TGPSC Appeals Against Single Judge’s Group-I Re-Evaluation Order

The Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) has filed an appeal in the Telangana High Court challenging the order of a single judge directing the re-evaluation of Group-I main exam answer scripts. The commission described the order as erroneous and “replete with findings that were perverse” in light of Supreme Court rulings.

Commission’s Contentions Against Re-Evaluation

The TGPSC stated that the single judge’s order was contrary to law and ignored detailed submissions made by the commission. The final directions of the order were reportedly mutually contradictory, according to TGPSC Additional Secretary R. Sumathi, the appellant. While the order directed authorities to re-evaluate the answer scripts, it simultaneously warned that failure to comply could lead to cancellation of the Group-I main examination.

The commission highlighted that re-evaluation is not permitted under existing rules. TGPSC Rule 3(ix)(d) clearly states that “re-evaluation of answer sheets shall not be entertained under any circumstances,” although re-counting of marks is allowed. The commission argued that the single judge’s order was based on conjecture and surmises, not documented evidence, particularly concerning alleged discrepancies in the number of candidates appearing for the exam.

Background of Petition and Alleged Fabrication

The appeal noted that some petitioners sought cancellation of the Group-I exam and allegedly fabricated the marks of a candidate, Bommu Poojitha Reddy. A writ petition with similar claims (12431/2025) was dismissed by the High Court on 25 April 2025, with costs imposed on the petitioners and prosecution ordered. These petitioners have since filed an appeal against that order.

The commission emphasized that Poojitha Reddy was not a party to the writ petition that prompted the single judge’s re-evaluation order. Although the judge suggested that she be impleaded in the plea, the petitioners instead included her as a petitioner. Her affidavit clearly stated that she had no grievance against TGPSC, a fact the judge reportedly ignored.

Commission’s Argument on Legal Grounds

The TGPSC argued that the single judge’s claim of alleged defamation due to fabricated marks was perverse, as it was not supported by evidence. The commission maintains that the re-evaluation directive contradicts both the TGPSC rules and Supreme Court precedent, and that the order should be suspended pending the appeal.