JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ. Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General and Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appear for Mr. P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Public Service Commission, appellant in W.A.Nos.1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078 and 1079 of 2025. Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Sriram Polali, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1086 of 2025 and respondent Nos.60, 61, 63, 64, 67 to 71, 74 to 79, 81, 82, 84, 86 to 125, 127 to 133, 135 to 137, 140 to 158 and 160 to 164 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025. Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for appellants in W.A.No.1470 of 2025 and respondents in W.A.Nos.1077 and 1080 of 2025. Dr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appears for the appellant in W.A.No.1054 of 2025 and respondent No.158 in W.A.No.1077 of 2025. Mr. Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel appears for appellants in W.A.No.1080 of 2025 and respondent Nos.23 to 39 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025, respondent No.109 in W.A.No.1077 of 2025 and respondent No.24 in W.A.No.1086 of 2025. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan , learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Aditya Vyas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.62, 66, 72 and 80 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025. Dr. S.Muralidhar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Aditya Vyas, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos.65, 73, 85, 126 and 138 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025. Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.81, 123 and 130 in W.A.No.1470 of 2025 and also for Ms. B.N.Pravalika Goud, learned counsel for respondents No.15 and 42 in W.A.No.1470 of 2025. Mr. P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. C.Janardhan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.83, 159 and 134 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025. Ms. B.Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners in W.A.No.1066 and 1086 of 2025. Mr. B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr.Madas Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in W.A.No.1076 of 2025. Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Kaustubh Chaturvedi, learned counsel appears for Mr. Abhishek Sagar, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in W.A.No.1054 of 2025, virtually. Mr. K.Sai Teja, learned counsel appears for Mr. T.R.V.S.S.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1075 of 2025. Mr. Aravindu Maturi, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1067 of 2025. Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Kaustubh Chaturvedi, learned counsel appears for Mr. Abhishek Sagar, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in W.A.No.1054 of 2025, virtually. Mr. K.Sai Teja, learned counsel appears for Mr. T.R.V.S.S.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1075 of 2025. Mr. Aravindu Maturi, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1067 of 2025. Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 in W.A.No.1074 of 2025. Mr. Shreyas Reddy Yalagiri, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1069 of 2025. Ms. Nisha Tiwari, learned counsel appears for Mr. Abhishek Sagar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1070 of 2025. Mr. K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. S.Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in W.A.No.1076 of 2025. Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for unofficial respondents/writ petitioners in W.A.No.1079 of 2025. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appears for Ms. K. Kiran Mayee, learned counsel for respondent No.12 in W.A.No.1086 of 2025. 2. The present writ appeals, except W.A.No.1470 of 2025, have been preferred by the Telangana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) and the successful candidates aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch by the learned writ court. 3. The writ appeal No.1470 of 2025 has been preferred by the writ petitioners in the nature of cross-appeal questioning the direction of the learned writ court to the Commission to conduct re-evaluation by following the method of moderation as prescribed in the case of Sanjay Singh vs. U.P.Public Service Commission, Allahabad , (2007) 3 SCC 720 . Instead, it has been prayed that the learned writ court should have confined the relief to re-conduct the Mains examination under the recruitment Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024. 4. The present challenge is regard the conduct of the Mains examinations by the Telangana Public Service Commission vide Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024 for recruitment to Group-I services (General Recruitment) for 563 posts. On 09.06.2024, preliminary examination was conducted, the results of which were declared on 07.07.2024. The Mains examination was conducted from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 in 46 centres. Evaluation of the said examination was done from 01.11.2024 to 31.01.2025. The results of the said examination were declared on 30.03.2025. On 09.06.2024, preliminary examination was conducted, the results of which were declared on 07.07.2024. The Mains examination was conducted from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 in 46 centres. Evaluation of the said examination was done from 01.11.2024 to 31.01.2025. The results of the said examination were declared on 30.03.2025. Alleging that there are inconsistencies in conducting the Mains examination and in the method of evaluation, the writ petitioners, who are unsuccessful candidates, filed the W.P.No.11439 of 2025 and batch. The learned writ court by a common order dated 09.09.2025 disposed of the said writ petitions with the directions referred to hereinunder. It is appropriate to indicate the alternative directions which the learned writ court has granted by allowing the writ petitions at paras 369 to 372 which are as under: “Conclusion: 369. After analysing the submissions of all the counsels, case laws, and the material available on record, this Court feels that the Commission, while conducting the Group-I Mains Examination had not maintained transparency, integrity, acted in biased manner and deviated their own Rules. 370. Due to the Commission’s negligence and inefficiency, the affected individuals are the unemployee youth of Telangana State. The candidates have spent a substantial amount on coaching classes, studying 10 to 12 hours a day and some candidates had resigned their jobs for the sake of preparation for this exam. The Commission failed in both procedural aspects and evaluation method, which is impermissible. 371. Although, there have been two instances of cancellation of Group-1 examination, the Commission has not learnt from its previous experience. 372. In view of the foregoing discussions and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned above, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (a) The Final Marks List dated 10.03.2025 as well as General Ranking List (GRL) dated 30.03.2025 are hereby set aside. (b) The respondent authorities are directed to re-evaluate all the answer scripts of the Group-1 Mains examination by applying the moderation method in terms of Sanjay Singh and Anr. Vs. U.P.Public Service Commission, Allahabad ( (2007) 3 SCC 720 ), manually and announce the results. Based upon such results, the respondents authorities are directed to take steps for filling up of said 563 posts. (OTHERWISE) (c) This Court is inclined to cancel the Group-I Mains examination. Vs. U.P.Public Service Commission, Allahabad ( (2007) 3 SCC 720 ), manually and announce the results. Based upon such results, the respondents authorities are directed to take steps for filling up of said 563 posts. (OTHERWISE) (c) This Court is inclined to cancel the Group-I Mains examination. The respondent authorities are directed to re-conduct the Group-I Mains examination in Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024, for those who have succeeded in the prelims examination. d) The above said exercise should be completed within a period of eight (08) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order.” 5. For the convenience sake, the learned counsels for the parties have broadly relied upon the pleadings and annexures of W.A.No.1066 of 2025. The entire pleadings have been compiled in seven volumes. Therefore, this Court would rely upon the pleadings and supporting documents in W.A.No.1066 of 2025. Impugned Judgment: 6. The writ petitioners assailed the results of the Group-I examination on a number of grounds. The learned writ court divided the entire issues into two parts, they are I – Procedural Aspects and II – Method of evaluation. The issues identified under these heads are as under: “1) PROCEDURAL ASPECTS:- a) Issuing of two hall tickets for the Group-I Examination. b) Allocation of examination centres in a biased manner. c) Inconsistency about the total number of candidates, who appeared for the main examination. d) Multiple evaluation of answer scripts. e) Publication of provisional/total marks list. f) Disclosing of un-qualified candidate’s hall ticket numbers in the Mains final marks list. g) Increasing vacancies by adding new vacancies. 2) METHOD OF EVALUATION:- a) The selection of the evaluators. b) The procedure of evaluation. c) Telugu medium candidates were neglected. d) Highest qualified candidates in specific centres. e) Commission awarded the same marks to certain candidates.” 7. Be it indicated here that the learned writ court answered issues (a) to (f) under the head ‘Procedural Aspects’ in favour of the writ petitioners, whereas issue (g) relates to increasing vacancies by adding new vacancies was answered in favour of the Commission. The learned writ court answered the issues (a) to (e) under the head ‘Method of Evaluation’ against the Commission. Based on these findings, the learned writ court in its conclusion at paras 369 to 372 held that the Commission had not maintained transparency, integrity, acted in biased manner and deviated from their own rules. The learned writ court answered the issues (a) to (e) under the head ‘Method of Evaluation’ against the Commission. Based on these findings, the learned writ court in its conclusion at paras 369 to 372 held that the Commission had not maintained transparency, integrity, acted in biased manner and deviated from their own rules. The learned writ court set aside the Final Marks List dated 10.03.2025 as well as General Ranking List dated 30.03.2025. The learned writ court proceeded to issue alternative directions, i.e., the respondent authorities were directed to re-evaluate all the answer scripts of the Group-I Mains examination by applying the moderation method in terms of Sanjay Singh (supra), manually and announce the results. Based upon such results, the respondent authorities are directed to take steps for filling up of said 563 posts. (OTHERWISE) This Court was inclined to cancel the Group-I Mains examination. The respondent authorities were directed to re-conduct the Group-I Mains examination in Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024, for those who have succeeded in the prelims examination. These directions are under challenge by the Commission and the successful candidates by filing these appeals except W.A.No.1470 of 2025. Be it indicated here that the writ petitioners had not impleaded any of the successful candidates. The successful candidates were impleaded at their instance during the course of the proceedings of the case. Submissions of Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General on behalf of the Telangana Public Service Commission/ Appellants/Successful Candidates: (1) Procedural Aspects: (a) Issuing of two hall tickets for the Group-I Examination: 8. Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General has submitted that after the Prelims examination results were declared on 07.07.2024, a Web Note was issued on 16.08.2024 giving instructions to the candidates selected for the Mains examination to be held from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024. It is clearly stated therein that a new hall ticket number would be issued to the candidates appearing for the Mains examination. The hall ticket for the Mains examination (Conventional Type) reflected the Prelims examination hall ticket number. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the candidates. He has further pointed out that the High Court for the State of Telangana also issued two separate hall tickets in conducting the examination for appointment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for Screening Test (Computer Based Test) and Hall Ticket for the Written Examination. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the candidates. He has further pointed out that the High Court for the State of Telangana also issued two separate hall tickets in conducting the examination for appointment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for Screening Test (Computer Based Test) and Hall Ticket for the Written Examination. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in issuing two hall tickets for administrative convenience. Two hall tickets were given for providing a continuous sequence for hall tickets which would be convenient for printing OMR sheets accompanying the answer scripts, distributing them across examination centres and also in the examination halls. The writ petitioners failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to them in issuance of two hall tickets for prelims examination and Mains examination. The procedure followed by the Commission was transparent and not arbitrary. (b) Allocation of examination centres in a biased manner: 8.1. It is submitted that initially 45 centres were found to be sufficient for the Mains examination. However, upon physical verification during the first week of October, 2024, it was noticed that at Centre No.19, the ground floor is at an elevation making it inaccessible to Persons with Disability (PwD) candidates. 87 such PwD candidates originally allotted to Centre No.19 were relocated to Centre No.21 (40 candidates), Centre No.39 (43 candidates) and Centre No.36 (4 candidates). Since additional space was allocated in Test Centres for PwD candidates (appearing with scribes), there was a requirement to constitute a new Test Centre to accommodate the candidates. Therefore, one Test Centre was added, making the Test Centres to 46. 8.2. Learned Advocate General has pointed out that there are no separate toilets for men in Koti Women’s College. When the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) conducted examination at that particular centre accommodating both men and women, there was a lot of inconvenience for the men. The candidates had to queue up outside the toilets. It was reported in newspapers. Taking this into consideration, the Commission after deliberation, allocated only women for the Test Centre Nos.18 and 19 situated in Koti Women’s College. He has submitted that all this process was conducted before issuing the hall tickets and no prejudice is caused to the candidates appearing for the Mains examination for increasing the test centres from 45 to 46. (c) Inconsistency about the total number of candidates, who appeared for the main examination: 8.3. He has submitted that all this process was conducted before issuing the hall tickets and no prejudice is caused to the candidates appearing for the Mains examination for increasing the test centres from 45 to 46. (c) Inconsistency about the total number of candidates, who appeared for the main examination: 8.3. Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the Web Note of ‘Statistical Summary of Attendance Pertaining to Mains Examinations held from 21.10.2024 AN to 27.10.2024 AN’ dated 27.10.2024 issued by the Secretary of the Commission. He has submitted that in column (iv) in the Note below the Table specifically mentioned that ‘the figures pertaining to the number of candidates who appeared for the Mains Exams are collected from the Chief Superintendents of the exam centres on the go when the examination was in progress and are subject to minor variation, if any.’ He further submitted that on 27.10.2024, the last day of the Mains examination, it was tentatively arrived at 21,093. After reconciliation, the said figure was revised to 21,110 as 17 candidates who were present in the examination were erroneously marked as absent by the examination superintendents. This Court directed not to publish the result of 25 candidates under the Sports Quota. After deducting this 25 from 21,110, the Commission had drawn up a list of 21,085 candidates who appeared for all the seven papers in the Mains examination and whose results were declared including the 924 candidates who did not qualify in the English Paper. Thus, in the Press Note dated 13.03.2025, it was stated that total number of candidates appeared is 20,161 and in the said figure, 924 candidates who did not qualify in the English examination is not included. Therefore, there is no discrepancy in the total number of candidates declared from time to time by the Commission. Therefore, the findings of the learned writ court that the Commission declared multiple figures at multiple times are illegal. d) Multiple evaluation of answer scripts: 8.4. Learned Advocate General has submitted that all the answer scripts in the Mains examination were evaluated by two different evaluators. However, in case there was a difference of more than 15% marks awarded by two evaluators, a third evaluation was carried out. d) Multiple evaluation of answer scripts: 8.4. Learned Advocate General has submitted that all the answer scripts in the Mains examination were evaluated by two different evaluators. However, in case there was a difference of more than 15% marks awarded by two evaluators, a third evaluation was carried out. The process of evaluation of each evaluator was closely monitored by the Chief Examiner to ensure that the evaluation is strictly implemented in terms of uniformity and fairness. A system of scrutiny was undertaken after each evaluation to verify whether marks are awarded to each question answered by the candidate and whether the totals are correctly done. For all the languages, adequate number of teaching faculty had been engaged for evaluation. The Commission thoroughly identified and accommodated the subject experts across the country and did not compromise with the quality of expertise. All the evaluators engaged in the assessment of answer scripts were duly trained by the Commission. 8.5. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that the allegation that there is no separate bar code for the third evaluation slip, while the first and second evaluation (on the first page of the Answer Booklet) carry unique bar codes, which render the third evaluation subject to manipulation is not acceptable. He has submitted that since all the papers are evaluated twice, provisions have been made on the first page itself for the two evaluations. However, the third evaluation, which is necessary only in a few cases, is provided for on the third page of the Answer Booklet. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the Sample Answer Booklet, which contains three parts – (1) details of the candidates, (ii) a table for first evaluation (which is signed by valuer, chief examiner and scrutinizer) and (iii) a similar table for the second evaluation. The first part of the Answer Booklet, i.e., details of the candidate, is removed prior to sending for first evaluation. After obtaining the first evaluation and its scrutiny, and prior to sending the paper for second evaluation, the portion containing the reference to the first evaluation is removed. This is done to ensure that the second evaluation is independent and uninfluenced by the first evaluation. Third evaluation, when the difference of more than 15% marks between the first two evaluations, is conducted by removing all three parts. This is done to ensure that the second evaluation is independent and uninfluenced by the first evaluation. Third evaluation, when the difference of more than 15% marks between the first two evaluations, is conducted by removing all three parts. Therefore, there was absolutely no scope for any manipulation at any stage of evaluation. 8.6. Learned Advocate General has further pointed out that the writ petitioners have filed the list of evaluators by abusing their office in the government service. They have filed the letters addressed by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to the Commissioners of Police. He has submitted that the list of evaluators is highly confidential to ensure fairness and anonymity. As such, the Commission reserves its right to initiate legal action against the writ petitioners for illegally procuring the highly confidential documents. He has further pointed out that the writ petitioners have levelled allegation against one of the evaluators i.e., Dr. M.A.Malik, that he worked as a private tutor at RC Reddy IAS Study Circle and he favoured his own students. It is submitted that the said Dr. M.A.Malik had not taken a single class in the said institution since 2010. That he used to take classes around 14 years ago. In this connection, learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter addressed by Dr. M.A.Malik to the Secretary of the Commission, Hyderabad that he is taking legal action against the writ petitioners in W.P.No.11439 of 2025 for making false allegations against him. (e) Publication of provisional/total marks list: 8.7. Learned Advocate General has referred to Para 15.2 under ‘Memorandum of Marks’ in the Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024 issued by the Commission for Group-I Services (General Recruitment), which specifically stated that the marks list of Mains examination (total marks) of all the candidates will be displayed on the Commission’s website. However, paper-wise Memorandum of Marks of all candidates could be accessed in their respective Logins for a period of one week. That as per the said para, the Commission had provided the paper-wise Memorandum of Marks of all candidates in their respective logins. Therefore, the finding of the learned writ court that the Commission ought to have published the total marks of all the candidates along with provisional subject-wise marks, cannot be accepted. That as per the said para, the Commission had provided the paper-wise Memorandum of Marks of all candidates in their respective logins. Therefore, the finding of the learned writ court that the Commission ought to have published the total marks of all the candidates along with provisional subject-wise marks, cannot be accepted. There is no pleading that the writ petitioners intended to compare their paper-wise marks with that of the other candidates for recounting. He has submitted that the Commission has not deviated from its Rules of Procedure. (f) Disclosing of un-qualified candidate’s hall ticket numbers in the Mains final marks list 8.8. Learned Advocate General has submitted that while evaluating the General English papers, it is not possible to know the category of the candidate. Therefore, it is imperative to evaluate all the seven papers of all the candidates. Further, as per para 15 (Memorandum of Marks), there is an option for recounting in all the papers. If all the papers were not evaluated simultaneously, there was no provision for recounting at a later stage, if a candidate chooses to seek recounting. The writ petitioners had not shown any prejudice caused to them by publication of the marks of the candidates who did not qualify in General English. All the marks of all the candidates were declared. That does not reflect the ranking of the candidates. 