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. 196 of 2026 DATED : 17.02.2026 Between:

Pothu Anvesh … Appellant AND The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and two others … Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Sri D. Kulashekar, learned counsel appears for appellant/writ petitioner.

Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appears for respondents.

2. The grievance of the writ petitioner was in relation to the non-evaluation of question Nos.67, 97, 100 and 109 and not referring the disputed answers to the subject experts. He also prayed to direct the respondents to award correct marks to the petitioner and revise the answer key and include his name in the select list for appointment to the post of Executive Cadre Serial No.1, Management Trainee (E and M), E-2 Grade.

3. It appears from perusal of the records that pursuant to the impugned Notification No.2 of 2024 dated 15.05.2024, the petitioner appeared for the computer based test held on 07.08.2024. The response sheet for the said test was displayed on 13.08.2024 and the candidates were given an opportunity to submit objections regarding the preliminary answer key up to 15.08.2024. A total of 441 objections were received for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, which includes Question Nos.67, 97, 100 and 109.

4. The respondent employer constituted a subject Expert Committee to examine the objections raised by the candidates. The Expert Committee reviewed the preliminary answer key with reference to such objections and relevant materials. After considering the corrections and recommendations made by such Expert Committee, the final answer key was published with reference to the disputed questions. On 08.10.2024, the provisional merit list was published. The petitioner reiterated his request for reevaluation and revision of the merit list again. After that, candidates within the zone of selection were called for certificate verification on 05.11.2024. Appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates on 06.11.2024. The petitioner was not selected due to insufficient marks. Therefore, he submitted representations seeking further reevaluation. However, no action has been taken by the respondents so far. Therefore, he approached this Court in the impugned Writ Petition, W.P.No.29717 of 2024, challenging the final answer key and the provisional merit list.

5. The learned writ Court after considering the case of the parties and the materials on record and after taking note of the decisions rendered in Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 and Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254 held that the final answer key and provisional merit list were published only after careful scrutiny and correction by the Expert Committee, strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the examination. The

petitioner having secured 85 marks in the computer based test was placed 140^th rank in the provisional merit list which was insufficient for selection. Therefore, vide order dated 21.11.2025, the writ Court opined that the recruitment process was conducted following all the prescribed procedures and under expert scrutiny, ensuring fairness and transparency and also following the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in the above cited decisions that the Court must exercise restraint in interfering in the expert opinion in academic matters and should intervene only in the case of glaring or material errors which are not present in the instant case, and dismissed the impugned Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the submissions made before the writ Court.

7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties on merits and on consideration of the materials on record, we are of the firm view that