ORDER: NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioners filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional procedure adopted by the 2 nd respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘TGSPSC’), in the process of re-evaluation and publication of results for recruitment to Group-II Services pursuant to Notification No.20/2015, dated 30.12.2015 and Supplementary Notification No.17/2016, dated 01.09.2016. They contend that the entire re-evaluation and finalization of results culminating in the notification dated 24.10.2019 is contrary to the binding directions issued by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 and batch, as well as the recommendations of the Technical Committee constituted by the Commission. 2. The case of petitioners is that the 2 nd respondent in the guise of implementing the Division Bench's judgment dated 03.06.2019, acted contrary to its true intent and spirit, by evaluating answer sheets of candidates who had admittedly tampered or used whiteners and erasers in Part-B of the OMR answer sheets, thereby vitiating the selection process and causing grave prejudice to meritorious candidates like petitioners. 2.1. The factual matrix leading to filing of this Writ Petition is not in dispute. The 2 nd issued Notification No.20/2015 dated 30.12.2015 and Supplementary Notification No.17/2016 dated 01.09.2016 inviting Applications for 1032 posts in thirteen categories under Group-II Services. petitioners, being fully eligible in terms of educational qualifications and other criteria, applied for the posts, appeared for written examination conducted on 11.11.2016 and 13.11.2016, and qualified. The written test comprised four papers, each carrying 150 marks, and was followed by an interview carrying 75 marks, making the total marks 675. Selection was to be made on the combined performance of candidates in the written examination and interview. 2.2. Petitioners state that the OMR answer sheet used for the examination was divided into three parts - Part-A containing personal details of the candidate, Part-B containing answers to 150 questions, and Part-C requiring the candidate's name and signature. The instructions printed on OMR sheet as well as in the notification explicitly warned candidates not to use whiteners, erasers, blades or to make any kind of overwriting or tampering, and that any such act would result in automatic disqualification. The instructions printed on OMR sheet as well as in the notification explicitly warned candidates not to use whiteners, erasers, blades or to make any kind of overwriting or tampering, and that any such act would result in automatic disqualification. During the conduct of examination, certain mismatches were reported between the question booklet codes and the OMR answer sheets, particularly in Paper-I. To resolve the issue, the 2nd respondent constituted a Technical Committee comprising experts from the field, by proceedings dated 06.12.2016. The Technical Committee, after a detailed examination of the problem, submitted a report on 09.03.2017. The Committee observed that confusion had arisen mainly due to the mistaken belief among candidates and invigilators that question booklet number must correspond to OMR number. It recommended that while minor mismatches in Part-A could be condoned, the Commission must strictly not evaluate OMR answer sheets where candidates had tampered Part-B - the portion containing answers to 150 questions-by scratching, erasing, or using whiteners. The Committee emphasized that such acts destroyed the integrity of the answer sheet and rendered it incapable of reliable evaluation. 2.3. Petitioners further state that relying upon the report of the Technical Committee, several candidates, including one V. Ramachandra Reddy and others, approached this Court in Writ Petition No.18834 of 2017 and batch, contending that the 2 nd Respondent had included disqualified candidates who had committed such errors in evaluation process. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 12.10.2018, allowed the said Writ Petitions and held that candidates, who had committed errors such as wrong bubbling, double bubbling or used whiteners or erasers must be excluded from further consideration. The 2 nd respondent was also directed to physically verify OMR sheets and exclude candidates who had tampered Part-B before finalizing the selection. 2.4. Aggrieved thereby, several Writ Appeals including Writ Appeal No.1525 of 2018, were filed and by a common judgment dated 03.06.2019, the Division Bench partly modified the Single Judge's order. The Division Bench observed that the Technical Committee's report dated 09.03.2017 and the recommendations of the Sub-Committee, were valid and binding. The Division Bench, in paragraph 51 of its judgment, specifically recorded that the Technical Committee had recommended not to evaluate answer sheets of candidates who had committed mistakes in the middle portion of the OMR sheet, i.e. Part-B containing answers to 150 questions. The Division Bench, in paragraph 51 of its judgment, specifically recorded that the Technical Committee had recommended not to evaluate answer sheets of candidates who had committed mistakes in the middle portion of the OMR sheet, i.e. Part-B containing answers to 150 questions. The Bench further observed that the Commission could correct errors of a clerical or mechanical nature in Part-A, but not those involving tampering or rewriting in Part-B. The operative direction of the Division Bench was that the 2nd Respondent must proceed strictly in accordance with the Technical Committee's recommendations. 2.5. Petitioners assert that contrary to the above directions, the 2 nd Respondent evaluated answer sheets of candidates who committed tampering and used whiteners in Part-B. and included them in the final selection list published on 24.10.2019. They further contend that Technical Committee's recommendations were confined to Paper-I where mismatches occurred, but the 2 nd Respondent erroneously extended re-evaluation process to all four papers, including those where no discrepancies had been reported. It is alleged that this action was taken to favour certain candidates and that the 2 nd Respondent acted beyond the scope of the judicial and technical directions. It is further contended that the 2 nd Respondent has not disclosed the criteria or methodology adopted for such re-evaluation, thereby violating transparency, fairness and equality of opportunity guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. In its counter, the 2 nd respondent - Commission categorically denied each and every allegation made by petitioners, asserting that they acted strictly in accordance with law and the binding directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 03.06.2019 in Writ Appeal No.1525 of 2018 and batch, as well as the recommendations of the Technical Committee constituted by it. It is their specific stand that entire process of re-evaluation and finalization of results was undertaken in a transparent, uniform and scientific manner, and that there was no deviation from the judicial or technical framework prescribed for the purpose. 3.1. It is stated, following the judgment of the Division Bench, it had no discretion to act independently or in a manner inconsistent with the Court's directives, therefore, strictly adhered to the spirit and letter of the said judgment. 