Point of law: there is no need to annul entire examination process of Common Law Admission Test. Normalization formula suggested on basis of statistical data about actual loss of exam time and answering efficiency of candidates.

ORDER :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. Both the writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief:

"to declare the impugned action of the Respondents in not normalizing the score of the candidates like the petitioners for the examinations conducted by the Respondents in multi shifts to take into account in the difficulty levels of the question papers across the different shifts and normalization is not done based on the fundamental assumption that in all multi shifting examinations the distribution of abilities of candidates is the same across all the shifts and without following the formula recognized under law and not calculating the final score of the candidates like the petitioners in the multi shift examinations in the DSC-2018 for the post of Secondary Giggle Teacher Telugu and also not considering the objections against the questions 172, 190, 190, 173 and 31 in Session 1 of 18.01.2019 and Session 2-of 18.01.2019; Session 1 of 24.01.2019; Session 2 of 24.01.2019 and Session 1 of 27.01.2019 respectively made by the petitioners and relying upon the unreferred books and not rectifying the mistakes despite the fact though prima facie appeared as mistakes is illegal arbitrary irrational irregular and unwarranted and required to redraw the list and consequently direct the Respondents to strictly adopt the Normalization Procedure/Technique fundamental and to calculate final score of the candidates in the multi shifting examination in the DSC-2018 for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and to draw the merit list for selection of the petitioners with their merit so obtained for the purpose of appointment pursuant to the DSC-2018 and appoint accordingly with all consequential benefits."

"To issue writ of Mandamus Declaring the action of the respondents in not following the method of Normalization for evaluation of marks of the candidates appeared in the written test conducted for recruitment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers pursuant to TET cum TRT notification No. 768/TRC1/2018 Dt. 26.10.2018 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and apart from the same being contrary to the well settled procedure adopted all over the country and further direct the respondents to follow the procedure of Normalization for evaluation of marks for the purpose of selection for recruitment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers"

2. These two writ petitions are filed for identical relief, as such, learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents advanced common argument. Hence, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide both the writ petitions by common order.

3. However, during hearing, in W.P. No. 15355 of 2019 learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vijay Kumar Motupalli has not pressed the relief to the extent shown in italics.

"thus relating to non-consideration of objections against Question No. 172, 190, 196, 173 and 31 not considering the objections against the questions 172, 190, 190, 173 and 31 in Session 1 of 18.01.2019 and Session 2 of 18.01.2019; Session 1 of 24.01.2019; Session 2 of 24.01.2019 and Session 1 of 27.01.2019 respectively made by the petitioners.

4. Hence, this Court is not required to adjudicate as to the contention with regard to non-consideration of objections for various questions in different sessions referred above, while limiting the adjudication of this Court to the other part of the prayer.

5. Initially, the petition was filed against eight official respondents, but by I.A. No. 2 of 2020 dated 30.07.2020, Respondent Nos. 9 to 190 were impleaded in W.P. No. 15355 of 2019.

6. As the issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical, W.P. No. 15355 of 2019 is taken as leading case.

7. Though the facts are not in controversy, a little narration is required for proper adjudication and clarity. Hence, the n