In a significant development, the Telangana High Court has provided temporary relief to hundreds of government employees by granting an interim stay on an order that had set aside the TGPSC Group-II selection list. The decision comes as a major reprieve for 1,032 candidates who were appointed to various positions back in 2019.
Court Intervention Provides Temporary Relief
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin issued the interim stay on Thursday, effectively putting on hold the single-judge order dated November 18, 2025. The bench acknowledged the argument presented by the selected candidates that it would be unjust to nullify their appointments at this stage, especially since they have been working in their positions for several years.
The court has scheduled the matter for consideration of merits after six weeks and has directed all concerned parties to file their counter-affidavits during this period. This breathing space allows the appointed candidates, including those currently serving as deputy tehsildars, to continue in their positions while the legal process unfolds.
Background of the Legal Battle
The controversy stems from the Telangana Public Service Commission's (TGPSC) Group-II Services recruitment process that was originally notified in 2015-16. The selection list was finally released in October 2019, filling 1,032 vacancies across various government departments.
The legal challenges began with a writ petition filed in 2019, where petitioners alleged that TGPSC had unlawfully called for interviews and appointed candidates who had engaged in prohibited practices during the examination. The specific allegations included scratching, tampering, erasing, and using whiteners in Part B of their Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets during the Group-II Services Examination.
Single Judge's Controversial Order
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, in his November 18, 2025 order, had taken a strong stance by quashing the appointments of respondents 3 to 16. The judge had directed TGPSC to recast the provisional selection list by excluding all disqualified candidates and including the petitioners according to their merit for appointment to respective posts in Group-II Services.
The single judge had granted TGPSC a four-week deadline to complete this exercise. Furthermore, referring to recommendations from a 2017 writ petition, Justice Bheemapaka had directed the commission to adhere to transparency guidelines, including physical verification of OMR sheets, video-recording of evaluation processes, and publication of all relevant details on its official website.
Appellants' Key Arguments
The successfully recruited candidates, in their appeal before the division bench, presented several compelling arguments. They contended that all 1,032 qualified candidates should have been made parties to the original writ petition that led to the setting aside of appointments of 14 successful candidates.
The appellants also argued that the single judge had directed TGPSC to follow the technical committee's recommendations, which the commission had already implemented during the recruitment process. Additionally, they maintained that the court failed to properly consider appeals in previous judgments that were cited as precedent in the order.
The division bench's decision to grant an interim stay reflects the complexity of the case and the potential far-reaching consequences of upending appointments made several years ago. As the legal battle continues, thousands of government employees and their families await the final outcome that will determine their professional futures.
