Hyderabad: Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the High Court of Telangana directed the Telangana Public Services Commission (TGPSC) not to appoint the appointment of Ingroup-I Services in Notice No. 02/2024 of 19 February 2024.
Justice Rajeswar Rao clarified that although certificate verification may be conducted, no appointment should be made at the last hearing. The judge released the matter for consideration on April 28.
The judge is handling writ requests filed by IMMATENS MATTA and 19 other persons, most of whom are government employees. They attempted to declare the ongoing recruitment illegal and were in violation and inconsistency during the main computer exam evaluation between October 21 and October 27, 2024.
Senior legal counsel Rachana Reddy appeared for the petitioner and noted that although the lobby ticket numbers for two different preliminaries and subject exams were not mentioned in the recruitment notice. This, she believes, has caused serious suspicion because the number of candidates taking the exam suddenly increased. It was pointed out that one candidate, Bommu Poojitha Reddy, applied for her main radio answer sheet, reduced her score by 60 points, reducing her ranking from 130 to 1,700.
Senior legal counsel noted that candidates from some examination centers ranked in the top 100, while candidates from others received low marks, highlighting the so-called differences and lack of transparency. The petitioner argues that the general ranking list is wrong and does not reflect actual advantages due to the flaws in the so-called evaluation process.
The petitioners claimed that their answer scripts were not properly evaluated and raised serious concerns about marking differences, lack of transparency, and violations of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner attempted to cancel the evaluation and instructions to reevaluate the trademark or to perform a re-check for all candidates appearing for the main power supply. The petitioner seeks court monitoring or independent judicial investigation of the assessment process and publishes a new general ranking list based on the corrected assessment.
On the other hand, TGPSC permanent legal counsel PS Rajasekhar strongly opposed the petitioner’s submission and argued that the petitioner had fabricated the marking form of Poojitha Reddy. He said she had been sent a notice of the performance reasons to provide an explanation for why she shouldn’t stand out from future exams. The permanent lawyer made copies of the original trademark table, compared to the so-called trademark table proposed by the petitioner.
It is also widely believed that the issuance of separate Hall tickets and subject exams by TSPSC is an administrative issue within its terms of reference, with one center having more possibilities than other centers.
The permanent lawyer argued that in the absence of Poojitha Reddy as the petitioner in the written petition, her trademark form should not be relied on and used to stop the recruitment process. The petitioner’s senior legal counsel resisted the argument of Poojitha Reddy’s marking form and argued that the TSPSC had made the document to protect itself. The lawyer also claimed that TGPSC had several differences in conducting recruitment exams and raised questions about record changes in answer script evaluations. TGPSC lawyers believe that record changes history can be displayed. After hearing detailed hearings from the parties, the judge directed Poojitha Reddy to be painted with approval and submitted as part of a written petition and should be produced by TGPSC for record change history.
