1 2025:CGHC:1339-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 897 of 2024 1. Hemu Bhardwaj Aged About 25 Years R/o Mq 109 Urja Nagar, Gevra Project, Korba Chhattisgarh Pin 495452 2. Kahkasha Begum D/o M.D Jafar, Aged About 26 Years R/o Behind Shitla Mandir, Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495001 3. Shreyansh Dutta S/o Debabrata Dutta Aged About 23 Years R/o Flat No.414, Block A, Sai Bhoomi, Torwa, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495001 4. Priya Somawar, D/o Dinesh Somawar Aged About 25 Years R/o Near Head Post OfÏce, Opposite Vitthal Mandir, Tilak Nagar, Chantapara, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495001 5. Parth Kumar Jha S/o Pawan Kumar Jha Aged About 24 Years R/o Hig - A-5 Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, Bialaspur Chhattisgarh, Pin 495001 6. Nikhil Yadav S/o Ramesh Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Kunti Niwas, Near Shahid Avinash Sharma Garden, Srknada, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495001 ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Mantralay, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.09 18:22:18 +0530 2 2. Registrar General High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Dist- Bilaspur. 3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block Sector 19 , Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (CG) 4. Examination Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (CG) 5. Angad Ram Kewant S/o Girdhari Lal Aged About 31 Year R/o Arsiya, Jaijaipur, Post- Jaijaipur, Dist- Sakti, Chhattisgarh, Pin- 495690 6. Anita Yadav D/o Ramlal Yadav Aged About 37 Years, R/o Mahalpara, Bandh Road , Ward No.2 Mahalpara, Saraipali Dist- Mahasamund, Pin 493558 7. Ritu Netam, D/o Kamal Singh Netam, 30 Years R/o Ward No.8 Gond Para, Rani Gaon Lormi Dist- Mungeli CG, 495115 8. Sucheta Chandrakar, D/o Deeraj Chandrakar Aged About 24 Years, R/o Shankar Nagar Kurud, Dist- Dhamtari, CG, Pin – 493663 9. Rukmani Thakur D/o Bhagwati Thakur, Aged About 33 Years, R.O Gali No.2 Ward No.10 Rengakathera, Dist- Balod, CG, Pin- 491223 10. Ruby Thakur D/o D/o Ashok Thakur, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bhanupratappur, Uttar Bastar, Dist- Kanker CG, Pin - 494669 ...Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State, Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 and Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6963 of 2024 (Angad Ram Kewant & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners herein. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 890 of 2024 & Batch vide order dated 08.01.2025 observing as follows : “8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Committee Katra & Others vs. Ashwani Kumar, AIR 2024 SC 2855 and has held that the situation in hand 4 is covered by the Latin maxim "nullus commumdum capere potestde injuria sua propia" which means no person can take advantage of his own wrong. It is the tendency of a litigant to blame others for his own mistake. Admittedly, one of the writ petitioners made a complaint before the Head of the Examination Center on the date of examination but no objection was raised with regard to the examination pattern and after a few days, objections were raised in this regard. Thus the objections with regard to examination pattern were afterthought and were raised at a belated stage. 9. Learned Single Judge further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. G. Hemlathaa & Anr. (2020) 19 SCC 420 and has held that the instructions given in the OMR sheet have the force of law and errors committed by the candidates in filling up the circles of the digits of the roll number leading to rejection of such OMR Sheets would lead to rejection of candidature of such candidates and no mandamus can be issued to correct the OMR Sheets manually. In the present case also, the petitioners ignored instructions and committed mistakes in writing answers therefore no relief can be granted in their favor. Learned Single Judge thereafter relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (2024) SCC Online SC 3184 and has held that candidates have a right to know before the selection process commences, the standards/criteria on which they will be assessed/evaluated so that they could modulate their level of preparedness accordingly. It is further held that if eligibility cut-off marks are to be prescribed, it should be done before the test or the 5 interview so that both the examinee and the examiner are aware as to how many marks would qualify a candidate for further consideration. It is also observed and held that the basis of the doctrine is that the 'rules of the game' must not be changed during the course of the game, or after the game is played. However, the present is not a case where the rules of the game have been changed midway, thus the aforesaid judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case. 10. Having gone through the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further considering the fact that the result for the Civil Judge (Main) exam 2023 has already been declared and thereafter the select list has also been published and furthermore, advertisement for exam for the year 2024 has also been released, there is no good ground raised by the appellants to interfere in the present matter. Further, having gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein, we do not perceive any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to warrant any indulgence by this Court in the present intra court appeal. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 890 of 2024 & Batch, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to 6 WA No. 890 of 2024 & Batch, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 890 of 2024 & Batch. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in WA No. 890 of 2024 & Batch. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan