IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.309 of 2024 Dated: 21.01.2026 Between:

Ravi Kumar Manda …Appellant and Telangana State Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad, and 3 others.

…Respondents JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Sri J.Sudheer appears for the appellant.

Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Public Service Commission, appears for respondent No.1.

Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appears for respondents No.2 and 3.

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, representing learned counsel Sri R.Rajasekhar Rao, appears for respondent No.4.

2. The learned writ court dismissed W.P (TR).No.6219 of 2017 on 01.03.2024, which was filed by the appellant seeking his re-medical examination by referring him to a different hospital/Medical Board in respect of the selection process for Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (AMVI) and to appoint him as AMVI after interview by setting aside the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 or in the alternative to direct respondents No.1 to 3 to create supernumerary post with all consequential benefits.

3. Be it indicated here that respondent No.4 was appointed as AMVI on 11.08.2016 pursuant to the Notification No.14/2025 dated 23.09.2015, whereas the appellant approached the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad on 01.08.2016 by filing O.A.No.3079 of 2016, which stood transferred to this court and renumbered as W.P (TR).No.6219 of 2017. Respondent No.4 was impleaded by an order dated 04.12.2019 in I.A.No.3 of 2019 which was filed on 09.04.2019 i.e., after three years of his appointment. The learned writ court after hearing the parties held as under:

“9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner having qualified in the written examination failed during the course of medical examination only in the category of chest expansion. The examination was conducted in the year 2016 and now, we are in the year 2024. After such a long lapse of time, it would not be proper to permit the petitioner to undergo physical examination test afresh. Further, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ponnala Praveen v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government and others (2017 (3) ALT 728), constitution of re-medical examination board only on the request of unsuccessful candidates without any allegation of corrupt practice by the team of doctors who took the physical measurements is not warranted. In fact, the Division Bench has gone to the extent of cancelling the appointments made on the basis of the report of the remedical examination board. The decision in Varadhi Babu Kishore v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary and Others (2020 SCC OnLine AP 2072), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is also distinguishable on facts, as in the said case, the challenge was not that there was no request for re-constitution of the Medical Board but the challenge was to the effect that the report was tampered by adding/interpolating certain numbers in the report regarding chest expansion. The petitioner therein asserted that he had chest expansion of 5 cms, which was recorded by the Medical Board but the subsequent interpolations showed as if he had a chest expansion of 4.5 cms, only. The Court has called for the medical report and on perusal of the said report, it came to the conclusion that the figure of ‘4’ was added in front of ‘5’ to make the expansion 4.5 cms., and it was in these circumstances, that re-medical examination was directed in the case of the petitioner therein. However, in the case on hand, it is noticed that the petitioner has been found to be unsuccessful and thereafter he has made representation for constitution of