Court upheld that examination instructions specifying English as authoritative in case of translation discrepancies are binding, rejecting claims based on incorrect application of precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Renuka Yara, J.

Heard Dr. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2. This is an Intra-Court appeal arising out of the common order dated 02.04.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in/and W.P.No.4796 of 2020, whereby, a direction was issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to give one mark to respondent No.1 for option ‘A’ given by her to question No.27 of Booklet-C and to consider her appointment for the post of Junior Personnel Officer.

3. The facts of the case reveal that respondent No.3-TSSPDCL conducted written examination on 15.12.2019 for recruitment to the post of Junior Personnel Officer. The written examination consisted of Question Paper Booklet containing 100 Multiple choice questions in English, each question followed by a translation in Telugu. In the instructions to the candidates printed in the said booklet, it is specifically mentioned that in case, there is any discrepancy in translation, the English version of the question will be considered as correct and final. The said instruction No.3 is extracted and reproduced below:

“In this question paper for all questions the corresponding Telugu version is also provided. In case of any discrepancy in the translation, the English version of the question will be considered as correct and final”.

4. In the said Question Paper Booklet provided in written examination, Question No.27 in English carried exact opposite meaning as per Telugu translation. As per English version, the question was about the date of payment of wages by a factory or Industrial Establishment where there are less than 1000 employees and the correct answer is Option ‘C’ i.e. 7^th of every month. Whereas, as per Telugu translation, the question was about the date of payment of wages by a factory where there are more than 1000 employees and the correct answer is Option ‘A’ i.e. 10^th of every month. The writ appellant gave correct answer as per English version i.e. Option ‘C’ and secured 69 marks out of 100 marks. Per contra, respondent No.1/writ petitioner gave correct answer to the Telugu translation i.e. Option ‘A’ and secured 68 marks.

5. In that backdrop, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.4796 of 2020 with a prayer to direct respondent No.3 to consider both the answers of option ‘C’ for the question in English and option ‘A’ for the question in Telugu and award one mark for her and to consider her appointment in case she comes within the zone of consideration for the post of Junior Personnel officer as per recruitment notification. When there are equal marks secured by two candidates, the candidate who is older would have to be considered for appointment. In that case, respondent No.1/writ petitioner being older, she has to be selected for the said post. Vide order dated 05.05.2020 in W.P.No.4796 of 2020, an interim stay was granted on the recruitment of the appellant till 26.05.2020. After the said order got vacated in view of lapse of time period, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.32381 of 2021 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to appoint her as Junior Personal Officer, since she secured 69 marks. Vide order dated 07.06.2022, a learned Single Judge while observing that there was no further extension of aforesaid interim order dated 05.05.2020 passed in W.P.No.4796