High Court for State of TelanganaWA/18/2025allowed no costs

Bumbathula Sravan Kumar v. Telangana Public Service Commission

2025-12-31Aparesh Kumar Singh,G.M. Mohiuddin40 pages

This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.

[ 3488 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF

AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT APARESH KUMAR SINGH THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE G.M. MOHIU AND 1 70F N :18 7 W oF 20 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order daled 20t12t2024 in W.P.No' 28639 of 2024 on the file of the High Court' Between:

H.T.No.231 1701902 '[fl i?:'elr';g:'h,3"1J1x,n""'U:'"'-E]:Sff 'a,tfq::.:f"e,1,31!?n''f i; colonv. Sheela Nagar, viin"iipi'"irn-ssooiz H r'ruo 2311701291

4. Kanadaka sportcus, s/;l?il;ili;'nL*lno"'' Agerl about 30 vears occ'AE sccl. R/o. 1 1 .No.485..,ffiijffi ;'c-niu"iii M-indal, Medchal Malkaigiri5oooaa H.T.No.231 1 802487

5. peram Sri Nikitha, oL-."',p"r* Roshaiah Aged about 26 years Occ. unemoloved, R/o.H.No:r840t-'suno-rral t'taga7' Miryalaguda' Nalgondasoazfi ti.t. ttto.zgt t zoogo t ...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 6,8,10,12,13 lN WP'No'28639 OF 2024 AND

1. Telanqana Public Service Commission' Rep by its Secretary ' i;;IhiBfr;Eiirin, u I friaO nimpattv' Hvaerauaa - 500001 z. iil?'SiiiEti r"rlhgr"i, "#p bi iiSFii"ic'riat Secreta.ry to Government ' ffi ""4'Airninittt"iion'

b"p5rtfi ent' secrbtariat' Hvderabad'

3. rhe State ot tetansanalf$;i''id"P1q;iili slt'eiav to Government - Transport Department' secretariat' HyoeraDao

4. Commissioner ot rransiii'i;;;;i6'i D"partment Khairtabad Hvderabad

5. osmania Generat H".it;il RLI';V iG "dr;inienii.nt,etiat Gunj, Hvderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lN WP'No'28639 OF 2024

6. Khethava,:h Roja, D/o. K LaluNaik, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Senior Section hngineer. n Southern _Rgilwgys, R/o. H. No.462 Rallbvaguthanda, Damaracharla Mandal Kondrbpol, Nalgonda-50g355, H. No.- 2i1 1700547.

7. Aredla Marhidhar Reddy, _S/o. A.G-op-al-Reddy, Aged ibout 28 years, Occ. !.lqeTptoyq{, g/o. HXo.51i23+lZ,'snanitrin'agaicotony, wirgi,nOalSOAOOr, H.T. No. 2311700170

8. K Srinidhi. S/o. K Narendar Reddy, Aged about 24 years, Occ. Unemploved, R/o Flat No.401 , Sri Lalitha Homds, PIot No.06, Rciad No.04, phasel2-[ lastinapuram, East Hyderabad, H.T. No - 231 17 00362.

9. Mittapally Srinivas, Sio.Pentaiah, Aqed about 29vears. Occ. Unemoloved R/o.H.No 125, Scetharampally, Siddipet, Telangana -502107, H.T 'No' 23117004?_7.

10.Thari Jessica Flourancer D/o. T Babu Rao, Aged about 31 years, Occ. P.anchayath Secretary, R/o. H.No. 71232Ch;ltanya Nagar, Road no.7 Miryalaguda, Natgonda District- SOA207 . H.T. No. j n1 1i OOZ12 'l'1 Sindhu Te, ovqth, D/o.NanduTejovath, Aged about 27years, Occ.Unemploved R/o.H.No.t|415/90, Sapthagiri Colony, Miyapur, Hydeiabad, nangin-edEy'_--' 500049 H. r.No. - 2311701i57

12. Billam Tej:r Rao, S/o.Billam Surender Rao. Aqed about 31 vears. Occ. Iran^sp9f-'j9l's!able, R/o .H. No.S 11S1t2llfl?riyadarshiniiagar'Nirmal, H.T No- 231 18,12059

13. Bavandla Saikumar, S/o. BavandlaAnjaneyulu, Aged about 2g years, Occ. plgmploy_e!. L/o.H..No.-.111-3, Gqqqp'pe! Virrage 5no Mandat, l,iargoiai-- District, - 508253, H.T. No.- 231170d445

14. Sravya Thirllapall.y, Q/9,.T R_{-e9!a1 Goud, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Forest Section Oflicer, R/o. H.No. 42605, Backside R-enukayellamrira Tehpb. 9t 3.n"S^q,, Allwy-n colony, phase -1, Jagathgiruguttd, Hyderabad -50-OOSZ H T.No. 2311802661 ...RESPONDENTS/PET|T|ONERS tN Wp.No.28639 OF 2024

15. P. chandarr, s/o. P.Ravinder Aged about 32 vears, occ. chief Deoot Materiar Supdt ln SO_Railways, R/o. 11.No. 3S3SlN1i13, Siranthinagar, SiisittJ,- - - Karimnagar-505301

16. B. Navitha, D/o B Mangilal Aged about 30 years, Occ .Sub lnsoector of police R/o.H.No 12161{1F12, Krqpadeep Apartmi:nts, South Kamala'Nagar, ECU, X Roads, Hyderabad-500062 (i9. ner C.O dated 20.12.2024 vide tA.No.13 ot 2O24 Respondents is withdrawn)

17. Badavath Mounika, D/o. Badavath Venkanna Aqed about 30 vears. Occ..Unemployed R/oH. No.4 1 37, poosala Thanlda, Edjerla M'aripeta, Mahboobabad-506315

18. Pogaku Sravanthi. D/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ. $ovegryg3!ffployee, R/o. Burgupaily Koilkonda, Mahabubnagar District, H. No.- 23117Cr0966, GRt. Rank 627, EWS.

Note - (Respondents No.15 Writ to 18 formal parties as th ey were ndents in the main Writ r) Petition but are not prosecuting the ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lN WP.No.28639 OF 2024

J Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Learned Single Judge in writ Petition No. 28639 of 2024 order daled 20.12.2024 so as to enable the official Respondents to finalize the selection in so far as the Appellants are concerned' lA NO: 3 TIVF, Between:

1. Khethavath Roja, D/o. K LaluNaik, Aged about_29.years, occ..Senior Section rnoineei in soirtnern Railwavs, R/o. F{. No.462 Rallavaquthanda' -D;Xil;;;#rHtvffiii;i ii""at',,-ri,jt, uiigonoa-soasss, ti. r'lg', 231na9547 '

2. AAAa G[ionai neooy, S/o. A Goqal-Reddv, Aged about2S years,-occ . - ij;;rip6;ei, nlo. H.r.t6.st't23412,'shanthin'agaicolonv, Nalgonda-508001' H.T. No.2311700170 s. K Siinldhi,-Slo. f Naienoar Reddy, Aged abot!\2! yegp, O^c9 Unemployed, R/o.Flat No.401, Sri Lalitha Homes, Plot No. 0Q, fl-oad No' 04' phase-z' I lastinaouram. East Hvderabad, H.T.No - 231 17 00362.

4. Mitiiltry Sriirlvli, Slo.pentaidh, Aged about 29vears, Qqq-ULegqloved' ii7;Ii.N6.12s, scdtnarampally, siddipet, Telangana -502107, H T' No 2311700427.

