Relief for 563 candidates as Telangana HC upholds TGPSC Group-1 exam results

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court delivered a significant verdict on Thursday in a matter concerning the Telangana Public Service Commission Group-1 examination results.

The verdict brings relief to both the commission and 563 selected candidates whose appointments had been thrown into uncertainty following an earlier judicial intervention.

What was the verdict about?

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Ghouse Meera Mohiuddin set aside the order dated September 9, 2025, passed by Justice N Rajeshwar Rao formally admitting the writ appeals filed by the Telangana Public Service Commission.

This decision effectively validates the examination process and the selection of candidates who had successfully cleared the Group-1 examinations.

What is the case about?

The controversy originated when Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, while hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates seeking cancellation of the Group-1 examination, had passed orders on September 9, 2025, setting aside the final marks list dated March 10, 2025, and the general ranking list dated March 30, 2025.

The High Court Single Judge had directed the commission to re-evaluate all answer scripts of the Group-1 main examinations by manually applying the moderation method in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment of Sanjay Singh and another versus State of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission.

The commission had been further directed to announce fresh results based on such re-evaluation and take steps to fill up the 563 posts accordingly.

The TGPSC challenged this order by filing writ appeals before the Division Bench, which heard the matter and delivered its judgment on Thursday, setting aside the single judge’s directions. This development marks a crucial turning point in the legal battle that has kept the fate of hundreds of candidates hanging in the balance for several months.

Candidates challenged the interim order

Earlier, on September 24, 2025, the Chief Justice Bench had passed an interim order directing the commission to issue appointment orders to all 563 Group-1 candidates, though it had categorically observed that such appointments would remain subject to the outcome of the writ appeals.

That interim relief had provided temporary respite to the selected candidates who had been facing an uncertain future regarding their career prospects in public service.

Following the interim orders passed on September 24, the unsuccessful candidates had approached the Supreme Court of India with a plea challenging the interim order and seeking to have their case heard by the apex court.

However, the Supreme Court declined to entertain their plea and instead remanded the batch of cases back to the Telangana High Court with a specific request to the Chief Justice Bench to prioritise the hearing of the writ appeals.

This direction from the Supreme Court paved the way for the expedited hearing that culminated in Thursday’s final order.

The final order passed by the Chief Justice Bench on Thursday sets aside the single judge's order in its entirety, thereby granting comprehensive relief to both the 563 selected candidates and the TGPSC.

The verdict validates the original evaluation process, the final marks list, and the general ranking list that had been challenged by the unsuccessful candidates.

The selected candidates can now proceed with their appointments without the cloud of judicial uncertainty that had been hovering over their selection since September.

This case highlights the complex interplay between judicial oversight of administrative processes and the need for finality in public service recruitment.

The matter had attracted considerable attention, given that it affected not only the immediate prospects of over 500 selected candidates but also raised broader questions about evaluation methodologies, the application of moderation in competitive examinations and the circumstances under which courts should intervene in the technical processes of public service commissions.