ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Petitioners filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional action of the 2 nd respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "TGPSC"), in issuing Provisional Selection Notification dated 24.10.2019 pursuant to Group-II Services Notification No. 20/2015 dated 31.12.2015 and Revised Notification No. 17/2016 dated 01.09.2016, without adhering to due process of law, in contravention of the binding directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and its batch dated 03.06.2019, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The case of petitioners is that they are meritorious candidates who appeared in Group-II Services Examination conducted by the 2nd respondent on 11.11.2016 and 13.11.2016 for Papers I to IV, pursuant to the aforesaid Notifications. Having secured merit in the written examination, they became eligible for consideration in selection process. However, to their utter shock and dismay, respondents, while issuing the impugned provisional selection notification, included candidates whose answer sheets were vitiated by tampering, overwriting, erasures, and other violations of the prescribed instructions contained in the Notification itself, thereby caused irreparable prejudice to petitioners' legitimate right to fair consideration for appointment. 2.1. It is stated, as per the express stipulations contained in the recruitment Notification and examination instructions, each OMR answer sheet was divided into three parts: Part-A (personal details), Part-B (the middle portion containing the actual answers), and Part-C (candidate's name and invigilator's signatures). The Notification categorically declared that any tampering, overwriting, erasure, or usage of whiteners in any part of the OMR sheet would render it invalid for evaluation. These conditions were not mere procedural formalities but substantive safeguards meant to ensure transparency, integrity and uniformity in evaluation. Despite such mandatory conditions, the 2 nd respondent, in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner, considered and evaluated OMR answer sheets of several candidates who had committed errors and manipulations in Part-B, which directly pertains to performance evaluation, thereby distorting the merit structure and prejudicing the rights of genuine candidates, including petitioners. Such deviation from the prescribed rules and procedure amounts to a colourable exercise of power, offending the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16, and violating the rule of law which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 2.2. Such deviation from the prescribed rules and procedure amounts to a colourable exercise of power, offending the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16, and violating the rule of law which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 2.2. Petitioners further state that earlier, in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017, this Court, upon elaborate consideration, had directed deletion of all the candidates who had committed mistakes in Part-A, Part-B, and Part-C from selection list. The said order was carried in appeal by the affected candidates in Writ Appeal Nos. 1525 and 1527 of 2018 and batch, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench, after an exhaustive consideration of the report of the Technical Committee dated 09.03.2017, held that only mistakes in Part-A and Part-C, being peripheral and not affecting the candidate's performance, could be ignored, but the errors in Part-B - middle portion containing the answers could not be condoned. The operative portion of the Division Bench judgment is extracted hereunder: " The Technical Committee in its report dated 09.03.2017 recommended that the mistakes that fell under the 1st and 3rd categories could be ignored and the answer sheets of those candidates could be evaluated, but the Technical Committee recommended to the Public Service Commission not to evaluate the answer sheets of the candidates who committed mistakes in the middle portion of the OMR Sheet containing answers to 150 questions. Any tampering with the performance of the candidates in the middle of the OMR Sheet cannot be considered, and the established practice followed by the Commission in the cases of striking off, usage of erasers and whiteners etc., may be adopted in such cases strictly as any consideration affects the fairness thereof by chances of other candidates." 2.3. Petitioners state that the said findings of the Division Bench were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 16999 of 2019, thereby attaining finality. Notwithstanding this clear judicial mandate, respondents, in utter disregard of the said pronouncement, have once again included candidates with errors in Part-B of the OMR sheets in the provisional selection list dated 24.10.2019, thereby undermining both judicial authority and the sanctity of the recruitment process. 3. Respondents, in their counter affidavit filed through the Additional Secretary and Nodal Officer (Legal), contend that recruitment in question pertains to Group-II Services notified under Notification Nos. 3. Respondents, in their counter affidavit filed through the Additional Secretary and Nodal Officer (Legal), contend that recruitment in question pertains to Group-II Services notified under Notification Nos. 20/2015, dated 30.12.2015 and 17/2016, dated 01.09.2016, wherein 1032 vacancies in various departments were notified. The selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with law and in compliance with the directions of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and its batch dated 03.06.2019. The Commission asserts that it acted bona fide and within the parameters of the judgment, report of the Technical Committee dated 09.03.2017 and the recommendations of the Sub-Committee constituted to supervise compliance. 