S. itraii .tessica Flourance, D/o. T Babu Rao, Aged about 31 y-ears. Occ' Panchavath Secretarv. R/o. H.No. 71232 Chailanya Nagar, Road no' / rr,rlrvafariuaa ttaloonda District- 508207, H.T. No.- 2311700292 o. Siiriir"riiorjtiioio.ttintuieiovath, Aged about 27vears, occ Unemploved, R/o.H.No.841 5/90, Sapthagiri Colony, Miyapur, Hyderabad' KangaKeooy - 500049 H.T.No. - 2311701757 z eiilam Teij Rao. Slo.aittam Surender Rao, Aged about 31 years,.occ . . . - Transpor[ Constable, R/o .H. No.S 11511251t1Priyadarshininagar Nrrmal, H. I . No- 231 1802059 a. ijarinari $a-iiumar, S/o. BavandlaAnjaneyulu, Aged about 29-years' occ' Unemployed, R/o.H.No.-1 113, GqtlqpP.q! Village and Mandal' Nalgonqa Districi, - soazss, H.T. No.- 2311700445 s [r;vi'rhalr"pairv, olo. T.Raiesham Goud, Aged about 29 years, Occ' Forest Sectibn Officer, R7o. H.No. 42605, Backside Renukayellamma. Ie.mPle.l^^- Shivanagar,Allwyncolony,phase-l,Jagathgirugutta'Hyderabao-cuuuJir H.T.No. 2311802661.

...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS lN WP'No'28639 OF 2024 AND irbout 25 years, Occ.

Office, aili viil Vemp

1. Bumbathula Sravan Kumar, S/o. Kishan, Aged age, I H.T.No.231 11.No. 372 Near ancherial District, T Unemployed, R/o.

Haiipur Mandal, M Aloori Rajashekar, 18004 28 years, Occ.UnemPloYed, S/o. A l3hadraiah, R/o.11.No.120, H T.No.2311701902 2.

RangareddY-509321 Vitayipally,

3. Kitha Janaki Ramulu, S/o. Naleshwar Rao, Aged about 35 years,Occ. 13111.1. Employee, R/o. Flat.Nb. 52 SSS Ram Alca{q, Venkateshwar Colony, Sheela Nagar, Vishakaptnam-s3001 2 H.T.No.231't 701 291 a. Kanafdka Sportcui, S/o. Kanairaka Alexander, Aged.abog! 3p.ve.a1q 9"q.4F SCCL, R/o.i1.t,to.+bs. Annojijuda, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri500088 H.T No 2311802487

5. Peram Sri Nikitha, D/o. Peram Roshaiah Aged about 26 years Occ. Unemployed, R/o.H.No.28406 Sundhar Nagar, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda508207 H T No.231'1700901 RESpolibEEN?3or$'*Tl:1i&"5!'llJil

6. P. Chand;an, S/o. P.Ravinder Aged about 32 years, Occ. Chief Depot Material Supdt. ln SC Railways, R/o. 11.No.35351A11113, Shanthinagar, Sirsilla, Karimnagar-505301

7. B. Navith-a, D/o B Mangilal Aged about 30 years, Occ .Sub lnspector of Police R/o. H. No. 1 7 1 6 1 I 1 F 1 2,- kupadeep Apartments, South Kamala Nagar, ECU' X Roads, Hyderabad-500062

8. Badavath Mounika, D/o. Badavath Venkanna Aged about 30 years, Occ.Unenrployed R/o.H.No.4137, Poosala Thanda, Edjerla Maripeda, Mahboobabad-50631 5

9. Pogaku Sravanthi, D/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ. _ . Governmr:nt Employee, R/o. Burgupally Koilkonda, Mahabubnagar District, H. No.- 2311700966. GRl. Rank 627, EWS.

18 formal parties as they were tion but are not prosecuting the Writ Note Respondents ndents No.15 to -rl Appeal) the main Writ ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lN WP.No.28639 OF 2024 l0.Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep byits SegleJ?ry Prathibhallhavan, M J Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001 1 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government General Administralion Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 12.The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 1 3. Commissi cner of Transport Transport Department, Khairtaba4, Hyderabad

14. Osmania General Hospital, Rep by its Superintendent, Afial Gunj, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS lN WP.No.28639 OF 2024 Petition urrder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interirn order dated 06.01.2025 in W.A.No.18 of 2025 and also dismiss the writ appeal u'ith exemplary costs.

) counsel for the Appellants: SRI GoDA slVA, sENloR CoUNSEL FoR SRI B. ARJUN Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 TO 14: SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l5 TO 18: - W.A.NO:74OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against The Order Dated 20t1212024 in W.P.No.2863912024 on the file of the High Court. Aged 29 years, Occ Government , fulahabubnagar District, HT No Pogaku Sravanthi, D/o. Ranga Reddy, Employee, R/o. Burgupally, Koilkonda 2311700966, GRL Rank 627 EWS .APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.1 4 AND 2.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

6. Khethavath Roja, D/o K LaluNaik, Aged about 29 years, Occ Senior Section Enqineer in Southern Railwavs, R/o. H.No.462 Rallavaguthanda, Dainaracharla Mandal, Kondiapol, Nalgonda 508355 H.T.No 2311700547

7. Aredla Mahidhar Reddy, S/o A Gopal Reddy, Aged about 28 ye.ars--O^cp^ - .. - Unemployed, R/o H.Nd.51 1234/2 Shanthinigaicolony Nalgonda 508001 H.T. No.2311700170

8. K Srinidhi, D/o K Narendar Reddy Aged about 24 years Occ unemployed R/o Flat no 401 Sri Lalitha homes ploi no 06 Road No 04 phase 2 Hastinapuram East Hvderabad, H.T.No.231 1 7 00362

9. Mittapdlry Srinivas, S/o Pentaiah, Aged about 29 years OccupationUnerirplciyed R/o H.No.125 seetharlmpally Siddipet Telangana 502107 HT No 2311700427 10.Thari Jessica Flourance, D/o T Babu Rao Aged about 31 years Occ Panchayath Secretary R/o H.No. 71232 Chaltanya Nagar Road no 7 Miryaladuda Nalgond-a District 508207 H T No 231 1700292 1 1 . Sinilhu lej ovath-, D / o Nandu Tej ovath Aged about 2Tyears Occ. Unemploy6d R/o H No 8415/90 sapthagiri colony Miyapur Hyderabad RanoaReddv 500049 H T No 231 1701757 'l2.BillahTeia Fiao, S/o Billam Surender Rao Aged about 3'l years, Occ-transport constablir Rl o 51 1 51 l25l fl Priyadarshininag-ar Nirmal H T No 23 1 1 802059

13. Bavandla Saikumar, S/o Bavandla Anjaneyulu Aged about 29 years Occ Unemployed R/o H.No.1113 Gattuppdl V dnd M Nalgonda District 508253 H T No 231 1700445

14. Sravya Thallapally, D/o T Rajeshdm Goud Aged about 29 years Occ Forest secti6n officei R/6 H.No.42605 backside Renukayellamma temple Shivanagar Allwyn co ony phase 1 Jagathgirugutta Hyderabad500037 H.T.No. 2311802e,61 ...RESPOOENTS/ WRIT PETITIONERS No.'l TO 9 15.Kitha Jan;rki Ramulu, S/o Nageshwar Rao Aged about 35 years, Occupation BHEL Employee R/o Flat No 52 SSS Ram Arcade Venkateshwar Colony Sheela Nagar Vishakaptnam-53001 2

