APPSC Group I petitioners seek same High Court Bench to conclude recruitment case

The original writ petitioners in the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) Group I recruitment case under Notification No. 27/2018 have requested the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to specially allot and retain the pending appeals and connected matters before the Division Bench comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma until the final disposal of the case.

In an urgent representation submitted to the Chief Justice, the petitioners, who are respondents in W.A. No. 258 of 2024 and the connected batch of cases, said their request was not intended to influence the outcome of the proceedings. They sought judicial continuity, pointing out that the matter had reached an advanced stage after years of litigation and should not be shifted to another Bench following the roster changes that came into effect on July 6, 2026.

“We are seeking judicial continuity, as the matter has reached an advanced stage after years of proceedings and should not be shifted to another Bench following the roster changes,” Cheni Madhu Babu, one of the petitioners who is currently working in a public sector undertaking in Bengaluru, told The Hindu on Saturday.

The litigation pertains to the legality of the APPSC Group I recruitment process under Notification No. 27/2018. On March 13, 2024, a Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, declared the second and third valuation process illegal and contrary to Rule 3(ix) of the APPSC Rules, set aside the eligible candidates’ list issued on May 26, 2022, and directed the APPSC to conduct a fresh Group I Main examination. The Commission challenged the judgment through appeals, which have remained pending since March 18, 2024.

According to Mr. Madhu Babu, the same Division Bench has been hearing the appeals since September 1, 2025. After extensive hearings, it reserved judgment on September 19, 2025. While preparing the judgment, the Bench identified certain procedural issues requiring further clarification, examined the original valuation records and appointed an independent three-member verification committee headed by a retired High Court Judge.

After receiving the committee’s report, the Bench reopened the matter on December 15, 2025, with the consent of all parties. It subsequently directed and monitored a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the relevant records. On June 29, 2026, the Bench examined the sealed interim SIT report, which informed the court that nearly 80% of the assigned investigation had been completed. The matter was thereafter posted to July 24, 2026, and continued to remain part-heard before the same Bench as of July 14, 2026.

“Transferring the case at this stage would lead to duplication of judicial effort, as a new Bench would have to revisit years of arguments, examine original answer scripts, OMR sheets and digital valuation records, study the verification committee’s findings and familiarise itself with the sealed SIT material. Such a rehearing would inevitably delay the final resolution of the dispute,” said Dr. Laxmi Kamala, one of the petitioners and a medical practitioner in Hyderabad.

Another petitioner, Chandra Mohan, a teacher from Srikakulam, said continuation of the case before the same Bench would not prejudice any party, as all sides had already concluded their arguments.

The petitioners said the litigation had remained pending for more than four years and urged that the matter continue before the same Division Bench to avoid duplication of judicial work and enable the Bench, which has heard the matter, examined the records and supervised the investigation, to bring the long-pending recruitment dispute to an early conclusion.