HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 24377 OF 2019

O R D E R:

Petitioners filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional action of the 2^nd respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "TGPSC"), in issuing Provisional Selection Notification dated 24.10.2019 pursuant to Group-II Services Notification No. 20/2015 dated 31.12.2015 and Revised Notification No. 17/2016 dated 01.09.2016, without adhering to due process of law, in contravention of the binding directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and its batch dated 03.06.2019, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of petitioners is that they are meritorious candidates who appeared in Group-II Services Examination conducted by the 2nd respondent on 11.11.2016 and 13.11.2016 for Papers I to IV, pursuant to the aforesaid Notifications. Having secured merit in the written examination, they became eligible for consideration in selection process. However, to their utter shock and dismay, respondents, while issuing the impugned provisional selection notification, included candidates whose answer sheets were vitiated by tampering, overwriting, erasures, and other violations of the prescribed instructions contained in the Notification itself, thereby caused irreparable prejudice to petitioners' legitimate right to fair consideration for appointment.

2.1. It is stated, as per the express stipulations contained in the recruitment Notification and examination instructions, each OMR answer sheet was divided into three parts: Part-A (personal details), Part-B (the middle portion containing the actual answers), and Part-C (candidate's name and invigilator's signatures). The Notification categorically declared that any tampering, overwriting, erasure, or usage of whiteners in any part of the OMR sheet would render it invalid for evaluation. These conditions were not mere procedural formalities but substantive safeguards meant to ensure transparency, integrity and uniformity in evaluation. Despite such mandatory conditions, the 2^nd respondent, in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner, considered and evaluated OMR answer sheets of several candidates who had committed errors and manipulations in Part-B, which directly pertains to performance evaluation, thereby distorting the merit structure and prejudicing the rights of genuine candidates, including petitioners. Such deviation from the prescribed rules and procedure amounts to a colourable exercise of power, offending the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16, and violating the rule of law which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

2.2. Petitioners further state that earlier, in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017, this Court, upon elaborate consideration, had directed deletion of all the candidates who had committed mistakes in Part-A, Part-B, and Part-C from selection list. The said order was carried in appeal by the affected candidates in Writ Appeal Nos. 1525 and 1527 of 2018 and batch, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench, after an exhaustive consideration of the report of the Technical Committee dated 09.03.2017, held that only mistakes in Part-A and Part-C, being peripheral and not affecting the candidate's performance, could be ignored, but the errors in Part-B - middle portion containing the answers could not be condoned. The operative portion of the Division Bench judgment is extracted hereunder:

" The Technical Committee in its report dated 09.03.2017 recommended that the mistakes that fell under the 1st and 3rd categories could be ignored and the answer sheets of those candidates could be evaluated, but the Technical Committee recommended to the Public Service Commission not to evaluate the answer sheets of the candidates who committed mistakes in