The evaluation process for public recruitment must strictly adhere to judicial directives and integrity principles, prohibiting inclusion of candidates who tampered with exam answer sheets.

ORDER:

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioners filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional procedure adopted by the 2^nd respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘TGSPSC’), in the process of re-evaluation and publication of results for recruitment to Group-II Services pursuant to Notification No.20/2015, dated 30.12.2015 and Supplementary Notification No.17/2016, dated 01.09.2016. They contend that the entire re-evaluation and finalization of results culminating in the notification dated 24.10.2019 is contrary to the binding directions issued by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and batch, as well as the recommendations of the Technical Committee constituted by the Commission.

2. The case of petitioners is that the 2^nd respondent in the guise of implementing the Division Bench's judgment dated 03.06.2019, acted contrary to its true intent and spirit, by evaluating answer sheets of candidates who had admittedly tampered or used whiteners and erasers in Part-B of the OMR answer sheets, thereby vitiating the selection process and causing grave prejudice to meritorious candidates like petitioners.

2.1. The factual matrix leading to filing of this Writ Petition is not in dispute. The 2^nd issued Notification No.20/2015 dated 30.12.2015 and Supplementary Notification No.17/2016 dated 01.09.2016 inviting Applications for 1032 posts in thirteen categories under Group-II Services. petitioners, being fully eligible in terms of educational qualifications and other criteria, applied for the posts, appeared for written examination conducted on 11.11.2016 and 13.11.2016, and qualified. The written test comprised four papers, each carrying 150 marks, and was followed by an interview carrying 75 marks, making the total marks 675. Selection was to be made on the combined performance of candidates in the written examination and interview.

2.2. Petitioners state that the OMR answer sheet used for the examination was divided into three parts - Part-A containing personal details of the candidate, Part-B containing answers to 150 questions, and Part-C requiring the candidate's name and signature. The instructions printed on OMR sheet as well as in the notification explicitly warned candidates not to use whiteners, erasers, blades or to make any kind of overwriting or tampering, and that any such act would result in automatic disqualification. During the conduct of examination, certain mismatches were reported between the question booklet codes and the OMR answer sheets, particularly in Paper-I. To resolve the issue, the 2nd respondent constituted a Technical Committee comprising experts from the field, by proceedings dated 06.12.2016. The Technical Committee, after a detailed examination of the problem, submitted a report on 09.03.2017. The Committee observed that confusion had arisen mainly due to the mistaken belief among candidates and invigilators that question booklet number must correspond to OMR number. It recommended that while minor mismatches in Part-A could be condoned, the Commission must strictly not evaluate OMR answer sheets where candidates had tampered Part-B - the portion containing answers to 150 questions-by scratching, erasing, or using whiteners. The Committee emphasized that such acts destroyed the integrity of the answer sheet and rendered it incapable of reliable evaluation.

2.3. Petitioners further state that relying upon the report of the Technical Committee, several candidates, including one V. Ramachandra Reddy and others, approached this Court in Writ Petition No.18834 of 2017 and batch, contending that the 2^nd Respondent had included disqualified c