Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 68430

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

A candidate who participates in a recruitment process with full knowledge of the notified procedure, including subsequent amendments like mark normalization and exam pattern changes, is estopped from challenging the process after unsuccessfully participating in it.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Recruitment process - Normalization of marks - Doctrine of Estoppel - Candidates participating in a selection process with full knowledge of the procedure, including subsequent notifications/addenda, are estopped from challenging the selection criteria after being unsuccessful - The court emphasized that the authority to modify the exam pattern (OMR to CBT) and adopt normalization is within the purview of the recruiting body, provided it is notified to candidates - The recruitment process, once finalized and concluded, ought not to be interfered with in a manner that disrupts the entire selection, especially when the petitioner failed to raise grievances at the appropriate time.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who are nursing graduates, challenged the recruitment process for Staff Nurse posts initiated by the fifth respondent. They contested the change from an OMR-based exam to a Computer Based Test (CBT) and the subsequent implementation of a normalization process for marks across shifts. The petitioners argued that these changes were not stipulated in the initial notification and negatively impacted their scores.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the respondents had issued an addendum clearly detailing the normalization process and the shift from OMR to CBT well before the examination. The Court noted that candidates were instructed to regularly check the official website for updates, and therefore, the petitioners could not claim ignorance. Furthermore, relying on the doctrine of estoppel, the Court found the challenge untenable as the petitioners participated in the process with full knowledge, only raising objections after seeing their result.

Issues: The main issues were whether the change in exam pattern from OMR to CBT and the introduction of mark normalization were legally permissible and whether the petitioners were estopped from challenging these after having participated in the recruitment process.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate who participates in a recruitment process with knowledge of the prescribed procedure and its subsequent amendments is precluded from challenging the integrity or fairness of that process upon failing to succeed, as such a challenge constitutes an attempt to bypass the doctrine of estoppel.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek information regarding their final marks.

Table of Content
1. petitioners' challenge regarding recruitment process irregularities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. respondent's justification for exam pattern and normalization. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. doctrine of estoppel regarding recruitment challenges. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. court observed prior notification of normalization process. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. disposal of writ with directions to disclose marks. (Para 25 , 26)

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 there is no norma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 68430

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

A candidate who participates in a recruitment process with full knowledge of the notified procedure, including subsequent amendments like mark normalization and exam pattern changes, is estopped from challenging the process after unsuccessfully participating in it.

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