Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 41883

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
Nirmala Banothu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 1417 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Satyam Reddy, B. Rajeswari
For the Respondents:Government Pleader for Services-II, Advocate General

Candidates who participate in a recruitment process with full knowledge of the procedures, including notified changes and normalization methods, are estopped from challenging such processes after failing to qualify, as the selection criteria cannot be questioned after the result is known.

Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Recruitment process - Challenging change in exam pattern and normalization after participation - Doctrine of Estoppel - Candidates having participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge of the addendum prescribing normalization and CBT, cannot challenge the process after failing to secure selection - Court held that candidates are estopped from questioning the criteria or process of selection after unsuccessful participation. (Paras 15, 16, 23)

(B) Administrative Law - Recruitment - Discretion of authorities - Conducting examination in multiple shifts - Normalization of marks - Authority to modify recruitment conditions through timely addendum published on official website - Legal validity of normalization to ensure fairness across multiple shifts in computer-based testing. (Paras 11, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, aspiring for the post of Staff Nurse, challenged the recruitment process initiated vide Notification No. 03/2022. The grievances included the shift from OMR to Computer Based Test (CBT), the introduction of marks normalization, the increase in total vacancies, and the methodology of awarding service weightage. The petitioners participated in the examination, and upon securing unsatisfactory scores post-normalization, approached the Court.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the addendum introducing normalization was issued well before the examination and the provisional list. Applying the principles of estoppel, the Court held that the petitioners were aware of the procedure and could not challenge it retrospectively. The Court refused to interfere with the normalization policy, noting it is a standard practice in competitive examinations to ensure fairness across shifts.

Issues: Whether the unilateral change of examination pattern from OMR to CBT and the introduction of normalization of marks by the respondent authorities are illegal, and whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection process after participating in it.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of the rules and procedures cannot turn around to challenge the validity of those procedures after being unsuccessful, as the principle of estoppel precludes such a challenge.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with a directive for the respondents to disclose final marks and consider the petitioners' eligibility for existing vacancies if they are otherwise qualified.

Table of Content
1. petitioners challenge recruitment methods including omr vs cbt and normalization. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. respondents justify cbt and normalization mechanism as standard recruitment protocol. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. application of the principle of estoppel against unsuccessful candidates. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. court directs disclosure of marks while dismissing the challenge based on estoppel. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the fifth respondent in issuing the Addendum dated 12.06.2023 to the Notification No.03 of 2022 dated 30.12.2022, changing the prescribed pattern of examination from OMR (Optical Mark Reader) with CBT (Computer Based Test) and prescribing normalization of marks as illegal, and set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of Smt. B. Rajeswari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 and learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent No.5. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are Graduates in Nursing, which is a Four Years course. They are eligible to be appointed as a Staff Nurse. The fifth respondent issued Notification bearing No.3/2022, dated 30.12.2022, inviting applications for the posts of Staff Nurse for various departments. The selection procedure is based upon 100 points, out of which, 80 points are for the percentage of marks obtained in the Written Examination and 20 points are for services in State Government Hospitals / Institutions / Programmes on a contract / outsourced basis. Apart from others, the Written Test was conducted on 02.08.2023. The marks obtained by all the candidates who appeared for the Written Examinations were declared on 28.12.2023. On the same day, within half an hour of the release of marks, the Provisional Selection candidates list was declared. The list for verification of mark sheet was also declared on the same day, within 10 minutes of the declaration of the Provisional Selection list. The petitioners secured the following marks as per the first marks list released on 28.12.2023:

	Marks obtained
1st petitioner	52
2nd petitioner	53
3rd petitioner	54
4th petitioner	49
5th petitioner	49
6th petitioner	50
7th petitioner	55
8th petitioner	55
9th petitioner	56
10th petitioner	49
11th petitioner	55

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after the release of the list of marks, without even mentioning the cut off marks, the list of provisional selected candidates was declared on the website of the respondents. The respondents issued a web notice on 18.12.2023 stating that the Normalization of marks in Computer Based Test (CBT) Weightage marks will be released. There cannot be any Normalization of marks. The Notification No.03/2022 dated 30.12.2022 does not speak of Normalization of marks. It should have been the marks obtained in the CBT + Weightage marks. Further, it is stated that the marks are normalized. It is not specified which system is used for the Normalization of marks. The selection of candidates should be considered based on the marks obtained by them in the Written Examination + Weightage marks. The following is the difference of the marks obtained by the petitioner after Normalization:

	Marks before Normalisation	Marks after Normalisation
1st petitioner	52	48.88
2nd petitioner	53	52.237
3rd petitioner	54	49.893
4th petitioner	49	47
5th petitioner	49	48.432
6th petitioner	50	45
7th petitioner	55	52.2
8th petitioner	55	52.023
9th petitioner	56	53
10th petitioner	49	46.175
11th petitioner	55	47.304

As seen from the above list, it is clear that in the name of normalization, the marks of the petitioners are reduced. Petitioners are aggrieved by the normalization since

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 41883

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADNamavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, JNirmala Banothu – AppellantVersusThe State of Telangana – RespondentWRIT PETITION No. 1417 of 2024

Candidates who participate in a recruitment process with full knowledge of the procedures, including notified changes and normalization methods, are estopped from challenging such processes after failing to qualify, as the selection criteria cannot be questioned after the result is known.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
Nirmala Banothu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 1417 of 2024