AP High Court Slams State Public Service Commission For Repeated Re-Evaluation Of Aspirant's Answer Script Despite Express Bar

The Andhra Pradesh High Court slammed the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) for repeatedly constituting committees for re-evaluation of a Group-I Services aspirant's answer script of the recruitment exam, despite Supreme Court judgments which prohibit such re-evaluation. 

The petitioner had sought appointment after multiple expert committees reassessed his Paper IV answer script and awarded him substantially higher marks than those given in the original evaluation, thereby bringing him within the zone of consideration for interview.

Holding that the recruitment rules expressly prohibited revaluation and that the issue had already attained finality in earlier rounds of litigation up to the Supreme Court, the Court refused to rely on the subsequent evaluations and imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on the aspirant. 

Justice Nyapathy Vijay, observed that the trigger to the present litigation is the order passed by the high court in W.P.No.14122 of 2023 directing the APPSC to consider the representation of the Petitioner for correcting errors in Paper-IV of the notification. The court said that the issue would have hit a dead end, if the APPSC had rejected the representation of the Petitioner, citing the previous round of litigation. 

But, the court said, the APPSC curiously constituted a three member committee which examined Paper-IV of the Petitioner and opined that there are anomalies in awarding of marks and it was felt that the answers are suitable to get more marks. 

Thereafter, APPSC again constituted a two member committee pursuant to the meeting on 20.9.2023, which after evaluating the Paper-IV, individually awarded 119 marks and 123 marks, respectively.

In effect, the Paper-IV of the Petitioner was evaluated on three different occasions and the marks awarded vary substantially, the bench noted. 

“Firstly, when there is substantial variance in revaluations, it would not be safe to rely on such valuations for issuance of a writ of mandamus. Secondly, the very constitution of committees for revaluation of Paper-IV of the Petitioner was running contrary to the common order of this Court in W.P.Nos.19420 of 2020 and 11385 of 2019 dated 03.12.2020. The Division Bench of this Court had considered the plea of the Petitioner for re-examination in detail in the common order and rejected the same after placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another, Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others which prohibited re-valuation...

Though the said judgment was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the APPSC made a mockery of the adjudication by constitutional courts, Rule 3 (ix) of the Rules and the notification itself prohibiting re-valuation, by constituting an expert committee after expert committee.

Even assuming for the sake of arguments that revaluation permissible in exceptional cases, the three member committee which was constituted for the first time had examined the answer sheet of the Petitioner and awarded approximately 80 marks. There was no possibility of revaluation for the third time, yet the APPSC acting as though they are not bound by law, again constituted a two member committee, which awarded 119-123 marks. There is no satisfactory answer from the APPSC as to the requirement of constituting a two member committee for re-evaluating the Paper-IV of the Petitioner for the third time.”

The Court further noted that the repeated evaluations “appear to be customised with an intent to bring the Petitioner within the zone of consideration for appointment.”

The case arose out of the Group I Services recruitment conducted pursuant to Notification No.39 of 2008 and Supplementary Notification No.10 of 2009. The petitioner had cleared the preliminary examination but was not called for interview after the mains examination. Claiming that his Paper IV answer script had not been properly evaluated, he made several representations and sought copies of his answer script under the Right to Information Act.

Over the years, the petitioner approached multiple forums, including the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme Court, challenging the evaluation process and seeking revaluation and consequential appointment. His earlier challenges were rejected, and the Supreme Court also dismissed his Special Leave Petitions in 2022, effectively giving finality to the issue.

During contempt proceedings arising out of a later writ petition filed by the petitioner, the APPSC constituted expert committees which reassessed his Paper IV answer script and awarded him higher marks, bringing him within the zone of consideration for interview.

Relying on these later evaluations, the petitioner sought consequential appointment. However, despite these subsequent evaluations, the APPSC later issued the impugned memo rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment, which was challenged before the High Court, while the State and APPSC contended that revaluation was barred under the rules and the issue had already attained finality.

Holding that the issue had already attained finality and that the rules barred revaluation, the Court dismissed the writ petition and criticised the APPSC for repeatedly constituting expert committees despite judicial and statutory prohibitions against revaluation.

Case Title: Pennabadi Amaranath Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Case Number: W.P. No. 7679 of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi

Counsel for Respondent: Sri G. Seena Kumar, Standing Counsel for APPSC & GP for Services I

Click Here To Read/Download Order