The court affirmed that judicial intervention in expert evaluations of recruitment exams should be minimal unless clear errors are proven, maintaining the integrity of the evaluation process.

ORDER :

1. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are being heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not evaluating Question Nos.67, 97, 100, and 109 of the question paper preview dated 02.08.2024, issued on 26.09.2024, with the correct answers to be assessed by subject experts and reference books, and in not considering the petitioners’ representations dated 28.09.2024, 17.10.2024, and 18.10.2024 for inclusion of their names at Serial Nos.26 and 55, respectively, in the list of the selected candidates for the written test for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, under Employment Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024, these two Writ Petitions have been filed. It is also to be noted that in Writ Petition No.29390 of 2024, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-evaluation of Question Nos.67, 97 and 109, whereas in Writ Petition No.29717 of 2024, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-evaluation of Question Nos.67, 97, 100 and 109. Except for the additional grievance relating to Question No.100 in the latter petition, the issue involved in both Writ Petitions is identical.

3. Heard Sri S.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in response to Employment Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024 issued by respondent No.1 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to executive and non- executive posts, the petitioners applied for Executive Cadre post serial No.1 i.e., Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. Subsequently, the petitioners appeared for the computer based test held on 07.08.2024 with Hall Ticket Nos.221117100437 and 221112100443, respectively. Thereafter, the respondents released the question paper preview dated 02.08.2024 on 26.09.2024. As per the preview, the petitioners secured 88 and 85 marks, respectively. However, upon verification, the petitioners found that the answers to Question Nos.67 (ID No.630680120673), 97 (ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID No.63068093720), and 109 (ID No.63068079508) were incorrect. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to an additional three and four marks, respectively, thereby enhancing their scores to 91 (88+3) and 89 (85+4). Therefore, the petitioners submitted their objections on 28.09.2024 through e-mail. (b) It is further submitted that on 08.10.2024, the respondents released the online provisional merit list of qualified candidates pertaining to the aforesaid notification, wherein the petitioners were shown at Serial Nos.66 and 140 with 88 and 85 marks, respectively. It is contended that the petitioners belong to BC-B and BC-A communities and that if three and four marks are added to their respective scores, their totals would increase to 91 and 89 marks, thereby placing their names at Serial Nos.26 and 55 respectively. In such circumstances, the petitioners are fully entitled to be considered for appointment on merit to the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. Therefore, the petitioners submitted representations dated 28.09.2024, 17.10.2024 and 18.10.2024 to the respondents, stating that the answers to Question Nos.67 (ID No.630680120673), 97 (ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID No.63068093720) and 109 (ID No.63068079508) in the question paper preview dated 02.08.2024 were incorrect and requested to review the same by subject experts, award the co