Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
PULLA KARTHIK
Laxmidevi Ajay – Appellant
Versus
Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director – Respondent
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in changing the correct options from the preliminary key/response sheet to the final key/question paper preview for Question Nos.26 (Question I.D. No.630680217894), 27 (Question I.D. No.630680217921), 63 (Question I.D. No.630680380422) and 64 (Question I.D. No.630680380429) and in not considering the objection raised with respect to Question No.65 (Question I.D. No.630680389642) in the examination conducted by the respondent company for the post of Assistant Foreman Trainee (Electrical) on 06.08.2024 pursuant to Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct respondent No.2 to refer and re-evaluate Question Nos.26, 27, 63, 64 and 65 (bearing Question I.D. Nos.630680217894, 630680217921, 630680380422, 630680380429 and 630680389642 respectively) through an independent and competent expert committee.
2. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company
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 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.
Point of Law : Law that compassion sympathy or claim on basis of assessment cannot be permitted as entire examination process is derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or p....
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.
Courts should defer to the opinion of subject experts in public examinations and should not interfere with the examination process unless there is a glaring mistake that is totally apparent without a....
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 KEA can amend finalized answer keys post-objection submissions if justified by substantial complaints, emphasizing the authority of expert committees in ensuring fairness in selection processes.
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
