Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Group-1 Candidates' Petition

Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Group-1 Candidates' Petition
The Supreme Court has declined to intervene in the petition filed by Telangana Group-1 candidates regarding GEO 29, emphasizing that the High Court's interim order was sufficient and directing the completion of investigations before result announcements.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene or issue an interim order regarding the petition filed by Telangana Group-1 candidates. A bench led by the Chief Justice of India stated that the High Court had clarified all relevant points in its interim order and noted that it would be inappropriate to disrupt the candidates while they are in the examination centres. The Court directed the High Court to complete its final investigation before the results are released.
During the proceedings, the candidates' counsel argued that the Group-1 examination was being conducted after a 14-year gap and claimed that the state government had enacted GEO 29 in contradiction to the Supreme Court's verdict. Conversely, the state's counsel maintained that the High Court had provided clear directives concerning the examination. After considering both sides, the Supreme Court determined that the Group-1 examination could not be halted.
The Group-1 candidates petitioned the Supreme Court to annul GEO 29, which was issued by the state government and requested a postponement of the exams until a ruling is made. The petition contended that the Chief Minister is neglecting the implementation of Jivo 55.
The candidates are seeking to overturn GEO 29, which was amended on February 8, affecting GEO 55 from 2022 regarding reservations for persons with disabilities. They argued that disabled candidates are being treated unjustly, as those who scored higher than general category candidates are being classified as unreserved. Despite achieving higher scores, they are categorised under a 1:50 ratio for the mains exam. In light of the controversy surrounding reservations for disabled individuals, some candidates called for the Group-1 examinations to be halted, but the High Court denied this request and dismissed the plea to quash the notification, stating that appointments would depend on the final judgment. Consequently, the Group-1 candidates approached the Supreme Court.