Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court will pronounce its judgment on January 22, 2026, regarding the appeals challenging a single judge’s order that cancelled the Group-1 examination results and merit list.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin concluded hearing arguments on Tuesday after prolonged deliberations.
Background of the controversy
The case stems from a September 2024 single judge order by Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, which set aside the final marks list and General Ranking List of the Group-1 Mains examination.
The single judge had directed the Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC) to either manually re-evaluate all answer scripts or re-conduct the examinations within eight months, citing “glaring lapses” in the evaluation process.
However, the division bench stayed this order in September 2024, allowing TGPSC to proceed with issuing appointment orders to successful candidates while the appeals were being heard.
Arguments presented by petitioners
Senior advocates representing the original petitioners who challenged the examination process highlighted several irregularities before the Telangana High Court.
They argued that TGPSC cancelled the 2022 notification and issued a fresh notification combining the original 503 posts with additional vacancies to fill 563 posts, all without proper government authorisation.
The petitioners contended that candidates were issued separate hall ticket numbers for preliminary and mains examinations, which they claimed was illegal.
The petitioners also alleged that the evaluation lacked transparency, with only candidates from four specific examination centers receiving disproportionately high marks. They further claimed that subject matter experts were not involved in the evaluation process across all subjects.
TGPSC’s defense
Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy, appearing for TGPSC, strongly defended the commission’s conduct of the examinations. He argued that the exams were conducted transparently and in strict adherence to established rules and regulations.
The commission implemented a double valuation method where each answer script was evaluated by two independent evaluators who remained unaware of each other’s marks. If the difference between their marks exceeded 15 percent, a third evaluator would assess the script.
The Advocate General explained that administrative convenience necessitated the increase in examination centres and the separate issuance of hall tickets for preliminary and mains examinations.
He emphasised that no allegations of copying or mass irregularities had been substantiated, and that those who challenged the process were candidates who failed to qualify.
Court’s observations and next steps
After hearing extensive arguments, the division bench expressed reservations about certain aspects of the single judge’s order, particularly questioning how a court could substitute its opinion for that of the examining authority.
The bench permitted parties to file written submissions by Wednesday and reserved the matter for judgment to be pronounced on January 22, 2026.
