Telangana High Court Upholds Group I Selection Process, Clears 562 Appointments
In a landmark verdict that resolves a prolonged legal impasse, the Telangana High Court on Thursday firmly upheld the Telangana Public Service Commission's (TGPSC) Group I selection process. This decision delivers significant relief to the state government and 562 officers whose appointments had been suspended and uncertain for months.
Division Bench Overturns Single Judge's Ruling
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin allowed the writ appeals filed by the commission and the successful candidates. The bench explicitly set aside the earlier order from a single judge that had annulled the results of the Group I Mains examination. Furthermore, the bench dismissed the appeal filed by unsuccessful candidates who had demanded a re-conduct of the Mains examination.
The bench stated, "The appeal filed by the writ petitioners insisting upon re-conduct of the Mains examinations, is fit to be dismissed."
Background of the Controversy
The legal dispute originated from petitions submitted by unsuccessful candidates who alleged irregularities in both the conduct and evaluation of the Group I Mains examination. Acting on these pleas, a single judge had, on September 9, 2025, set aside the results declared on March 10 and the general rank list published on March 30. This action cast a shadow of doubt over the entire recruitment process, creating uncertainty and anxiety among the selected candidates.
Subsequently, the TGPSC and the successful candidates challenged this order. On September 25, 2025, the division bench stayed the single judge's ruling and permitted the TGPSC to proceed with issuing appointment orders. However, it was clarified that these appointments would remain subject to the final outcome of the writ appeals.
Detailed Verdict and Legal Principles
In its comprehensive 123-page judgment, the division bench reaffirmed the constitutional authority of the Public Service Commission under Article 320(3) to determine examination and evaluation methodologies. The bench observed that "the single judge failed to take into account the salutary principles governing exercise of judicial review in such matters."
The court emphasized that when an evaluation method is applied uniformly to all candidates, judicial interference should be minimal. It asserted that courts should not assume the role of expert bodies or examination authorities unless the process is demonstrably arbitrary, tainted by mala fides, or in clear violation of statutory rules.
The bench concluded that in this specific case, there was no material evidence on record to establish mala fides, proven systemic irregularities, or a breach of statutory provisions. Consequently, it held that directions for re-evaluating answer scripts with moderation or re-conducting the Mains examination could not be legally sustained.
Integrity of the Examination Process
Rejecting the single judge's findings that the commission had failed to maintain transparency and integrity, the division bench stated that such conclusions were not supported by sound reasoning or the evidence presented. It further ruled that the integrity of an examination conducted by a constitutional body cannot be questioned based on mere surmises or unsubstantiated allegations.
The court also addressed specific claims, including allegations that Telugu medium candidates were disadvantaged during the evaluation. The bench observed that this conclusion appeared to rest on assumptions rather than any specific factual instances or verifiable data.
Similarly, the bench declined to draw adverse inferences from the fact that a higher number of selected candidates emerged from certain examination centers. It held that such statistical factors alone could not justify judicial interference in the absence of proven arbitrariness or mala fides.
This verdict not only resolves the immediate legal deadlock but also reinforces the autonomy and authority of constitutional bodies like the Public Service Commission in conducting fair and transparent recruitment processes.
