TGPSC concludes arguments against writ petitions seeking ‘judicial probe’ into Group-1 exams

Hyderabad: S Niranjan Reddy, senior counsel appearing for the Telangana Public Service Commission, while advancing his arguments on Thursday contended that nearly four lakh aspirants appeared for the Group-1 competitive examinations. Of them 30,000 candidates were shortlisted for taking the Mains (20,161 candidates got selected). This issue was taken to the Supreme Court by the unselected candidates, seeking cancellation of the Group-1 exam, but the SC did not cancel. It observed that the allegations made by the petitioners (unsuccessful candidates) are mala fide.

Reddy observed that there is no violation of rules with regard to the actual conduct of the Group-1 exam or the examination centres or any systematic leak in the conduct of the exam itself .. there is no problem about the examination centres. There is no serious allegation that one exam centre has been compromised.. the petitioners do not raise doubts about the integrity and conduct of the TGPSC in holding the exam.. None of the petitioners contended that there was selective valuation… if at all they say so, there is no material placed before the court to substantiate their contention.

The counsel further contended that the majority of the candidates who are selected in the Group-1 Mains exam belong to OBC, SC, ST, women and physically handicapped categories; that by itself determines that this is not being an elitist result If the court’s conscience is shocked.. if the Court interferes with the selection process, it will destroy the dreams of many candidates, who have toiled and underwent the arduous process of study, as they have been subjected through the most transparent examination, they have succeeded.

Reddy threw light on the “scheme of evaluation” for which 300 evaluators in the pattern of ( 1st evaluator, 2nd evaluator, followed by a supervisor), who were hired by TGPSC, He contended that they were at the first instance, subjected to mock answer paper evaluation; they were subjected to an orientation programme. After this entire gruelling process only the evaluators are allowed to correct the answer scripts. After one evaluator corrects the answer scripts and allots marks, a scrutiniser checks the marks allotted to eac candidates, to ensure that correct marks are allotted.

He brushed aside contention of Rachna Reddy, senior counsel for the petitioners, that selective candidates were allocated to some exam centres; who were allotted more marks; they got through the Mains. She said there is “randomisation” of allotment of candidates to the exam centres by “computer” only; thereby giving no scope for human interference. The allocation of 46 exam centres were physically checked, leaving no scope for any mischief.

While arguing on exam centres 18 & 19 in which only women candidates were allocated, she contended that as the two colleges in Koti (Women’s College) were meant for women, the TGPSC felt only women candidates should be allocated as there is a precedent of men candidates, during the UPSC exam, felt uncomfortable to attend to nature’s calls. While using the washrooms during the UPSC exam men had to wait in long queues, due to which they lost their precious time.

The TGPSC felt male candidates should not be put at a disadvantage; they should not be at a disadvantage. Hence it allocated all the 933 female candidates to the examination centres 18 & 19.

Hearing in the case was adjourned for arguments of Desai Prakash Reddy, senior counsel for the selected candidates, Laxmi Narasimha, senior counsel and other counsels.