##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

WRIT PETITION NO.5934 OF 2025

DATED : 07.04.2026

Between:

Pinna Mahender ... Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, I & CAD Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat,

Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Memo

No.611/DTM/2025 dt.18.02.2025 in rejecting the representation of the petitioner dt.18.12.2024 for identifying correct answer to question No.43 in respect of Divisional Test Paper-I, Paper Code No.30 held in the month of December, 2023 Session by referring the matter to the

W.P. No.5934 of 2025

2

question paper setter instead of referring it to a Third Party Expert Committee, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the said question to be referred to the Expert Committee for identifying the correct answer and thereby declare that the petitioner is entitled for one mark to be added for his pass in the said departmental test and to pass

such other order or orders.

2. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2104 of 2025 and the same was disposed of vide orders dt.27.01.2025 directing the 2^nd respondent therein (TSPSC) to refer the matter to a third party subject Expert Committee to find out the correct answer to question No.43 in Divisional Test Paper-I. The 2^nd respondent has disposed of the petitioner’s representation dt.18.12.2024 vide Memo dt.18.02.2025 after considering the reply given by the question paper setter on the clarification sought by the petitioner. The petitioner is

challenging the said Memo in this Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has requested the matter to be referred to a Third Party Expert Committee and instead of referring the matter to such Expert Committee, the 2^nd respondent has referred the matter to the question

W.P. No.5934 of 2025

3

paper setter itself and rejected the representation of the petitioner without considering the same in accordance with the direction of this

Court in W.P.No.2104 of 2025.

4. The 1^st respondent has not yet filed any counter affidavit.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent and submitted that the issue of setting answers to the questions by the Expert Committee should not be interfered with by this Court as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UPPSC through its

Chairman and another Vs. Rahul Singh and another, (2018) 7 SCC 254

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court observes that as per the direction in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.2104 of 2025, the matter has to be referred to a Third Party Expert Committee, whereas the 2^nd respondent has taken the opinion of the question paper setter and came to the conclusion against the

petitioner. It is not in accordance with the direction of this Court.

W.P. No.5934 of 2025

4

7. Therefore, the impugned Memo dt.18.02.2025 is set aside and the 2^nd respondent is directed to refer the matter to a Third Party Expert Committee for clarification as sought for by the petitioner and obtain its reply to the subject question and thereafter take a decision based on its reply. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3)

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

order as to costs.

9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 07.04.2026 Svv