2) Method of Evaluation and its impact: a) The selection of the evaluators: 8.9. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the selection of evaluators is entirely within the domain of the Commission. The writ petitioners have not pleaded any prejudice with respect to any of the evaluators. In respect of the finding of the learned writ court that one Dr. M.A.Malik is alleged to have been associated with RC Reddy IAS Study Circle, it has been submitted that Dr. M.A.Malik, after joining as Associate Professor of Government Degree College, Chevella, in 2010, had not taken even a single class in the said institution. In respect of the finding of the learned writ court based on Press Note dated 13.03.2025 that the Commission is taking renowned subject experts for the purpose of evaluation, who are currently in service. Leaned Advocate General submitted that the Commission had taken the ‘regular faculty’, which means that even the retired faculty also included in that definition. In respect of the finding of the learned writ court based on Press Note dated 13.03.2025 that the Commission is taking renowned subject experts for the purpose of evaluation, who are currently in service. Leaned Advocate General submitted that the Commission had taken the ‘regular faculty’, which means that even the retired faculty also included in that definition. He further stated that even the UPSC also uses the services of the retired subject experts as evaluators. The breakup of the evaluators was placed at pg.448, vol.III of the compilation. (b) The procedure of evaluation: 8.10. The submissions on this issue have been referred to in the later part of this judgment in order to avoid repetition with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Commission. (c) Telugu Medium candidates were neglected: 8.11. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the degree college faculty teaches both English and Telugu Medium graduation students. As such, they are competent enough to evaluate Group-I Mains examination papers. He further submitted that on comparison with neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh, it would reveal that the percentage of successful candidates from both the States is more or less equal. The entire exercise of evaluation was carried out with best possible practices available. No injustice has been caused to any candidate irrespective of medium. He has stated that out of the total vacancies, 10% vacancies were occupied by Telugu Medium candidates. (d) The highest qualified candidates in specific centres: 8.12. On the observation of the learned writ court that from Centre Nos.18 and 19, the highest female candidates, i.e., 71 female candidates were selected, whereas in the remaining 26 centres, only 139 female candidates were selected, learned Advocate General submitted that there is no allegation of malpractice in those centres more so the writ petitioners have not appeared from Centre Nos.18 and 19. (e) Commission awarded the same marks to certain candidates: 8.13. Learned Advocate General has submitted that it is quite natural that same number of marks will be secured by so many candidates in a highly competitive examination. He has referred to instance of a candidate having the hall ticket No.240902470 who got 253 marks and the candidate having the hall ticket No.240902471 also got 253 marks. However, it did not mean that they got the same marks in all the subjects. He has referred to instance of a candidate having the hall ticket No.240902470 who got 253 marks and the candidate having the hall ticket No.240902471 also got 253 marks. However, it did not mean that they got the same marks in all the subjects. He has also referred to the table provided at pg.926, vol.V showing that so many candidates got the similar marks. On the question of similar marks secured by number of candidates, the selection procedure mentioned in para 12.3 of recruitment Notification No.02/2024 has been adverted to which provides tie breaker principles at various levels. If the total marks of two or more candidates are equal, then the local status of the candidates is considered for ranking i.e., candidates local to Telangana are given first positions. If the total marks and local status of more than two candidates are equal, then the date of birth of the candidates is taken for ranking i.e., the elder candidate is given prior rank. If total marks, local status and date of birth of two or more candidates are equal, then the ranks are awarded based on the marks obtained by the candidates in Paper-I. If tie continues, then highest marks in Paper-II would be given priority, even then if tie continues then highest marks in Paper-III would be given priority, even then if tie continues then highest marks in Paper-IV would be given priority, even then if tie continues then highest marks in Paper-V would be given priority. If then also two or more candidates are equal in all aspects, the date of passing of the required qualifying examination will be taken into account for consideration for ranking. If then also two or more candidates are equal in all aspects as indicated above, the percentage of marks in the required qualifying examination will be taken for awarding the rank i.e., the candidate having higher percentage in the required qualifying examination is given prior rank. If then also two or more candidates are equal in all aspects, their higher qualification will be taken into account. If then also two or more candidates are equal in all aspects, the date of passing of the higher qualification will be taken into account for consideration for ranking and even if the ranking is same, the percentage of marks in higher qualification will be taken as criteria for awarding the rank. If then also two or more candidates are equal in all aspects, the date of passing of the higher qualification will be taken into account for consideration for ranking and even if the ranking is same, the percentage of marks in higher qualification will be taken as criteria for awarding the rank. Commission’s decision will be final in all other exceptional cases other than the cases mentioned above. 8.14. Learned Advocate General has submitted that in the present recruitment re-evaluation is not permitted. He has placed reliance on the apex court judgments in Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission , (2004) 6 SCC 714 (paras 7 and 8); Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2018) 2 SCC 357 (paras 29 to 32) and Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs. Dr. Yerra Trinadh , (2022) 18 SCC 716 . He has placed reliance on the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) (paras 17 and 23) and Sunil Kumar vs. Bihar Public Service Commission , (2016) 2 SCC 495 (paras 2, 3, 18, 20 and 21) on the issue of moderation. It is submitted that the Commission has the freedom to choose its own method of evaluation. Submissions of Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1086 of 2025 (Successful Candidates): 8.15. Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel has adopted the submissions of learned Advocate General on all the above aspects. He has further submitted that the learned writ court should not have set aside the examination since there is no case of systemic failure. He has submitted that the observations on procedural aspects cannot justify re- evaluation or to re-conduct the Mains examination. That the observation of the learned writ court that the first and second evaluators did not put their marks on the answer scripts does not reflect proper consideration of the matter since the evaluators had put their marks on the answer scripts, the third evaluator would come to know the marks awarded by the earlier evaluators. 8.16. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the entire approach of the learned writ court on procedural aspects of the conduct of Mains examination is not correct as they are administrative measures by the Commission for the fair conduct of the examination. No prejudice has been caused to the candidates. There is no allegation of mass copying or leakage of paper. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the entire approach of the learned writ court on procedural aspects of the conduct of Mains examination is not correct as they are administrative measures by the Commission for the fair conduct of the examination. No prejudice has been caused to the candidates. There is no allegation of mass copying or leakage of paper. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to paras 48 to 64 of the common additional counter affidavit on the method of moderation adopted by the Commission. He has relied on the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H.Satya , (2011) 8 SCC 781 (paras 30 and 31) and Sunil Kumar (supra) (para 20). It is submitted that the recruitment agency has the freedom to decide what sort of evaluation has to be followed. It is beyond scope of the writ court to decide the method of evaluation. 8.17. He has also submitted that multiple evaluation of answer scripts itself is moderation. That the Commission has the power to appoint the subject experts for evaluation, even if they retired. The reasons for coming to the conclusion by the learned writ court are therefore arbitrary. 8.18. Under Rule 3(xi) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure), the Commission has the power to prescribe the procedure for evaluation. As such, the finding of the learned writ court that no specific rule has been prescribed for evaluation is without any basis. 8.19. On the issue of candidates selected from Centre Nos.18 and 19, it was submitted that the learned writ court did not take into account the percentage of the selected candidates with the other centres. It has strangely concluded that more number of female candidates were selected from Centre Nos.18 and 19. The Commission had followed randomisation while accommodating candidates at different centres. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana , (1985) 4 SCC 417 (para 21); Ran Vijay Singh (supra) (para 32), Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir , (2023) 17 SCC 147 ( paras 31 to 36, 37 and 39) and Deependra Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 724 in support of his submissions. Submissions of Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the Successful Candidates: 8.20. Mr. Submissions of Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the Successful Candidates: 8.20. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the successful candidates/respondent Nos.62, 66, 72 and 80 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025 has sought to dislodge the findings of the learned writ court by referring to data from the pleadings on record, which are as under: NOTE ON DATA I. CANDIDATES 1 Appeared in preliminary exam 3,02,172 (Ref. @8 of Commission WS) 2 Qualified for mains exam 31,403 (Ref. @8 of Commission WS) 3 Sat for mains exam and wrote all 7 papers 21,110 (Ref. @912 of WA) 4 Women candidates who sat for mains 6,396 5 Whose marks included in total marks list 21,085 (Ref. @912 of WA) 6 Got qualifying marks 12,622 (Ref. @927 of WA) 7 Selected pursuant to mains exam 563 (Ref. @ 316 of WA) 8 English medium candidates 12,381 (Ref. @ 316 of WA) 9 Telugu medium candidates 8,694 (Ref. @316 of WA) 10 Urdu medium candidates 10 (Ref. @ 316 of WA) II. SUBJECTS 11 Subjects in exam English (qualifying) + 6 others (Ref. @383 of WA) 12 Marks 900 (150 per subject) (Ref. @383 of WA) 13 Highest mark scored 550 (Ref. @ 927 of WA) 14 Median mark scored 369 15 Cut off marks for those qualified 360 (for open category, EWS), 315 (OBC), 270 (SC/ST) (Ref. @ 927 of WA) III. EXAMINATION 16 Number of centres 46 [3 women centres] [Ref. @ 917 of WA] 17 Average number of candidates in each centre 459 18 Number of candidates in Centre 18 and 19 (women centre) 721 & 776 19 Number of evaluators 351 [Ref. @ 152 of WA] 8.21. By adopting the submissions of the learned Advocate General and Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, he has forcefully contended that neither on the issues of procedural aspects nor on the methods of evaluation, the writ petitioners have been able to show any prejudice which necessitated the learned writ court to issue the impugned direction. The learned Senior Counsel has made pointwise submissions on the findings rendered on different issues framed by learned writ court and the response thereto by the successful candidates. 8.22. The learned Senior Counsel has coined the following legal propositions. The learned Senior Counsel has made pointwise submissions on the findings rendered on different issues framed by learned writ court and the response thereto by the successful candidates. 8.22. The learned Senior Counsel has coined the following legal propositions. Though his written submissions referred to multiple authorities on these issues but during course of submissions he has cited some of the leading judgments which have been referred to in the latter part of this judgment. Some of these decisions have also been cited by other counsels during their submissions. I. As a constitutional authority, the discretion of the Public Service Commission ought not to be lightly interfered with, especially when the Commission has evolved a non-discriminatory procedure. Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720 (Para 50) Sunil Kumar v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2016) 2 SCC 495 (Para 20) Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J & K, (2023) 17 SCC 147 (para 31-36) Binod Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand, (2022: JHHC : 25635-DB) (Para 14) (Note: Binod Kumar (supra) was carried to SC vide SLP (C) No.21941-21943/2022 and was dismissed on 14.12.2022) II. The existence of a grave irregularity must not only be alleged but also must have been proved. Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 743 (Para 68-71, 86) State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719 (Para 12, 18-19) III. After such grave irregularity is proven, it must pervade the entirety of the process so as to vitiate the entirety of the selection Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J & K, (2023) 17 SCC 147 (Para 43, 51) Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 743 (Para 10, 62-63, 67) IV. Any allegation regarding the procedure or the evaluation ought not to be entertained unless a prejudice is shown to have been caused to the Writ Petitioner. Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh, (2008) 4 SCC 619 (Para 24, 35) Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357 (Para 19) 8.23. He has also relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar (supra) (para 20) on the proposition that the recruitment agency has the freedom to decide the method of moderation to be followed in an examination. He has also relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar (supra) (para 20) on the proposition that the recruitment agency has the freedom to decide the method of moderation to be followed in an examination. It has been submitted that a three-fold test has been laid down in Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India , (2024) 9 SCC 743 for the writ court to interfere in the examination. 8.24. He has also relied on cases of Vanshika Yadav (supra) (paras 68 to 71 and 86) and Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) (paras 43 and 51), that the existence of grave irregularity must not only be alleged, but must be proved. 8.25. He has submitted that there is complete absence of mala fide in the conduct of examination. The writ petitioners have not made any allegations of mass cheating or mass copying or leakage of question papers. Moreover, the methods of evaluation adopted by the Commission are uniformly applicable to all the candidates including those who are unsuccessful. Therefore, as per three-fold test in the case of Vanshika Yadav (supra), unless there is a case of systemic failure or where the integrity of the entire examination process is affected, the Court in exercise of judicial review would not order re-conduct of the examination. That the courts should not sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy or the procedure adopted unless proven mala fides are present. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth , (1984) 4 SCC 27 (para 29). The writ petitioners had participated in the examination without objection. They are estopped from challenging the process as an afterthought after having been declared unsuccessful in the examination. He has referred to Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) and submitted that when the rules of the game are silent on evaluation, the Commission can device its own mechanism which is non-discriminatory and uniform to all candidates. He has relied on the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Binod Kumar vs. the State of Jharkhand (dated 28.07.2022 in L.P.A.No.198 of 2019 and batch). The Special Leave Petitions filed against the said order, bearing SLP (C) Nos.21941-21943 of 2022, were dismissed on 14.12.2022. 8.26. He has relied on the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Binod Kumar vs. the State of Jharkhand (dated 28.07.2022 in L.P.A.No.198 of 2019 and batch). The Special Leave Petitions filed against the said order, bearing SLP (C) Nos.21941-21943 of 2022, were dismissed on 14.12.2022. 8.26. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that mere suspicion of manipulation or mala fide in third evaluation cannot be a ground for mass cancellation of examination or re-evaluation of answer scripts. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav (supra) (paras 62, 79, 86 and 87). 8.27. It is further submitted that every Commission has its own standards of evaluation. The method of evaluation adopted by the Commission is in accordance with the settled law. It is further submitted that the scheme of evaluation (rules of the game) has not been changed during or after the conduct of the examination. The procedure for evaluation should be left to the expert committee. It is submitted that the bane of the entire exercise for recruitment by the Commission has been the unnecessary eagerness to show transparency, by issuing Web Notes and Press Notes from time to time. The finding of the learned writ court deserve to set aside since they fail to adhere to the three-fold test laid down in Vanshika Yadav ’s case (supra). The direction to conduct re-evaluation by moderation on the lines of Sanjay Singh (supra) is also unsustainable. Submissions of Dr. S.Muralidhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Successful Candidates: 8.28. Dr. S.Muralidhar, learned Senior Counsel for the successful candidates/respondent Nos.65, 73, 85, 126 and 138 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025 has adopted the submissions made by previous counsels. According to him, the conclusion at para 369 of the impugned judgment regarding lack of transparency, integrity and having acted in a biased manner and deviated from the rules as against the Commission are unfounded. He submits that the Rule 3(ix) of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that under any circumstances, revaluation of answer sheets shall not be entertained, is not under challenge. He has also referred to the Web Notes dated 10.03.2025 and 13.03.2025 in that regard. He has also pointed out that the observations made at para 307 of the impugned judgment regarding the procedure followed by the higher body like the UPSC is fundamentally incorrect. He has also referred to the Web Notes dated 10.03.2025 and 13.03.2025 in that regard. He has also pointed out that the observations made at para 307 of the impugned judgment regarding the procedure followed by the higher body like the UPSC is fundamentally incorrect. Under Article 320 of the Constitution of India, the State Commission or the UPSC stand on the same footing. The finding of the learned writ court that the candidates who intended to apply for a re-count in terms of para 15.2 of the recruitment Notification, need to know both their own marks and the total marks of other candidates for comparison is completely incorrect. Any candidate seeking recount does not have right to see the marks of other candidates for comparison and seek a recount. He has referred to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court Mogili Kinnera vs. the State of Telangana (W.A.No.195 of 2025, dated 27.02.2025), where the same issue of evaluation by third evaluator was in question. The learned Division Bench found that the allegations were completely bald. The apex court has opined that some procedure should be adopted to reduce ‘examiner subjectivity’ or ‘examiner variability’. The learned Division Bench opined that no fault could be found on the method of evaluation by the third evaluator. 8.29. He has submitted that the last selection to Group-I Services was made in the year 2011. The recruitment to Group-I Services after 14 years have been annulled on untenable grounds. It would have catastrophic effect upon the State administrative set up. The aspirations of whole generation of aspiring candidates would get shattered. In conclusion, he submits that in the absence of any systemic irregularity, such as malice or fraud that undermines the integrity of the entire selection process, the results of the examination should not be cancelled nor can any re-evaluation be conducted in any manner directed by the learned writ court. Submissions of Mr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel: 8.30. Dr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1054 of 2025 submits that the appellant, Mrs. Shagffta Firdouse qualified through Urdu medium, having secured 512.5 marks, out of 900 marks, she was placed at general rank No.18. In the writ petition, i.e. W.P.No.11439 of 2025, filed by Paramesh Matta, at para 24, an allegation was made that Urdu medium candidates had been unduly favoured. Shagffta Firdouse qualified through Urdu medium, having secured 512.5 marks, out of 900 marks, she was placed at general rank No.18. In the writ petition, i.e. W.P.No.11439 of 2025, filed by Paramesh Matta, at para 24, an allegation was made that Urdu medium candidates had been unduly favoured. The learned writ court held the allegation in favour of the Urdu medium candidate was frivolous. The appellant’s marks, rank and particulars were specifically discussed, though she was not impleaded as party respondent. The impugned judgment has thus prejudicially affected her rights behind her back. 8.31. Learned counsel has, relying on the decision of State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719 , submitted that the findings of the learned writ court on the issues of English qualifying marks, moderation in evaluation, hall-ticket renumbering, exclusive centres for women, evaluation inconsistencies and statistical irregularities are all misplaced. There is no proof of bias or any taint in re- numbering or allotment of women centres, which are based on standard logistics. The direction for re-evaluation or re-conduct of the examination without any proven systemic irregularity is contrary to the principles of proportionality as held in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) Therefore, a blanket direction passed by the learned writ court for re- evaluation by undertaking moderation in line with Sanjay Singh (supra) or in the alternative, for cancellation of the entire examination, is wholly unsustainable. Submissions of Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Telangana Public Service Commission: 8.32. Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Commission has, in continuity with the submissions made by other counsels for the appellants stated the fact that only 3.76% of the candidates amongst all candidates had a variance of 15% or more, which required evaluation by a third evaluator. He has presented a comparative chart of the centres with the percentage of the candidates who have qualified in the ultimate result. The figures show that the success percentage of candidates appearing from some centres were higher i.e., 8.7% and 6.25%, compared to centre Nos.18 and 19, where only female candidates were appearing. Centre Nos.18 and 19 had 5.41% and 4.12% success rate. He has explained the method of evaluation carried out by the Commission and submitted that it is also a method of moderation. All the candidates appeared in the same subjects. Centre Nos.18 and 19 had 5.41% and 4.12% success rate. He has explained the method of evaluation carried out by the Commission and submitted that it is also a method of moderation. All the candidates appeared in the same subjects. In scaling down method, candidates have an option to appear in variety of subjects. 8.33. It is submitted that none of the candidates complained about the issuance of different hall tickets for Mains examination though it was notified by the Commission through a Web Note before the Mains examination. Such complaints were made after one month of the examinations. Learned Senior Counsel has also clarified that during the initial hearing, though it was conveyed on behalf of the Commission that there were no answer keys, but at the stage of final hearing, it was clearly brought to the notice of the learned writ court that each paper had clear key answers. All the evaluators were instructed to follow the key answers. The learned writ court’s finding at para 345, as regards variation in oral submissions on the question of key answers is erroneous. The additional affidavits filed by the Commission clarify the existence of key answers, based on which all the evaluators were instructed and trained to carry out the evaluation. It is submitted that none of the petitioners could establish that any of successful candidate had indulged in cheating, or that he was the beneficiary of a favourable evaluation in his papers. He submitted that therefore the impugned directions are fit to set aside by upholding the sanctity of the Mains examination to Group-I services. Submissions of Mr. P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Counsel: 8.34. Mr. P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.83, 159 and 134 in W.A.No.1066 of 2025 submits that the petitioners have made bald allegations in the writ petitions. It is submitted that the Rules of Procedure permit the Commission to take decision in respect of all selections and matters incidental to the selection, which includes the basis on which the marks should be awarded, the manner in which the evaluation is to be done. If the evaluation process has been applied uniformly to all the candidates, petitioners cannot allege any prejudice which may call for interference by the court in judicial review. The Court is not an expert body for conduct of recruitment examination. If the evaluation process has been applied uniformly to all the candidates, petitioners cannot allege any prejudice which may call for interference by the court in judicial review. The Court is not an expert body for conduct of recruitment examination. It is further submitted that the petitioners have challenged the results after participating in the Mains examination which has been held after 14 years. The conclusions drawn by the learned writ court are patently incorrect. 8.35. Learned Counsel has also submitted a brief analysis of the findings of the learned writ court on each of the aspects relating to procedure and method of evaluation in line with his submissions made by the earlier counsels representing the appellants. He referred to Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that where no specific provision is made in the Rules, the Commission may regulate its proceedings in such manner as it decides. The allocation of examination centres was made by computer software without any manual intervention. He has strongly denied the allegations about inconsistency about the total number of candidates who appeared for the Mains examination. It is submitted that the Commission has elaborately explained it in their common additional counter affidavit. 8.36. On the issue of multiple evaluation of answer scripts, he has also relied upon Rule 3(xi) of the Rules of Procedure and submitted that the writ petitioners failed to provide any documentary evidence to any manipulation in the third evaluation which vitiated the sanctity of the examination. 8.37. It is further submitted that paras 12.1(D) and 15 of the recruitment Notification should not be read together as both pertain to different contexts i.e., Procedure of Selection and Memorandum of Marks respectively. He has also refuted the observation that Telugu medium candidates were neglected. The Commission provided separate answer keys for English and Telugu medium, which were produced before the learned writ court in a sealed cover. Therefore, the conclusion that English was given primacy is factually and legally incorrect. Evaluation was conducted fairly across all there mediums ensuring equal treatment to all candidates of all mediums. Finally, he submitted that if the impugned judgment of the learned writ court is sustained, it would incentivize failed candidates to file speculative challenges, endlessly delaying recruitment and exacerbate the governance deficit. 8.38. Evaluation was conducted fairly across all there mediums ensuring equal treatment to all candidates of all mediums. Finally, he submitted that if the impugned judgment of the learned writ court is sustained, it would incentivize failed candidates to file speculative challenges, endlessly delaying recruitment and exacerbate the governance deficit. 8.38. Based on the above submissions, learned counsels for the appellant Commission and successful candidates have prayed that the impugned judgment being wholly unsustainable in law and on facts, be set aside. The writ appeals may be allowed. Writ petitioners/Unsuccessful Candidates: Submissions of Mr. M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners (unsuccessful candidates): 9. Mr. M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/unsuccessful candidates has supported the impugned judgment inter alia on the basis of the following submissions: 9.1. After cancellation of the preliminary examination under recruitment notification No.04/2022 for 503 Group-I posts, the Commission committed serious illegality in issuing recruitment Notification No.02/2024 for holding examination to 563 Group-I posts by adding 60 posts on instructions of State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 03.02.2024. The Commission failed to follow the directions passed by the learned writ court in W.P.No.15811 of 2023, dated 23.09.2023 as upheld in W.A.No.942 of 2023 by judgment dated 27.09.2023. The Commission withdrew the challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on the same day, i.e., 19.02.2024 issued the recruitment Notification No.02/2024. The Commission acted in teeth of proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution by framing Rules which can at best be called as executive instructions not having any statutory flavour. 9.2. However, it has been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the Commission, during the course of submissions, that the learned writ court had answered this issue under procedural aspect (g) in favour of the Commission. 9.3. Further, Mr. Rao submitted that the Commission had failed to follow the scheme of examination as prescribed under para 9 of the recruitment notification. The procedure for selection prescribed under para 12.5 permitted evaluation through digital mode or conventional mode. It did not prescribe any such method of moderation which the Commission adopted by evaluation through third evaluator in case of difference of more than 15% in the evaluation of first two evaluators. The notification only provided for criteria for normalisation and not moderation. 9.4. It did not prescribe any such method of moderation which the Commission adopted by evaluation through third evaluator in case of difference of more than 15% in the evaluation of first two evaluators. The notification only provided for criteria for normalisation and not moderation. 9.4. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to the case of Ajith G. Das vs. the State of Kerala , 2024 IN SC 1037 , paras 8, 15, 27 and 28, wherein it was held that PSC’s autonomy must be exercised within the confines of its role as a facilitator of recruitment and not as an arbiter of administrative policy. 9.5. In the case of Mandeep Singh vs. State of Punjab , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1420 , paras 2, 8, 12 and 13, are referred to on the same proposition. The Commission has a duty to make selection on the basis of requirement of the State Government. It is contended that anything done in undue haste also smacks mala fide. The decision of the Commission to issue recruitment notification on 19.02.2024 after withdrawal of the S.L.P., smacks of mala fide. 9.6. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of Partha Das vs. the State of Tripura , 2025 IN SC 1049 , para 42, and contended that the apex court held that State having failed to prove that the decision to apply NRP to the ongoing recruitment process was in the larger public interest, the legitimate expectation of fairness in the recruitment process must be upheld. The legitimate expectation of the candidates for conduct of the examinations under the Notification No.02/2024 finds support from the above decision. 9.7. It is further submitted that in Ramjit Singh Kardam vs. Sanjeev Kumar , (2020) 20 SCC 209 , the apex court held that the candidates who had participated in the selection are not estopped from challenging the selection. The apex court at para 68 also held that the malice in law has been dealt as ‘something done without lawful excuse’. Malice in law is also mala fide exercise of statutory power for purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended. 9.8. The apex court at para 68 also held that the malice in law has been dealt as ‘something done without lawful excuse’. Malice in law is also mala fide exercise of statutory power for purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended. 9.8. However, this Court is of the view that the decisions cited on the question of Commission’s autonomy vis-a-vis the Government’s prerogative on the role in making of the requisitions do not have a bearing in the present case as the issue of addition of vacancies to the Notification No.02/2024 has faced an unsuccessful challenge before this court in earlier writ proceedings. At the same time, the learned writ court has answered this issue in favour of the Commission. 9.9. Mr. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel has questioned the actions of the Commission after issuance of the Notification No.02/2024 at length. According to him, despite specific provisions in the recruitment notification prescribing the manner and procedure for conduct of the examination through digital mode or conventional mode evaluation, issuance of separate hall ticket for the Mains examination was without any information or basis to help particular candidates. He has explained the pattern of the nine-digit hall ticket number. The first four numbers are indicative of Group-I examination. The second two numbers are indicative of the centre and the last three numbers are the indicative of the seat number of the candidate. By referring to one of the sample answer sheets, he has tried to show that the controlling bundle in the first page contains the serial number of the answer booklet in the bundle. This information is available with the evaluator while filling the marks in the table provided therein. Therefore, it depicts lack of confidentiality in the evaluation. The evaluator can know as to which candidate’s paper he is evaluating. 9.10. It is contended that as per the list of domain expert evaluators published through Press Note by the Commission, the evaluators covered only six subjects though each paper have more than one subject which should have been examined by an expert of the said subject. He has referred to the scheme and syllabus for recruitment to Group-I. It comprises English as qualifying paper with 150 marks and the remaining six papers, including one General Essay paper, each with 150 marks. He has referred to the scheme and syllabus for recruitment to Group-I. It comprises English as qualifying paper with 150 marks and the remaining six papers, including one General Essay paper, each with 150 marks. He submits that leaving aside the General Essay paper, the other five papers comprised three subjects, which should have been examined by the domain experts. 9.11. In the case of President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa vs. D.Suvankar , (2007) 1 SCC 603 , paras 6, 7, 8, 9 and 15, it was held that different subject experts of subject should be appointed as examiners instead of getting the papers with more than one subject evaluated by an examiner who is an expert of only one subject. He has also referred to Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay , (2011) 8 SCC 497 (paras 46, 47 and 151); Dr P.Kishore Kumar vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh , 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 364 (para 46(d)), wherein it was held that a student has legitimate expectation for his answer sheets to be evaluated properly. If safeguards have not been followed in evaluation, the entire process of evaluation was wrong and defective. There was no proper evaluation in the eye of law. 9.12. Based on these submissions, he has defended the impugned judgment passed by the learned writ court. He has inter alia also questioned the conduct of the examination on the following points: Allocation of centres by pick and choose method; Answer Scripts were not anonymized/randomized; Lack of OMR Barcode for third evaluation; Press Note is silent on multi-evaluation. No indication of evaluation is contrary to law; Unauthorised evaluation work; Arbitrariness and lack of moderation in the Commission’s average method of valuation. 9.13. He asserted that para 15.2 read with 15.3 of Notification No.02/2024 were violated in the publication of Total marks of all candidates. 9.14. It is submitted that subsequent affidavits by the Commission cannot cure the reasons omitted in the original counter affidavit. 9.15. Based on elaborate arguments, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Rao submitted that the learned writ court’s findings do not suffer from any errors or illegality. Submissions of Mr. B.Adinarayana, learned Senior Counsel 9.16. Mr. B.Adinarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 in W.A.No.1076 of 2025 has in addition to the submissions made by Mr. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, further contended that: 9.17. Submissions of Mr. B.Adinarayana, learned Senior Counsel 9.16. Mr. B.Adinarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 in W.A.No.1076 of 2025 has in addition to the submissions made by Mr. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, further contended that: 9.17. The recruitment notification is silent on moderation. The recruitment notification only provide for normalisation that is applicable to Prelims examination. He has referred to paras 1.8 and 1.9 which are relating to Mains examinations. He has also referred to para 12.5 of the Notification and 6.7 of the Instructions to Candidates regarding written examination (Mains) (Annexure-VI appended to the Notification) that the notification did not provide for any moderation. Evaluation by two evaluators is not akin to moderation. The Commission has not been able to demonstrate that it is not arbitrary. 9.18. That the Commission has not shown any conscious decision for undertaking moderation. No rationale is forthcoming to support the action of the Commission for moderation. 9.19. The Commission has acted in a non-transparent manner in violation of Rules of Procedure. Paras 15.2 and 15.3 of the recruitment notification has been violated by not allowing opportunity to the candidates to compare their marks with others and seek recounting. The conduct of the Commission shows that it wanted to suppress the information regarding marks obtained by other candidates. 9.20. It is contended that out of 46 centres, about 85% of the selection is from 24 centres, whereas 15% from the rest of the centres. If the process of randomisation had taken place, then such lopsided results from some centres may not be possible. 9.21. Any such decision regarding randomisation or moderation etc., were not taken before commencement of the examination. It is contended that the rules of the game cannot be changed in between. He has referred to the judgment of the apex court in the case of Vanshika Yadav (supra). Submissions of Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Senior Counsel 9.22. Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents in W.A.No.1045 of 2025 has focussed his submissions on the issue of moderation. (a) According to him, a candidate cannot be penalised for defective evaluation process in which he has committed no mistake. The method of moderation applied by the Commission could result in three scenarios. Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents in W.A.No.1045 of 2025 has focussed his submissions on the issue of moderation. (a) According to him, a candidate cannot be penalised for defective evaluation process in which he has committed no mistake. The method of moderation applied by the Commission could result in three scenarios. Two liberal examiners examining the same paper, two strict examiners examining the same paper or one liberal and one strict examiner evaluating the same paper. Such kind of an evaluation exercise leads to systemic errors. If this unmethodical system of evaluation is not disapproved, it may lead to such errors repeated every year. He has further stated that there was no clear quality answer key prepared for the majority of the subjects. They were often restricted only to sub- headings, not containing details of possible answers or permitting widely divergent marking ranges as evident from the observations of the learned writ court at para 355 of the impugned judgment. (b) Secondly, rather than having a Head Examiner assess each evaluator’s independent style – a hawk or a dove, and then accordingly moderate the final scores granted by that evaluator the Head Examiner admittedly examined only a few sample answer keys for each evaluator to give guidance in implementation of the scheme of evaluation. He has referred to para 49 of the common additional counter affidavit, dated 25.06.2025, of the Commission. (c) Thirdly, a number of evaluators were not regular faculty from Universities, but rather retired individuals as stated by the Commission in para 57 of its common additional counter affidavit, dated 25.06.2025. Some, allegedly, also had relationships with commercial coaching entities. (d) Fourthly, a simple mathematical calculation revealed that evaluators have as many as over 2000 answer scripts to evaluate on average for the subjects, where there were only 18 data interpretation or 21 science and technology evaluators. This kind of extreme workload is likely to affect errors and arbitrariness in the evaluation process. The moderation as per Sanjay Singh (supra) limits each evaluator to approximately 300 answer scripts. (e) Fifthly, there is nothing on record to indicate answer keys were prepared in Telugu at all. (f) Sixthly, the Commission did not mix answer scripts from different centres together, shuffle them out and then send out for evaluation as is done in UPSC examination. The moderation as per Sanjay Singh (supra) limits each evaluator to approximately 300 answer scripts. (e) Fifthly, there is nothing on record to indicate answer keys were prepared in Telugu at all. (f) Sixthly, the Commission did not mix answer scripts from different centres together, shuffle them out and then send out for evaluation as is done in UPSC examination. Instead, as per Commission’s own admission in para 29 of its common additional counter affidavit dated 25.06.2025, it divided answer booklets from one centre for each paper into smaller bundles, and then distributed those bundles to evaluators. Consequently, large bunches of answer scripts from each centre went to the same evaluators, significantly increasing the chances of large bunches of students from each centre doing well or poor depending upon the approach of the evaluator. (g) Seventhly, it is contended that double and triple evaluation are obviously not a solution to the problem of evaluator subjectivity. The system adopted by the Commission still leaves the fate of each candidate to chance. Therefore, there is lack of proper moderation in the present case which leads to adverse consequences. According to the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Farasat, moderation as per Sanjay Singh (supra) is only solution. Therefore, the learned writ court rightly directed the Commission to undertake re-evaluation in the manner prescribed in Sanjay Singh (supra) as prescribed at para 232 of the said judgment. 9.23. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners has relied on the decisions of the apex court in Sujasha Mukherjee vs. High Court of Calcutta through Registrar , (2015) 11 SCC 395 , U.P.Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav , (2018) 3 SCC 706 ; Disha Panchal vs. Union of India , (2018) 17 SCC 278 ; and Pranav Verma vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh , (2020) 15 SCC 377 , to support his submissions on the absence of any proper method of moderation by the Commission in the present case. Therefore, the operative direction of the learned writ court to conduct re- evaluation by following the method prescribed in Sanjay Singh (supra) requires no interference. Submissions of Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel 9.24. Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, by way of cross-appeal in W.A.No.1470 of 2025 and respondents in W.A.No.1077 and 1080 of 2025, has inter alia made the following submissions: 9.25. Submissions of Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel 9.24. Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, by way of cross-appeal in W.A.No.1470 of 2025 and respondents in W.A.No.1077 and 1080 of 2025, has inter alia made the following submissions: 9.25. Any deviation from the terms and conditions of recruitment Notification No.02/2024 is arbitrary. He has referred to paras 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 which provide for digital or convention mode of evaluation. There is no mention of moderation. He has also referred to paras 12, 12.5 and 13.6 of the recruitment notification. There was non-compliance of paras 15.2 and 15.3, which relate to Memorandum of Marks. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to other conditions of the recruitment Notification, such as paras 17 and 18. 9.26. He submitted that the recruitment Notification No.02/2024 contained detail process to be adopted in the recruit process, but the Web Note issued thereafter makes a complete departure. The Web Note dated 16.08.2024 had for the first time displayed sample answer booklets and hall tickets on the Commission’s web site, that there were two evaluators. Later, by Web Note dated 27.09.2024, change in the answer booklet and hall ticket number were communicated. This Web Note reflects introduction of third evaluator. In the case of the third evaluation, there is no darkening of any bubbles like the two evaluations on the first page of the answer sheet. The Mains examinations were held from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024. Later by Web Note dated 05.03.2025 after the examinations are over, the candidates were cautioned against social media. The Commission also communicated that paper-wise marks and provisional marks sheet would be released shortly. By Web Note dated 10.03.2025, it was communicated that after the publication of marks, a candidate may apply for re-counting. By clause 3 of Press Note dated 13.03.2025, it was communicated that double valuation is mandatory. This had no reference in the recruitment Notification No.02/2024. 