Telangana High Court Suspends Single-Judge Order That Set Aside Group-I Examination Results Declared by Public Service Commission
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Telangana Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin has suspended the directions issued by a single judge that had set aside the Final Marks List and General Ranking List for the 2024 Group-I examination conducted by the Telangana Public Service Commission. The single-judge order had directed either re-evaluation of the answer sheets using the moderation method prescribed in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission or a fresh Mains examination. The Division Bench, hearing appeals by the Commission and successful candidates, ordered that the single-judge’s directive remain in abeyance pending final adjudication.
The dispute arose from the recruitment process for the 2024 Group-I examination conducted by the Telangana Public Service Commission (PSC) under a notification issued in February 2024. After the completion of the Mains examination, the PSC published the Final Marks List on 10 March 2025 and the General Ranking List on 30 March 2025. A group of unsuccessful candidates challenged these lists before the single-judge writ court, alleging that the evaluation process lacked transparency and that the Commission deviated from its own rules, thereby affecting the integrity of the recruitment.
The writ petitioners argued that the answer sheets were evaluated without proper adherence to prescribed rules and that moderation of marks, as mandated by judicial precedent in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2007), had not been applied. They contended that these irregularities undermined the fairness of the selection process and sought a re-evaluation of the answer sheets using the moderation method or, alternatively, a re-conduct of the Mains examination for those who had qualified in the preliminary stage.
The PSC and successful candidates opposed the writ petitions, asserting that the examination was conducted in accordance with applicable rules and without any allegation of leakage of question papers, mass irregularities, or bias. They maintained that the single-judge’s decision to set aside the lists cast unwarranted stigma on a constitutional recruiting body and disrupted a major recruitment exercise conducted for the first time after the formation of the State of Telangana.
The single-judge accepted the petitioners’ contentions, but on appeal, the Division Bench suspended the operative directions pending final adjudication.
The Division Bench recorded the contentions advanced by both sides. It noted the appellants’ submission that “there is no allegation or proof of any leakage of question paper or answer sheets or mass irregularity in the conduct of the examination.” The appellants further stated that “the Commission had duly observed the procedure for conduct of the said examination as per Rules.” The Court noted their contention that the order under appeal had cast “serious stigma on a constitutional body like the Public Service Commission which is empowered to conduct such examinations for recruitment to the Group-I category and other services in the State.”
On the other hand, the Division Bench recorded the arguments of the writ petitioners who submitted that “the whole examination process suffered from procedural irregularities.” They contended that “the evaluation of the answer sheets also were undertaken without any backing of Rules.” The Court observed that according to the petitioners, the writ court “examined each of the contentions raised by the writ petitioners and has given considered findings.” It further noted their submission that the writ court “was persuaded to set aside the Final Marks List and General Ranking List and direct re-evaluation of the answer sheets of Group-I examination by applying the moderation method.”
The Division Bench also recorded that the writ petitioners stated the alternative direction provided by the writ court: “if such re-evaluation is not possible, the Commission shall re-conduct the Group-I examination for those who have succeeded in the prelims examination.” The petitioners stated that they would demonstrate during the appeals that the impugned order did not suffer from infirmities warranting interference.
In its order, the Division Bench directed: “As prayed for, list these cases on 15.10.2025.” It further ordered: “In the meantime, there shall be interim suspension of the operative direction contained in paragraph No.372 of the impugned order. Any appointments made in the meantime shall be subject to the outcome of the instant writ appeals.”
Counsel for the appellant Commission and the successful candidates undertook to provide written submissions by 10 October 2025 for the convenience of the Court. Similarly, counsel for the writ petitioners and unofficial respondents submitted that three sets of written submissions covering the case of the writ petitioners would be filed. The Court directed that the appeals be listed on 15 October 2025 for hearing.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate General; Mr. P.S. Rajasekhar, Standing Counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sriram Polali; Ms. B. Rachna Reddy, Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Baseer Riyaz; Mr. A. Venkatesh, Senior Counsel representing Ms. Dornala Sai Mahitha; Mr. K.S. Murthy, Senior Counsel representing Mr. S. Rama Mohan Rao; Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram; Mr. M. Surender Rao, Senior Counsel representing Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju; Dr. S. Muralidhar, Senior Counsel representing Mr. Aditya Vyas; Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha; Mr. Gummalla Bhasker Reddy; Mr. P. Vishnu Vardhana Reddy, Senior Counsel; Mr. Shreyas Reddy Yalagiri; and Mr. Poodattu Amarender.
Case Title: Telangana Public Service Commission v. Writ Petitioners
Case Number: W.A.Nos.1066 to 1080 and 1054 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin
