ORDER : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. 1. The petitioners, who are 15 in number in the present writ petition, are seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in not allowing non-programmable calculators for Paper-II (General Aptitude) and blatantly neglecting Telugu translation mistakes in at least 51 questions in Paper-1 (General Studies) & Paper-II (General Aptitude) of Group-I Preliminary examination vide notification No. 27/2018 conducted on 26.05.2019 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside Group-I Preliminary examination vide notification No. 27/2018 conducted on 26.05.2019. 2. The A.P. Public Service Commission had issued a notification dated 31.12.2018 for filling up various carry forward vacancies and fresh vacancies falling under Group-I Service. The said notification also set out the conditions under which the recruitment process would be carried out. The selection process was in three stages, viz., preliminary examination, main examination and interview. All persons, who are eligible in terms of age and other qualifications were permitted to appear for the preliminary examination, which was an objective, multiple choice test consisting of two papers, Paper-I was to test the candidates in-(a) History and Culture; (b) Constitution Policy, Social Justice and International relations; (c) Indian and Andhra Pradesh Economy and Planning; and (d) Geography. Paper-II was to test the candidates in-(a) General Mental Ability, Administrative and Psychological Abilities; and (b) Science and Technologies, and Current events of Regional, National and international importance. 3. The preliminary examination was a screening examination to shortlist candidates appearing for the Main exam in the ratio of 1:50. Thereafter, depending upon their performance in the main examination, candidates would be called for the interview in the ratio of 1:2 of the vacancies available. The performance of the candidates in the main examination and interview would be taken into account for issuing the final merit list from which candidates would be selected for various vacancies in accordance with the rule of reservation and other parameters. 4. Each of the papers, for the preliminary examination for 120 marks consisted of 120 multiple choice. As a measure of preventing malpractices, four sets of question papers, viz., Set-A, Set-B, Set-C and Set-D papers were prepared for each of the question papers. In all the paper sets, the questions were same. However, the order in which they were placed in the question papers was changed. 5. As a measure of preventing malpractices, four sets of question papers, viz., Set-A, Set-B, Set-C and Set-D papers were prepared for each of the question papers. In all the paper sets, the questions were same. However, the order in which they were placed in the question papers was changed. 5. About 50,000 candidates appeared for the preliminary examination, which was conducted on 26.5.2019. As a measure of transparency, the key to the questions, giving the correct choices as decided by the Public Service Commission, was published on 26.05.2019. The candidates were permitted to raise objections to any of the answers indicated by the Public service commission till 10.06.2019. The objections so received were referred to subject experts for verification. A report of the subject experts on the objections raised by the candidates was received on 05.9.2019 and the revised key was published on 06.09.2019. According to the revised key, 19 questions in Paper-I and 6 questions in Paper-II were found to be incorrect and the marks in relation to those questions were deleted. As a further measure, objections were again called for in relation to the revised key published on 06.09.2019 up to 17.09.2019. These objections were received and referred to the subject experts on 18.09.2019. At that stage, 15 candidates have filed the present writ petition seeking the relief of setting aside the entire preliminary examination on the following two grounds: (I) The original notification dated 31.12.2018 in general instructions to the candidate at internal page-35 in Instruction D.5 provided as follows: D.5:-The candidates are not allowed to bring any Electronic devices such as mobile/cell phones programmable calculators, tablets, iPad, Bluetooth, Pagers watches or any other computing devices to examination hall. Non-programmable calculators would be permitted, whenever necessary. Loaning and interchanging of articles among the candidates not permitted in the examination hall and any form of malpractice will not be permitted in the exam hall. However, when the hall tickets were issued non-programmable calculators were also prohibited. The petitioners contend that once the notification prescribed a condition, the said condition could not have been changed during the process of recruitment and as such, the prohibition of carrying calculators could not have been put up by the Commission. II. The question paper sets gave the questions both in English and Telugu. The petitioners contend that once the notification prescribed a condition, the said condition could not have been changed during the process of recruitment and as such, the prohibition of carrying calculators could not have been put up by the Commission. II. The question paper sets gave the questions both in English and Telugu. However, the translation of the English questions into Telugu suffered from various anomalies and as such about 51 questions were incorrectly framed and were at variance with the questions in English, again resulting in a huge disadvantage to those candidates, who were mainly from the Telugu medium of instruction. 