APPSC Group-I recruitment: Supreme Court upholds HC order

The Supreme Court on Friday (February 27, 2026) dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the APPSC Group-I officers against the Andhra High Court order to appoint them in non-focal posts. 

In its judgement dated February 11, the High Court directed that 326 candidates who qualified in the Group-I examination conducted by APPSC vide notification No.27/2018) and were given focal posts, be shifted to non-focal ones within a week due to allegations of gross irregularities in the process of evaluation of answer sheets. 

However, the appointment of those candidates in non-focal posts happened only on February 25 after the then Chief Secretary K. Vijayanand did some fire-fighting on being reprimanded for not complying with the impugned order, and submitted his report the next morning (February 26). 

Hearing the SLP on February 27, a Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi upheld the High Court order while expressing dissatisfaction over the aggrieved officers’ plea that they be retained in the said focal posts. 

In the SLP, the aggrieved officers argued that the transfer and posting of civil servants were incidents of executive administration and ordinarily immune from judicial interference absent mala fides or violation of statutory mandate. 

They insisted that the High Court order constituted an unwarranted intrusion into executive functioning.

The HC order affected the cadre positioning, administrative authority, public perception, and future promotional trajectory of the petitioners, they stated, maintaining that there were neither compelling reasons nor  demonstrable material that justify their shifting to non-focal posts.

The petitioners claimed that the High Court passed the interim order in sheer violation of the principles of natural justice and granted no opportunity to them to contest or respond to the order.

Senior advocate Jandhyala Ravi Sankar appeared on behalf of the candidates who challenged the legality of the examination answer sheets’ evaluation process.

He strongly objected to the grounds on which the High Court order was sought to be overridden.