1 2025:CGHC:36137 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 373 of 2017  Pritam Das Manikpuri S/o Shri Shiv Das Manikpuri, Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Stenographer, In The Office Of Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Behind Rajbhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Behind Rajbhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Behind Rajbhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to award marks to the petitioner for the question which has been correctly answered by the petitioner i.e. Paper-2, Part-D, Question No. 5(A) and further direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner for the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.28 14:27:22 +0530 2 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Class and he is also physically challenged. He would further submit that he was appointed to the post of Stenographer in the Office of Commercial Tax, Raipur. An advertisement was issued on 30.11.2012, for promotion to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector from the clerical grade by way of a limited departmental competitive examination. He would also submit that, according to the advertisement, the aspirants were required to secure 50% marks in each paper, and 10% relaxation was provided for the employees of the reserved category (Other Backward Class, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Handicapped). He would contend that the petitioner participated in the examination and secured 41.5 marks in Paper-1 and 19 marks in Paper-2 out of 50 marks. He would further contend that as the petitioner could not secure qualifying marks in Paper-2, his name was not considered for promotion. He would also contend that the answer sheet of Paper-2, Part D, particularly question No. 5(A), was not properly checked, and marks were not awarded. Mr. Rao would further argue that the respondent authorities refused to re-check the answer sheet of the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision for revaluation in the rules. He would also argue that a similarly situated employee of the Commercial Tax department approached this Court by filing WPS No. 3494 of 2015, wherein a direction was issued to re-evaluate his answer sheet and get it properly assessed within a period of 3 months. It is also contended that if the petitioner had secured one extra mark in Paper-2, he would have become eligible for promotion. He would pray to allow this petition. 3 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner failed to mention the question number in the answer sheet; therefore, he was not awarded marks against question No. 5 (A), and there is no provision for revaluation. He would further submit that in WPS No. 3494 of 2015, the counsel for the petitioner took a plea that he had answered correctly in the answer-sheet, but marks were not awarded and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the authorities re-valuated the answer-sheet of one Khilawan Dewanganm, but the case of the petitioner is entirely different. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. It is case of the petitioner that he correctly answered question No. 5(A) of Part D of Paper – 2 and it was checked by the examiner, but marks have not been awarded and this fact has been admitted by the respondent authorities in the note-sheet dated 14.01.2016 provided under the Right to Information Act. In the case of Gowerdhan Uraon, a direction was issued for revaluation as a copy of one candidate, namely Khilawan Dewangan, was re-checked by the respondents. It appears that the respondent authorities have re-valuated and re-checked the answer-sheets of Khilawan Dewangan and Gowardhan Uraon pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, and therefore, the copy of the answer-sheet of the petitioner can also be examined, when there is an allegation that the answer to question No. 5(A) of Part – D, Paper No. - 2 was checked, but proper marks were not awarded. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to re-evaluate the answer sheet of Paper-2, Part-D, 4 question No. 5(A) of the petitioner, and if the petitioner has rightly answered that question, the respondent authorities, including the examiner, shall award proper marks. 7. The change in result would obviously require the respondents to issue mark-sheet to the petitioner and consider his case for promotion, in accordance with the law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant