“The appeal filed by the writ petitioners (before the single judge) insisting upon re-conduct of the Mains examinations, is fit to be dismissed,” the bench said.The controversy stemmed from petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates alleging irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of the Group I Mains examination. Acting on those pleas, a single judge had on Sept 9, 2025, set aside the results declared on March 10 and the general rank list published on March 30, casting doubt over the entire recruitment process.Soon after, the commission and successful candidates challenged that order. On Sept 25, 2025, the division bench stayed the single judge’s ruling and allowed the TGPSC to proceed with issuing appointment orders, making it clear that the appointments would be subject to the outcome of the writ appeals.In its detailed 123-page verdict, the bench reaffirmed the constitutional authority of the PSC under Article 320(3) to determine examination and evaluation methods. It observed that “the single judge failed to take into account the salutary principles governing exercise of judicial review in such matters.”The court emphasised that when an evaluation method is uniformly applied to all candidates, judicial interference should be minimal. Courts, it said, ought not to assume the role of expert bodies over examination authorities unless the process is shown to be arbitrary, vitiated by mala fides or in clear violation of statutory rules.The bench said that in the present case there was no material on record to establish mala fides, proven systemic irregularities or breach of statutory provisions. In such circumstances, it held, directions to re-evaluate answer scripts with moderation or to re-conduct the Mains examination could not be sustained in law.Integrity of examRejecting the findings of the single judge that the commission had failed to maintain transparency and integrity, the bench said such conclusions were not supported by sound reasoning or the evidence placed on record. It further ruled that the integrity of an examination conducted by a constitutional body cannot be questioned on the basis of surmises or unsubstantiated allegations.The court also addressed claims that Telugu medium candidates were disadvantaged during evaluation, observing that the conclusion appeared to rest on assumptions rather than any specific factual instances.Similarly, the bench declined to draw adverse inferences from a higher number of selected candidates emerging from certain examination centres, holding that such factors alone could not justify judicial interference in the absence of proven arbitrariness or mala fides.
