1 2025:CGHC:31251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4987 of 2018 1 - Chandrapraksh Singh Kshatri S/o Shri Ramswaroop Singh Aged About 26 Years Behind Hari Om Pan Centre, Bazar Chowk Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, D- Block, Fourth. Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block Sector 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Payavas Bhawan, North Block, 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chhattisgarh State Co- Operative Dairy Federation Limited, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Abhyodaya Parisar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Animesh Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.07.2025 -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal including the entire select list of the CACC18 entrance examination. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order thereby quashing the select list of CACC18 entrance examination so far as it relates to petitioner's non-selection. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order thereby setting aside & quashing the select list of CACC18 entrance examination so far as it selected the candidates having secured less numbers then the petitioner. Or That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order thereby directing the respondents to re-issue the select list of CACC18 entrance examination after deleting/amending the questions to which objections are raised by the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order thereby directing the respondents to select the petitioner & further to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of accountant as per the priority list given by the petitioner in the application form. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order thereby quashing the petitioner's marksheet (Annexure P/1) so far as it relates to less marks given to him based on evaluation on the basis of wrong answers. 10.6 Any other relief/reliefs, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner completed his graduation and applied for the post of Accountant pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.02.2018 published by the Directorate, Urban Administration & Development showing the vacancy of 103 posts for the open category. In between, the Chhattisgarh Housing Development Board and Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Milk Federation Ltd. also published an advertisement for the posts of Accountants. The Chhattisgarh Vyapam decided to conduct an 3 entrance examination. All advertised posts were to be filled by the joint examination and thus, the total number of vacancies became 123 and 108 posts were kept for the open category. The Chhattisgarh Vyapam issued the examination directives for the Entrance Examination, 2018. Clause 9 of the directives provides for the disposal of objections with respect to the model answer issued by Vyapam. It further states that if a candidate/examinee raises any objection over the model answer issued by the Vyapam, such a candidate may file an objection through email or post or personally. Further, Clause 10 of the directives states the cancellation of wrong questions and the formula for allotment of marks in such a situation. 3. The petitioner submitted his online application form and after verification, the online admit card was issued. His roll number was 13060079 and the center was at Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.). The examination was held on 01.04.2018. The petitioner participated in the examination. One question was repeated in Set -C. The petitioner attempted all questions of Set-C. 4. The Chhattisgarh Vyapam published model answers to all the questions. The petitioner found discrepancies in question Nos. 21, 39, 48, 51,53, 57, 58, 66, 67, 87 & 123 with respect to Set-C. The petitioner submitted his objection through an email on 23.04.2018 and the physical copy was also submitted in the office of Vyapam on 24.04.2018 supported by proof of correct answers from relevant textbooks. -4- 5. The petitioner found that the answer to one question was different from the answer of the answer sheet of the MARKFED, 2017 examination, which was published by the Vyapam itself. The result was declared on 21.07.2018 and the petitioner could not qualify for the examination. The final result of the examination was released on 21.07.2018 along with the final model answer after considering the objections raised by the aspirants. The petitioner's objections with respect to questions No. 39, 48, 51, 53, 57, 58, 66 & 67 were not considered separately and answers were also not amended. The petitioner secured 77.551 marks whereas the 10th candidate on the merit list had secured 96.684 marks. The petitioner has pleaded that if his objections had been considered then he had obtained 82.50 marks. 6. The petitioner further pleaded that after due efforts, he came to know about one more candidate, namely Vivek Singh Bharadwaj who secured 85.204 marks and was selected and appointed. According to the pleadings made in para 8.13 of this petition, Vivek Singh Bharadwaj was placed at rank No.83 against a total of 103 vacancies. It is further pleaded that the action of the respondents was arbitrary, illegal, malafide and violative of Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India. 7. Mr. Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the action of the respondents is arbitrary as the result was declared based on the incorrect answers to some questions. He would further argue that the objections raised by the petitioner were not considered properly. He would submit that the incorrect 5 answers to the questions have vitiated the entire selection process. Mr. Verma would also submit that the respondents have not provided ‘the Level Playing Field’ to the petitioner. Mr. Verma would further submit that I.A. No.2/2025 has been moved by the petitioner on 07.07.2025 to refer the issue of disputed questions and answers to an independent expert. He would further contend that the answers shown by the petitioner are correct according to the textbook and other sources. He would also contend that admittedly two questions were repeated and answers to two questions were incorrect. He would pray to consider the application I.A. No.2 of 2025. 8. On the other hand, Dr. Pande, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Verma. He would submit that the objections raised by the petitioner and other candidates were duly examined by the Expert Committee. He would further submit that though two questions were repeated but option ‘D’ was the correct answer according to Vyapam and the same was notified in the model key answer. He would also submit that there is no provision to cancel a question on this ground. He would contend that option ‘C’ of question No.48 of Set-C was a correct answer, whereas, according to the petitioner, the correct answer was ‘B’. He would further contend that two experts examined the question and found answer ‘C’ correct according to the book “Financial Accounting” authored by Dr. A. Karim, Dr. S.S. Khanuja and Dr. Piyush Mehta. 