9.27. Learned Senior Counsel has then referred to the first counter affidavit of the Commission, specifically to paras 14, 16, 25 and 26. He has also referred to paras 48 to 54 and 62 and 64 of the second counter affidavit of the Commission, which contains answer to the allegations regarding evaluation method. It is submitted that a statement was made that no such moderation is required in Group-I examination because all papers were mandatory. He has also referred to paras 48 to 54 and 62 and 64 of the second counter affidavit of the Commission, which contains answer to the allegations regarding evaluation method. It is submitted that a statement was made that no such moderation is required in Group-I examination because all papers were mandatory. However, later in the additional affidavit dated 08.07.2025 filed by the Commission, it is stated that third evaluation was made for more than 700 candidates. At that stage, arguments were concluded and judgment was reserved. Only written submissions were to be filed. Therefore, the learned writ court at paras 344 and 345 of the impugned judgment observed that the stand of the Commission on evaluation and key answers were inconsistent. In one of the affidavits, the Commission had referred to both scaling and moderation/ normalisation. There was no clarity as to how the evaluation of answer sheets or moderation was to be undertaken by the Commission. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Babu Verghese vs. Bar Council of Kerala , (1999) 3 SCC 422 (paras 31 and 32) , State of Jharkhand vs. Ambay Cements , (2005) 1 SCC 368 (para 26) and State of Tamil Nadu vs. G.Hemalathaa , (2020) 19 SCC 430 9.28. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the Commission could not have evaluated answer sheets by more than one evaluator as it amounted to re-evaluation, which is in teeth of Rule 3(ix) of the Rules of Procedure framed by the Commission itself. Therefore, the learned writ court held that if re-evaluation is not proper, fresh examination is the only option. The cross-appeal, i.e., W.A.No.1470 of 2025 is directed against the direction of the learned writ court for re-evaluation by moderation. 9.29. Based on these submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1470 of 2025 has supported the findings of the learned writ court and sought re-conduct of the examination. Submissions of Mr. D.Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel: 9.30. Mr. D.Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.12 in W.A.No.1086 of 2025, has taken this Court to the finding of the learned writ court on the procedural aspects, like issuance of two hall tickets, allocation of centres, discrepancy in the number of total candidates appearing, multiple evaluations and non-publication of provisional marks sheet, evaluation of papers of candidates disqualified in English paper, and lastly, the lack of consultation with the government. The last point was answered in favour of the Commission, against which no challenge has been made. 9.31. Mr. Naidu, learned Senior Counsel, has pointed that the Commission violated its own professed standards by employing retired persons for evaluation. He emphasized that evaluation was not undertaken by subject experts of the six papers, apart from English. He has also reiterated the submission of the previous counsels appearing for the writ petitioners on the pattern of identical marks obtained by about 719 candidates. According to him, on account of non-observance of a proper biometric system, the checks and balances in screening the candidates and ruling out chances of impersonation were compromised. Mr. Naidu also submitted that the learned writ court found serious discrepancy in the answer keys and grading of marks for different papers. According to him, there are no experts for evaluation of papers in Telugu medium. He supported the findings of the learned writ court. Submissions of Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel: 9.32. Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel, for respondent Nos.1 to 5 in W.A.No.1074 of 2025 submitted that the candidate appearing in Telugu medium had also complained against the manner of evaluation by the Commission. Submissions of Mr. K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel: 9.33. Mr. K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in W.A.No.1076 of 2025, also submitted that the Telugu medium candidates suffered since their answer scripts were not properly evaluated in the absence of expert examiners of Telugu medium. In those centres, the percentage of Telugu medium candidates qualified was abysmally low. Submissions of Ms. B.Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel: 9.34. Ms. B.Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondents in W.A.No.1066 and 1086 of 2025, has questioned the entire method of evaluation by a third evaluator. She submits that the first Web Note dated 16.08.2024 made no mention about third evaluator. It was introduced in the later Web Note. Moreover, the third evaluator did not have any OMR sheet for marking, which gave scope of manipulation. She has also reiterated the submissions on the issues concerning total number of candidates appeared, non-observance of biometrics in screening the candidates and in the publication of final marks. The Commission gave different numbers of candidates who appeared at different stages till the final marks were published. The common additional counter affidavit of the Commission showed changes in number of candidates from time to time. The Commission gave different numbers of candidates who appeared at different stages till the final marks were published. The common additional counter affidavit of the Commission showed changes in number of candidates from time to time. All this taken together point to a well thought out conspiracy to manipulate the results of the Commission. Based on these submissions, it is prayed that the findings of the learned writ court are just and proper, recorded after detail analysis of the materials placed by rival parties. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the matter. She has relied upon the decisions rendered in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra), Veerendra Kumar Gautam vs. Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay , (2016) 14 SCC 18 : 2016 SCC OnLine SC 704 and the decision of the apex court in Anoop M. vs. Gireeshkumar T.M. (S.L.P. (C) Nos.5077-78 of 2024, decided on 04.11.2024). 9.35. Ms. Nisha Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1070 of 2025 has submitted written submissions in support of the findings of the learned writ court on more or less same lines. Reply submissions by the learned Advocate General 10. Learned Advocate General has submitted that during the course of the lengthy hearings, almost every issue has been canvassed on behalf of either parties and as such, any detailed reply is avoidable. He, however, has countered the pointed allegations by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Surender Rao on the issue of addition of 60 posts to the earlier advertisement of 503 posts under Notification No.04/2022. It is submitted that this was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024, which were dismissed by the learned writ court vide common judgment dated 15.10.2024. He has referred to paras 7 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment. It is also pointed out that the writ appeal Nos.1188 and 1190 of 2024 preferred by the unsuccessful writ petitioners was dismissed on 18.10.2024. He has drawn the attention to para 20 of the said judgment. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22790 of 2024 was also dismissed on 06.12.2024. He has also brought to the notice of this court that some of the candidates challenged the Notification No.02/2024 in W.P.Nos.26038 of 2024 and batch, which were dismissed on 06.12.2024. He has also referred to the findings of the learned writ court at para 23. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22790 of 2024 was also dismissed on 06.12.2024. He has also brought to the notice of this court that some of the candidates challenged the Notification No.02/2024 in W.P.Nos.26038 of 2024 and batch, which were dismissed on 06.12.2024. He has also referred to the findings of the learned writ court at para 23. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2410 of 2025 preferred by the unsuccessful writ petitioners was also dismissed on 03.02.2025. The contention made on behalf of the writ petitioners on the issuance of Notification No.02/2024 after withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Commission is therefore misplaced. The petitioners cannot rake up the issue again. The Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2014 provides for conduct of examinations by the Commission. Para 3(ix)(d) of the Rules of Procedure clearly provide that no case of revaluation would be permissible. Further, Rule 3(xi)(v) of the Rules of Procedure gives enough flexibility to Commission to prescribe the procedures which are incidental to the selection. The entire thrust of the petitioners’ case relates to the procedural aspects framed by the learned writ court, which are within the domain of the Commission in the conduct of the examination. They are non-discriminatory and have been applied uniformly throughout the selection process. It has not resulted in any prejudice to any of the candidates. 10.1. Learned Advocate General has explained that each paper having different subjects was examined by different examiners. By way of illustration, he referred to the paper, which contains History and Culture of India, History and Cultural Heritage of Telangana and Geography of India and Telangana i.e., Paper –II. It is also stated that the entire evaluation process was centralised. In the scheme of things employed by the Commission, each candidate’s papers were evaluated by almost fourteen evaluators. Therefore, there could not be any scope of favouring any candidate by any examiner, more so when the identity of every such candidate was kept confidential by removing the relevant part of the first page of answer script where the details of the candidates are recorded. The answer sheets were identified by the barcode. Therefore, no allegations of bias, lack of transparency or any systemic irregularity affecting the integrity of the examination could be established for the learned writ court to interfere in the matter. The answer sheets were identified by the barcode. Therefore, no allegations of bias, lack of transparency or any systemic irregularity affecting the integrity of the examination could be established for the learned writ court to interfere in the matter. Learned Advocate General has placed specific reliance on the decision of the apex court in Union of India vs. Alok Kumar , (2010) 5 SCC 349 , paras 89 and 92 and submitted that this approach of endless nitpicking in an examination of such large scale conducted by the Commission should be discouraged by the courts in judicial review. 10.2. Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel has also refuted the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Ms. Rachna Reddy by submitting that the presence of the third evaluator was well known to the candidates through the Web Note published in September, 2024 much before the examinations started from 21.10.2024. In fact, the uploaded sample answer booklet reflected on the second page the presence of the third evaluator. The allegation that the rules of the game were changed by conducting the evaluation through the third evaluator is wholly unfounded. It is further submitted that paras 15.2 allowed individual candidates to see their own marks paper-wise and seek recounting if they were dissatisfied with their marks. The total marks of the Mains examinations of all the candidates were uploaded after such recounting. Allegations to the contrary by reading paras 15.2 and 15.3 are wholly misplaced. He has demonstrated the manner in which the individual examiners fill the answer blocks in the first page of the answer sheet during his evaluation. Thereafter, they are scrutinized and the bubbles are filled. Similarly, in the second evaluation, the same exercise was done by the examiners and the scrutinizer in the presence of the Chief Examiner. Learned Senior Counsel has also refuted allegations relating to the sealed cover containing the answer sheet provided to the writ court. It is submitted that the learned writ court committed an error at para 355 of the impugned judgment by recording that the grading of marks for each paper had different patterns. It is submitted that the answer keys for English, Essay Paper and other papers had different grading patterns, whereas the learned writ court went wrong by mixing up all the papers with one yardstick. It is submitted that the answer keys for English, Essay Paper and other papers had different grading patterns, whereas the learned writ court went wrong by mixing up all the papers with one yardstick. It is submitted that the materials placed in sealed cover ought not to have been revealed by the learned writ court. He contends that the writ petitioners have in improper manner obtained the details of evaluators and disclosed their identity from the concerned government colleges or other sources. Learned Senior Counsel further added that in the absence of any allegations of mala fides against anyone or any paper leakage or the examination at any centre being compromised, there was no justification for the learned writ court to order re-conduct of the examination. It is submitted that the petitioners did not implead the selected candidates. They got themselves impleaded during the proceedings before the learned writ court. The details of the moderation exercise undertaken by the Commission as explained in their counter affidavit have been adverted to, to submit that the Commission had made a conscious effort to ensure that the evaluation process did not suffer from ‘examiner variability’ or ‘hawk - dove effect’. He has refuted that evaluation was lopsided to favour few people. He has referred to the decision of this Court in W.A.No.195 of 2025, dated 27.02.2025, where the system of evaluation through the third evaluator was approved by the learned Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, it is not for the petitioners to suggest any particular method of evaluation as it lies in the domain of the Commission. 10.3. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel, in reply, submitted that the petitioners have expanded their submissions on many technical aspects or procedural aspects, which were not argued before the learned writ court. This Court at the appellate stage should not entertain those submissions made beyond the grounds urged before the learned writ court. He submits that the Commission has been more than transparent in the conduct of examination which has become a reason for the attack. He has also rebutted the submission of Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Senior Counsel on the question of moderation employed by the Commission by referring to the decisions rendered by the High Courts of Telangana and Madras in Mogili Kinnera (supra) and E.Ranjith (supra) respectively. He has distinguished the judgments relied upon by the petitioners. He has also rebutted the submission of Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Senior Counsel on the question of moderation employed by the Commission by referring to the decisions rendered by the High Courts of Telangana and Madras in Mogili Kinnera (supra) and E.Ranjith (supra) respectively. He has distinguished the judgments relied upon by the petitioners. He has also submitted that the diagrams submitted by the petitioners are faulty. The method of moderation adopted by the Commission had nothing to do with the success rate at different centres. Based on these submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the Commission and the successful candidates have prayed for that the writ appeals be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: 11. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We have also taken note of the copious materials placed on the records of writ appeal No.1066 of 2025, which is the lead matter. We have also taken note of the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. Some of them by both sides. The learned writ court in its concluding para 369 onwards felt that the Commission had not maintained transparency, integrity, acted in biased manner and deviated from their own rules in conduct of Group-I examination. Based upon the discussions made and taking into account facts and circumstances referred to therein, Final Marks List dated 10.03.2025 and the General Ranking List dated 30.03.2005 were set aside. The learned writ court directed re-evaluation of the answer scripts of Group-I Mains examination by applying moderation method in terms of Sanjay Singh (supra) manually and announce the results. Based upon such results, respondents were directed to take steps to fill up the said 563 posts. The learned writ court went on to issue alternative direction that it is inclined to cancel the Group-I Mains examination and direct for re-conduct under Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024 for those who succeeded in the Prelims examination. 12. The chronology of dates and events including the cancellation of the recruitment Notification No.04/2022 and the initiation of the instant recruitment to Group-I services under Notification No.02/2024, as are borne from the pleadings of the record contained in W.A.No.1066 of 2025 are being narrated hereunder: Chronology of Dates and Events: Date Event 26.04.2022 The Telangana State Public Service Commission/Appellant issued notification No.04/2022 for recruitment for 503 vacancies in Group-I Services. This was the first notification issued for Group-I service after formation of the State of Telangana in the year 2014. Earlier notification was in 2011. 23.09.2023 W.P. No.15811 of 2023 was filed challenging the preliminary exam held pursuant to the notification. The writ petition was allowed by cancellation of the examination. 27.09.2023 W.A. No.942 of 2023 filed assailing the above was dismissed. 03.02.2024 The State Government issued G.O. Ms.No.16 (Finance Dept.) whereby 60 additional vacancies in Group I services were added. 19.02.2024 SLP (C) Diary No.44500 of 2023 filed by the Commission against order dated 27.09.2023 in W.A. No.942 of 2023 was dismissed as withdrawn. The Notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022 was withdrawn. 19.02.2024 A fresh Notification vide No.02/2024 for Group-I Services was issued by the Commission, the subject matter of the present writ appeals. 09.06.2024 Preliminary examination was conducted in 897 test centres. 12.06.2024 A Web Note on Day Wise schedule for the Group-I (Mains) Examination was uploaded by the Commission. 21.06.2024 A Web Note was issued on display of scanned copy OMR sheets in candidate’s login. The district wise details of candidates who have appeared for the Group-I preliminary examinations were shown. 07.07.2024 Results of the preliminary exam were declared. 16.08.2024 A Web Note was issued by the Commission announcing the date of Mains Exam as 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 to be held in Hyderabad. It was indicated that separate hall ticket will be issued for the Mains Exam. Sample answer booklet was issued with this Web Note. The Preliminary & Mains exam hall ticket numbers were indicated therein. The Web Note informed that sample answer booklets along with instructions printed on Hall Ticket would be available on the commission’s website from 17.08.2024. 27.09.2024 A Web Note was issued for display of Revised Answer Booklet for Paper on General English, Paper V on Science and Technology and Data Interpretation and latest Hall Ticket Instructions. 09.10.2024 A Web Note was issued by the Commission instructing the candidates to download Main Hall tickets. Sample Mains Hall ticket were shown. 15.10.2024 W.P. Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024 filed inter alia challenging notification No.02/2024 were dismissed by the Court. 18.10.2024 W.A. Nos.1188 and 1190 of 2024 challenging the order dated 15.10.2024 in W.P. No.21239 of 2024 were dismissed by the learned Division Bench. 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 Mains Examination was conducted by the Commission in 46 Centres in Hyderabad. 15.10.2024 W.P. Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024 filed inter alia challenging notification No.02/2024 were dismissed by the Court. 18.10.2024 W.A. Nos.1188 and 1190 of 2024 challenging the order dated 15.10.2024 in W.P. No.21239 of 2024 were dismissed by the learned Division Bench. 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 Mains Examination was conducted by the Commission in 46 Centres in Hyderabad. 27.10.2024 Web Note on statistical summary of attendance pertaining to Mains Examination held from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 was issued. 01.11.2024 - 31.01.2025 The period during which answer scripts were evaluated in a Centralised manner. 06.12.2024 SLP (C) No.27790 of 2024 challenging the order dated 18.10.2024 in W.A. No.1190 of 2024 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 26.12.2024 W.P. No. 26038 of 2024 & batch, where G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024, whereby G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 25.04.2022 was amended and G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.07.2019 as well as the Notification were challenged, were dismissed. 03.02.2025 SLP (C) No.2410 of 2025 against order dated 26.12.2024 in W.P. No.26038 of 2024 was dismissed. 10.03.2025 Web Note issued about the display of Paper-wise Marks in Candidates’ Login and Provision for Recounting of marks. Candidates were instructed to download memorandum of marks sheet of the Mains examinations. 12.03.2025 to 02.04.2025 Writ Petitioners made representations to the Chairman and Secretary of Telangana Public Service Commission on various issues after final results were released, dated: 12.03.2025, 15.03.2025, 16.03.2025, 21.03.2025, 02.04.2025. 13.03.2025 Press Note was issued by the Commission in the nature of clarification regarding the doubts and misinformation with respect to the Mains Examinations. 15.03.2025 - 02.04.2025 RTI Applications were submitted by petitioners to the Public Information Officer on 15.03.2025, 28.03.2025, 01.04.2025, 02.04.2025. 30.03.2025 General Ranking List was published by the Commission. 09.04.2025 The Commission notified the list of candidates picked for certificate verification to be held between 16th – 21st April, 2025. 16.04.2025 to 21.04.2025 Verification of certificates of candidates were undertaken. 16.04.2025 In W.P. No.11439 of 2025, the learned Single Judge passed an order permitting the Commission to carry out certificate verification, but restraining it from issuing appointment orders. 21.04.2025 Secretary of the Commission sent letter regarding accusations made by Bommu Poojitha Reddy. 22.04.2025 FIR registered against Bommu Poojitha Reddy. 25.04.2025 W.P. No.12431 of 2025 challenging the evaluation and result publication process of the Mains exam was dismissed. 21.04.2025 Secretary of the Commission sent letter regarding accusations made by Bommu Poojitha Reddy. 