The Telangana High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ appeal filed by Telangana State Public Service Commission challenging a single Judge order to cancel the Group-I preliminary examination conducted on June 11.
A Bench of Justices Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Anil Kumar Jukanti passed the order after hearing the appeal petition consecutively for the past two days. The Bench noted that the commission ought to have been more cautious in convening the exam as the first one held in 2022 was cancelled over allegations of question paper leakage.
Finding fault with the commission over not issuing an addendum informing the candidates that the biometric screening system was being done away with, the Bench recalled that earlier the commission had done so when the exam was re-conducted. The Bench observed that dispensing with the biometric screening had raised suspicions of possible impersonation among some of the candidates.
The Bench, during presentation of arguments, sought to know from the Commission as to why it could not continue with the biometric scanning on June 11 when it had successfully adopted the same system when 2,83,346 candidates appeared for the exam first time on October 16, 2022. The notification was issued to fill up 503 Group-I cadre officers. Even if 10 to 15 persons managed to impersonate during the preliminary test, the purpose of conducting the exam would be defeated, the Bench said.
Candidates who had strived to succeed in the exam would be put to irreparable loss. Citing the Supreme Court verdict in the State of Tamil Nadu vs G. Hemalatha, the Bench said the commission had no power to deviate from the system of biometric screening. As per the rules two invigilators were required to sign on the nominal rolls at the exam centre. Breaching the commission’s notified rules, only one invigilator signed the nominal roll. The commission failed to explain to the court why only one invigilator had signed the nominal rolls.
The Bench observed that the commission had not prescribed any procedure to mark the attendance of the candidates. This had given scope to level allegations about the likelihood of some candidates indulging in impersonation. The commission could not explain the differential numbers of the candidates, who had appeared for the exam, in the two web notes. The numbers mentioned in the second web noted dated June 28 showed a spurt of 259 candidates. The Commission could not explain this difference, the Bench said.
Upholding the single judge order to cancel and re-conduct the Group-I preliminary test, the Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the commission.
