APHC010145722025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3460]

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 7679/2025

Between:

1. PENNABADI AMARANATH REDDY, S/O. P. JAGANMOHAN

REDDY, AGED 45 YEARS, UNEMPLOYEE, R/O.

VUTUKURUVANDLAPALLI, BALA TIMMAYYAGARI PALLI

POST, CHAKRAYAPET MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT -

516259.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI,

GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, R AND B BUILDING, 2ND

FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, BANDAR ROAD, OPP. INDIRA GANDHI

MUNCIPAL COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that

in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High

Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ order or direction,

more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring

the Memo.No.GAD03 -NTFORT(GR1)/2022-GRP-1 (Comp.No.

2

1866514), Dt. 16.08.2024 issued by the 2nd Respondent Commission

as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the

Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent

Commission to give effect to the opinion of the Two Member Expert

Committee to conduct interview and thereafter send appropriate

proposals for creation of supernumerary post if so required in terms of

the Letter No.2308024/SER-A/A2l2023-2, Dt.29.02.2024 of the 1st

respondent Government addressed to the 2nd respondent

Commission and to take consequential proceedings for selection of

the petitioner and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 2nd respondent

Commission to reconsider the case of the petitioner in terms of Letter

No.2308024/SER-A/A2l2023-2, Dt.29.02.2024 of the 1st respondent

Government by suspending the impugned Memo.No.GAD03 -

NTFORT(GR1)/2022-GRP-1 (Comp.No. 1866514), Dt.16.08.2024

issued by the 2nd Respondent Commission, pending disposal of this

writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G.SEENA KUMAR SC For APPSC

2. GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

W.P.No.7679 of 2025

O R DE R:

The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare Memo

No.GAD03-NTFORT(GR1)/2022-GRP-1 (Comp.No.1866514),

dated 16.08.2024 issued by Respondent No.2-APPSC as illegal

and arbitrary.

2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The Respondent No.2-APPSC had issued notification

No.39 of 2008 and a supplementary notification No.10 of 2009 for

recruitment of posts under Group-I services. The Petitioner had

applied for the same with Hall Ticket No.11818559 and was

successful in the preliminary examination. Petitioner states that

he had also fared well in the main examinations and was

expecting a call for interviews. However, the Petitioner was not

called for the interview. Thereafter, interviews were conducted in

May, 2012 and a list of qualified candidates were displayed by

APPSC on 12.05.2012. Respondent No.2-APPSC, as per its

practice, does not disclose the marks of the candidates till the

selections are finalized and the Petitioner could secure the marks

4

obtained by him in the five papers of the main examination only

on 12.05.2012. In the five papers in the main examination, the

Petitioner secured 88, 83, 97 and 130 marks insofar as Paper

Nos.I, II, III and V. As regards Paper-IV (Science and

Technology), the Petitioner secured only 49 marks. Immediately,

the Petitioner submitted a representation on 15.05.2012

requesting the APPSC to examine the issue regarding Paper-IV

and re-evaluate or recount the marks in respect of the said paper.

As there was no response, the Petitioner had requested the

APPSC under Right to Information Act to furnish copies of answer

sheets and a direction was given by the Appellate Authority under

the said Act on 14.03.2013 to permit inspection of the answer

script. However, the APPSC did not permit the Petitioner to

inspect the answer script as the issue regarding recruitment was

pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. After disposal of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, the answer script was given to the Petitioner. On perusal of

the answer script, the Petitioner was awarded only 2 to 3 marks

for questions which carry 10 marks and for one question, ‘0’

marks were awarded. The Petitioner then filed another

representation to the APPSC on 01.04.2016 for re-evaluating the

5

answer sheets. As there was no response, the Petitioner filed

O.A.No.1452 of 2016 before the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad to call for the answer scripts

of the Petitioner and other students and to constitute a committee

of professors to evaluate the answer script of Paper-IV and to

conduct interviews. The O.A was dismissed on 28.04.2017.

4. Thereafter, Petitioner filed W.P.No.32196 of 2017 before

the common High Court at Hyderabad and the same was

dismissed as withdrawn on 21.09.2017 with liberty to file review

before the Tribunal. The Petitioner then filed Review

M.A.(SR)No.5139 of 2017 before Andhra Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal and the Office Objection was placed before the Court,

which was upheld vide orders dated 07.12.2017. Thereafter,

Petitioner filed W.P.No.11385 of 2019 and W.P.No.19420 of 2020

respectively against the order rejecting the review and

questioning the final order in O.A.No.1452 of 2016.

W.P.No.19420 of 2020 filed questioning the order in O.A.No.1452

of 2016 was dismissed and W.P.No.11385 of 2019 was closed as

no further orders were required to be passed. The Review

I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19450 of 2020 was also dismissed on

10.12.2021.

