P. Sravan Kumar v. State Of Telangana

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8345 of 2018 O R D E R :

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent issued notification No.14/2017, dated 29.08.2017 for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Physical Science under 2nd respondent institution. Petitioner applied for the said post and has taken written examination for Paper I and Paper II with paper code 81421 and 81422 under Series A. Thereafter, on 17.11.2017, final key was published for both the papers. On noticing mistakes in the said key, petitioner made representation to the 3rd respondent on 20.11.2017 with the proposed answers and was hoping some corrections to be made by the 3rd respondent to the final key. But, the 3rd respondent without considering the representation of the petitioner and without making corrections to the final key, published the results on 28.11.

2017 and again second spell of results on 24.02.2018. But, no merit list is published till date. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not revaluating the same with correct answers by considering the representation of the petitioner, and not publishing the merit list, present writ petition is filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that provisional key was

published on 09.09.2017 calling for objections from 10.09.2017 to 14.09.2017. As no objections were received, final key was published on 17.11.2017. Petitioner made objections on 20.11.2017 after final key is published. He also submits that results were announced on 28.11.2017 and again second spell on 24.02.2018. Since petitioner has not filed objections within the stipulated time, the respondents cannot be faulted. He also submits that the entire selection process was stayed and relied on the Judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Salil Maheshwari v. The High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 4976/2014, C.M.Nos.9954/2014 & 9955/2014.

In this case it is to be seen that the notification issued does not provide procedure regarding submission of objections for provisional key, making known to the candidates to file objections. Learned Standing counsel also states that expert committee was constituted and objections were looked into and final key was published. It is to be seen that when petitioner specifically by referring to standard textbooks challenges the final key, the respondent could have considered the objections before announcing the fist spell of final results on 28.11.2017. In the Judgment relied on by the learned standing counsel in Salil Maheshwari's case rendered by the Delhi High Court, objections were filed after results were declared. In the present case, objections were submitted before announcement of first spell final results i.e. on 28.11.2017. In view of the facts and

circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.11.2017 and take action accordingly within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, one post may be reserved in the category of BC-D. Learned Standing Counsel produced written instructions wherein at Para-7 it is stated that after declaring the final results, the marks of the selected candidates will be displayed on the Commission's Web site. Recording the same, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. _____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 27.03.2018 tk