Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Saturday cancelled the Group-1 preliminary examination conducted by TS Public Service Commission (TSPSC) on June 11. It cited several lapses like the biometrics of candidates not being obtained and OMR sheet issued without the hall ticket number and photograph of the candidates.
This is the second time that the Group 1 preliminary exam has been cancelled with the first one being the test held on October 16 last year, which was cancelled after the question paper was leaked.
Justice P. Madhavi Devi, who passed the orders, directed TSPSC to re-conduct the examination by implementing all the general instructions issued in the notification, including biometric, without any exception.
The judge was dealing with a petition filed by some Group-1 candidates, seeking cancellation of the exam as the instructions as specified in the notification were bypassed. They apprehended that the commission had given scope for malpractices like impersonation.
Agreeing with their contentions, the judge expressed displeasure at the careless attitude of TSPSC in the conduct of the test and their lackadaisical approach when it came to filing counters in the High Court about the number of candidates who had appeared.
The web note of TSPSC dated June 28 mentioned the number as 2,33,506 as against the earlier report of 2,33,248. . In its counter-affidavit on July 12, the TSPSC put the number at 2,33,248.
Justice Madhavi Devi observed “This court would be failing in its duty, if it does not express its displeasure about the way the TSPSC has filed the counter affidavit without verifying details of those who had written the examination”.
Petitioners point to lapses galore
It was mandatory to record the photograph /thumb impression of all candidates on a biometric system. It was done in the first exam on October 16 last but not in the re-test on June 11.
TSPSC had to verify every candidate’s identity. In the hall ticket, the instruction was done away with. The hall tickets had a monogram of the thumb impression of the candidates.
OMR sheets issued did not contain the photograph of the candidate and the hall ticket number; OMR sheets Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board did have both
In certain centres, the signature of only one invigilator is available when signatures of both are mandatory.
Signatures of candidates did not tally with their signatures on the hall tickets. Petitioner cite the case of K. Nandini/Y. Nandini, say her signature on OMR sheet and hall ticket did not match. It was the same with the signature of another candidate, Bharath Naroju.
Invigilators did not take signatures of each candidate after verifying the photograph.
TSPSC says fraudsters will be caught in Main
All necessary steps taken to conduct the examination in a free, fair and transparent manner, prevent impersonation.
In the case of K. Nandini/Y. Nandini, candidate changed her maiden name after her marriage.
Petitioners have not made any allegation of any impersonation, only highlighted non-compliance with certain instructions, such as taking the biometrics of the candidates.
Non-compliance of only one instruction cannot invalidate the examination.
Will follow all directions in the forthcoming examination, if so advised.
Even if certain candidates get through due to alleged deficiencies/laxities, they would have to face the Main.
What the High Court ordered
Though there is no specific allegation of such an act of impersonation or malpractice by any person, it is contended that the lapses gave an opportunity for impersonation.
Deficiencies were pointed out in the case of some candidates, the details of which have been furnished by the TSPSC, that demonstrate laxity. Slight differences in the signatures of one or two candidates not detected at the time of the examination.
Instructions are mandatory and must be complied with strictly.
Commission was entitled to change instructions but it must do so after issuing addendum, as was done in the case of Group IV examination.
Justice Madhavi Devi said TSPSC argument that fraudulent candidates would have to face the Main exam was acceptable because no all successful candidates will be allowed to go through. Students are selected in the ratio of 1:50 in the order of merit in the prelims. This may result in some meritorious candidates being excluded from the Main.