6

5. Petitioner, thereafter, filed SLP.Nos.4484, 4485 and 4486

of 2022 questioning the orders in two writ petitions as well as

Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19450 of 2020. The said

SLPs were dismissed at the admission stage on 28.03.2022.

6. Convinced that injustice was meted out, the Petitioner,

thereafter, gave a representation on 14.09.2022 to APPSC

requesting for correction of errors crept in evaluation of his

answer sheet. As there was no response, Petitioner filed

W.P.No.14122 of 2023 and the said writ petition was disposed of

by order dated 16.06.2023 with a direction to the APPSC to

consider the representation of the Petitioner. As the directions

were not adhered to by the APPSC, Petitioner filed C.C.No.5850

of 2023.

7. During the pendency of the contempt case, the APPSC

addressed a letter on 15.12.2023 corresponding to the injustice

caused to the Petitioner with regard to the evaluation of Paper-IV

to the State Government. In response, the State Government

addressed a letter dated 26.12.2023 to furnish specific proposals

in that regard. APPSC submitted a detailed narration of the case

of the Petitioner and sought for necessary direction and guidance.

7

8. Thereafter, the State Government addressed a letter on

29.02.2024 permitting the APPSC to take further action on the

recommendation of the expert committee for conducting the

interview. In spite of the letter, the Petitioner was informed by the

APPSC vide Memo No.GAD03 -NTFORT(GR1)/2022-GRP-1

(Comp.No.1866514), dated 16.08.2024 that his representation

cannot be considered and is rejected. In the light of the same, the

contempt case was closed leaving it open to the Petitioner to

challenge the Memo dated 16.08.2024. Hence, the present writ

petition.

9. It is pleaded that APPSC, having found the errors and

blunders kept in evaluation of Paper-IV, appointed a third-party

expert committee comprising of three (3) professors and found

that there was an oversight in evaluation and missed in awarding

marks for some part of the answers and the committee had

opined that the Petitioner got less marks in Paper-IV and the

claim of the Petitioner regarding less marks in Paper-IV was

justified. In the light of the findings of three (3) member

committee, the APPSC took a decision on 20.09.2023 to engage

a committee consisting of two (2) experts to re-evaluate the paper

and submit results for taking further action. As per the evaluation

8

of the two (2) experts, the Petitioner was in the zone of

consideration for interview as per the letter dated 15.12.2023

addressed by APPSC to the Government. It is in that context, the

impugned memo was sought to be set aside and further relief

was sought to give effect to the evaluation of the expert

committee consisting of three (3) professors and the second

expert committee of two experts.

10. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.1-State, it is

stated that the terms and conditions of recruitment are governed

by Notification No.39 of 2008 r/w Supplementary Notification

No.10 of 2009 and the APPSC Rules and Regulations. It was

pleaded that the Petitioner's grievance regarding Paper-IV was

the subject matter of several rounds of litigation over the decade

and the dismissal of SLP Nos.4484, 4485 and 4486 of 2022 on

28.03.2022 had given finality to the rejection of the request of the

Petitioner and therefore, it is not open to the Petitioner to

re-agitate the issue by filing W.P.No.14122 of 2023.

11. Despite the same, a three-member expert committee was

constituted to enquire into the grievance of the Petitioner in

relation to Paper-IV and they had submitted a report noting

9

certain errors in the valuation of Paper-IV and based on the

same, APPSC opined that the Petitioner might enter into the zone

of consideration for interview, if the revised marks suggested by

the committee were acted upon. However, as there is only a

single evaluation process in the notification and Para 11(3) of the

Notification and Rule 3 (ix) of the Rules of Procedure

categorically prohibited revaluation and in those circumstances,

the APPSC could not give effect to the recommendation to the

three-member committee and referred th e issue to the

Government for guidance.

12. In response, the State Government had permitted the

APPSC to take further action in the matter and based on the

recommendations of the expert committee, sent appropriate

proposals for creation of supernumerary posts for further

consideration. It is further stated that the correspondence

regarding creation of supernumerary posts in the letters

addressed by the Government are hypothetical and conditional,

subject to the APPSC taking a lawful decision within its

competence at the first instance.

13. It was further stated that if a case for revaluation is allowed,

10

the same would set as a precedent for other cases and

floodgates would be opened regarding similar writ petitions of

recruitment of the past and future. It is stated that after reference

to the rules and regulations, APPSC cannot grant relief, as the

APPSC has no power vested to consider the request of the

Petitioner considering paragrapgh 11(e) of Rule 3 (ix) of the

Rules of procedure and the judgments in previous round of

litigation at the instance of the Petitioner.

14. Heard Sri M.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for Sri Manoj

Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel appearing for Petitioner, Sri

S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-1 and

Sri G.Seena Kumar, learned standing counsel for APPSC.

