The statement that the regulation on a single judge that directs to re -evaluate the response scripts to the Group I main exam was the wrong and full findings that were perverted in terms of the law stipulated by the Supreme Court.
The Commission stated in the appeal against a document that would soon be heard that the order of a single judge was contrary to the law and did not consider themselves detailed filing. Even the final instructions of the Order were mutually contradictory, another secretary of TGPSC R. Sumati, said the petitioner. The judge stated that the judge said that otherwise the judge was directed to cancel the main examination of Group I, and the judge directed that the authorities had reviewed the Commission.
The Commission claimed that the re -evaluation could not be carried out because there was no rule for providing such relief according to earlier judgments of the Top Court. Rule 3 (IX) (D) TGPSC explained that “re -evaluation of responses to the sheets must not be entertained in any circumstances”. The Commission stated that the judge stated that the order for individual judges was based on the conjecture and conjecture and no evidence was supported, stating that the judge came to the wrong conclusion that the alleged inconsistency in the number of candidates appearing for the main test proved to be fatal.
The Commission stated that the petitioners who were looking for the abolition of the exam resorted to the production of the Memorandum of one candidate Bommo Poovajovajej Reddy. The HC was rejected by a written petition with a similar claim (12431/2025) through the order expressed on April 25. These petitioners filed an appeal against this order.
The petitioner stated that the Reddy was not a written petition in which the only judge adopted an order to re -evaluate the response scripts. The judge wanted the petitioners to introduce her into the lawsuit, but did not do so. Instead, they organized it as one of the petitioners. The judge did not take into account his affidavit that she had no complaint against the commission. In this background, the observation of the only judge was that the accusations of the brand’s production were slanderous, “in fact perverted”, the petitioner said.
Published – September 2025 20:33
