flawed Marks After Years of Defiance
In a stern rebuke to the , the dismissed a by aspirant Pennabadi Amaranath Reddy, who sought re-evaluation of his Group-I exam answer script. Single Judge Hon’ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay not only upheld APPSC's rejection memo but imposed Rs.50,000 costs on the petitioner, criticizing the commission for flouting rules and court orders through repeated expert committees. This echoes reports of the court slamming APPSC for unauthorized re-evaluations despite an .
Decade of Disputes: From Exam Hall to Courtroom Marathon
The saga began with APPSC's Notification No.39/ (supplemented by No.10/2009) for Group-I services. Petitioner Reddy cleared prelims but scored low—49/250—in Paper-IV (Science & Technology), missing the interview cutoff despite strong performance elsewhere (88, 83, 97, 130 in other papers). Suspecting errors, he sought re-evaluation in , RTI inspection in , and dragged the issue through the (O.A.1452/, dismissed ), multiple writs (dismissed/withdrawn -), SLPs (dismissed ), and a contempt petition.
Post- dismissal, APPSC—ironically—formed a three-member expert panel (profs from Andhra and Sri Venkateswara Universities) in , which flagged anomalies and suggested ~80 marks. A second two-member panel then awarded 119-123 marks, notionally placing him in the interview zone. Government letters () urged action, including supernumerary posts, but APPSC rejected via Memo dated , citing rules against re-valuation.
Petitioner's Plea: Injustice Demands Mandate
Reddy argued the panels confirmed evaluation blunders, justifying interviews and supernumerary posts per government guidance. He claimed violations of (equality, equal opportunity, life/liberty), urging to implement panel reports over the "illegal" memo.
APPSC and State's Defense: Rules Trump Repeated Scrutiny
Respondents countered that and prohibit re-valuation/recounting. Prior litigation, affirmed by , barred revisits. Panels were exploratory only; acting on them would open "" for past/future claims. Government nods were conditional on APPSC's lawful competence, which was absent.
Judicial Dissection: Variance, Precedents, and a 'Mockery' of Law
Justice Vijay reviewed sealed scripts and reports, tabulating marks: original 49 , first panel ~80 , second 119/123 —a "" unfit for . Citing a prior Division Bench order (W.Ps.19420/2020 & 11385/2019, ), he invoked precedents:
- : No re-valuation absent exceptional fraud.
- : Rules barring re-checks are binding.
- : Mere discrepancy claims insufficient without rule breach proof.
The court lambasted APPSC: committees post- dismissal made a "mockery" of adjudication, notification, and rules. The second panel seemed "customised" to favor the petitioner, with first-panel marks "conveniently suppressed."
“Firstly, when there is in revaluations, it would not be safe to rely on such valuations for issuance of a .”
“...the APPSC made a mockery of the adjudication by constitutional courts, Rule 3 (ix) of the Rules and the notification itself prohibiting re-valuation, by constituting an expert committee after expert committee.”
Verdict's Bite: Dismissal, Costs, and a Warning
The writ was dismissed:
"this Court does not find any flaw in the impugned orders"
. Costs to underscore after exhaustive litigation. APPSC must return sealed documents.
“...the is dismissed with costs of Rupees Fifty thousand (Rs.50,000/-) payable to the by the Petitioner.”
This reinforces no re-valuation in competitive exams unless rules permit, shielding processes from endless challenges. Aspirants note: panels don't override notifications; remain shut.
