Latest news with #Group-IMains
The Hindu
11-05-2025
- The Hindu
Unqualified persons evaluated APPSC Group-I Mains answer sheets, allege police
The NTR Commissionerate police investigating the alleged job scam in the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) have said that unqualified persons evaluated the answer sheets of the Group-I Mains examinations. Following the directions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to set aside the digital evaluation process and take up manual evaluation, then APPSC Secretary and IPS officer P. Sitarama Anjaneyulu had allegedly entrusted the task to Camsign Media Private Limited, a private agency, in December 2021. The firm's director, P. Madhusudhana Rao, had engaged about 66 persons, many of whom were not qualified, for the purpose, the police allege. 'Those who evaluated the answer sheets included private school teachers, lecturers, data entry operators and clerks. They had also signed on the answer sheets as examiners and scrutinisers,' an investigation officer alleged. The evaluation process had been carried out at the Haailand Resorts in Guntur district for three months, violating the APPSC rules, alleged Assistant Commissioner of Police A.B.G. Tilak, who is investigating the case. Mr. Anjaneyulu had allegedly went ahead with the process despite several officers making it clear to him that evaluation of the answer sheets at a private place by private persons was against rules, and that it should be entrusted to professors and assistant professors working in the government-run colleges / universities. No surveillance cameras had been arranged at the evaluation camp, and the government paid ₹1.14 crore to the private agency for conducting the manual evaluation, the ACP said. Following a complaint on the filling of 169 posts in the Group-I services, the Suryaraopet police under the NTR Commissionerate registered a case under IPC Sections 409 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 477-A (Falsification of Accounts), 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) and 420 (Cheating). The police had so far questioned 21 witnesses in the case and arrested Mr. Sitarama Anjaneyulu and Mr. Madhusudhana Rao.
New Indian Express
29-04-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
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.
