G.Upender Reddy, v. The State Of Telangana, Rep.By Its Principal Secretary,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.Nos.28670 & 31419 of 2018 COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard and disposed of together by way of common order.

Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

Pursuant to the notification dated 21.10.2017 issued by 2nd respondent-Telangana State Public Service Commission, the petitioners have appeared for the written examination for the post of Physical Education Teacher in Telugu Medium. Their grievance is that in Telugu Medium question paper, the answers attempted by the petitioners are correct, but, however, the respondents have not taken those answers into account and published the final key based on the English Medium paper and thereby, they have lost the valuable right of securing marks in spite of answering the said questions correctly.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that appropriate direction be given to the respondents to refer the disputed questions to the Expert Committee so as to enable the Expert Committee to pass orders by duly taking into consideration the objections of the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents contended that the preliminary key was published on 20-05-2018 giving time to the candidates to file their objections and that objections were received and those objections were referred to the Expert Committee. It is further contended that based on the report of the Expert Committee, final key was published on 27.07.2018 after consultation with the experts. Minute care was taken for publishing the final key correctly and that no illegality has been committed by the respondents.

The petitioners are relying on some text books to strengthen their case that the answers written by them are correct and final key published by the respondents is incorrect. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the report of the Expert Committee to contend that the final key published by the respondents is correct. In view of the same, it is difficult for this Court to adjudicate the matter since this Court has no expertise

knowledge to deal with the disputed questions. When both parties are relying on certain documents to prove their case, it would be appropriate to refer the matter once again to the Expert Committee consisting of academicians to re-examine the disputed questions by looking into the material placed before this Court and prepare a revised final key and if there is any change in the final key, it should be extended to the candidates who have participated in the said selections. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to refer the disputed questions numbering 9, out of which 4 are incorrect keys and 5 are deleted, to Expert Committee consisting of academicians, for further examination, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Thereafter, the Expert Committee after considering the objections of the petitioners shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. Based on the report of the Expert Committee, final key has to be published by the respondents and if there is any change in the final key, after consultation with the Expert Committee, the said benefit has to be extended to the candidates, who have appeared in the examination, including the petitioners herein. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 1st August, 2019 rkk