6. The Petitioners had also filed an interlocutory application for staying all further proceedings in the selection process. A learned single judge of this Court had, by order dated 26.9.2019 directed that there shall be a stay of pronouncement of results of the Preliminary examination. Thereupon, the Public service commission had filed a vacate petition which came to be allowed on 1.11.2019. Thereafter, the results were announced along with the publication of the Final answer key based upon the recommendations of the subject experts after taking into account the objections raised by the candidates to the answer key published on 6.9.2019. The cut off mark for the selected candidates was 92.40 marks and about 8400 candidates have been cleared to sit for the main examination. 7. Aggrieved by the orders dated 1.11.2019, vacating the stay of pronouncement of results, the petitioners had filed Writ Appeal No. 77 of 2020 which was allowed on 17.7.2020 setting aside the order of 1.11.2019 with a request to the learned single judge to decide the writ petition as per law within two months if possible. 8. It is the admitted case of both sides that the Main examination is scheduled to commence from 2.11.2020. The Counsel appearing for all the parties have requested for a final disposal of the writ petition and hence this case is being taken up for final disposal of the Writ Petition. 9. Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri U.B. Jai Bhima Rao, submits that both the grounds demonstrate the huge disadvantages suffered by the candidates and resulting in huge undue advantages to certain other candidates, because of which, the results were totally skewed. 9. Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri U.B. Jai Bhima Rao, submits that both the grounds demonstrate the huge disadvantages suffered by the candidates and resulting in huge undue advantages to certain other candidates, because of which, the results were totally skewed. Sri A. Satya Prasad submits that this subsequent prohibition on the use of calculators helped science and mathematics students and resulted in huge handicap to arts students. The petitioners pointed to certain questions in the question paper to submit that such questions require a calculator and prohibiting the candidates in using the calculators has resulted in huge injustice to them. On the ground of incorrect translation, Sri Satya Prasad submitted that about 51 questions have been incorrectly framed causing the Candidates who took the examination in telugu to lose out on crucial marks as the telugu translation either made the questions incomprehensible or caused the candidates to give wrong answers. 10. Sri A. Satya Prasad submits that in such circumstances, the entire process has to be set aside and fresh notification and examinations would have to be conducted. 11. Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, appearing for the A.P. Public Service Commission, submits as follows: The condition set out in the notification in relation to calculators is as follows: "Non-programmable calculators would be permitted wherever necessary." He submits that the words "wherever necessary" would mean that it is the examiner or APPSC, which would decide whether such calculators should be permitted to be taken into examination hall. He submits that the subject expert, who sets the paper, is asked whether a calculator should be permitted to be taken or not, depending upon the complexity of the questions in the question paper. Thereupon, the subject expert advises the Public Service Commission as to whether such calculators are necessary. Depending upon the said advise given before the examination the Public Service Commission, either permits or prohibits the usage of calculators. 12. In the present case, the questions relating to general aptitude etc., wherein certain mathematical problems were raised, did not, in the opinion of the subject expert, require a calculator. Depending upon the said advise given before the examination the Public Service Commission, either permits or prohibits the usage of calculators. 12. In the present case, the questions relating to general aptitude etc., wherein certain mathematical problems were raised, did not, in the opinion of the subject expert, require a calculator. Further, the mathematical questions, which were set in the question paper, were of such nature, which could be answered by any person at the graduate level and as the candidates were seeking to enter Group-I Service, which is at the highest level of recruitment in the State, permitting calculators would defeat the purpose of the examination. 13. In these circumstances, the decision to prohibit usage of calculators cannot be challenged. 14. The further argument that, there was a change in the condition of calculators being permitted by way of a subsequent prohibition of usage of calculators is also not correct. The language mentioned above shows that the notification had merely stated that there was a possibility of permitting the use of calculators wherever necessary and that cannot be read to mean that calculators were permissible if the candidates thought it necessary. In the light of the language in the notification, the subsequent prohibition of the calculators, by way of instructions to candidates in the Hall tickets cannot be treated as a change in conditions. 15. With regard to the question of incorrect translation, Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao submits that instruction No. 3 of the instructions to the candidates, set out in the first page of the question paper, reads as follows: "The question paper is set in English and translated into Telugu language. The English version will be considered as the authentic version for valuation purpose." 16. In these circumstances, any discrepancy in translation cannot be a ground for contending, that the candidates could not answer the questions properly, because of the discrepancy in translation. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22.11.2018 in C.A. No. 11230 of 2018 set out at paragraphs 16 to 20. Consideration of the Court: 17. Two issues, which come up for consideration are:- 1. Whether refusal of the Public Service Commission to allow nonprogrammable calculators into the examination hall; and (2) whether the mistakes in translation, are grounds for setting aside the preliminary examination conducted on 26.05.2019 and the results declared on 01.11.2019 should be set aside. Consideration of the Court: 17. Two issues, which come up for consideration are:- 1. Whether refusal of the Public Service Commission to allow nonprogrammable calculators into the examination hall; and (2) whether the mistakes in translation, are grounds for setting aside the preliminary examination conducted on 26.05.2019 and the results declared on 01.11.2019 should be set aside. I. Prohibition of User Calculators:- 18. The instruction D.5 in the original notification dated 31.12.2018 stated- "non-programmable calculators would be permitted, wherever necessary". The subsequent instructions in the hall-ticket prohibited the issue of use of non-programmable calculators in the course of the examination. The change in stance of the Public Service Commission as explained, by Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, is that the subject expert setting the question paper decides, after the question paper is set, whether the candidates would require a calculator to answer the questions in the papers set by the subject experts. In this case, it is stated, that the subject expert took the view that calculators are not necessary for answering the questions in the papers. In such circumstances the prohibition of usage of calculators cannot be treated as a ground to set aside the entire examination itself. 19. In the said circumstances, the prohibition of use of calculators cannot be said to be a change in the conditions. Further, in a test of general mental ability, candidates are tested by the proficiency and speed with which such mathematical problems are solved. Usage of calculators to solve such problems would result in a situation where there would be no test of the general mental ability of the candidate and it would only be an exercise of using the calculator to solve the questions. This contention of the petitioners would have to fail. Difference between the questions set in English and the questions set in Telugu:- 20. I have gone through the question paper set in English and in Telugu. I have also gone through the objections raised by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and what is set out in the material filed along with the writ petition. It is true that, in some questions, there is substantial variation between the questions set in English and the questions translated from English into Telugu. I have also gone through the objections raised by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and what is set out in the material filed along with the writ petition. It is true that, in some questions, there is substantial variation between the questions set in English and the questions translated from English into Telugu. A few examples in this regard would be (these questions are taken out from the paper set A:- Paper-I:-Question No. 10 in English version "who wrote 'Why I am an Atheist'-----, in Telugu version when translated into Telugu would read "who wrote the book when I was an Atheist". Paper-II:-Question No. 49 in English version "Two trains of length 150 mts and 170 mts respectively are running at the speed of 40 km/hr and 32 km/hr on parallel tracks in opposite directions. In what time will they cross each other". The same question translated into Telugu would read as "when two trains would meet each other". 21. A similar situation was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 22.11.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11230 of 2018. In this case the Hon'ble High Court at Madras, after finding that there were significant variations in the Tamil translation of the English questions, had directed that students, who had appeared for NEET-UG-2018 examination in Tamil medium would be awarded marks in 49 questions in which such errors had occurred. In the appeal against the said direction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the condition in the examination that in the event of any ambiguity between the original language and English, the version in English would be taken as final. On the basis of this condition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the view that even in the event of serious variations, the said variations would not give rise to any relief for the students in the form of award of marks. 22. In the present case, Instruction No. 3 in the question paper book reads as follows: "The question paper is set in English and translated into Telugu language. The English version will be considered as authentic version for valuation purpose." 23. In the light of this instruction, which is similar to the condition considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the errors in translation would require to be overlooked. The English version will be considered as authentic version for valuation purpose." 23. In the light of this instruction, which is similar to the condition considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the errors in translation would require to be overlooked. Viewed from another angle, all the candidates would have sufficient knowledge of English, to have referred to the question in English in the event of any ambiguity in Telugu translation. Apart from the above, cancellation of the examination would result in penalizing the successful candidates for no fault of theirs. 24. In these circumstances, both the contentions of the petitioners would have to be rejected. Accordingly the Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. However, this cannot mean that the Public service Commission can continue to conduct examinations with defective translations. It needs to set up systems in place to ensure that defects in translation are reduced to the minimum. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.