3.1. It is contended that the Hon'ble Division Bench, while deciding Writ Appeals No. 1525 and 1567 of 2018 and batch, recognized that the Commission had taken corrective action by appointing a Technical Committee after noticing lapses by invigilators and examination centre officials. It was observed by the Division Bench that ‘every institution like Public Service Commission is obligated to take corrective measures whenever the task assigned to them ends up in a fiasco’. Relying upon this principle, the Commission asserts that its subsequent course of action in re-evaluating OMR sheets and preparing revised selection list was undertaken to remedy administrative irregularities and cannot be characterized as arbitrary or mala fide. 3.2. Respondents further assert that, in strict compliance with the Division Bench judgment, the Commission excluded candidates who had violated the prescribed instructions and published a revised list of qualified candidates on 27.11.2018 for certificate verification. Thereafter, the process of interviews was conducted from 01.07.2019 to 27.08.2019, and final results were declared on 24.10.2019. Its action is entirely in conformity with the binding directions of this Court and that there is no deviation in the implementation of the Technical Committee's report. It is contended that the very issues now raised by petitioners were the subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 23878 of 2019 and SLP (C) No. 16999 of 2019, wherein identical allegations were made against the Commission, including the contention that candidates who had committed tampering and used whiteners in Part-B of the OMR sheets were included in the list. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, after hearing both the sides, was not inclined to interfere and dismissed the SLPs. vide orders dated 22.07.2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, after hearing both the sides, was not inclined to interfere and dismissed the SLPs. vide orders dated 22.07.2019. Thus, it is stated, the matter has attained finality and that the present Petition, being based on identical grounds, is barred by principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. 3.3. Respondents, on the contrary, state that evaluation of OMR sheets is purely mechanical and system-driven, leaving no scope for human discretion. The scanning system reads density of the bubbles and marks are awarded automatically based on threshold density levels. Any deviation, such as double bubbling or erasures, is detected and automatically nullified by the system. Minor dots or smudges which are below the detection threshold are ignored by the machine and does not amount to tampering. The Commission emphasizes that there is no manual intervention in the evaluation process, therefore, the allegations of favouritism or selective consideration are wholly baseless. It is contended that directions of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18834 of 2017 regarding physical verification of OMR sheets (para 100.9 of the said judgment) were expressly set aside by the Division Bench. Hence, the Commission was prohibited from engaging in any manual verification and was required to rely exclusively on automated evaluation. Accordingly, petitioners’ demand for re-verification or deletion of candidates based on alleged OMR discrepancies is contrary to the express judicial mandate of the Division Bench. 3.4. Respondents further state that the final selection list was declared on 24.10.2019, and the unit lists were communicated to the appointing authorities on 02.11.2019. At this advanced stage, any interference with the selection process would not only cause administrative chaos but also inflict undue hardship upon the successful candidates, who have been awaiting appointment orders for several years. The Commission points out that recruitment process has already undergone multiple rounds of litigation and has been under judicial supervision since 2017, therefore, reopening the matter now would defeat the principle of finality and adversely impact thousands of aspirants. 4. Petitioners filed a detailed reply denying the untenable averments contained in the counter. They specifically contended that the 2 nd respondent's reliance on Technical Committee's report to justify its deviation from mandatory OMR norms constitutes a blatant act of arbitrariness. 4. Petitioners filed a detailed reply denying the untenable averments contained in the counter. They specifically contended that the 2 nd respondent's reliance on Technical Committee's report to justify its deviation from mandatory OMR norms constitutes a blatant act of arbitrariness. They placed reliance upon the authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalatha , [ (2020) 19 SCC 430 ] wherein it was held that any relaxation in violation of mandatory instructions would amount to laying down bad law. It was further observed that even orders passed under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot confer benefits contrary to statutory or mandatory provisions. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the present case. 4.1. Petitioners have further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff , [ (2016) 2 SCC 627 ] , wherein it was held that unregulated or unguided exercise of power without adherence to the prescribed procedure would offend Article 14 of the Constitution. It is stated, the 2nd respondent, by selectively applying its own rules and exercising discretion in favour of certain candidates, has acted with manifest arbitrariness and discrimination, which strikes at the very root of equality. They further rely upon the observations of the Constitution Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , [ (1978) 2 SCR 621 ] , where it was held that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality and that Article 14 ensures fairness and reasonableness in every State action. They also draw strength from the principle enunciated in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India , [ AIR 1983 SC 130 ] , wherein it was held that classification must not be arbitrary but based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 4.2. Petitioners state that TGPSC, being a constitutional body entrusted with the duty of ensuring fairness, transparency, and merit in public employment, cannot act as an instrument of injustice. The Supreme Court in UP State Law Officers Association v. State of UP , [Law Finder Doc ID 25317]] held that every public authority is a trustee of the power vested in it and must act in the larger public interest to protect the principles of merit and equal opportunity. Any deviation therefrom constitutes an abuse of trust. The Supreme Court in UP State Law Officers Association v. State of UP , [Law Finder Doc ID 25317]] held that every public authority is a trustee of the power vested in it and must act in the larger public interest to protect the principles of merit and equal opportunity. Any deviation therefrom constitutes an abuse of trust. Reliance is also placed upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was reaffirmed that recruitment process commences with the issuance of advertisement and ends with filling up of vacancies, and that eligibility conditions and selection methodology cannot be altered midway unless expressly permitted by statutory rules. The said decision, reaffirming K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [ (2008) 3 SCC 512 ] , squarely applies to the present facts, where respondents altered evaluation criteria through administrative discretion in the midst of recruitment. Furthermore, petitioners assert that selection of less meritorious candidates in preference to more meritorious ones constitutes violation of Articles 14 and 16, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anmol Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand [Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2021, dated 18.02.2021], wherein it was observed that ‘appointment of persons with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured more marks would be violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution’. 