16. P Chadan, S/o P Ravinder Aged about 32 years Occ Chief Depot Material Supt SC Flailways R/o H No 3535/A/1/B Shanthinagar Sirsilla Karimnagar 505301 (As per C.O. dated 20.12.2024 vide lA 13 ol 2024 Respondent is Withdrawn) lT.Kanapaka Sportcus, S/o Kanapaka AlexanderAged about 30 years OccAE SCCL R/o H.No. 485 Annojiguda Ghatkesar Mandal Medchal Malkajgiri500088

18. B Navitha D/o B Mangilal Aged about 30 years Occ Sublnspector of Police R/o H No 1716111F12 Krupadeep Apartments South Kamala nagar ECIL X Roads HyJerabad 500062 (As per C() dated 20J22024 vide lA 13 of 2024 Respondent is Withdrawn)

19. Peram Sri Nikitha, D/o Peram Roshaiah Aged about 26 years Occ Unemployed R/o H.No.28406 Sundhar Nagar Miryalaguda Nalgonda-508207 20.Badavath Mounika, D/o Badavath Venkanna Aged about 30 years Occ Unmployee R/o H.No.4137 Poosala Thanda Edlerla Maripeda Mahboobabad506315

21. Bumbathula Sravan Kumar, S/o Kishan, Aged about 25, Occ Unemployed R/o H No 372 Near Grampanchayat Office Vempalli Village Hajipur Mandal Mancherial District Telangana 504209

22. Aloori Rajashekar, S/o A Bhadraiah Aged about 28 years Occupation Unemployee R/o H No 120 Vitayipally Amangal Rangareddy-5O9321 ...RESPONDENTS/PROFORMA PARTIES lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to SUSPEND the orders dated 20.12.2024 in WP No.28639 of 2024 with a direction to appoint the petitioner/Appellant in pursuance of section list.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G.VIDYA SAGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAV Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR FAMILY HEALTH & WF Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 TO 14: SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.15 TO 19 & 22: SRI MOHD BASEER RIYAZ Counsel for the Respondent No.20: SRI GODA SIVA, SENIOR COUSEL FOR SRIB.ARJUN W.A.NO: 106 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 2011212024 in WP.No.28639 of 2024. on the file of the High Court. Between:

aged about 27 years, Occ.

iri Colony, Miyapur, Hyderabad, 't70757.

Sindhu Tejovath, D/o. Nandu Tejovath, Unemployee, R/o. H.No.8415/90, Ranga Reddy District-500 049. H.T.

Sapthag No. 231 ...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER No.6 AND

1. Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. Commissioner of Transport, Transport Department, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

5. Osmania General Hospital, Rep. by its Superintendent, AfizalGunj, Hyderabad.

6. Kitha Janaki Ramulu, S/o. Nageshwar Rao, aged about 35 years, Occ. BHEL Employee, R/o. Flat No. 52 SSS Ram Arcade, Venkateshwar Colony, Sheela Nagar, Visakhapatnam-S3O 012. H.T. No. 2311701291 .

7. P. Chandan,, S/o. P. Ravinder, aged about 32 years, Occ. Chief Depot Material Superintendent in S.C. Railways, R/o. H. No. 35351N118, Shanthinagar, Sirsilla, Karimnagar-505 301.

B. Kanapaka Sportcus, S/o. Kanapaka Alexander, aged about 30 years, Occ. AE, SCCL, R/o. H. No. 485, Annojiguda, Ghatkesar Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District-S0O 088. H.T. No. 231 1 802487 .

9. B. Navitha, D/o. B. Mangilal, aged about 30 years, Occ. Sub lnspector of Police, R/o. H.No. 17'161/F12, Krupadeep Apartments, South Kamala Nagar, ECIL'X' Road, Hyderabad-S00 062.

10. Peram Sri Nikitha, D/o. PeramRoshaiah, aged about 26 years, Occ. Unemployed, R/o. H.No. 28406, Sundhar Nagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda-S09 207 . Hall Ticket No. 231 1700901.

11. Badavath Mounika, D/o. Badavath Venkanna, aged about 30 years, Occ. Unemployed, R/o. H. No. 4 1 37, PoosalaThanda, Edjerla Maripeda, Mahaboobabad, Pin. 506 315.

12. Bumbathula Sravan Kumar, S/o. Kishan, aged about 25 years, Occ. Unemployed, R/o. H.No. 372, Near Gram Panchayat Office, Vempally Village,

{i !^ajiggl!t!1$a, Mancheriat District, Tetangana-504 209. HaI Ticket No. 231 1800496.

13.Aloori Raj,eshe*ar, S/o. A. Bhadraiah, aged about 28 years, Occ. ^UlgTptgy_qa, R/9, HNo !!Q,-Vitayipaily, Amangat, R'anga Reddy District_S09 321 . Hall -[icket No. 231170't902.' '

14.Pogaku Savanthi, D/o. Ranga Reddy, aged about 29 years, Occ. Governme:nt Elnployge, l/o, purgypally -Koitkonda, Mihabu'bnagar District. GRL Rant:-627, EWS, H.T. No. 2lt.tz6ogaa.

(The Resprondents No. 7 and t herein are not necessary parties to this Writ Appea!, sirce they were with-drawn as per order of this Hbnourable Court in W.P. No. i28639 ot 2024) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS OF Petition urrder section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3, to reserve one post to the petitioner herein in the category of ST (Woman) ir Multi-Zone-ll, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. :2OF .

a Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent-to conduct re-medical examination to the petitioner herein by an appropriate Medical Board, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appeltant: SRt T.SURYA KARAN REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRIGOURARAM RAJASHEKAR REDDY Respondent No.1: SRt P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC Respondent Nos.2 & 5: Ms. M.SHALINI, Gp FOR SERVICES_il Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR TRANSPORT Respondent No.6 TO 12 & 13: SRI MOHD. BASHEER RtyAZ Respondent No.11: SRI U.SANTOSH KUMAR Respondent No.14: SRt G.

w N i 167 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 20t12r2024 in w.p.No.2 8639 0t 2024 and pass on the fire of the High court. Between Telanqana Public Service Commission (IGPSC)' Rep by its Secretary' M J' i""ii]r'l'irnpJttv,-Hyderabad. Telangana State' .APPELLANT'

DENT No.1 28639oF 2024 lN W.P.No.

AND 1.

Nirmal a iilir"?ar" sai Kumar, s/o Bavandla Anjaneyulu.Aged about 29 vears' occ.Unemploved' R/o H:N;ili13' b;h'plj'iw a-no u 1 Nalgonda Dist- 'ffi 's,l*ltAy;o/i*Ix?%'firs:iJ#{i:iixvlffi i;e",?:5fl l?l' naoar, Allwvn cotony enaleli'liij"tngi;'s't!a' Hyderabad-500037 to the state ot retanganalH;p'b;li" P;ilgip;f Secietary to Govt'' General '" il;in[ir"t,91-o. JpirtmLnt 'se6retariat Hvd"t"b'1t"ry to covt., Transport r r.rti'siii"?Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secre r.ffiiffi ffi $ffiliffi 5s1i1;5gg'eg1,tg;P 5i !-"r" Ntig"i vishakaptnam 5300 1 2 "Befffif i1?#r-'a53,t"rgafl :"il3!::il:??i'1fi :Hifl 3'''fi 3[ii"?,,?io= 500088 ':tffi ugi""1i'y",1;ffi sp:sii6ff Ua:iff il'{f:'sflf;ghsemt rz Eliiiii5inliJsir-r"n k,*"t, s/o Kishan Aged abo H .No. 372, t1"", c,"'ip"1l#''!1iQ1$ V;fattivittase Halipur Mandar Mancherial District Telangana 5u4zuv

l0 lB.Aloori Rajashekar, s/o A Bhadraiah Aged about J81rea11,_o:-qyp:I3l ' " tj'n-"rpl"i." nlo n.- frto . 120, VitayipalTy. Amangal, Rangareddy 50932 1