15. This Court after hearing the respective counsel directed the

APPSC to produce the answer script as well as the opinion of the

two committees which examined the Paper-IV of the Petitioner.

Pursuant thereto, the said documents were furnished to the Court

in sealed covers.

16. The trigger to this round of litigation is the order passed by

this Court in W.P.No.14122 of 2023 directing the APPSC to

consider the representation of the Petitioner for correcting errors

11

in Paper-IV of the notification. The issue would have hit a dead

end, if the APPSC had rejected the representation of the

Petitioner, citing the previous round of litigation.

17. But, the APPSC curiously constituted a three (03) member

committee consisting of Prof. T.Byragi Reddy, Andhra University,

Prof. T.Damodharam, Sri Venkateswara University and Prof.

S.Bala Prasad, Andhra University. This committee examined the

Paper-IV of the Petitioner and opined that there are anomalies in

awarding of marks and it was felt that the answers are suitable to

get more marks. The relevant part of the report is extracted

below:

“6. The candidate’s answers to the 15 questions are

pertinent and entitled to score marks more than the already

awarded marks of 49 (total marks to all the answers). The

marks to the candidates answers to the questions

attempted will be around 80 marks.

Finally, the committee opined that the candidate’s

claim of getting/awarding less marks in the “Science and

Technology” paper is justifiable.”

18. Thereafter, APPSC again constituted a two (02) member

committee consisting of Prof.K.T.Ramakrishna Reddy and

12

Dr.P.Brahmaji Rao pursuant to the meeting on 20.9.2023. The

two (02) member committee after evaluating the Paper-IV,

individually awarded 119 marks and 123 marks, respectively.

19. In effect, the Paper-IV of the Petitioner was evaluated on

three different occasions and the marks awarded vary

substantially. For easy understanding, they are tabulated below;

(i) Original evaluation :49 marks

(ii) First Committee (3 members) :80 marks

(iii) Two (2) member committee : 119/123 marks.

20. Firstly, when there is substantial variance in revaluations, it

would not be safe to rely on such valuations for issuance of a writ

of mandamus.

21. Secondly, the very constitution of committees for

revaluation of Paper-IV of the Petitioner was running contrary to

the common order of this Court in W.P.Nos.19420 of 2020 and

11385 of 2019 dated 03.12.2020. The Division Bench of this

Court had considered the plea of the Petitioner for re-examination

in detail in the common order and rejected the same after placing

reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

13

Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service

Commission

1

, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission

v. Mukesh Thakur and another

2

, Ran Vijay Singh and others

v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others

3

which prohibited

re-valuation. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:

“24) From the judgments referred to above, it is very clear

that the request of the Petitioner for re-valuation of answer

sheet cannot be considered, more so, having regard to the

fact that the Notification itself prohibits re-evaluation or

recounting. Further, it is not a case falling under exceptional

circumstances warranting re-valuation. As stated earlier, the

main plea of the Petitioner was on technicalities, namely,

whether the answer paper requires to be processed by

Examiner-II also, which has been answered in paras 13 to

15 of this judgment.

25) Viewed from any angle, we see no merit in the Writ

Petition No. 19420 of 2020 and the same is liable to be

dismissed.”

22. Though the said judgment was confirmed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, the APPSC made a mockery of the adjudication

by constitutional courts, Rule 3 (ix) of the Rules and the

1

(2004) 6 SCC 714

2

(2010) 6 SCC 759

3

(2018) 2 SCC 357

14

notification itself prohibiting re-valuation, by constituting an expert

committee after expert committee.

23. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that revaluation

is permissible in exceptional cases, the three (3) member

committee which was constituted for the first time had examined

the answer sheet of the Petitioner and awarded approximately 80

marks. There was no possibility of revaluation for the third time,

yet the APPSC acting as though they are not bound by law, again

constituted a two (2) member committee, which awarded 119-123

marks. There is no satisfactory answer from the APPSC as to the

requirement of constituting a two (2) member committee for

re-evaluating the Paper-IV of the Petitioner for the third time.

24. It is quite apparent that the constitution of two (2) member

committee to re-evaluate the Paper-IV of the Petitioner for the

third time appears to be customised with an intent to bring the

Petitioner within the zone of consideration for appointment. The

communication from APPSC to the Government and this round of

litigation projecting injustice to the Petitioner etc., is based only on

the marks awarded in the third evaluation, and the marks

awarded by the (03) member expert committee were conveniently

15

suppressed.

25. Therefore, this Court does not find any flaw in the

impugned orders and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed

with costs of Rupees Fifty thousand (Rs.50,000/-) payable to the

Chief Justice Relief Fund by the Petitioner. The costs shall be

paid within a period of (04) weeks from date of receipt of the

order copy.

26. Registry is directed to return the original papers in the writ

petition to APPSC in a sealed cover.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

this Petition shall stand closed.

__________________

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Date: 08.05.2026

KLP