Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
PULLA KARTHIK
Gajoji Srikanth – Appellant
Versus
Singareni Collieries Company Limited – Respondent
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
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.
The court established that an expert committee's evaluation of answer keys in recruitment processes is presumptively correct, allowing judicial restraint unless glaring errors are evident.
The court has the authority to direct the appointment of an Expert Committee to examine the correctness of the answers and can order the appointment of a candidate with seniority and incremental bene....
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
The court emphasized the need for restraint in challenging key answers and the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in recruitment disputes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