19. F'Ch;hdin, SlJp navinOei Aged'dbotit SZ ye5rs, Occ. Chief Depot Material '- brp, Sfiiiir*ivs Rio H No aSasnll/B Shdnthinagar Sirsilla Karimnagar 505301 ZO. A-Nivitha, D/o B Mangilal Aged about 30 years 9"". Sub lnspector of Police -- nlo H. f..fi,. f l13;,iiit2 frrp'rO""p npartments South Kamala nagar ECIL X Roads H)derabad 500062 (As per C.O dated .20t12t2024 vide l.A.No.13 of 2024 Respondents 19 and 20 is withdrawn) 2l.Badavath Mounika, D/o Badavath Venkanna Aged abo-t1t 3.0 years occ- - unmorovee R/o H. No.4137, Poosala Thanda Edjerla Maripeda, tvlahboobabad 506315 zz. Fogiru t;t"rrnihi, blo n"nga..Reddv fgqo 3b9ut z9-vS*;-9P,? Government Em"ployee R/o Burgupallyr Koilkonda, t\Iahabubnagar Distrlct H I ' No' 231'1700966, GRL-R ank 627 EWS (Respondent No 21 and Respondent No 22 not necessary parties in this Writ Appeal) ...RES'.

NDENTS/RESPNDNETS lN WP.No.28639 OF 2024 lA NO: 3 OF 2025 petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the orders of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P' No. 2g639 of 2t)24, dated. 20t1212024 pending disposal of the main Writ Appealcounsel for the Appellant: sRl P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TPSC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 9: SRI J'SUDHEER counsel for the Respondent No.10: Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICESJI counset for the Respondent Nos.11 TO 13: GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l4 TO 18: SRI GODA SIVA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.ARJUN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.

The Court made the foltowing: COMMON JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD TT{E HON'BLE THE CHTEF JUS'IICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL Nos.18. 74. 106 and 167 of 2025 Dated: ?'l.IZ.Z0ZS WRIT APPEAL No.18 of 2025 Between:

Burnbathula Sravan Kumar

...Petitioner

and Telangana Pubtic Service Cornrnission, rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001 and 17 others

...Respondents

WRIT APPEAL No.74 of 2025 Between:

Pogaku Sravanthi

...Petitioner

and Telangana Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road, Narnpally, Hyderabad - 500 001 and 21 others

...Respondents

/ /

WRIT APPEAL No.106 of 2025 Between:

Sindhu Tejovath ... Petitioner and Telangana Public Service Cornmission, rep. by its Secretar-v. Prathibha Bhavan, I\{.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad and l3 othcrs ... Respondents WRIT APPEAL No.167 of 2025 Between:

Telangana Public Service Commission(TGPSC), rep. by its Secretary

...Petitioner

and Khethavath Roja, D/o K Lalu Naik, Aged 29 years, Occ: Senior Section Engineer in S outhern Itai lways, R/o H.No. 4 -62, Ral lavaguthanda. Damaracharla Mandal, Kondraprol, Nalgonda - 508355. andZl others ... Respondents COMMON.ITIDGMENT ( resh Kumar Sinsh. CJ):

Mr. Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. B.Arjun, learned counsel for appellants in W.A.No. l8 of 2025. Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for appellant in W.A.No.74 of /,I 2025 and respondentNo.14 in W.A.No.l06 of 2025.

J Mr. T.Surya Karan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Gouraram Ra.iashekar Reddy. learned counsel for appellant in W.A.No.106 of 2025.

Mr. P.S.Rajasekhar, Iearrrcd Standipg Counsel for Telangana Public Service Cornmission appears fbr appellant in W.A.No.167 of 2025 andrespondenrNo.l in w.A.Nos.t8, 74 and 106 of 2025. Mr. J.Sudheer, learned counsel appears fbr respondent Nos.6 to 14 in W.A.Nos.l8 and 74 o1' 2025; rcspondent Nos.l to 9 in W.A.No. t67 of 2025.

Mr. U.Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appears for respondent No.l 1 in W.A.No .106 of 2025.

Ms. M.Shalini, learned Govcrnment Pleader for Services-Il appears for respondent No.2 in W.A.Nos.ltl, 74 and 106 of 2025 and respondent No.l0 in W.A.No-167 of 2025.

All the writ appeals are directed against the order dated 20.12.2024 in W.P.No.28639 of 2024 passcd by the learned writ court' Therefore, all the writ appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this cornmon judgrnentT 3.

(i) writ appeal No.18 of 2025 \.vas filed by the respondent Nos.12, 13,6,8 and 10 in the writ petition No.28639 of 2024'

(ii) Writ appeal No.74 of 2025 was filed by the respondent No. l4 in thc r.r'rit pctition No.28639 of 2024.

(iii) Writ appeal No.l06 of 2025 rvas filed b,,- the pctitioncr No.6 in tlre rvrit petition No.28639 of 2024.

(ir,) Writ appeal No.l67 of 2025 was filed b1'thc Tclan-eatra Public Se:rvice Comrnission/respondent No.l in the r,vrit petition No.28639 of 2024.

Thr: parties are referred as per their status in the rvrit petition 5.

[n response to the Notification No.3ll2022, dated 31.12-2022 issued b1, the Telangana Public Service Commission (hereinalier relerred to as 'the Cornmission') for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle lnspector (AMVI), the writ petitioners have submitted their applications. The petitioners appeared for the written examination on 28.06.2023.'I'he pctitioners appeared for docurnent verification in response to the nol.ice dated 30 05.2024. In response to the notice dated 28.06.2024. the petitioners attended the rnedical examination scheduled fiorn 01.07.2024 to 08.07.11024. The petitioner Nos.l to 5 and 8 appeared or.r 0l .07 .2024, petitioner No.6 appeared on 03.07.2024 and petitioner Nos.7 and 9 appeared on 06.07 .2024 for medical examination. II t

It is the case of the petitioners that on the first day i-e., 01.07 .2024, the medical examination was held in a very casual manner at Osmania General Hospital and the satrle \,vas prol.ested by some of the candidates, including the petitioner Nos.1,3,4,5 and 8 and they sent mails to the Commission on 01.07.12024,02.07.2024, 03.07.2024 and 06.07.2024 objecting the manner in which the rnedical examination was conducted. Subsequently, some changes harre been made in taking physical measurements. However, on the first day, no such procedure was adopted. On 10.10.2024, the Commission has published the provisional selection list, wherein the petitioners were not selected. [t is stated that the petitioner No.

7, who is rvorking as the Transport Constable in Transport Department, which also requires the salne physical measurements as that of AMVI. Similar is the case of the petitioner No.9, who is working as Forest Section Olficer in Forest Department, which also require the salne physical measurements. Thus, it is clear that the respondents have adopted illegal methods to disqualify the meritorious candidates like the petitioners. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that on the first day of medical examination, i.e., It t 01.07.2024, 50 candidates were asked to attend. Among those 50 candidates, 10 are female.

with 1: I ra.tio. However, out of those 6 female candidates, only one candidate rsas finally shown as fit and the remaining flve meritorious fernale can<lidates, inclucling petitioner Nos.l, 3 and 5 rvere shorryn unf-rt. Further. as per para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.147, the chest measurements shall be taken t',rrice. But in the present case, the said procedure was not follorved. ,\s per the said G.O., the Board has to take the physical measurements, whereas in the present case, one single individual has undertaken the procedure. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the rvrit petition wirh the following prayer:

" .. - to call for the records pertaining to notification No.3ll2022 dated 3l.l2-2022 issued for filling up the post of AIUVI and declare the conduct of medical examination as unfair, unt:qual, uneven without standardized procedure that too by random persons without expertise, discriminatory and unt:onstitutlonal besides being violative of the procedure stated un<ler G.O.Ms.No.l47 and consequently direct the l't responde,t to undertake the re-medical by an independent agency/medical borrrd and accordingly undertake the selection process only thereafter and to consider the candidature of the petitioners based on the re-rnedical examination coupled rvith their merit by issuance of writ. order or Direction, more particularly one in tlte nal.ure of Writ of Mandamus and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

Thr; learned writ court framed two issues, which are extracted for the ready t'eference:

"l) Whether the medical examination conducted by I respondent No.5 was undertaken in a legal manller or on the basis of arbitrary procedure?

I 2)Whethertlrere-medicalexaminationsoughtforbythe petitioners is permissible under the law?"

The learned writ court observed that petitioner Nos.l,3, 4,5 and 8, who underwent medical examination on the first day of the schedule i.e., 01.07.2024, have sent e-rnails to the Commission on 01.07.2024, 02.07.2024, 03.07.2024 and 06.07.2024 complaining the irregularities while conducting medical examination i.e., during chest measurements stating that they took measurement without giving sufficient tirne for proper inhalation and exhalation. Further, the women candidates have also raised objections before the Commission and also respondent No.5iBoard members cornplaining that chest expansion for women was conducted in highly arbitrary manner. The writ court further observed that the counter affidavit filed by the Commission is silent on these allegations.

The learned writ court further noted that the petitioner Nos.7 and 9 are working as Government servants and the selection for the posts held by them also requires the very same physical standards, which are prescribed for the recruitment to the post of AMVIs and that the petitioner Nos.7 and 9 qualified in the medical examinations conducted .) in the years 2017 and 2019. The learned writ court expressed as to how they were disqualified in the medical examination conducted for the post of AMVIs in the present recruitment notification. The counter affidavits filed by the Cornmission and also the Board are silent on this aspect. [n

view of the aforcsaid fact situation, the learned writ court came to the conclusion that the rnedical exarnination was not conducted in a proper nlanner in rcspect of petitioner Nos.l to 5, 7, 8 and 9 and as such directed the respondents to undertake the exercise of re-rncdical examinaticn in respect of the petitioner Nos.l to 5, 7, 8 and 9 and consider their candidature for selection to the posts of AMVI as per the outcome ol' the re-lnedical examination. However, insofar as the petitioncr \o.6 is concerned, who underwent medical examination on 03.07.2024, sincc she has not raised any objection/grievance before the Cornmissi(rn at the initial stage, the relief was not granted to her. The writ petition was allorved in part to the said extent. The rvrit court further directed the (lovernment of Telangana to take steps lor framing necessary rrorms in this regard.

10. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned writ court. respondent Nos. 12, 13, 6, 8 and l0 have filed W.A.No.l8 of 2025; respondent No.14 has filetl W.A.No.74 of 2025; petitioner No.6 has filed W.A.No.l(t6 og 2025 and the Commission has filed W.A.No.l,67 of / { I l.

Mr. P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana Public Service Cornmission has subrnitted that in Notification

No.3ll2002, dated 31.12.2022 issued for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in Transport Department, it is specifically mentioned in clause (ii) of Note belov*, the Physical Requirernents column that "request for re-medical examination will not be entertained". If thc re-medical examination is perrnitted after long lapse of time of four months, the candidates rnight have gone to the Gyrn and there is every likely chance of expanding their chest. Therefore, re-medical examination is not at all permissible under any circumstances. Irurther, the petitioners have approached the court after publication of the selection list and after coming to know that they have not been selected. He has further pointed out that the G.O.Ms.No.L47, dated 06.08.

2016, which has been relied upon by the writ petitioners is of the State of Andhra Pradesh and is not applicable to the State of Telangana. [.earned counsel has referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Pannala Praveen vs. State of Andhra Pradeshl, wherein the Division Bcnch has categorically held that the constitution of the second Medical Board was arbitrary and contrary to law.

l0 facts of each case. Therefore, the direction of, the learned rvrit court to the respondents to undertake exercise of re-medical examination ol. pctitioner Nos.l to 5. 7" 8 and 9 is not proper. Therefore, the impugned ordcr is lirrble to be set aside.

12. Mr. G.vidva Sagar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.74 ol'2025 has submittcd that the observation of the learned rvrit court that thc Govcrnrnent o['Telangana is required to take steps for frarning necessary nonns. like the G.o.Ms.No.l47, dated 06.0g.201g, issued by thc Government of Andhra pradesh, which enumerates the RegulatiorLs relating to the physical examination of candidates, is for future recruitments only and not for the present recruitment. That cannot be a guiding hctor for allowing the writ petition.

13. Mr. Goda Siva, learned Senior counsel for the appellants in W.A-No.l ti of 2025 has submitted that rvhen the writ petition was filed, the selectic'n list rvas already published. The names of the appellants in w.A.No.l8 of 2025 rvere found, but the writ petitioners have not assailed the: 5slsslion list i1 the writ petition. The learned writ court has not dealt rrr ith the issue o1' what would happen for the candidates who have been selected, nor is it prayed for in the writ petition. He has further subrnitted that the allegation in the e-rnails sent by the petitioners

1l to the Commission is that the doctors who have come frorn the Osmania General Hospital did not note the chest lneasurements properly. After sending the e-mail and till the publication of the selection [ist, they writ petitioners did not pursue their representation for four months and virtually they have allowed the things to move further. The writ petitioners have not alleged any malice against the doctors who have conducted medical examination. The writ petition is filed only as a tool projecting an illegality which, at the relevant point of time the petitioners did not think about it as illegal. The learned writ court has relied on a judgment, which has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, though the same has been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

Further, the learned writ court committed error in para 16 of its judgment holding that the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the case in vier,v of discrepancies pointed out in issue No.1, even without referring to the facts of the cases relied on by the respondents. He has further pointed out that there is a specific embargo in the notification that there is no remedical exarnination. Therefore, the order of the learned writ court is liable to be set aside.

14. Mr. T.Surya Karan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.l06 of 2025 submits that the learned writ court

t2 committed error in not granting relief to the appellant/petitioner No.6 on the ground r.hat petitioncr No.6, r,r,ho underwent physical examination on 03.07 .2024. has not raised any' objection/grievance before the Commissiorl. He has further submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the Cornmission states that the appellant/petitioner No.6's chest measurement on full inspiration was 68 cms, whereas it must not be less than 79.80 ,)rns on futl inspiration in respect of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Women as per the recruitment notification. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner No.6 was disqualified. The learned Senior Counsel has stated that the medical certificate, which is annexed to the writ rrppeal at pg.66, issued by the Govemment General Hospital, Suryapet on 04.07.

2024 clearly shows that the appellant/petitioner No.6's che:;t measurement on full inspiration was 86 cms. Even after counter affldavit filed on 13.11.2024. the appellant/petitioner No.6 got checked her: physical measurements by one Dr.V.Srinivas, Civil Surgeon (Specialist), Yadadri Bhongiri District. As per the rnedical certificate, dated 16.11.2024 (annexed at pg.67), the chest measurement on full inspiration rvas 86 cms. Therefore, a direction may be issued for re re-medical examination of the appellant/petitioner No.6.