3.1. It is stated, following the judgment of the Division Bench, it had no discretion to act independently or in a manner inconsistent with the Court's directives, therefore, strictly adhered to the spirit and letter of the said judgment. The Commission, being a constitutional body entrusted with conducting competitive examinations for public employment, is bound to act in accordance with the established procedures and that it had taken great care to ensure compliance at every stage. They undertook a comprehensive review of the entire evaluation process to eliminate possible discrepancies and to ensure that no ineligible candidate was included. 3.2. It is further contended that re-evaluation of OMR answer sheets was done through an advanced automated scanning system based on optical density recognition, and that no manual interference was permitted at any stage of the process. The Commission explains that scanning software used by it is designed to recognize only valid marks within a fixed tolerance level and automatically disregard any smudges, faded markings, or faint impressions that do not conform to the pre- set threshold. Therefore, according to them, the apprehension expressed by petitioners that OMR sheets of candidates who used whiteners or committed tampering were evaluated is wholly misconceived and unfounded. 3.3. The 2nd respondent further avers that, to ensure uniformity and consistency in the recruitment process, the same procedure was uniformly applied to all four papers of the written examination. The Division Bench's judgment did not confine the scope of re-evaluation only to Paper-I, and that the Commission, in its administrative wisdom, decided to extend the uniform mechanism to all papers to maintain equality among all the candidates. The Commission submits that any deviation in the treatment of different papers would have led to claims of discrimination and fresh litigation, which it sought to avoid. It is also contended that before undertaking re-evaluation, the Commission consulted technical experts and sought clarifications from the software service provider to ensure that procedure was error-free and consistent with the Technical Committee's recommendations. All the candidates who were affected by re-evaluation exercise were given equal opportunity and that the process was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. According to them, there was no instance of any candidate being favoured or prejudiced and the allegations of arbitrariness made by petitioners are baseless and motivated. 3.4. All the candidates who were affected by re-evaluation exercise were given equal opportunity and that the process was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. According to them, there was no instance of any candidate being favoured or prejudiced and the allegations of arbitrariness made by petitioners are baseless and motivated. 3.4. The 2 nd Respondent No. 2 relies on the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 22.07.2019 dismissed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Diary No.23878 of 2019 filed by certain unsuccessful candidates challenging the Division Bench's judgment. This order of the Supreme Court lends finality to the issues already decided, hence, petitioners cannot seek to reopen matters that stand concluded. It is therefore, urged that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and is barred by the principle of res judicata, inasmuch as the subject matter and the issues raised herein have already been adjudicated by the competent courts. 3.5. This respondent also contends that petitioners failed to demonstrate any mala fides or procedural impropriety in the manner of re-evaluation. They have not produced any specific evidence showing that candidates who used whiteners or tampered their OMR sheets were actually included in the final list. Mere surmises and conjectures, it is argued, cannot form the basis for judicial interference with a large-scale recruitment process involving more than a thousand posts. It is asserted that every stage of selection was conducted in accordance with statutory procedure, and that judicial interference in such matters must be exercised with circumspection and restraint. 3.6. The 2 nd Respondent emphasizes that recruitment of this magnitude involves complex administrative and technical procedures and that it is neither practicable nor legally- permissible for this Court to substitute its judgment for that of an expert body. The Commission, being an independent constitutional authority, possesses the requisite institutional competence to regulate the modalities of evaluation and to adopt uniform standards, provided its decisions are not arbitrary or mala fide. It is contended that no such arbitrariness or mala fide intention has been established in the present case. It is also stated, the selection process, culminating in publication of final list dated 24.10.2019, has already been acted upon, and several candidates have since been appointed to public posts. Any interference, at this belated stage, it is argued, would disturb settled appointments, cause administrative chaos and adversely affect public interest. It is also stated, the selection process, culminating in publication of final list dated 24.10.2019, has already been acted upon, and several candidates have since been appointed to public posts. Any interference, at this belated stage, it is argued, would disturb settled appointments, cause administrative chaos and adversely affect public interest. It is thus pleaded that the doctrine of finality and administrative stability must apply, and that Writ Petition should be dismissed on that ground alone. 3.7. It is finally contended that petitioners, having participated in the process without protest and awaited results, are estopped from questioning the same after they were found unsuccessful. They cannot approbate and reprobate, and that their conduct disentitles them from equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. For all these reasons, the 2nd Respondent prays that Writ Petition be dismissed as devoid of merit, as the entire selection process was conducted fairly, lawfully, and in accordance with the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Heard Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon careful consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that the central issue for determination is whether the 2nd Respondent had acted in contravention of the binding directions of the Division Bench and the Technical Committee's recommendations by evaluating and including candidates who tampered Part-B of the OMR answer sheets. 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 2nd respondent’s act of evaluating such answer sheets is a clear departure from the judicially-approved procedure. 7. The justification offered by the 2 nd 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. Thus, the 2nd respondent’s act of evaluating such answer sheets is a clear departure from the judicially-approved procedure. 7. The justification offered by the 2 nd 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. 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. 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 impugned action of the 2 nd respondent-TSPSC is set aside. The 2nd 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. No costs. 11. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.