Telangana HC quashes plea against Group-I results
HYDERABAD: Justice Nagesh Bheempaka of the Telangana High Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by K Muthaiah and 18 others challenging the evaluation and result publication process of the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) Group-I Mains Examination, 2024. The court also imposed costs of Rs 20,000 on the petitioners, payable to the court masters and personal secretaries to the judges association.
The court further directed the Registrar (Judicial) to initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioners for allegedly submitting false statements under oath in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ affidavit.
The petitioners had sought a declaration that the evaluation process of the Group-I Mains, conducted from October 21–27, 2024, was arbitrary, biased, opaque, and procedurally flawed, alleging violations of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. They requested the court to order a fair and transparent re-evaluation of the answer scripts.
However, Standing Counsel for the TGPSC raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petitioners had relied on fabricated documents. It was highlighted that the memorandum of marks presented by the petitioners contained discrepancies, including redacted information and inflated scores. For instance, the memorandum claimed a candidate had secured 329.5 marks, including 122 marks in Paper 7, despite the official website indicating that the highest score in that paper was 100.
Further scrutiny revealed that the candidate cited by the petitioners was neither a petitioner nor had independently raised any grievance regarding his marks before the TGPSC or the court. The Standing Counsel argued that had a substantial irregularity occurred, the candidate concerned would have pursued redress.
Justice Bheempaka, concurring with the submissions, observed that the document in question appeared to be fabricated and that the petitioners had misled the court. However, he emphasised that the issue of fabrication would be conclusively determined following an appropriate inquiry.
In view of the misconduct, the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition.
It also accepted Standing Counsel's request to initiate prosecutorial action against the petitioners for abusing the judicial process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Accountant of 5-star hotel chain near Gujarat's Statue of Unity booked for embezzling hotel money
The Gujarat Police on Saturday booked the accountant of a five-star hotel located near the Statue of Unity in Ekta Nagar in Narmada district for allegedly embezzling Rs 51.34 lakh. According to the manager of the Ramada hotel, the accused, Ravikiran Tiwari, allegedly diverted funds into his accounts instead of depositing them in the account of the hotel, following the collection of cash during the contentious financial years. The First Information Report stated that the accused had informed the complainant, Manojkumar Maharaj, the manager of two properties of Ramada chain of hotels in Ekta Nagar, that Rs 51.34 lakh were not reflected in the balance sheets of the hotels for the year 2023-24 as the 'online tag' was pending and would be done shortly. However, the complainant approached the police when the amount was not reflected in the accounts or the balance sheets of the following year, 2024-25. The FIR states, 'During the audit of the balance sheet of the year 2023-24, it came to light that the annual turnover for the financial year was reported as Rs 2.17 crore. However, there was a discrepancy of an amount of Rs 46.74 lakh at Ramada and Rs 4.6 lakh at Hotel Comfort. When we questioned Tiwari, he said that the amount did not reflect due to a pending online tag and would show up in the total soon. However, on May 22, when the balance sheet of the following year (2024-25) was audited, the amount from the previous year did not reflect…' The FIR further states that when the complainant tried to seek an explanation from Tiwari, he refused to take responsibility, allegedly stating that he had already quit the post of accountant. The complainant has said that on checking the accounts registers, it was found that Tiwari had allegedly signed to show that the money had been transferred but the amount was 'never deposited in the bank accounts of the two hotels'. The Kevadia police have booked Tiwari under Indian Penal Code Sections for criminal breach of trust.
New Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Gujarat Information Commission demands end to CID's RTI exemption in cyber fraud cases
AHMEDABAD: In a game-changing decision, the Gujarat State Information Commission has slammed the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) (Crime) for hiding behind a 19-year-old RTI exemption to deny critical information to cyber fraud victims. The Commission has now recommended the state government revoke the special immunity granted to CID Crime regarding cyber fraud cases—delivering a major win for transparency and the rights of hundreds of duped citizens. The exemption, in effect since October 25, 2005, under a Home Department notification, placed CID Crime beyond the purview of the Right to Information Act for crime-related investigations. However, the recent judgment has pierced this shield in the context of cybercrime, which the Commission argued is no longer a conventional 'sensitive crime' but a rapidly escalating public menace impacting citizens daily. The ruling stemmed from a plea by Rakesh Kumar Prajapati, a Gandhinagar resident who lost Rs 4.5 lakh to cyber fraud. After filing a complaint with the Cyber Crime Cell, Prajapati sought the FIR copy and related documents under the RTI Act. CID Crime rejected his request, citing the 2005 exemption. Unwilling to accept silence in the face of theft, Prajapati took the matter to the State Information Commission.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
RBI's T Rabi Sankar appointed part-time member of 16th Finance Commission
T Rabi Sankar, Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), has been appointed as a part-time Member of the Sixteenth Finance Commission on Saturday. The appointment of Sankar is consequent to the resignation of one of the full-time Members of the XVIFC, Ajay Narayan Jha, on personal grounds. The Department of Economic Affairs of the Finance Ministry in a notification said, "In pursuance of clause (1) of article 280 of the Constitution read with the provisions of the Finance Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951 (33 of 1951), the President is pleased to appoint T Rabi Sankar as a part-time Member of the Sixteenth Finance Commission." He will be a part-time Member of the Sixteenth Finance Commission from the date of appointment to the date the Commission submits its report or 31 October 2025, whichever is earlier. Sankar is currently overseeing the key portfolios of the FinTech Department, the Financial Markets Operations Department, and the Financial Markets Regulation Department at the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Sankar has played a pivotal role in the launch of the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). In April, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) approved T. Rabi Sankar's reappointment as Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for one year. Sankar was Executive Director of the Reserve Bank before being elevated to the post of Deputy Governor in 2021. T. Rabi Sankar, a seasoned central banker, joined the Bank in 1990 and has held various positions at the Reserve Bank of India. As Executive Director, he oversaw the Department of Payment and Settlement Systems, the Department of Information Technology, Fintech, and the Risk Monitoring Department at the RBI. The government appointed Arvind Panagariya as the Chairman of the 16th Finance Commission in 2023. The commission makes recommendations about the distribution of the net proceeds of taxes between the Union and the States. The Finance Commission is constituted by the President under article 280 of the Constitution, mainly to give its recommendations on the distribution of tax revenues between the Union and the States and amongst the States themselves. Two distinctive features of the Commission's work involve redressing the vertical imbalances between the taxation powers and expenditure responsibilities of the centre and the States, respectively, and equalisation of all public services across the States.
