HC dismissed petitions challenging GO in Group I Mains Examination

Hyderabad

The Telangana High Court, on Thursday, dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity and constitutionality of GO Ms. No. 29 relating to the modality of selection of candidates for Group I Mains Examinations.

Delivering the judgement, a bench of Justices Sujay Paul and G Radha Rani also dismissed the contentions challenging the issuance of a new notification to conduct the Group 1 examination in 2024, superseding the old one issued in 2022.

The state government issued GO 29 on February 8 this year amending GO 55 issued by the BRS government in 2002. GO 55 states that the number of candidates to be admitted for Group I Mains will be 50 times the total number of vacancies in each multi-sector following the rules of reservation for community and gender.

GO 29 said that in case of any deficiency in respect of candidates in reserved categories steps should be taken to include candidates from the merit list in excess of 1:50 ratio.

The bench observed that at one stage of the litigation, writ petitions were already filed seeking restoration of the notification of Group I examination issued in 2022. These petitions were dismissed by a single judge of the High Court. The division bench upheld the order of the single judge. The Supreme Court also dismissed the special leave petition challenging the order of the Division Bench. In this background, the fresh batch of petitions cannot be entertained, the bench said.

It did not agree with the arguments of the lawyers for the petitioners that the TGPSC should seek clarification or direction from the HC if it wants to make fresh selections or whether the TGPSC should add an addendum to the 2024 notification. “It is significant that if a relief is claimed and not granted by the court, it is deemed to have been waived,” the bench said.

The petitions in the earlier phase of the case were heard on August 2 and 13 before the bench of the single judge. The present writ petitions were filed much later. A challenge to the same selection process in the previous round failed on grounds of delay.

“It is not possible to persuade us for the next round of litigation as the petitions filed in the previous round were not heard on the ground of delay,” the bench added.