4.3. Thus, petitioners contend that the impugned action of the 2nd respondent is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of the constitutional guarantees of equality, fairness and reasonableness. It represents a clear case of non-application of mind and disregard of binding judicial precedent. The 2 nd respondent, being a public authority, is duty-bound to maintain transparency and impartiality in its functioning and cannot adopt a "pick and choose" method that defeats the object of merit-based recruitment. 5. Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. This Court, upon careful examination of the pleadings and the documents placed on record, finds that primary grievance of petitioners revolves around inclusion of candidates who committed mistakes in Part-B of the OMR sheet despite the earlier Division Bench judgment. 6. It is to be seen, the Division Bench, in paragraph 51 of its judgment dated 03.06.2019, unequivocally accepted the Technical Committee's finding that answer sheets containing tampering in the middle portion (Part-B) should not be evaluated. 6. It is to be seen, the Division Bench, in paragraph 51 of its judgment dated 03.06.2019, unequivocally accepted the Technical Committee's finding that answer sheets containing tampering in the middle portion (Part-B) should not be evaluated. The Bench's direction that the Commission should be guided by the report of the Technical Committee dated 09.03.2017 is not open to expansive interpretation. The said report, when read as a whole, imposes an absolute bar on evaluating answer sheets that have been altered, scratched or whitened in the answer portion. Thus, the 2 nd respondent’s act of evaluating such answer sheets is a clear departure from the judicially-approved procedure. 7. The justification offered by the 2nd respondent that automated scanners differentiated between permissible and impermissible marks, cannot be accepted. The use of automated machines cannot override express judicial and technical prohibitions. Where tampering is visually evident, the Commission's failure to exclude such answer sheets amounts to violation of principle of fairness in public recruitment. This Court is fortified in its reasoning by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court , [( 2024 INSC 847 )] , which reaffirms that public employment must conform to the constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness. The Supreme Court held as under: "Courts have consistently frowned upon tinkering with the rules of the game once the recruitment process commences. This has crystallized into an oft-quoted legal phrase that 'the rules of the game must not be changed mid-way or after the game has been played.'” The Apex Court further observed that: " The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In all its actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner." In paragraph 65, the Court clarified: " Once an Expert Body, such as the Public Service Commission, constituted a Technical Committee of Academic Experts to examine the issues and once such a Technical Committee had recommended the evaluation of answer sheets of candidates who had committed errors in bubbling the circles in the First Part of the answer sheets, the scope of the inquiry to be undertaken by the Court is just to find out whether the Public Service Commission acted bona fide and whether their decision was arbitrary or unfair. If so tested on these parameters, the corrective action taken by the Public Service Commission cannot be found fault with." 8. Applying the above principles, it is evident that the 2nd respondent’s discretion extended only to those limited errors concerning Part-A (mechanical or clerical) as permitted by the Technical Committee and judicial directions. The Commission had no authority to evaluate or include answer sheets where candidates had committed tampering or used whiteners in Part- B, which strikes at the very core of the examination's integrity. The Commission's action in extending re-evaluation process to all papers, rather than confining it to Paper-I where mismatches were reported, is also found to be arbitrary and ultra vires. 9. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the 2 nd Respondent had violated the letter and spirit of the Division Bench's judgment and acted beyond its lawful powers. Its actions have resulted in manifest injustice to petitioners, who abided by the rules and were entitled to fair consideration. In conclusion, this Court holds that re-evaluation and publication of results by the 2 nd Respondent through Notification dated 24.10.2019 are vitiated by arbitrariness, illegality and non-compliance with judicial directions. Inclusion of candidates, who have tampered Part-B of OMR answer sheets is declared illegal, void and unconstitutional. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The provisional selection notification dated 24.10.2019 is set aside. Inclusion of candidates, who have tampered Part-B of OMR answer sheets is declared illegal, void and unconstitutional. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The provisional selection notification dated 24.10.2019 is set aside. The 2 nd respondent is directed to re-evaluate and finalize the selection strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1525 of 2018 and the recommendations of the Technical Committee dated 09.03.2017, and to issue appointment orders to the eligible candidates within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.1. The 2nd respondent is further directed to ensure, henceforth, that evaluation of OMR sheets in all the recruitments is conducted in strict conformity with the notified instructions, and that adequate transparency measures, including physical verification, videography, and record preservation, are implemented to prevent recurrence of such irregularities. The Commission is also cautioned to scrupulously adhere to the binding judicial directions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in all future recruitment exercises, failing which serious view shall be taken. No costs. 11. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.