22.04.2025 FIR registered against Bommu Poojitha Reddy. 25.04.2025 W.P. No.12431 of 2025 challenging the evaluation and result publication process of the Mains exam was dismissed. 30.04.2025 W.A. No.487 of 2025 filed challenging order dated 16.04.2025 in W.P. No.11439 of 2025 was dismissed with a request to the learned Single Judge to decide question of interim relief before ensuing summer vacation. 09.09.2025 The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. The impugned order is under challenge in the present Writ Appeals. 13. The above chronology of events starts from earlier Notification No.04/2022. The results of preliminary examination held thereunder on 11.06.2023 were challenged in W.P.No.15811 of 2023. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 23.09.2023. W.A.No.942 of 2023 preferred against it was dismissed on 27.09.2023. The special leave petition i.e., SLP (C) Diary No.44500 of 2023 preferred by the Commission was withdrawn on 19.02.2024. The instant recruitment Notification No.02/2024 was issued on the same day i.e., 19.02.2024. Prior to that by G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 03.02.2024, the government had asked the Commission to fill up 60 posts in Group-I examination. The addition of 60 posts in the fresh recruitment notification No.02/2024 issued by the Commission was challenged in W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024. The learned writ court vide judgment dated 15.10.2024 refused to entertain the challenge to the initiation of fresh recruitment to Group-I posts under the impugned Notification No.02/2024. The writ appeal Nos.1188 and 1190 of 2024 by the aggrieved petitioners were dismissed on 18.10.2024. The Special Leave Petition No.27790 of 2024 was also dismissed on 06.12.2024. The legality of G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024, whereby G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 25.04.2022 was amended and G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.07.2019, were called in question in W.P.No.26038 of 2024 and analogous writ petitions. The vires of Rule 22(2)(a) and (b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (the Rules of 1996) were also called in question. The writ petitioners had urged before the Court that since the directions contained in order of the learned writ court in W.P.No.15811 of 2023 were affirmed in W.A.No.942 of 2023, the only option left with the Commission was to re-conduct the examination. The petitioners took a plea that in the teeth of such directions, issuance of new recruitment Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024 was bad in law. The petitioners took a plea that in the teeth of such directions, issuance of new recruitment Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024 was bad in law. Secondly, in the event of re-conduct of examination, the respondents were required to adhere to the same number of vacancies. By the Notification No.02/2024, the Government enhanced the vacancies from 503 to 563 enlarging the zone of consideration, which was impermissible. The learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 26.12.2024 dismissed the writ petitions without granting any relief to the petitioners with liberty to file separate proceedings in relation to that aspect based on subsequent events. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2410 of 2005 preferred by the aggrieved petitioners was dismissed on 03.02.2025. It would also be relevant to mention here that in the impugned judgment, the learned writ court rendered a finding on the issue of increase in vacancies in favour of the Commission, against which no appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners. 14. The present writ petitions were filed challenging the results of Group-I Mains examinations under Notification No.02/2024 inter alia on a number of grounds both on the manner of the conduct of the examinations and also the method of evaluation adopted by the Commission. The learned writ court framed two broad propositions, as extracted hereunder to answer the contentions raised by the rival parties. Its findings start from para 301 of the impugned judgment. “1) PROCEDURAL ASPECTS:- a) Issuing of two hall tickets for the Group-I Examination. b) Allocation of examination centres in a biased manner. c) Inconsistency about the total number of candidates, who appeared for the main examination. d) Multiple evaluation of answer scripts. e) Publication of provisional/total marks list. f) Disclosing of un-qualified candidate’s hall ticket numbers in the Mains final marks list. g) Increasing vacancies by adding new vacancies. 2) METHOD OF EVALUATION :- a) The selection of the evaluators. b) The procedure of evaluation. c) Telugu medium candidates were neglected. d) Highest qualified candidates in specific centres. e) Commission awarded the same marks to certain candidates.” 15. The findings on these issues have been assailed in the present appeals by the Commission and the successful candidates. One cross- appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner, i.e., W.A.No.1470 of 2025 questioning the alternative direction for re-evaluation by following moderation on the lines of Sanjay Singh (supra). e) Commission awarded the same marks to certain candidates.” 15. The findings on these issues have been assailed in the present appeals by the Commission and the successful candidates. One cross- appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner, i.e., W.A.No.1470 of 2025 questioning the alternative direction for re-evaluation by following moderation on the lines of Sanjay Singh (supra). We proceed to examine the correctness of the findings of the learned writ court hereinafter. It is also important to examine whether the alternative directions issued by the learned writ court were proper or mutually irreconcilable. Rival parties have placed reliance on a number of decisions on the direction of re- conduct of the examinations. It is proper to refer to the recent judgment in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) by which the entire recruitment of Teachers and non-teaching staff in the State of West Bengal numbering 12,946 were cancelled on account of systemic irregularities in the selection process. The principles culled out from the precedents on the subject in the case of Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra), at paras 18 and 19, are extracted as under as they illuminate the course which the courts in Judicial Review have to follow. “18. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India [ (2024) 9 SCC 743 ] this Court observed that a holistic view must be adopted by assessing the extent of unfair means used and whether it is possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones. The court must ensure that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material on record, including investigative reports, supports this conclusion. There must be at least some evidence for the court to reach such a conclusion. However, the standard of evidence need not be unduly strict. Specifically, the material on record need not point to a single, definitive conclusion that malpractice occurred at a systemic level. Nevertheless, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise, as reflected in the material before the court. 19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion: When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity. 19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion: When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity. The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable. Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process. Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale.” 16. The principles summarised above require the Court to test whether the conduct of the Group-I examination revealed systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud that undermine integrity of the entire selection process leading to the inevitable cancellation of the result in its entirety? Whether tainted and untainted candidates could be segregated in consonance with fairness and equity? It lays down that such decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It may not be necessary to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt, but the standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test would apply. The court also has to keep in mind that when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process, despite inconvenience to the untainted candidates. Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the fact establishes that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale. Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the fact establishes that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale. The learned writ court directed cancellation of entire Mains examination and re-conduct under the same notification if the first direction for re- evaluation through moderation on the lines of Sanjay Singh (supra) could not be undertaken. In view of the above directions of the learned writ court, it is to be examined whether the Commission had adopted a method of moderation which eschewed arbitrariness in evaluation and whether the moderation conformed to the yardsticks laid down by the apex court in a series of decisions starting from Sanjay Singh (supra), on which parties have placed reliance. 17. In order to examine the issues as above, it is now pertinent to extract the relevant clauses of the Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024, under which Group-I examinations were conducted as under: “1.6. The Preliminary Test (Objective type) will be held in OMR Based offline mode/Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) mode. The Commission reserves the right to conduct the Preliminary Test either in OMR based Offline mode or in CBRT mode. 1.7. The Commission will normalize the scores of candidates for the Computer Based Tests which are conducted in Multi-sessions to take into account of any variation in the question papers across different sessions. The criteria of normalization is given in Annexure-VII. 1.8. Main Examination would be in Descriptive type. The Commission reserves the right to conduct the Main Examination either through Digital mode of question paper display or Conventional hard copy based question paper. 1.9. The Commission may evaluate the answer scripts of the Main examination on Digital / Online mode in addition to or instead of conventional evaluation. PARA-12 PROCEDURE OF SELECTION: 12.1. Procedure of selection will be as per G.O. Ms. No. 55 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, Dt.25/04/2022 and as amended vide G.O. Ms. No. 29 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, Dt. 08/02/2024. (A) There will be a Preliminary Test (Objective type) comprising General Studies and Mental Ability. This Test is meant for short listing the number of candidates to be admitted to the Written (Main) Examination. The Preliminary Test will be conducted in English, Telugu & Urdu. No. 29 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, Dt. 08/02/2024. (A) There will be a Preliminary Test (Objective type) comprising General Studies and Mental Ability. This Test is meant for short listing the number of candidates to be admitted to the Written (Main) Examination. The Preliminary Test will be conducted in English, Telugu & Urdu. (B) The number of candidates to be admitted to the Written (Main) Examination (Conventional Type) would be Fifty (50) times to the total number of vacancies available in each Multi-Zone. Provided that, in case of any shortfall in respect of candidates in reserved categories as laid down in Rules 22 and 22 (A) of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules- 1996, action shall be taken to include such number of candidates from the merit list beyond 1:50 ratio as required to meet the shortfall in the respective categories. (C) The Main Examination will be conducted in English, Telugu & Urdu. The papers, except General English, in the Main Examinations shall be answered in English or Telugu or Urdu only as chosen by the candidates. A candidate is not permitted to write part of the paper in English and Part of it in Telugu or Urdu. (D) The Paper on General English is a qualifying one and the standard of this paper is that of Secondary School Certificate. The minimum qualifying marks in this paper are: For the candidates belonging to OCs, Sports men & EWS – should not be less than 40%;BCs - not less than 35%; SCs, STs and PH – not less than 30%. The Marks obtained in this paper are not counted for ranking. 12.4. Once medium is chosen, the candidate has to write answers in the medium chosen by him/her only. If there is any deviation from paper to paper or part of the paper, the candidature would become invalid. All 06 (Six) papers have to be written in the chosen medium only completely. 12.5. In respect of evaluation of the Mains Examination Answer scripts, the Commission will resort to Digital Evaluation mode or Conventional mode depending upon administrative and operational convenience. 12.8. All 06 (Six) papers have to be written in the chosen medium only completely. 12.5. In respect of evaluation of the Mains Examination Answer scripts, the Commission will resort to Digital Evaluation mode or Conventional mode depending upon administrative and operational convenience. 12.8. Qualifying Marks in Main Examination: - The minimum marks to qualify for selection shall be: not less than 40% of the aggregate marks in all papers for the candidates belonging to OC, EWS & Meritorious Sportsperson; not less than 35% for BC and not less than 30% for SCs, STs and PH. In the event of SC and ST candidates not coming up for selection with the minimum marks prescribed above for selection, their selection shall be considered on the basis of rank with reference to their performance in the written examination irrespective of the marks secured. N.B.: Mere securing minimum qualifying marks does not vest any right in a candidate for being considered for selection. 13.6 Constitutional Provisions:- The Commission is empowered under the provisions of Article 315 and 320 of the Constitution of India read with relevant laws, rules, regulations and executive instructions and all other enabling legal provisions in this regard to conduct examination for appointment to the posts notified herein, duly following the principle of order of merit as per Rule 3 of the TSPSC Rules of Procedure read with reference to relevant statutory provisions and ensuring that the whole recruitment and selection process is carried out with utmost regard to maintain secrecy and confidentiality so as to ensure that the principle of merit is followed. PARA-15 MEMORANDUM OF MARKS: 15.1. The marks secured in the Preliminary Test will not be counted for Ranking. The marks of the Preliminary Test will not be notified as it is a Screening Test. 15.2 The marks list of Main Examination (total marks) of all the candidates will be displayed on the Commission’s website. However, Paper wise Memorandum of Marks of all candidates can be accessed in their respective Logins for a period of one week. 15.3 Request for recounting of marks will be considered for Conventional Type (Written) Test only within 15 days after publication of Provisional Marks List on payment of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for each paper through online payment only. 15.4 The request for recounting shall be submitted only through online. 15.3 Request for recounting of marks will be considered for Conventional Type (Written) Test only within 15 days after publication of Provisional Marks List on payment of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for each paper through online payment only. 15.4 The request for recounting shall be submitted only through online. 15.5 Rejected, Invalid, disqualified, ineligible candidates will not be issued any Memorandum of Marks and fees paid by such candidates, if any, will be forfeited to Government account, without entertaining any correspondence in this regard. Request for revaluation will not be entertained under any circumstances as per Rule-3 (ix) (d) of Commission’s Rules of Procedure. PARA 17: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES: 17.1 Candidates are directed to follow the Commission’s website (https://www.tspsc.gov.in) regularly to know the latest developments of this Recruitment and any changes/ Modifications /Addendum / Corrigendum, dates of Examination, calling of candidates for verification of Certificates / Results etc. Candidates may note that no individual communication will be sent. Hence, they must regularly visit the TSPSC website for updates such as Edit option, Merit List, List of candidates shortlisted for Certificate Verification, schedule of certificate verification /Medical board, etc. 17.2 Candidates are advised to go through the Instructions to Candidates enclosed to this Notification at Annexure-VI PARA- 18: COMMISSION’S DECISION TO BE FINAL: 18.1 The decision of the Commission in all aspects and in all respects pertaining to the application and its acceptance or rejection as the case may be, conduct of examination, and at all consequent stages culminating in the selection or otherwise of any candidate shall be final in all respects and binding on all concerned, under the powers vested with it under Article 315 and 320 of the Constitution of India, Commission also reserves its right to alter or modify conditions laid down in the Notification during the entire process of recruitment and selection or withdraw/ cancel the Notification at any time, duly intimating details thereof to all concerned, as warranted by any unforeseen circumstances arising during the course of this process, or as deemed necessary by the Commission at any stage.” 17.1. As noted earlier, Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024, for the present recruitment exercise was issued inviting applications from qualified applicants for the posts of Group-I Services in the State of Telangana notifying 563 vacancies in different categories. It provided that a Preliminary Test (Objective Type) would be held. As noted earlier, Notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024, for the present recruitment exercise was issued inviting applications from qualified applicants for the posts of Group-I Services in the State of Telangana notifying 563 vacancies in different categories. It provided that a Preliminary Test (Objective Type) would be held. The Commission reserved the right to conduct the Preliminary Test either in OMR based Offline mode or in CBRT mode. The Commission would normalize the scores of candidates for the Computer Based Tests if it were conducted in Multi-sessions to take into account of any variation in the question papers across different sessions. 17.2. As per the Notification, the Mains Examination was to be in descriptive type. The Commission reserved the right to conduct the Main Examination either through Digital mode of question paper display or Conventional hard copy based question paper. It was made clear that the Commission may evaluate the answer scripts of the Main Examination on Digital/Online mode in addition to or instead of conventional evaluation. 17.3. Para 12 thereof deals with the procedure of selection. As per Sub-para (C) of para 12.1, the Mains Examination would be conducted in English, Telugu and Urdu. The papers, except General English, in the Main Examinations should be answered in English or Telugu or Urdu only as chosen by the candidates. The candidates were not permitted to write part of the paper in English and part of it in Telugu or Urdu. Sub-para (D) of para 12.1 is significant as it explains the qualifying paper and the qualifying marks. The Paper on General English is a qualifying one. The standard of this paper was that of Secondary School Certificate Grade. The minimum qualifying marks in this paper for each category of community are explained in the sub-paras: 17.4. The mode of evaluation of the Mains Examination Answer scripts is described at para 12.5. The Commission would resort to Digital Evaluation mode or Conventional mode depending upon administrative and operational convenience. 17.5. It was made clear under para 13.6 that the Commission would duly follow the order of merit as per Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure. The whole recruitment and selection process would be carried out with utmost secrecy and confidentiality and the principle of merit would be assured. 17.6. It is necessary to deal with para-15 of the Notification which describes the Memorandum of Marks. The whole recruitment and selection process would be carried out with utmost secrecy and confidentiality and the principle of merit would be assured. 17.6. It is necessary to deal with para-15 of the Notification which describes the Memorandum of Marks. As per para 15.2, the marks list of Mains Examination (total marks) of all the candidates would be displayed on the Commission’s website. At the same time, it was clarified that paper-wise memorandum of marks of all candidates could be accessed in their respective logins for a period of one week. The request for recounting was to be online and would be considered for Conventional Type (written) Test only within 15 days after publication of Provisional Marks List on payment of Rs.1000/- for each paper online. 17.7. Para 18 provided that the Commission’s decision would be final. The Commission reserved its right to alter or modify the conditions laid down in the Notification during the entire process of recruitment and selection or withdraw/cancel the Notification at any time, duly intimating the details thereof to all concerned at any stage. 