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
| 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
Sanjay Singh vs. U.P.Public Service Commission, Allahabad
Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission
Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs. Dr. Yerra Trinadh
Sunil Kumar vs. Bihar Public Service Commission
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H.Satya
Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana
Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth
Ramjit Singh Kardam vs. Sanjeev Kumar
President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa vs. D.Suvankar
Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay
Sujasha Mukherjee vs. High Court of Calcutta through Registrar
U.P.Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav
Disha Panchal vs. Union of India
Pranav Verma vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Babu Verghese vs. Bar Council of Kerala
State of Jharkhand vs. Ambay Cements
State of Tamil Nadu vs. G.Hemalathaa
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.
The court upheld the recruitment process's validity, asserting that low qualification rates alone do not imply arbitrariness, and candidates cannot challenge post-failure under doctrines of acquiesce....
Point of Law : It is well established law that scope of interference in an appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act against Interlocutory order, where rights of parties are not substantiall....
Minor technical irregularities in recruitment exams, promptly rectified without systemic fraud or inability to segregate tainted/untainted candidates, do not vitiate entire selection process.
An examination can only be cancelled if there are systemic irregularities; isolated incidents do not justify re-examination if tainted candidates can be segregated from untainted ones.
Candidates cannot challenge recruitment processes post-results without demonstrating legal injury or material error affecting their outcomes.
Public Service Commission - Civil service Examination - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.