15. Mr. U.Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.l1 in W.A.No.1C6 of 2025 has submitted that the name of respondent No.l1

l3 is in the selection list, r,i,ho is next to the rank of the appellant/petitioner No.6. He has further submitted that per the notification, re-medical examination is not permitted and therefbre, the appellant in the albresaid appeal cannot be allor,ved to be sent to re-medical examination.

16. Mr. J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondent Nos.6 to 14 in W.A.Nos. 1 8 and 7 4 of 2025 and respondent Nos. 1 to 9 in W.A.No.167 of 2025 has submitted that the note (ii) below the physical requirements of the notification dated 31.12.2022 stating that'request for re-medical examination will not be entertained' is a misconception derived from the judgrnent of the Pannala Praveen (supra). In Pannala Praveen (supra), the Public Service Commission was undertaking the exercise of medical examination. The Government had constituted the second medical board in view of the objections raised by the unsuccessful candidates. In that peculiar fact situation, the proposition is laid down that constitution of the second Medical Board was contrary to law. That proposition is not applicable to the other recruitments.

Therefore, the clause that re-medical examination will not be entertained does not have any relevance. He has argued that the petitioners have , raised objections by sending e-mails immediately to the Commission regarding the conduct of the rnedical examination in a casual manner.

Commission may recti$r. [f there is any rejection order or any communication to the grievance raised by the petitioners in their emails, they,, would have challenged the same irnmediately. It is not the case that the petitioners have not raised objections at the beginning and now that the petitioners have raised objections by filing the writ petitions after publication of the selection list. Further, the stand of the Cornrnission in the counter affidavit that it has nothing to do with the medical e;<amination as it has been entrusted to the Medical Board, cannot be accepted.

17. Learned Senior Counsel has further pointed out that in the counter affidavit filed by the Commission in para 1,7 (pg.320 of the counter affidavit), it has been stated that the Commission is a formal party in th,: matter. He has pointed out that it is the bounden duty of the Commission to select meritorious candidates. It cannot escape its responsibility by simply stating that it is a f,ormal party. Further, as per the table cf list of petitioners - reasons for rejection, at pg.316 of the counter affidavit, there is very very marginal difference in the measuremt:nts by which the petitioners are disqualified. He has further f / subrnitted that the petitioners cannot challenge the appointments of the selected citndidates because they are only in the select list. Once the re-medical examination is conducted and if they qualiS in the medical

l5 examination, they may get appointrnents. There is no procedure contemplated for the medical examination like G.O.Ms.No.l47 applicable in thc State of Andhra Pradesh. Surprisingly, the Commission has relerred to the G.O.Ms.No.3 l, dated 01.11.2019 which is applicable to the physically handicapped candidates. He has further pointed out that rejecting the cases of the petitioners on the ground of disqualification in the medical examination is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not given any notice or any response to their e-mails especially when they had raised objections that medical examination is not conducted in a proper manner. He has supported the judgment of the learned writ court and sought dismissal of the writ appeals.

18. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and also the relevant materials placed on the record

19. By the impugned judgment, Lhe Commission has been directed to undertake the exercise of re-medical examination of petitioner Nos.l to 5, 7 to 9 and consider their candidature for selection to the post of AMVI under recruitment notification No.3112022, dated 31.1,2.2022. The Cornmission and other respondents, whose nalnes appeared in the

l6 select lis,, have preferred these appeals being aggrieved. Apart frorn that petitioner No.6 in the u,rit petition who rvas denied relief on the ground that she tLad not raiscd any obiection beftire the Commission at the initial stage har; also prefcrred the appeal, i.e.. W.A.No.106 of 2025. The learned vrrit court also recommended the Government of Telangana to lrame neoessary norms dealing with physical examination of candidates and grievance redressal mechanism taking into account the procedure prescribe<l under G.O.Ms.No.L47, dated 06.08.2016 issued by the Governmr:nt of Andhra Pradesh. The entire issue in this batch of appeals revolves e.round the rnedical examination exercise of the rvrit petitioners who appeared in the recruitment examination. l'he notification prescribed the following physical requirements for appointment by direct recruitment.

"PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS:- "The candidarc for ap:ointment by direct recruitment shall satisI the lbllorving ph ysical requirements:

(a) In respect of male candidates, the rninimunr height must not be less than 165 cms and must not be less than 86.3 crns round the cht:st on full inspiration rvith a minimum expansion of 5.00 cms; (b) In case of women candidates, the height shall not be less than l5'7.5 cms, and must not be less than 82.30 cms round the chest on ful inspiration with a minirnum of expansion of 5.00 cms; (c) In case of male candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes anc Scheduled Tribes communities and aboriginal tribes, the minimum height must not be less than 160 cms and must not be Iesr; than 83.80 crns round the chest on full inspiration with a mirtimum expansion of 5.00 cms

t7 (d) In case of fernale candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes corrrmunities and aboriginal tribes, the minimum height must not be less than 52.5 cms and must not be less than 79.80 cms round the chest on full inspiration rvith a mininrunt expansion of 5.00 crls.

(e) Must be certified to possess the r isual standards specified below without glasses:

(i) Right eye :

Distance Vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5 (on Snellen's Chart) Distance Vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5 (on Snellen's Chart) (ii) Left eye (iii) Each eye must have a full field of vision (iv) Colour Blindness, Squint or any rnorbid conditions of the eyes or lids of either eye, knock ktress, pigeon chest, flat foot, varicose veins, hammer toes, fractured limbs and decayed teeth shall be deemed to be a disqualification.

Note:- i) The applicants should satisfy a compctent Medical Board as to their fitness, Physical Requirements, Vision etc., as provided for in the Rules at the appropriate stage of the recruitment process. ii) Request for Re-medical examination rvill not be entertained."

20. The medical examination of the writ petitioners were undertaken between 01.07 .2024 and 08.07 .2024. The u,ritten examination was held for 113 such posts on28.06.2024. Petitioner Nos.l, 3,4,5 and 8 sent I e-mails to the Cornmission on 01.07.2024. 02.07.2024, 03.07.2024 and 06.07.2024 objecting the manner in which the medical examination was conducted. However, the writ petitions were filed on 15.10.2025 only after the frnal list was published on 1.0.10.2024. The delay in approaching the writ court is one of the grounds raised by the

l8 commission and successful candidates both before the u'rit court and in the present appeals. According to thetn. if re-rnedical cxamination is carriecl out pursuant to the impugrled order dated 20'12'2024 alter six monttrs of the rl-redical exanlitration of thc rvrit petitioners' it r'l'ould not reflcct the llhysical measurements of the candidate as reflected in the nredical exlrnination conducted betr'veen 01.07'2024 aod 08'07'2024 because of passage of time and there is every likelihood of the candiclates irnproving their physical measurements especially of chest'

21. During the course of submissions, this court directed the Commission to produce the records of the physical measurements o[the writ petitioners. They were produced on 10.L2.2025 in a sealed cover and perused by this Court. The physical measurements of the writ pctitioners were also furnished in the form of a tabular chart rvith reasons flor rejection at paragraph 1l of the counter afl'idavit of the Comrnissic,n. The physical measurements contained in the tabular chart tally u,ith the medical records produced by the Comrnission durilg the course of hearing. They are extracted hereunder for better appreciation: List of petitioners - Reasons for rejection Ph1'sical fitness Measurement as oer the notification Reasons for rejection Gender Communi ty Candidate Name Hall Tir:ket No.

No.