17.8. In the chronology of dates and events mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, it is also pertinent to refer to the gist of the Web Notes or Press Notes published from time to time by the Commission. Web Note, dated 16.08.2024: It stated that the Mains Examinations (Conventional/Descriptive type) would be held in Hyderabad from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024 from 2.00 pm to 5.00 pm. The candidates were informed that they would be provided Personalized Answer Booklet with Pre-printed details and their photo. The Sample Answer Booklets for all seven papers was to be made available from 17.08.2024 onwards on the Commission’s website. The candidates were instructed to read all the instructions printed on it and practice writing before appearing for the examination, so as to avoid rejection/invalidation of their candidature. Web Note, dated 27.09.2024: In partial modification of the Web Note dated 16.08.2024, the instant Web Note informed the candidates that for General English (Qualifying Test) paper, Answer Booklet shall not have preprinted questions. A separate question paper shall be given to the candidates. That there were minor changes in the pattern of examination and the instructions to be printed on the Hall Ticket for Group-I Mains. A separate question paper shall be given to the candidates. That there were minor changes in the pattern of examination and the instructions to be printed on the Hall Ticket for Group-I Mains. It was clarified that the instructions issued in case of other papers i.e., Papers I to IV and VI would remain unaltered. The candidates were instructed to download the revised latest Sample Answer Paper Booklet for the paper on General English (Qualifying Test), Science & Technology and Data Interpretation, Paper-V and the Latest Hall Ticket Instructions from the Commission’s website. Web Note, dated 05.03.2025: This was issued to counter some false propaganda and misleading news being spread in some social media platforms with regard to Group-I Services Recruitment Notification No.02/2024. The Group-I aspirants were advised not to believe such false propaganda. It assured the candidates that no injustice would be done to any candidate. That the results were being processed in a fair and transparent manner as per merit. The Commission was contemplating to release paper-wise marks in the candidate login and to publish provisional marks list on its website. Web Note, dated 10.03.2025: After the valuation process of all the seven papers was completed, the Commission issued this Web Note informing that the paper-wise marks secured by the candidates who have attended seven papers of Mains Examinations were placed in the respective candidate’s login from 10.03.2025 to 16.03.2025 up to 5.00 pm for a period of one week. The candidates could view their paper-wise marks by entering their TGPSCID, Mains Hall Ticket Number, Date of Birth and OTP received on their registered Mobile Number online on the Commission’s website. Candidates were also advised to download the Mains Memorandum of marks sheet and preserve it till the completion of recruitment. Candidates were also informed the dates for recounting as already specified in the Notification No.02/2024. It stated that after conclusion of recounting process, the Commission would be hosting the total marks of all the candidates in the Commission’s website. Once the period of recounting requests was over, after resolving such requests, final GRL would be published. Based on it, the required number of candidates would be picked up for certificate verification. Such candidates would be informed individually and also through the Commission’s website. Press Note, dated 13.03.2025: This Press Note sought to convey the steps taken for fair and transparent valuation of Group-I Services Mains Answer Scripts. Based on it, the required number of candidates would be picked up for certificate verification. Such candidates would be informed individually and also through the Commission’s website. Press Note, dated 13.03.2025: This Press Note sought to convey the steps taken for fair and transparent valuation of Group-I Services Mains Answer Scripts. As per this Press Note, the Mains Answer Script contains three parts i) the pre-printed candidates’ details, ii) the 2 nd and 3 rd part contains the part where marks are awarded by the examiner. It was stated that before the valuation process started, the OMR Barcode Sheet which contained the candidates’ details part were detached so that it cannot be seen by the examiner or any other person at any point of time. The double valuation of all Answer Scripts was mandatory. It was clarified that the valuation of Mains Answer Paper Booklet was done twice by two different valuators/ examiners and after completion of first valuation, the part containing the marks awarded by the first valuator is detached. The answer script is handed over for second valuation. The utilization of services of the number of evaluators for different papers for different subjects was also mentioned in the said Press Note. It was stated in the said Press Note that the Chief Examiners Committee was formed for each subject with minimum of two subject experts based on the specialization of the subject area. Senior professors from reputed universities across the country were identified as the members of the Chief Examiners Committee. These chief examiners/evaluators are also involved in several UPSC examinations and evaluations. The evaluators have been identified for all the subjects from reputed universities/institutions across the country. All the evaluators are the regular faculty from the Universities/ Government colleges/institutions. The assignment was kept strictly confidential. In order to dispel false news in the social media and clear the unnecessary confusion and unrest among the candidates, Commission released the statistics of Group-I Mains examination. That the candidates would be picked up from merit list based on the vacancies notified as per the Reservation Rosters (communities). Every category of posts like RDO, DSP, CTO etc., would have unreserved and reserved categories and recruitment category candidates as per the Notification. 18. In this background, we propose to deal with the findings of the learned writ court on both aspects – Procedural Aspects and Method of Evaluation, sequentially hereinafter. 19. Every category of posts like RDO, DSP, CTO etc., would have unreserved and reserved categories and recruitment category candidates as per the Notification. 18. In this background, we propose to deal with the findings of the learned writ court on both aspects – Procedural Aspects and Method of Evaluation, sequentially hereinafter. 19. The learned writ court held that the issuance of two hall tickets for Group-I examination is suspect in view of the illegalities and irregularities that have followed. Rules of Procedure did not require issuance of two hall tickets. That UPSC issues only one hall ticket. There was no material placed regarding the selection to Group-I examination conducted in the year 2011, more over it was before bifurcation of the State. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the Rules of Procedure and the Notification No.02/2024 do not bar issuance of two hall tickets. The candidates were informed of the need to download a separate hall ticket for the Mains examination through the Web Notes dated 16.08.2024 and 09.10.2024, i.e., before conduct of the Mains examination starting from 21.10.2024 to 27.10.2024. Both the Prelims and Mains examination hall tickets contained the respective examination centre codes. The Mains hall ticket had reference to the Prelims hall ticket number as well. The issuance of two hall tickets were followed in Group-I examination also under Notification Nos.15/2011 and 18/2011 as is evident from para 304 of the impugned judgment. The appellants have also stated that for other examination, such as for Civil Judges (Junior Division) examination, Police Sub Inspector examination and Police Constable examination, different hall tickets were issued. In this background facts, it is to be seen as to how does the issuance of two hall tickets prejudiced the case of the writ petitioners? Whether issuance of two hall tickets was conclusively shown to benefit any candidate or a group of candidates in the final result? The learned writ court has not recorded any such finding to that effect. The writ petitioners have strongly urged that the issuance of separate hall ticket for Mains examinations affected the integrity of the examinations. They have however failed to demonstrate as to in what manner it affected the purity of the examinations. The learned writ court has not recorded any such finding to that effect. The writ petitioners have strongly urged that the issuance of separate hall ticket for Mains examinations affected the integrity of the examinations. They have however failed to demonstrate as to in what manner it affected the purity of the examinations. Mere issuance of two hall tickets may have caused suspicion in the minds of the candidate, but unless any prejudice is shown or proved by the probability test that candidates have specifically been favoured on account of that, the inference drawn by the learned writ court were not justified. 20. On the second issue of allocation of examination centres in a biased manner, the learned writ court has referred to centre Nos.18 and 19 where female candidates were allocated. According to the learned writ court proper randomisation was not followed in the allotment of female candidates to those centres. The Commission also did not give preference to the physically challenged candidates, who were accommodated in the second and third floor buildings. From the stand of the Commission, it is apparent that allocation of test centres was done through computer software in a random manner. Due to lack of toilets for men in centre Nos.18 and 19, these centres are allocated only for females. In any case, mere allotment of female candidates to centre Nos.18 and 19 for logistical reasons could not lead to any inference of unfairness or arbitrariness or favouritism in conduct of the Group-I examination. Such allocation of two centres to female candidates by the Commission cannot be a basis for alleging a deliberate strategy which undermines the purity of the examination process. No prejudice has been caused to any candidate including the writ petitioners. The Commission has contended that no disabled candidate had filed a complaint for their accommodation in the second and third floor buildings. Only the unsuccessful candidates, who were non-PwD candidates, had raked up this issue. It has also been stated by the Commission that the test centres were increased from 45 to 46 to accommodate candidates who were transferred after accommodating PwD candidates from inaccessible centres. The increase in the number of test centres again is purely in the domain of the Commission, a constitutional body empowered to arrange the manner necessary for smooth conduct of examinations. The increase in the number of test centres again is purely in the domain of the Commission, a constitutional body empowered to arrange the manner necessary for smooth conduct of examinations. The petitioners cannot complain any prejudice on account of allocation of examination centres nor have they been able to establish any bias or mala fide on facts in doing so. 21. The learned writ court has rendered a finding on the inconsistency in the total number of candidates who appeared for the Mains examination by observing that the Commission was negligent in finding out correct number of candidates who appeared. The Final Marks List had 21,085 candidates which had increased from 20,161 published in Press Note dated 13.03.2025. The Commission in its common additional counter affidavit at para 14 at page 912 explained the difference in the figures given in the statistical summary dated 27.10.2024, Press Note dated 13.03.2025 and the Total Marks List dated 30.03.2025. It states that the figures were collected from Chief Superintendents and were subject to minor variations as they were released ‘on the go’. A total of 21,110 candidates had written the examination. The figure in the Press Note dated 13.03.2025, i.e., 20161 excluded 924 candidates who did not qualify in English and 25 whose results were withheld due to High Court orders. The Total Marks List on 30.03.2025 reflected 21085 candidates which did not include 25 candidates, whose results were withheld. The variation in the summary released on 27.10.2024 and the final count of candidates was only 17. Learned writ court observed that the Commission had used biometrics, however biometrics were not used for real time attendance, but for authentication of the identity of the candidate. The writ petitioners have questioned the inconsistency in the figures of appearing candidates by the Commission as a serious irregularity, which undermines the sanctity of the examinations. The variation in these figures does not lead to irresistible conclusion that ghost candidates appeared and were declared successful, neither are such instances shown by the petitioners. Therefore, the instant issue (c) under ‘Procedural Aspects’ does not lead to any inference of systemic irregularity in the conduct of the examination and that too in the absence of proof of fabrication of results in favour of any candidate. Such finding based on statistical assumption cannot take the place of proof to annul the examination itself. 22. Therefore, the instant issue (c) under ‘Procedural Aspects’ does not lead to any inference of systemic irregularity in the conduct of the examination and that too in the absence of proof of fabrication of results in favour of any candidate. Such finding based on statistical assumption cannot take the place of proof to annul the examination itself. 22. On the fourth issue of multiple evaluation of answer scripts, the learned writ court has commented that the Commission conducted a triple evaluation method in which the third evaluation did not have barcodes and bubbling, which increases the scope for manipulation. The Commission in its affidavits stated that the third evaluation was conducted on a difference of more than 15% in the evaluation of first and second evaluations. The sample booklet was uploaded through Web Note, dated 16.08.2024, more than one month before conduct of the examination, also bore reference to the third evaluation. It was contended that such procedure was valid in 2008 and 2011 Group-I examinations in the united State of Andhra Pradesh. The Commission also explained that due to barcode on stitched part of the answer script, the third evaluation could be identified by the same barcode given on the answer script. The evaluation and marking by the two evaluators by bubbling of marks on the OMRs was done manually, but that does not necessarily lead to manipulation. The adoption of the method for evaluation by more than one examiner in every paper was in fact a safeguard to ensure that hawk-dove effect between liberal and conservative examiner is minimised to the maximum possible extent. In any case, such a method was applied uniformly for evaluation of all the papers of all candidates as explained by the Commission. The petitioners have on the other hand strenuously argued that the procedure of evaluation gave ample scope to identify the candidate by the examiner. Moreover the third evaluator did not have any barcode which could lead to manipulation in the answer sheets. The contention of the parties examined in the light of materials on record show that the procedure of multiple evaluation of answer scripts, on one hand were applied uniformly thereby obviating the scope of disparity in marking, on the other hand, did not result in any particular candidate being favoured. No such specific instance had either been shown by the petitioners. 23. No such specific instance had either been shown by the petitioners. 23. After the evaluation by the first examiner and bubbling of marks explained in detail by the Commission, the relevant part of the answer sheet was torn off from the remaining part at the perforation. The second evaluator had no clue as to the first evaluation. Both strips containing the marks by the evaluators were matched with the barcode on the answer sheet later on. If there was a difference of more than 15% between the first and second evaluation, then such papers were given to the third evaluator. The marks were given by the third evaluator on second page of the answer sheet. They were matched with the barcode available on the first page. Thus entire process has been graphically explained by the Commission in its note referred to in the latter part of the judgment under the head ‘Method of Evaluation’. 24. Any such procedure uniformly applied is in the larger public interest and introduces an element of fairness. Moreover, Rule 3(xi)(v) of the Rules of Procedure confers a discretion upon the Commission to evolve procedure for conducting the selection exercise. It supplements the constitutional powers of the Commission for proper conduct of such an examination. Writ petitioners have not been able to show that this supplemental power in specific language or by necessary implication is in conflict with the constitutional powers of the Commission to ensure a fair conduct of the examination. Such provisions vesting discretion should not be interpreted in a manner which would take away the discretion contemplated under the Rule, rather it would be proper to interpret it in a manner which furthers the object of such Rule. 25. The learned writ court has referred to paras 15.2 and 15.3 of the Notification on the issue of publication of provisional/total marks list. It observed that the Commission ought to have published the total marks of all candidates along with provisional paper-wise marks. Provisional marks list, if released, could have enabled the candidates to compare their own marks with the marks of other candidates before seeking re-count. The Commission had wrongly sent individual subject marks to individual logins. According to the learned writ court, the Commission failed to follow the Rules of Procedure. Para 15.2 has been repeatedly referred to by learned counsel for the writ petitioners also. The Commission had wrongly sent individual subject marks to individual logins. According to the learned writ court, the Commission failed to follow the Rules of Procedure. Para 15.2 has been repeatedly referred to by learned counsel for the writ petitioners also. It states that the total marks will be displayed on website and paper-wise marks of all candidates can be accessed in their respective logins. However, the observation of the learned writ court, that the marks sheets of all candidates should have been published to enable the petitioners to compare their marks of each paper before seeking recounting, does not flow out of a reading of these clauses together. A candidate is supposed to seek recounting of marks if, on his assessment, the marks allotted in a particular paper is less than his estimation. It is neither conceivable nor permissible for a candidate to know about the marks allotted to another candidate for seeking recounting of his own marks. It is to be noted that the Commission after recounting published the provisional marks list. The final marks list of every candidate was duly published on 30.03.2025. Though much arguments have been addressed on the non-compliance of para 15.2 of the Notification, but the petitioners have not been shown any prejudice or suffered. Every candidate could access their paper-wise marks with the respective logins for seeking recounting. It is not the case of the petitioners, nor any material has been brought on record that the marks list finally published on 30.03.2025, where fabricated in respect of few candidates. 26. Paras 15.2 and 15.3 of the Notification construed harmoniously means that candidates could access their paper-wise marks through their respective logins. Any candidate could seek recounting of marks within 15 days after publication of the provisional marks list. Thereafter, the marks list of the Mains examination (total marks) of all the candidates would be displayed on the Commission’s website. Thus read together it clearly indicates that after recounting of marks, the marks list of Mains examination (total marks) of all the candidates would be displayed on the Commission’s website. It cannot be intended to mean that the Commission was obliged to publish provisional marks list of all candidates for an individual candidate to compare before seeking recounting of his own marks. In this case, candidates have accessed their paper-wise memorandum of marks through their respective logins and if dissatisfied, have sought recounting. It cannot be intended to mean that the Commission was obliged to publish provisional marks list of all candidates for an individual candidate to compare before seeking recounting of his own marks. In this case, candidates have accessed their paper-wise memorandum of marks through their respective logins and if dissatisfied, have sought recounting. After the recounting process, the marks lists of the Mains examination have been displayed on the Commission’s website on 30.03.2025. The findings of the learned writ court on the alleged non- compliance of para 15.2 of the recruitment notification is, therefore, misplaced. 27. The learned writ court has commented upon disclosure of the hall ticket numbers of the unqualified candidates in the Mains Final Marks List i.e., those who did not secure qualifying marks in English, still the other papers were evaluated. It has observed that the Commission issued Memorandum of Marks in other six subjects despite those candidates not qualifying in English examination. As a matter of fact, no negative inference can be drawn if all the papers of those candidates who later turned out to have not secured qualifying marks in English were evaluated simultaneously with other candidates. The Commission has sought to justify such act on the ground that if on recounting such disqualified candidates secured qualifying marks in English, then the results could be declared along with the other successful candidates without undertaking the evaluation of the remaining six papers of those candidates by a later exercise. All the papers of all candidates were evaluated in the centralised evaluation to ensure that evaluation of all such candidates took place by same set of examiners in a centralised manner avoiding chances of variability in evaluation if done later. In any case, the evaluation of all the papers of all candidates together does not lead to any conclusion that such candidates scored a march over more meritorious candidates. 28. The discussion made hereinabove, therefore, does not reveal any systemic irregularity or fraud that undermines the integrity of the entire selection process for its results to be cancelled in its entirety as per the principle laid in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra). It is to be taken note of that there are no allegations of leakage of question papers, mass cheating or mass copying in the examination or answer keys being available to the candidates before the examination. It is to be taken note of that there are no allegations of leakage of question papers, mass cheating or mass copying in the examination or answer keys being available to the candidates before the examination. Learned counsels for both parties have relied on a number of decisions on this issue including that of Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra). 29. The principles, on the basis of which the cancellation of the examination en masse can be allowed, have been summarised in the case of Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra) relying upon several precedents. Based on those principles, we are of the considered opinion that none of the findings of the learned writ court on the procedural aspects establish any systemic irregularity, such as malice or fraud, which undermines the integrity of the entire selection process calling for cancellation of the Mains examination. Not a single candidate is shown to have unduly benefitted by any acts of cheating or copying or on any count formulated under procedural aspects by the learned writ court. The writ petitioners have not been able to conclusively establish that the purity of the selection process was affected on account of any of these alleged infirmities in the procedure followed by the Commission for conduct of the examination as held by the learned writ court. 30. In the absence of any prejudice shown by the writ petitioners in the entire procedure for conduct of the examination, the writ petitioners cannot be allowed to assail the conduct of the Mains examination. 31. As regards the increase of vacancies by adding new vacancies, the learned writ court has answered it in favour of the Commission. Such plea was rejected. It has been brought to the notice of this court that challenge to addition of 60 vacancies from the earlier notification dated 26.04.2022 had failed. The matter was upheld till the apex court. 32. The decisions cited by the parties on these issues are being dealt with hereinafter. 33. In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), it was held that the suspicion cannot take place of proof. The observations of the apex court, at para 21, are as under: “... ... ... But suspicion cannot take the place of proof and we cannot strike down the selections made on the ground that the evaluation of the merits of the candidates in the viva voce examination might be arbitrary. The observations of the apex court, at para 21, are as under: “... ... ... But suspicion cannot take the place of proof and we cannot strike down the selections made on the ground that the evaluation of the merits of the candidates in the viva voce examination might be arbitrary. It is necessary to point out that the Court cannot sit in judgment over the marks awarded by the interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly and indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives”. 34. In the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra), at para 31 of the judgment, the apex court laid down the principles of interference by courts in the selection process for public employment. “31. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for courts to substitute their judgment for that of a Selection Committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a Selection Board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law.” 35. It lays down that in respect of selection process of public employment, the courts generally avoid interference, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. That the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion. It is not appropriate for courts to substitute their judgment for that of selection committee. It is not within the domain of the courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a selection committee, unless there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules or inherent arbitrariness where courts can intervene. 36. 36. In the case of Deependra Yadav (supra), the apex court referred to the cases of State of U.P. vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi , (2022) 11 SCC 578 and Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) on the application of moderation/scaling of marks in a recruitment process and as to when such an exercise would be permissible. While upholding the exercise undertaken in adopting the process of normalization was consistent with the requirement of law, the observations of the apex court at para 27 are as under: “... ... the decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Service Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and malafide exercise of power are made out”. 37. We now proceed to deal with the finding of the learned writ court on five issues under the heading ‘Method of Evaluation’. The writ court directed the Commission to undertake revaluation by adopting moderation on the lines of Sanjay Singh (supra): a) The selection of the evaluators. b) The procedure of evaluation. c) Telugu medium candidates were neglected. d) Highest qualified candidates in specific centres. e) Commission awarded the same marks to certain candidates.” 38. The learned writ court has, on the selection of evaluators, referred to the Press Note dated 13.03.2025 and observed that two retired faculty members were appointed as evaluators contrary to the assertion of the Commission. Dr. M.A.Malik was a private tutor, who also evaluated the answer scripts. He had written a book on Indian Economy for Mains examination in the year 2024 and had guided students from R.C.Reddy IAS Study Circle. The learned writ court, therefore, observed that the Commission had not acted as per its proclamation in the Web Note that it had engaged regular faculty from the University/Government Colleges. The petitioners have supported the findings and alleged that the Commission acted contrary to its own professed standards and thereby failed to maintain integrity of the evaluation process. In this context, it is to be noted that out of 351 evaluators engaged by the Commission, even Dr. M.A.Malik against whom allegations have been made, was working in Government Degree College since 2010. He had written a book on Indian Economy for the Mains examination. He has on affidavit rebutted the allegation that he took classes in R.C.Reddy IAS Study Circle for the last fourteen years. M.A.Malik against whom allegations have been made, was working in Government Degree College since 2010. He had written a book on Indian Economy for the Mains examination. He has on affidavit rebutted the allegation that he took classes in R.C.Reddy IAS Study Circle for the last fourteen years. In the scheme of evaluation, where the identity of the candidate is totally anonymous and the marks are awarded by bubbling by more than one set of evaluators, the process of evaluation of more than 20,000 candidates could not be tainted on the basis of such an allegation without any proof of a single instance, where the evaluation had resulted in a particular candidate being favoured. 39. Mr. M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners had relied upon the case of D.Suvankar (supra) and submitted that the selection of examiners or chief examiners should have been such who are experts in the subject and really equipped for the job, otherwise the evaluation would suffer. On this issue, this Court finds substance in the reply of the Commission that in each round of evaluation process, a total set of 14 subject experts were involved in evaluation of answer scripts of seven papers of each candidate. Thus, in all 28 different subject experts evaluated answer booklets of seven papers of each candidate in two evaluations together making the process robust and foolproof. In such a case, the aforesaid contention of the writ petitioners is not correct. 40. Petitioners have relied on Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra). This decision was rendered on the right of an examinee to examine his answer book or to obtain a certified copy thereof. The issue involves right to obtain ‘information’ vis-a-vis the confidentiality, privacy or secrecy of the examiner, who had evaluated the answer sheets. In the present cae, while there is lack of material on any such information obtained by the petitioners by inspection or obtained certified copy of his answer books, on the other hand, the production of the list of examiners by obtaining the correspondence between the Commissioner of Collegiate Education and the Commissioner of Police shows breach of confidentiality and privacy of the identity of the examiners. 41. The decision in Dr. 41. The decision in Dr. P.Kishore Kumar (supra) has also been relied upon by the writ petitioners on the plea of legitimate expectation of a student that the answers written are at least looked at and appreciated for evaluation. However, no materials have been placed to satisfy that during the process of evaluation, the answers written by any of the writ petitioners were not looked at or appreciated. The legal plea sans material basis cannot stand in the facts and circumstances of the case exhaustively dealt with by this court in this discussion. 42. The above decisions relied upon by the petitioners do not lend assistance to their challenge to the selection and procedure for evaluation adopted by the Commission. 43. The learned writ court has also commented that due to double evaluation, the evaluators were burdened. Same persons evaluated English and Telugu answer scripts. The Commission’s stand on the preparation of answer key smacked of lack of transparency in the evaluation process. The Commission has taken a contrary stand on the moderation method adopted in the evaluation. The learned writ court gave example of a candidate that he had spent 10 to 12 hours a day after quitting a corporate job, but had suffered due to lack of transparency and fairness in evaluation. This observation of the learned writ court however is not based on any factual assertion. Learned writ court also observed that the Commission had produced the answer keys on being asked, but there was no proper explanation in that regard. 44. The Commission has sought to explain the process of evaluation by producing the answer keys in a sealed cover. It had also explained that the evaluation by two evaluators if resulted in a difference of more than 15% marks, then a third evaluation was carried out. The third evaluation was necessary only in a very miniscule number of candidates i.e., 579, i.e., only 3.76% of the candidates. The Commission has in its note explained the manner in which evaluation was conducted by the two evaluators and in case of difference of more than 15% of marks between the two evaluations, by the third evaluator, in the following manner: Step by Step Process of Evaluation of Answer Scripts in Group-I Mains Examination A. Step 1 The Group I Mains Examination was held between 21.10.2024 and 27.10.2024. All the answer scripts of all the candidates who have appeared on each date of the examination are immediately sent to the central processing lab from the examination centers, where all the answer scripts each paper-wise are made into bundles comprising of 40 answer scripts in each bundle. Thereafter, the entire processing of evaluation work takes place paper-wise/bundle wise. B. Step 2 In each bundle, the first perforated portion in each of the answer script containing the personal particulars of the candidates viz., part 1 of the answer script is torn off and preserved in sealed covers and kept under lock and key till the completion of the entire evaluation process. Then the entire answer booklet is scanned and control bundle numbers are assigned. Thereafter all the bundles of the answer scripts of each paper are sent physically to the centralized spot evaluation center where each answer script is subjected to evaluation. C. Step 3 At the Centralized Spot Evaluation Centre, paper-wise answer script bundles of each paper are thereafter distributed subject wise among subject experts one after another in the 1 st evaluation process. Each subject expert is required to evaluate the answers with respect to his/her subject and award marks in the second perforated portion in the section column against the question number. The first evaluator writes the serial number of the answer booklet in the bundle in the space provided for the same in the answer booklet. The valuer ID and valuer signature is affixed in the place meant for it. After completion of evaluation of the answer scripts in the bundle by the first subject expert, the Chief Examiner randomly review by checking of three answer scripts from each bundle of 40 answer scripts and countersigns on then concerned answer scripts. The answer script bundle is then distributed to the next subject expert who would evaluate the questions related to his / her subject followed by review check by concerned Chief Examiner and so on an so forth. The last subject expert would evaluate the answer scripts relevant to his/her subject and then enters marks awarded by him/her and thereafter enter the grand total in figures and words in the space provided for the same and also bubble the same in the space provided therein. The last subject expert would also bubble the serial number of the answer booklet in the bundle at the space provided. The last subject expert would also bubble the serial number of the answer booklet in the bundle at the space provided. D. Step 4 Finally, the answer script bundle of the concerned paper at the end of first evaluation would be sent to the scrutinizer who in turn would verify whether all answers are evaluated or not, whether the sub totals and grand total are accurate and whether bubbling is done accurately and affix his/her signature and in case of any discrepancy in the data, the same is brought to the notice of the Chief Examiner/Examiner who would rectify the same. Thereafter the second perforated portion of the answer script is torn off and preserved. The answer script is ready for second evaluation. E. Step 5 The entire process as stated in Steps 3 and 4 is repeated for the second evaluation by assigning the answer scripts for different set of subject experts. After the completion of the second evaluation of answer scripts in each bundle, the 3 rd perforated portion is also torn off and further process is undertaken. F. Step 6 Both the perforated slips of first and second evaluations so separated from the answer scripts are then scanned and computerized. The totals of valuations 1 and 2 are tabulated against the barcodes of the respective answer booklets. G. Step 7 Wherever there is a difference of 15% or more between the total marks of answer booklets in each paper in the 1 st and 2 nd evaluations, such answer booklets are sent for 3 rd evaluation to be evaluated by different set of relevant subject experts by repeating the same process followed in the first and second round of evaluations including the process of affixing the signature of the subject experts, Chief Examiner and scrutinizer. H. Step 8 After the completion of third evaluation of answer scripts as stated above, third evaluation sheets are also scanned and the third evaluation data is computerized for further processing of the results. The space/sheet provided for the tabulation of marks of the third evaluation continues to remain attached to the concerned answer booklet along with the bar code in the vertical portion of the answer booklet in the first page. The space/sheet provided for the tabulation of marks of the third evaluation continues to remain attached to the concerned answer booklet along with the bar code in the vertical portion of the answer booklet in the first page. I. Step 9: Award of Marks The average of total marks in the 1 st and 2 nd evaluation of each answer booklet of each paper in cases where there is no 3 rd evaluation, is calculated and then the figure is arrived at as the marks secured by the said candidate in that particular paper. In case where there is a 3 rd evaluation, the average of two nearest total marks of three evaluations is calculated and the figure arrived at is the marks secured by the said candidate in that particular paper. It is to be noted that in each round of evaluation process, a total set of 14 subject experts are involved in evaluation of answer scripts of seven papers of each candidate. Thus, in all 28 different subject experts evaluate answer booklets of seven papers of each candidate in two evaluations together making the process robust and foolproof. J. Step 10:Result Processing After completion of the evaluation process, the marks secured by all candidates paper-wise are tabulated by mapping the bar codes of the Answer Booklets with the concerned Hall Ticket Numbers before publishing the results. K. Possibility of Decimals: Though the marks awarded by each subject expert in each paper don’t contain any fractions, the averaging of total marks secured in two evaluations in each paper of a candidate may result in fractional values in the marks secured by each candidate in that particular paper. The following examples can be taken into consideration: Example–A: Suppose a candidate secures 100 marks in first evaluation and 97 marks in second evaluation, then the marks secured by that candidate would be the average of both evaluations i.e., 98.5 marks (100 + 97 divided by 2). Example–B: Suppose a candidate secures 100 marks in first evaluation and 74 marks in second evaluation, since the difference between the first and the second evaluation is more than 15%, the paper of the said candidate will be sent for third evaluation. Suppose if the candidate secures 87 marks in the third evaluation, then the average of nearest marks in two evaluations will be taken. Suppose if the candidate secures 87 marks in the third evaluation, then the average of nearest marks in two evaluations will be taken. In this example, the nearest marks are in first evaluation (100) and third evaluation (87). Hence, the marks secured by that candidate would be the average of first and third evaluation i.e., 93.5 marks (100 + 87 divided by 2). 45. The Commission has in this respect referred to its Press Note dated 13.03.2025 and clarified that the chief examiners committee consisted of two subject experts and senior professors. A total of 351 evaluators were identified and trained by the Committee of Chief Examiners. They evaluated around 21,110 papers over a period of 90 days from 01.11.2024 to 31.01.2025. The evaluators had 20 days between 10.03.2024 to 30.03.2024 to correct the re-evaluation papers. The Commission stated that along with its affidavit filed on 08.07.2025, produced the answer keys in a sealed cover. It had also explained that where there was a difference of more than 15% marks awarded between two evaluators, the third evaluation was carried out. According to the Commission, the third evaluation is in the form of moderation, which was accepted by the High Courts of Telangana and Madras in Mogili Kinnera (supra) and E.Ranjith (supra) respectively. 46. The Web Note or the Press Note, published by the Commission, intended to show transparency in the manner of conduct of the examination. It indicated the method of moderation employed by the Commission by third evaluation in case of difference of more than 15% marks between first and second evaluators. These were wholly within the domain of the Commission with an objective to minimise ‘examiner variability’ or ‘hawk-dove effect’. The sample answer booklets were uploaded through Web Notes dated 16.08.2024 and 27.09.2024 before the conduct of the written examination. On the question of adoption of the method of evaluation, it cannot be said that the method of moderation employed by the Commission amounted to change in the rules of the game midway. 47. Relying upon the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), Sunil Kumar (supra) and Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) and other decisions, the Commission submitted that it has autonomy in the manner in which the evaluation has to be made. 47. Relying upon the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), Sunil Kumar (supra) and Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) and other decisions, the Commission submitted that it has autonomy in the manner in which the evaluation has to be made. Therefore contention of the writ petitioners based on which the learned writ court has rendered its finding that the procedure of evaluation suffered on account of arbitrariness, does not merit acceptance. 48. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to decisions in Sanchit Bansal (supra), Sunil Kumar (supra) and Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra). The apex court has consistently held that the court cannot sit as an expert body over the decision of the Commission unless it is shown to be arbitrary, suffering from mala fide or any violation of statutory rules. Under Rule 3(xi)(v) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission has the power to take decisions in respect of the selections made and to evolve the procedure in any other matter incidental to the selection. The contention of the writ petitioners that the introduction of the third evaluator was an afterthought, thereby changing the rules of the game midway is also not correct on the facts. The sample answer booklet uploaded through Web Note dated 16.08.2024 more than one month before the conduct of the Mains examination also bears reference to the third evaluation. The process of evaluation, in case of difference of more than 15% marks awarded by the first and second evaluators, by the third evaluator, was earlier also followed in 2011 Group-I examination in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The entire argument of the writ petitioners for the method of moderation is based on the decisions rendered in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra), Sujasha Mukherjee (supra), Manoj Kumar (supra), Disha Panchal (supra) and Pranav Verma (supra). 49. The apex court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) laid down that in order to avoid subjectivity of respective examiner in a large scale examination where more than one examiner is involved to evaluate the answer scripts relating to a subject, resulting in hawk-dove effect, or ‘examiner variability’, a procedure is needed to be evolved to ensure uniformity inter se the examiners so that the effect of ‘examiner subjectivity’ or ‘examiner variability’ is minimised. This procedure is known as moderation. The apex court also observed that only certain situations warrant adoption of scaling techniques. This procedure is known as moderation. The apex court also observed that only certain situations warrant adoption of scaling techniques. Scaling is employed when candidates take examination in different subjects. Statistical experts have evolved the scaling method, which places the scores from different tests or test forms on to a common scale. The writ petitioners contended that the method of moderation in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) was not followed by the Commission. The petitioners also submitted that the Commission had contradicted itself by stating that no moderation or scaling was required. In this regard, it is pertinent to deal with the decision relied on this point by the rival parties. 50. In the case of Sujasha Mukherjee (supra) relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Farasat, the apex court agreed with the finding of the learned writ court that the ratio of Sanjay Singh (supra) was not comprehensively followed, which had observed that instead of moderation, in fact a reassessment of the answer book of the writ petitioners of Paper-II was carried out. It held that the cornerstone in Sanjay Singh (supra) postulates the existence of a Head Examiner. The purpose behind moderation is to achieve uniformity and to eradicate the hawk-dove effect as much as possible. The petitioners contended that the method of moderation laid down in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) is the only method to adopt uniformity. Therefore, the learned writ court had directed moderation method to be followed as in Sanjay Singh (supra). 51. In the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav (supra) also relied upon by him, the apex court partly agreed with the decision of the Allahabad High Court that the Commission erred by applying scaling to compulsory subjects, contrary to the principles in Sanjay Singh (supra). The apex court, however, set aside the High Court’s order to re-declare results because the selected candidates had been working under interim orders for about ten years and disturbing their appointments would cause grave prejudice. It observed that the exercise of declaring fresh results would result in displacement of a number of selected candidates not before the court and alteration of the merit list causing serious prejudice to those appointed and working for the last ten years. It observed that the exercise of declaring fresh results would result in displacement of a number of selected candidates not before the court and alteration of the merit list causing serious prejudice to those appointed and working for the last ten years. The apex court, therefore, upheld the finding of illegality in using scaling for all papers but moulded the relief to preserve the appointments and set aside the direction to declare the results afresh. 52. The case of Disha Panchal (supra) relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Shadan Farasat, relates to the conduct of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), 2018 entrance examination. The apex court was considering whether the entire examination should be cancelled due to certain irregularities, and if not, what remedy could fairly compensate the affected candidates without prejudicing the rest of the candidates. The apex court observed that any outright cancellation would cause tremendous inconvenience on the rest of the candidates. It stated that if those candidates who suffered loss of time could be compensated, then there is no reason that the entire examination be annulled. The apex court directed the authorities to compensate affected candidates by applying a statistical normalization formula to adjust scores based on the measured loss of examination time caused by the disruptions. In the present case, there are no such allegations of loss of examination time. 53. In the case of Pranav Verma (supra), the apex court directed addition of grace marks since the extremely low pass rate suggested undue strictness. It was held to be constitutionally permissible tool to correct strict marking, consistent with established jurisprudence. The writ petitioners, however, have not been able to show any undue strictness in the evaluation of the answer sheets. 