VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday issued an interim stay order on the single judge bench verdict setting aside the Group-I (Mains) examination results announced on May 26, 2022.
Following the single-judge bench verdict, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) went for an appeal against it. The interim stay order came as a relief to 167 candidates, who cleared Group I (Mains) exam and interview, and are holding different posts in the government now.
A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Harinath Nunepally, hearing the appeal of the APPSC against the verdict of the single judge bench, issued orders not to remove the 167 officials, and adjourned the case hearing to March 27. The High Court Registry was directed to club other petitions related to the APPSC Group-I (Mains) exam case with it.
The APPSC conducted the recruitment for Group-I posts after issuing a notification in 2018. After the Mains examination, it conducted manual revaluation of the answer scripts, according to the High Court orders, which did not tally with the earlier digital valuation. However, eight candidates made it to the interview stage in the digital valuation, but failed to reach the interview stage in the manual valuation. The filed a petition in the High Court seeking justice.
The single judge bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda heard the arguments on the batch of writ petitions, and on March 13 delivered the verdict setting aside the appointments made and directed the APPSC to conduct the Group-I (Mains) exam afresh as per the notification of 2018.
Appearing for the APPSC, senior counsel S Satyanarayana Prasad argued that the single judge bench verdict went beyond the scope of the writ petitions. “What was not prayed was granted, what was argued was not considered, and what was considered was not argued,” he contended.
He submitted that the direction to conduct the Mains examination afresh was without any basis or reason and was not prayed for and that all the petitioners though qualified in the Mains exam, even without a challenge to it, in the impugned judgment, the single judge directed that the exam should be conducted afresh.
Interestingly, even the counsel for the petitioners submitted before the court that they were also aggrieved by the directions of the single judge in the impugned order, and that they were also filing writ pleas.
Advocates Jonnalagadda Sudheer and Ravishankar, who appeared for the petitioners, who in the first place approached the court challenging the Group-I (Mains) exam results, submitted to the court that in the first place, they were never against the first manual revaluation, only wanted the results to be published, which was not done. However, in his verdict, the single judge bench had even cancelled the first manual revaluation and for that reason, they had appealed against the verdict. The division bench after an elaborate hearing, passed the interim order, and adjourned the case hearing to March 27.
‘Verdict went beyond scope of writ petitions’
Appearing for the APPSC, senior counsel S Satyanarayana Prasad argued that the single judge bench verdict went beyond the scope of the writ petitions. “What was not prayed was granted, what was argued was not considered, and what was considered was not argued,” the APPSC counsel contended