Chcst ExPansion dillbrence for ST women communitY - 5 ST candidate's expansion difference below 5cm's i.e.,4Cms 23 I I 700547 KHETHAVATI{ ROJA Cnrs 2.

2311700170 AREDLA M OC As

l9 MAHIDHAR REDDY Distance Vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5 (on Snellen's Chart) reports, the candidate is not eligible candidate (having Visual standards Right liye: 6/9 & Left [.elt cye:

Distance vision 6/6 Near Vision 0.5 (on Snellen's Clhart) J.

23t 1700362 K. SI{INIDIII l.'

o(.:

The candidate's Chest Expansion differcnce belorv 5crn's i.e., 4cms E1.'e : 6/9) Chest [:xpansion difference lirr OC community rvomen - 5 Cms 4.

23|700427 MITTAPALI-Y SRINIVAS M SC l he candidate's Chest Expansion difference bclorv icm's i.e., 3Cms Chest Expansion ditl'crence lbr SC communit,v Men - 5 Cms 23lr700292 THARIJESSICA FLOURANCE F'

SC The candidate's Chest Expansion difference belorv Scnr's i.e ..4Cms Chest Expansion dift'crencc tbr SC communil) wonren - 5 Cms 6'

23 I I 802059 BILI,AM TEJA RAO M BC.C The candidate's l-leight less than 165 Cms, i.e, I-leight Measurement for llC-C lv{en candidates is 165 23|L701757 SINDI{U TEJOVATH 164.2 ('ms Chest Mcasurement - tull inspiration for ST - women candidates - 79.80 Cms ST The candidate's Chest it{easurcmcnt - l'ull inspiration less than 79.80 Cms i.e., 68 Cms 8.

23n700445 BAVANDLA SAIKUMAR M BC-B The candidate's Chcsl Expansion difference belorv S cm's. i.e.4Cms Chest Expansion ditTerence for BC communitv - 5cms 9.

231180266r THALLAPALLY SRAVYA BC-B 1'he candidate's ["[eight Height Measurement lbr BC-B Women candidates 157.5 Iess than 157.5 Cms, i.e., 157 Cnrs

22. Two of these candidates, namely petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.9 failed on the ground of eyesight and height respectively. The recruitment notification clearly stated that the request for re-medical examination will not be entertained. The petitioners claimed to have approached the Government Doctors for their phy'sical measurements. According to them, their physical measurement reports found thern ?

fulfilling the physical requirements of the recruitment notihcation. The ' Details of petitioner No.6 is given as petitioner No.7 and the details of petitioner No.7 is given as petitioner No.6 in the counter affidavit. The extract is as per the counter affidavit submitted by the Public Service Cornmission

petitioners have raised their grievances by way of e-mails to the Commission and the details are as under:

'l'Alil-L: SIIOWIN(; l'llE DETAII-S OF THtr PETITIONtiRS ANI) E-MAILS SENT I)ctitiorrer Medical exam Cot medical ccrtificate b1, Namc e-mail sent on [)iscrcpancy No.

conducted cornplained pcrsonal consultation on 01.07.2024 10.07.2024 (referred email ol 0t.07.2024\ Khcthavath Roja Chest measurements 04.0'1.2021 ) 08.0'7.2024 Arcdla Mahidhar ., K Srinidhi 01.07.2024 02.07.2024 (on behalf of women candidates also) Chest measurements Mittapalll Srinivas -t'hari .lessica [:lourancc 01.07.2024 02.07.2024 06.07.2024 02.07.2024 Chest measurements 0t.07.2024 02.07.2024 (on behalf of women candidates also) Chest measurements Sindhu -l-c.jovath 03.07.2024 04.07.2024 06.07.2024 []ar and la Saikunrar Billaru Ieja Rao 0t.07.2024 03.07.2024 Chest measuremcnts 02.07.2024 06.07.2024 I 4. I 0.2024 Sravva 'thal

23. It ir; thercftrre important to examine the records of the physical rneasllrcn'l(ints by this Court, more so since the learned writ court had not ventur:d [o ask for the reports. The format of the medical reports is as under:

TITLANGANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION :: HYDERABAD IISSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR IN TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT (GENERAL RECRUITMENT)

ZI NOTIFICATION No.3 l/2022. DATED: 3 l/1212022 Date of Verification Regd. No.:

Namc'of the Candidate Signature of the Candidate CERTIFICATION OF PHYSICAL FITNESS I have examined (full name) /Smtl Kum Sri S/o, D/o, W/o a candidate to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in Telangana Transport Department and I am not able to discover that he/she has any disease, constitutional affection or bodily infirmity except that (disease). I do not consider this as disqualification for the employment he/she seeks.

I further certifi/ that in my opinion his/her general physical condition is such as to enable hirn to perform efliciently the active duties of Executives Service. I. HEIGHTCms.

2. CI{EST MEASUREMENT (A) On full inspiration (B) On full expiration Cms.

Cms.

3. Indicate YES or NO against each of the following items. I) Knock knees II) Pigeon Chest III) Flat Foot IV) Varicose Veins V) Hammer toes VI) Fractured limbs VII) Decayed teeth YITSAIO YESNO YESA{O YESAIO YES/NO YESNO YES/NO Signaturc of the Medical Officer-l Signature olthe Medical Oflicer-2 Signature ot'the Medical Officcr-3 Name Name:

Name:

Designation:

TELANGANA PT]BLIC SERVICE COMMISSION :: HYDERABAD 4SStS.rAN't- MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR tN TRANSPOITT DEPARTMENT (G ENTTRAL RITCRUITMENT) llQllt.Lc4l lQN N o. 3 I 11022. DATE D : 3 I / I 2/2022 Regd. l.lo.:

Date of Verification:

Name t,Ithe Candidate :

Signature of thc Candidate :

CERTIFICATE OF EYE VISION ('l'o b: certified bv an Ophthalmologist not below the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon) I dc hereb;' certity that I have examined (full name) Sri/Smt/ Kunt S/o, D/o, Wo a candidate fbr the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in Telangana Transport Depaflnrent and certify that he possesses the following visual standartls specilicd bclow without glasses.

I)Right Eye:

Distant Vision (Without Glasses) Near Vision II) Left Eye:

Distant Vision (Without Glasscs) Near Vision lll) W rether each cy'e has full field of vision without glasses YESNO IV) Cc,lour l]lindncss YESNO V) Srruint or arrv nrorbid conditions of the eyes or lids of either eye YESNO VI) AS I'ER VISLJAL STANDARDS WHETHER THE CANDIATE IS ELIGIBLE YESNO Vll) R,:marks ll'An-v- :- Signature of the Medical Officer Station:

Name:

Designation:

Date:

,, -)

24. The format ol'Certificate of Vision requires signature of Medical Oftjcer or Professor of Opthahnology of the Osrnania General Hospital and also the signature of the candidate. Simitarly, the Certi{icate of Physical Fitness requires certification by the Board, which comprised Pro{bssor and l{ead of the Department cum Civil Surgeon, Department of Orthopaedic; Civil Surgeon cum Professor of Medicine and Prolessor and Head of the Department of General Surgery of Osmania General I lospital.

25. The Certificate of Physical Fitness was issued by the Board of three Medical Off,rcers cornprising Professor and Head of the Department cum Civil Surgeon, Department of Orthopaedic; Civil Sur-eeon cum Professor of Medicine and Professor and Head of the Dcpartment of General Surgery of Osmania General Hospital. All of them have inscribed their signatures on the certifrcate. More importantly, for purposes of appreciating the controversy at hand, it is pertinent to take note that the signature of the candidate is also required to be inscribed at the time of physical lneasurement. All the petitioners inscribed their signature both on the Certifrcate of Eye Vision and the Ceflificate of Physical Fitness. None of them inscribed their signatures under protest raising any grievance as to recording of their physical measurement of chest or height or relates to defective eye vision. The

petitioner:; did not plead mala /ide against any of the doctors of the Medical lloard. regarding thcir physical measurement or against the prol'essor gl' Optftafunolog1 ol' thc Osl1ania General Hospital regarding the ceflificate of o1,e vision. 'l'here is no reason to suspect any deliberate act of mala .fide to declarc these candidates unfit on parameters of physical measuretnent or cye sight prescribed under the recruitment notihcation. If the physical rncasurcmcnts of the petitioners or eye sight recorded in the presencc revcaled such deliberate act of recording incorrecl rneasurements and i{' the candidates got their physical measurement or eyc sight exarnined by the Government Doctors in close proximity of the dates of their rnedical examination, they should have approacfted the learncd rvril.

court imrnediately thereafter instead of waiting I'or the publication ol'the tlnal list on 10.10.2024 more than three nronths alter their medical cxamination. This was all the more expected since thc recruittncnt notifrcation clearly indicated that no request lor re-medical examination rvould be entertained. It is in these circumr;tances, the Cotnrnission rightly objected that the physical measurements of chest rvould vary aS the candidate could have undertlken physicat exercise to iurprove their physical measurements. The le;lrned writ court, r,r,hile passing the impugned judgment, failed to take ir.

months would not be proper as the physical measurements especially of the chest of the petitioners could have undergone substantial change or improvement compared to thc measurements recorded during medical exanrination between 01.07.2024 and 08.07.2024 at Osmania General Hospital.

26. As such, learned writ court was not justified in directing the Commission to undertake re-tnedical examination of petitioner Nos. I to 5 and 7 to 9 for consideration of their candidature for the purpose of AMVIs. The petitioner No.7, Billam Teja Rao, who was BC-C category candidate, was found unfit in height as the minimum height requirement was 165 cms, whereas he was found to be 164.2 cms. The petitioner No.2, Aredla Mahidhar Reddy was found to be suffering from defect ol-vision as his right eye and left eye both were found to have 619 vision compared to the normal vision of 616. The petitioner No.9, Sravya 'thalapally, a female candidate of BC-B category rvas fbund to have rnedically unfit in height. Rest of the petitioners were unfit as their expansion of full inspiration is less than 5 cms. 27 .

Learned writ court was persuaded by the statements of petitioner No.7, Billam feja Rao, and petitioner No.9, Sravya Thallapally, that they fulfilled the physical standards in the years 20L7 and 2019 at the

f..

:il time of their appointment as Transport Constable and Forest Section Officer re:;pectively. The medical examination for the present recruitment was conducted in Jull'. 2024 afler 7 years and 5 years respectively, therefore, such cotnparison was not proper. Moreover, the measurement ol'height in the case of'petitioner No.9 by a team of three professors c,f the Osmania General l-tospital could not be doubted on that score. Petitioner No.9. if had genuine reasons to question the physical measurement of height by the team of three professor rank doctors of Osmania Gr:neral Hospital, she ought to have raised her grievance at the earliest point of tirne instead of rvaiting tbr the publication of final list after more than three months. The Certificate of Physical Fitness brought on record in support of her height is dated 14.10.

2024 issugd by a Civil Assistant Surgeon of the Ostnania General Hospital. The same cannot be rnade a basis to suspect the Certificate of Physical Fitness, dated 06.0i'.2024, by the team of, three professor rank doctors of the Osmania General l-tospital. The conduct of the petitioners after having participated in the medical examination and waited till the publication of final list m()re than three months and thereafter turn around to question a the method of selection, is not permissible. The learned writ court failed to take into account that G.O.Ms.No.I41 dated 06.08.

facts of the present case. The learned writ court was also not right in ignoring the proposition of law laid down by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pannala Praveen (supra). The learned Court had deprecated the constitution of the second medical board when the exercise undertaken by the Commission. Apart from the above, the learned writ court also failed to take into consideration that despite publication of the final list, the petitioners had failed to assail the appointment of the successful candidates, though several other successful candidates in the rnerit list were likely to be affected if the relief prayed for by them was allowed.

28. Coming to the case of the appellant in W.A.No.l06 of 2025,her chest measurement on full inspiration was 68 cms, less than 79.80 cms prescribed on full inspiration tbr candidates belonging to the ST women category. [f petitioner No.6 had any grievance thereto and had got her chest measurements taken at a Government General Hospital on 04.07.2024 showing chest measufement on futl inspiration as 86 cms, neither did she approach the writ court immediately nor made any cornplaint like the other petitioners to the Commission. The rneasurements of chest would vary depending upon the fitness or health of a person. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner No.6/appellant in W.A.No.106 of 2025 that her chest measurement was commensurate to

the requirentents under the instant recruitment exercise, since her chest measuremerLts in school was also of that standard is difficult to accept. we, therefor:e, do not find any reason to take a diff'erent vier,v as respects the petitionr:r No.6/appellant in w.A.No.106 of 2025 for the reasons recorded hereinabove.

30. In the result, the impugned order dated 20.1,2.2024 passed in w.P.No.286,39 of 2024 is set aside so far the learned writ court had directed thr: respondents to undertake the exercise of re-medical examination in respect of petitioner Nos.t to 5 andT to 9 and to consider their candidature for selection to the post of AMVI as per the outcome of the re-me:dical examination. Writ appeal Nos. 18, 7 4 and 167 of 2025 are allowed writ appeal No.l06 of 2025 filed by the petitioner No.6 is dismissed. l'here shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand crosed. SD/.K, SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Secretary, Telangana Public Service Commission, Prathibha Bhavan, M J Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001

2. The Principal Secretary to Government GeneralAdministration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

3. The Principal Secretary to Government Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

4. Commis:sioner of Transport Department, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

5. The Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad

6. One CC to SRI B.ARJUN, Advocate [OPUC] 7 . One CC to SRI TMOHD BASEER RIYAZ, Advocate [OPUCI Cry\p& . - -

8. One CC to SRI GOURARAM RAJASHEKAB BEPPy' Advocate IOPUCI e one cc to sRr FX-"dni'AsifIAR sCrbn rcpsc toPucl 10 one cc to sRr bAi ijiixsEN gui.ibXVARAI'&Aolgcate toPucl Aavocate loPucl 11 one cc to snr EBunXBA!' i4iXS"fr4B'{E6oV'

12.oneCC to SRI ISJDHrr-n, Ad.vocate IOPUCI 13 one cc to snr U]sl"r'rio5-tf ^(tl*on'-Aovocat-e [oPucl 14 rwo ccs to cpFon sERvrcEslii'ilifrb"",iiidr in" -State of reransana, at / ,,, +It%tsf" Aor'JA* rRANspoRr, High court ror the state or reransana, at ,,u TX,t"8tSt t?'rB- ME,I-c*\JIEALTH & Fw, High courtror the state or '" i.r.ngina, at HYderabad' [OUT] 17.Two CD CoPies PSK.

BS &,

t2 I HIGH COURT I I i i i DATED:31 11212025 --..------.{ !

b"tATE I i 2t tEB zUE !

oo I I COMMONI JUDGMENT 4r \ WA.Nos .18,74, 106 AN D 16T of 2025.

L ALLOWINIG THE W.A.Nos.18,T4 AND 161 OF 2O2S AND DISMISSING THE:W.A.No.10O OF 2O2S WITHOUT COSTS KS 2nl -'l * I i i I t