54. In this regard, the appellants had placed reliance upon the decision of the apex court in Sunil Kumar (supra). In the said case, it was observed that the requirement of adoption of moderation to a particular kind of examination and scaling to others, are at best, opinions, exercise of which requires an in-depth consideration of questions that are more suitable for the experts in the field. An adoption of any singular process or by a straitjacket formula cannot be ideal. An adoption of any singular process or by a straitjacket formula cannot be ideal. The apex court further held that Sanjay Singh (supra) did not decide that to an examination where the papers are common, the system of moderation must be applied and to an examination where the papers/subjects are different, scaling is the only available option. Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task which defies an instant solution by adoption of any singular process or by a straitjacket formula. Not only examiner variations and variation in award of marks in different subjects are issues to be answered, there are several other questions that also may require to be dealt with. Variation in the strictness of the questions set in a multi-disciplinary examination format is one such fine issue which was coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh (supra). It was further held that a conscious choice of a discipline or a subject by a candidate at the time of his entry to the University thereby restricting his choice of papers in a public examination; the standards of inter-subject evaluation of answer papers and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration. All such questions and, may be, several others not identified therein are required to be considered, which questions, by their very nature should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including the Public Service Commissions. The fact that such bodies including the Commissions had erred or acted in less than a responsible manner in the past cannot be a reason for a free exercise of the judicial power which by its very nature will have to be understood to be, normally, limited to instances of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power. It was further held that the absence of any plea of mala fides and the uniform application of the principles adopted by the Commission, in the facts of the case, would lead to the conclusion that the present case would not be an appropriate case for exercise of power of judicial review. The absence of reasons in the aforesaid resolution, on which much stress has been laid, by itself, cannot justify such interference when the decision, on scrutiny, does not disclose any gross or palpable unreasonableness. 55. The absence of reasons in the aforesaid resolution, on which much stress has been laid, by itself, cannot justify such interference when the decision, on scrutiny, does not disclose any gross or palpable unreasonableness. 55. The Commission in its reply through the common additional counter affidavit, have explained that the Commission had followed the moderation method for evaluation of the answer scripts as suggested by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh (supra). The answer scripts of the candidates were evaluated by two evaluators and further by another evaluator (detailed in paras 48-64 of common additional counter affidavit). The learned writ court misconstrued para 70 of Commission’s common additional counter affidavit where the Commission wrote “scaling/moderation was not required” to be an admission on part of the Commission that moderation was not applied by the Commission. The Commission has submitted that the writ petitioners had loosely interchanged scaling/moderation as one and the same term, and had alleged that the Commission did not use scaling/moderation, to which the Commission replied in the same terminology stating that scaling/ moderation was not required. All the candidates have written the same subjects i.e., same seven papers and hence, when there was uniformity in syllabus, moderation as a mode of evaluation and not scaling is applied. Learned writ court, therefore, came to a flawed conclusion that the Commission did not follow moderation method of evaluation and violated the principles prescribed in Sanjay Singh (supra). Therefore the entire results be declared invalid and re-evaluation be conducted by applying moderation method in terms of Sanjay Singh (supra). Upon the survey of the above decisions, this court is of the opinion that though the method of moderation was approved in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) with the object to ensure uniformity in the evaluation, to avoid ‘examiner subjectivity’ or ‘hawk-dove effect’, but as held in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra), it cannot be understood to lay down as an absolute proposition that it is governed by adoption of any such singular process or by straitjacket formula. Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task. The standards of inter- subject evaluation of answer papers and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration. All such questions and several others should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including the Public Service Commissions. Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task. The standards of inter- subject evaluation of answer papers and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration. All such questions and several others should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including the Public Service Commissions. Even if such bodies have erred or have acted in less than a responsible manner in the past cannot be a reason for a free exercise of the judicial power, which by its very nature is limited to instances of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power. The opinion of the apex court in Sunil Kumar (supra), at para 20, is as under: “ 20. We cannot understand the law to be imposing the requirement of adoption of moderation to a particular kind of examination and scaling to others. Both are, at best, opinions, exercise of which requires an in-depth consideration of questions that are more suitable for the experts in the field. Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task which defies an instant solution by adoption of any singular process or by a straitjacket formula. Not only examiner variations and variation in award of marks in different subjects are issues to be answered, there are several other questions that also may require to be dealt with. Variation in the strictness of the questions set in a multi-disciplinary examination format is one such fine issue that was coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh [Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 870] . A conscious choice of a discipline or a subject by a candidate at the time of his entry to the University thereby restricting his choice of papers in a public examination; the standards of inter-subject evaluation of answer papers and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration. All such questions and, may be, several others not identified herein are required to be considered, which questions, by their very nature should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including, the Public Service Commissions. All such questions and, may be, several others not identified herein are required to be considered, which questions, by their very nature should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including, the Public Service Commissions. The fact that such bodies including the Commissions have erred or have acted in less than a responsible manner in the past cannot be a reason for a free exercise of the judicial power which by its very nature will have to be understood to be, normally, limited to instances of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power.” 56. The method adopted by the Commission to avoid hawk-dove effect or examiner variability, as explained in their note, and the affidavits, therefore, rule out any instance of arbitrariness or mala fide or violation of statutory rules. The method of evaluation employed by the Commission through subject experts in each paper in the first and second evaluation, and then the award of marks on average of total marks in the first and second evaluation of each answer booklet in itself is to ensure that ‘examiner variability’ or ‘hawk-dove effect’ is minimised. Moreover, when there is a difference of 15% or more between the total marks of answer booklets of each paper in the first and second evaluation, such answer booklets are sent for third evaluation to be evaluated by different set of relevant subject experts by repeating the same process followed in the first and second round of evaluations including affixing the signature of the subject experts, Chief Examiner and Scrutinizer. The ultimate effect of adopting this method is to minimise the ‘examiner variability’. It applies uniformly to all candidates. Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task. The method adopted by the Commission being an expert body in the field should not be made open to speculative challenges. In Sunil Kumar (supra), the apex court observed that the decision in Sanjay Singh (supra) cannot be understood to lay down as absolute proposition that it is governed by adoption of any singular process or by a straitjacket formula. The writ petitioners have in their submissions suggested alternative methods, which the Commission should have adopted by for conducting moderation. In Sunil Kumar (supra), the apex court observed that the decision in Sanjay Singh (supra) cannot be understood to lay down as absolute proposition that it is governed by adoption of any singular process or by a straitjacket formula. The writ petitioners have in their submissions suggested alternative methods, which the Commission should have adopted by for conducting moderation. The Court in Judicial Review, however, cannot sit as an expert body over the decision of the Commission on the manner and method in which evaluation is to be made, unless it suffers from patent arbitrariness, mala fide or any violation of statutory rules. 57. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the findings of the learned writ court that the procedure of evaluation suffered warranting re-evaluation by following the method laid down in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra). 58. Rule 3(xi)(v) of the Rules of Procedures confers wide discretion to prescribe procedure in matters incidental to selection. Rule 3(xi)(v) is quoted hereunder: “3(xi) A decision as to the following shall be taken by the Commission in respect of all selections made by them. (i) to (iv) xxx (v) any other matter incidental to the selection.” 59. The examining body like the Public Service Commission has wide powers under Article 320(3) to take decisions on the manner and method in which the evaluation has to be made. If such procedure or method of evaluation has been uniformly applied, the court should be loathe to sit as an expert body over the decision of the Commission unless it is shown to be arbitrary, suffering from mala fide or in violation of statutory rules. The learned writ court, however, failed to take into account the salutary principles governing exercise of judicial review in such matters. 60. During the course of submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners, Mr. G.Vidya Sagar has drawn the attention of the Court to terms and conditions of the recruitment notification and contended that any deviation therefrom by the Commission was arbitrary. He relied upon the case of Babu Verghese (supra) and Ambay Cements (supra) to submit that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute or for that matter the recruitment notification, the Commission could only undertake the evaluation process prescribed therein or not at all. He relied upon the case of Babu Verghese (supra) and Ambay Cements (supra) to submit that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute or for that matter the recruitment notification, the Commission could only undertake the evaluation process prescribed therein or not at all. Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. 61. It is important to refer to Article 320 of the Constitution, whereunder the Union and the State Public Service Commissions are conferred with the duty to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the States respectively. Article 320(3) provides that the Public Service Commission shall be consulted on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another, 62. The Commission has framed Rules of Procedure for conduct of examinations. The Commission, under the extant rules, is empowered to take decisions in respect of selections made by them enumerated under Rule 3(xi) and also any other matter incidental to the selection. Therefore, the contention that the Commission deviated from its professed terms and conditions prescribed in the recruitment Notification in the manner and method of evaluation is untenable in law. If the Commission is not allowed to prescribe the manner and method of evaluation, which is incidental to the selection and if such method does not suffer from arbitrariness or mala fides and is applied uniformly to all candidates, no irregularity in the manner and method of evaluation process can be alleged. 63. The case of Veerendra Kumar Gautam (supra) relied upon by learned Senior Counsel, Ms. B.Rachna Reddy is on the proposition that if the process of selection is found to be tainted, whatever had flowed consequent thereto must also fall along with the process of selection. The appointment of selected candidates being subject to outcome of these appeals will have to go once the findings of the learned writ court both on Procedural Aspects and the Method of Evaluation are upheld on the basis of the materials placed by the rival parties. 64. The appointment of selected candidates being subject to outcome of these appeals will have to go once the findings of the learned writ court both on Procedural Aspects and the Method of Evaluation are upheld on the basis of the materials placed by the rival parties. 64. However, in the considered opinion of this court, such a result would follow only if the conduct of the Group-I examination by the Commission is found to be suffering from the systemic irregularity or malice or fraud that undermines the integrity of the entire selection process. We are afraid that no such conclusion can be arrived at on the basis of the allegations made by the writ petitioners without any material to prove any such malpractice in the conduct of the examination, even standards of probability test. The writ petitioners have failed to show any instance of mass cheating or mass copying or leakage of question papers or tutoring of candidate during the examination to substantiate such allegation. 65. The learned writ court in its finding on the issue of Telugu medium candidates, has observed that there was no separate evaluators for English and Telugu answer scripts. That nearly 110 Telugu medium candidates had represented for revaluation of Telugu scripts, indicating lack of transparency and fairness in evaluation. Compared to English candidates, few Telugu medium candidates were selection. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the findings of the learned writ court are not supported by any data or concrete facts proving discrimination against Telugu medium candidates. The degree college faculty in the State of Telangana teach both in English and Telugu medium to the students of graduation course. The evaluators were, therefore, competent to evaluate Group-I Mains examination in both languages. The Commission in its reply has categorically refuted any such widespread neglect of the candidates writing in Telugu medium. Such a finding of the learned writ court, therefore, appears to be more on assumption than on any factual basis supported by any specific instances. 66. The learned writ court has also gone to observe that for some specific centres, number of qualified candidates were higher. There was variation in the proportion of female candidates selected in centre Nos.18 and 19 versus the remaining centres. This finding is not reflective of actual success rate of other centres. 66. The learned writ court has also gone to observe that for some specific centres, number of qualified candidates were higher. There was variation in the proportion of female candidates selected in centre Nos.18 and 19 versus the remaining centres. This finding is not reflective of actual success rate of other centres. Centre Nos.18 and 19 which accommodated 721 and 776 female candidates, had the success rate of 5.41% and 4.12% respectively. Fourteen other centres had a success rate of 4% and six centres had a success rate of 5%. Centre No.9 had a success rate of 8.70%. Centre No.8 had a success rate of 6.25% and Centre No.12 had success rate of 6.10%. As such, the inference based on statistics cannot be the basis to suspect any malfeasance in those centres specifically when none from those centres ever made any complaint of cheating, mass copying or tutoring of any particular candidate or female candidates of those centres having been favoured. It is quite statistically possible that certain centres may have higher proportion of well performing candidates. It was also pointed out to the learned writ court, relying upon a press release of UPSC dated 28.07.2023 that in open competition, more candidates getting qualified from some centres is usual. The purity of the examination process cannot be doubted on the basis of such statistics which even if taken on face value do not show any stark or exceptional results compared to other centres. 67. The learned writ court, therefore, fell in error in holding that the presence of successful candidates from specific centres had any basis to affect the integrity of the examination process. It is worth reiterating that there was no complaint of allegation of cheating, mass copying, leak of question papers or tutoring of any candidates in any centre in the conduct of the examination spread over 46 centres. It is important to once again remind ourselves that any interference in the conduct of examination of such a nature by the constitutional body, like the Public Service Commission should not be made in the absence of proven mala fides, arbitrariness or systemic irregularity as has been held in the case of Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra). 68. It is important to once again remind ourselves that any interference in the conduct of examination of such a nature by the constitutional body, like the Public Service Commission should not be made in the absence of proven mala fides, arbitrariness or systemic irregularity as has been held in the case of Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra). 68. Lastly, on the issue of award of same marks to certain candidates, the learned writ court has opined that several candidates were awarded same marks, i.e., 719 in number and especially those who had adjacent hall ticket numbers. In this regard, it is important to take note that in the Mains examination, 21,110 candidates had appeared and 12,622 candidates had obtained qualifying marks. The marks ranged between 270 for SC/ST/PwD candidates to 550. Therefore, it is not improbable for multiple candidates securing the same total marks, when the range of marks is narrower. Further, the Commission had demonstrated that even though the candidates having adjacent hall tickets had secured same total marks, their marks in individual subjects were different. The examinations were conducted under CC TV Surveillance, wherein no cheating or irregularities were alleged or noticed. Even in the case of UPSC Examinations, 2024, out of 1009 candidates, 969 candidates shared a total with at least one other candidate. The recruitment notification in a case of same marks between several candidates has under para 12.3 provided multi-levelled tie breaker system based on status of local status, date of birth, higher marks in papers I to V and marks in English, date of passing of required qualifying examination and marks in higher qualification. The ranking even amongst the candidates having the same marks is dependent upon a number of factors including securing the marks in different papers. As such, the assumption made by the learned writ court at best could be a case of suspicion, but in the absence of any proven malfeasance or demonstrable acts of wrong doing it could not be the basis to undermine the entire recruitment process. The findings of the learned writ court, therefore, on both the procedural aspects and method of evaluation that the Commission failed to maintain transparency, integrity and violated the rules do not appear to be based on sound reasoning and established from the materials on record. The petitioners did not allege mala fides or fraud. The findings of the learned writ court, therefore, on both the procedural aspects and method of evaluation that the Commission failed to maintain transparency, integrity and violated the rules do not appear to be based on sound reasoning and established from the materials on record. The petitioners did not allege mala fides or fraud. The materials on record could not lead to any conclusion that recruitment process suffered from grave and systemic irregularity. 69. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (supra), the apex court has held that the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience. Para 29 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted as under: “ 29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.” 70. In the absence of mala fides, proven systemic irregularity or violation of any statutory rule, therefore the direction to undertake re-evaluation with moderation in the lines of Sanjay Singh (supra) or to re-conduct Mains examination does not sustain on scrutiny of the materials placed on record. 71. In the absence of mala fides, proven systemic irregularity or violation of any statutory rule, therefore the direction to undertake re-evaluation with moderation in the lines of Sanjay Singh (supra) or to re-conduct Mains examination does not sustain on scrutiny of the materials placed on record. 71. In a case where the method of evaluation has been uniformly applied in larger public interest, no candidate can be prejudicially affected. The direction of the learned writ court to re-evaluate the Mains examination papers with moderation in the lines of Sanjay Singh (supra) also does not sustain on account of the reasons recorded hereinabove based on a detailed analysis of the method of evaluation employed by the Commission and after due consideration of the submissions of the parties on this issue. 72. The integrity of the examination conducted by a constitutional body, like the Public Service Commission, cannot be made suspect on the basis of surmises and unsubstantiated allegations. The direction of the learned writ court for re-conduct of the examination as an alternative is therefore unsustainable. 73. Therefore, the impugned common judgment passed in W.P.Nos.11439 of 2025 and batch, dated 09.09.2025 is set aside and the writ appeal Nos.1066, 1054, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080 and 1086 of 2025 are allowed. 74. On the basis of the elaborate reasons recorded hereinabove, writ appeal No.1470 of 2025 preferred by the petitioners in W.P.No.12206 of 2025 insisting upon re-conduct of the Mains examinations, is fit to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal No.1470 of 2025 is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.