HYDERABAD: Justice Nagesh Bheempaka of the Telangana High Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by K Muthaiah and 18 others challenging the evaluation and result publication process of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) Group-I Mains Examination, 2024. The court also imposed costs of Rs 20,000 on the petitioners, payable to the court masters and personal secretaries to the judges association.
The court further directed the Registrar (Judicial) to initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioners for allegedly submitting false statements under oath in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ affidavit.
The petitioners had sought a declaration that the evaluation process of the Group-I Mains, conducted from October 21–27, 2024, was arbitrary, biased, opaque, and procedurally flawed, alleging violations of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. They requested the court to order a fair and transparent re-evaluation of the answer scripts.
However, Standing Counsel for the TGPSC raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petitioners had relied on fabricated documents. It was highlighted that the memorandum of marks presented by the petitioners contained discrepancies, including redacted information and inflated scores. For instance, the memorandum claimed a candidate had secured 329.5 marks, including 122 marks in Paper 7, despite the official website indicating that the highest score in that paper was 100.
Further scrutiny revealed that the candidate cited by the petitioners was neither a petitioner nor had independently raised any grievance regarding his marks before the TGPSC or the court. The Standing Counsel argued that had a substantial irregularity occurred, the candidate concerned would have pursued redress.
Justice Bheempaka, concurring with the submissions, observed that the document in question appeared to be fabricated and that the petitioners had misled the court. However, he emphasised that the issue of fabrication would be conclusively determined following an appropriate inquiry.
In view of the misconduct, the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition.
It also accepted Standing Counsel’s request to initiate prosecutorial action against the petitioners for abusing the judicial process.