9. With regard to question No.51, he would contend that experts have -6- found the answer ‘A’ correct. He would further argue that option ‘D’ of question No.53 and option ‘D’ of question No.57 of Set-C were found correct according to the textbook “Financial Accounting” authored by Dr. A. Karim, Dr. S.S. Khanuja and Dr. Piyush Mehta. He would also argue that option ‘D’ of question No.58 of Set-C was found correct as per the textbook “Financial Accounting” authored by. Dr. S.M. Shukla and Dr. Sudhir Sukla. It is also contended that option ‘D’ of question No.66 and option B of question No.67 of Set -C were found correct according to the textbook “Financial Accounting” authored by Dr. A. Karim, Dr. S.S. Khanuja and Dr. Piyush Mehta. 10.It is contended by Mr. Pande that it was not practically possible to inform each and every candidate, who made objections, therefore, the final key answer was published. 11.Dr. Pande would further state that in the open category, the cut-off mark was 84.694, whereas, the petitioner secured 77.551 and thus he was much below in the merit list. He would contend that the difference of two or three marks would not change the fate of the petitioner. 12.Dr. Pande would further state that the objected questions have already been scrutinized by the Expert Committee and there is no provision to re-examine the correctness of the model answer key. He would further submit that the result was declared on 21.07.2018 and thereafter, the select list was also issued. He would contend that the appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates but the petitioner has not arrayed those 7 appointees as party respondents. 13.With regard to I.A. No.2 of 2025, Dr. Pande would submit that there is no provision to refer the issue of disputed questions and answers to an independent expert. 14.Learned Advocates appearing for other respondents would support the contentions made by Dr. Pande. Dr. Pande has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2018(2) SCC 357. 15.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 16.First of all, this Court proceeds on to decide the application I.A. No.2 of 2025 moved by the petitioner i.e. the application for referring the issue of disputed questions and answers to an independent expert which was moved on 07.07.2025, whereas, this petition was filed on 30.07.2018. 17.A perusal of the documents placed on record by respondent No.3 would show that the experts considered the objections raised by the petitioner and other candidates and came to the conclusion that the options reflected in the model answer key are correct. The Expert Committee scrutinized every objection raised by the petitioner and other candidates and satisfactorily answered the objections. 18.It is a well-settled principle of law that the benefit of revision of the model answer key or any incorrect questions or repeated -8- questions should not be limited only to those candidates who had approached the Court but should be extended to all candidates since the fault does not lie with them but with the examination body. Thus, the benefit would go to all candidates who participated in the examination, therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Verma that if his objections had been considered by the expert body, he would have been on the merit list. Such a submission is misconceived in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Richal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, 2018(8) SCC 81, particularly para 27 which is reproduced herein below:- “27. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentioned that the result has been revised of only 311 appellants who are before this Court. We are of the view that key answers having been corrected, merit of all the candidates except those who have already been selected needs to be redetermined. In our order dated 16-1-2018 (Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, 2018 SCC OnLineSC 749) it is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those who have already been selected. We, thus, are of the view that the Commission should revise the entire result of all the candidates except those who have been selected on the basis of the report of the Expert Committee and publish revised result of all the candidates. When the key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which was given the task of revising the key answers.” 19.Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Verma and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Richal and others (supra), IA. No.2 of 2025 is hereby rejected. 9 20.In the present case, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and when he was declared unsuccessful, he filed a writ petition after the declaration of the result. Admittedly, objections were raised by the petitioner with regard to incorrect questions, repeated questions and their answers before the Vyapam and the documents filed by respondent No.3 would show that the objections were duly considered and answered on the basis of the recognized textbooks. Further, the benefit of revision should not be limited only to the petitioner, who approached this Court but it should be extended to all candidates, thus, the petitioner would not get any additional benefit rather all candidates would get the benefit of such a revision and the position of the petitioner in the merit list would remain the same. 21.In the matter of Ran Vijay and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; if the Rule does not permit so it cannot be done but at the same time, the Court may permit re-valuation or scrutiny. It is further held that the Court should not at all revaluate or scrutinize the answer-sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic matters are best left to academics. The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. Relevant paras 30, 31, and 32 are reproduced herein -10- below:- “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re- evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3 The Court should not at all re- evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4 The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse – exclude the suspect or offending question. 32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions 11 of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination – whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.” 22.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Richal and others (supra) and Ran Vijay and others (supra), in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha