SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 90

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J., G.M. Mohiuddin, J.
Telangana Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary - Appellant
Versus
Paramesh Matta and others - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos.1066, 1054, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1086 and 1470 of 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General and Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel Representing Mr. Sriram Polali

The court held that procedural discrepancies and allegations, without substantial evidence of bias or systemic failure, do not merit interference with the integrity of the examination process.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Public Service Commission Act - Conduct of Examinations - Writ Petition pertaining to Group-I Services Examination for 563 posts - Allegations of irregularities in conducting Mains examination, procedural aspects, and evaluation method not established. Court ruled that there was no demonstrable bias or malice. The evaluation method adopted, including measures for examiner variability, was found to be appropriate, hence the ruling of the learned writ court was overturned. (Paras 11-12, 18-19, 20-28, 57-72)

(B) Examination Centers allocation and Hall tickets issuance - Provisions regarding should not affect examination integrity - Lack of malicious intent or proof of systemic failures not shown. (Paras 20-28, 40-46)

(C) Method of Evaluation - Moderation methods followed and constitutionality of evaluation upheld. (Paras 24, 50-72)

Facts of the case:
The Telangana Public Service Commission issued Notification No.02/2024 for the recruitment of Group-I Services and conducted a series of examinations, generating allegations of inconsistencies and biases in the process. These allegations led to writ petitions challenging the evaluation and results.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the conduct of the examination was within the constitutional mandate and appropriately managed, dismissing claims of bias or procedural improprieties.

Issues: The primary issues addressed were the alleged lack of transparency, improper allocation of examination centers, and the evaluation process's integrity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the autonomy of public service commissions in examinations and evaluation methodologies, affirming that mere procedural discrepancies and allegations without substantive evidence do not justify court intervention.

Result: Writ appeals allowed, and the earlier directives of the writ court were set aside.

Table of Content
1. introduction of case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. outline of issues raised by writ petitioners. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments regarding procedural aspects of examination. (Para 8)
4. responses and defenses from the commission. (Para 10)
5. analysis and conclusions of the court. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ.

Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General and Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appear for Mr. P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Public Service Commission, appellant in W.A.Nos.1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078 and 1079 of 2025.

Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Sriram Polali, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1086 of 2025 and respondent Nos.60, 61, 63, 64, 67 to 71, 74 to 79, 81, 82, 84, 86 to 125, 127 to 133, 135 to 137, 140 to 158 and 160 to 164 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025.

Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for appellants in W.A.No.1470 of 2025 and respondents in W.A.Nos.1077 and 1080 of 2025.

Dr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appears for the appellant in W.A.No.1054 of 2025 and respondent No.158 in W.A.No.1077 of 2025.

Mr. Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel appears for appellants in W.A.No.1080 of 2025 and respondent Nos.23 to 39 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025, respondent No.109 in W.A.No.1077 of 2025 and respondent No.24 in W.A.No.1086 of 2025.

Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Aditya Vyas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.62, 66, 72 and 80 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025.

Dr. S.Muralidhar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Aditya Vyas, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos.65, 73, 85, 126 and 138 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025.

Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.81, 123 and 130 in W.A.No.1470 of 2025 and also for Ms. B.N.Pravalika Goud, learned counsel for respondents No.15 and 42 in W.A.No.1470 of 2025.

Mr. P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. C.Janardhan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.83, 159 and 134 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025.

Ms. B.Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners in W.A.No.1066 and 1086 of 2025.

Mr. B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr.Madas Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in W.A.No.1076 of 2025.

Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Kaustubh Chaturvedi, learned counsel appears for Mr. Abhishek Sagar, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in W.A.No.1054 of 2025, virtually.

Mr. K.Sai Teja, learned counsel appears for Mr. T.R.V.S.S.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1075 of 2025.

Mr. Aravindu Maturi, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1067 of 2025.

Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 in W.A.No.1074 of 2025.

Mr. Shreyas Reddy Yalagiri, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1069 of 2025.

Ms. Nisha Tiwari, learned counsel appears for Mr. Abhishek Sagar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1070 of 2025.

Mr. K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. S.Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in W.A.No.1076 of 2025.

Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for unofficial respondents/writ petitioners in W.A.No.1079 of 2025.

Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appears for Ms. K. Kiran Mayee, learned counsel for respondent No.12 in W.A.No.1086 of 2025.

2. The present writ appeals, except W.A.No.1470 of 2025, have been preferred by the Telangana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) and the successful candidates aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top