1 2025:CGHC:4101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 506 of 2024 1 - Shubham Sinha S/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. G-6/2, High Court Colony, Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur Through Its Registrar General, High Court Campus, Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - The Registrar General The Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh, At Bilaspur, High Court Campus, Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Mohd. Azhar S/o Imtiyaz Ahmad Aged About 25 Years Presently Posted As Stenographer In The Establishment Of The Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, Raipur Road, Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Pin 495220 4 - Shayna Kadri D/o Shri A.M Kadri Presently Posted As Stenographer In The Establishment Of The Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, Raipur Road, Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Pin 495220 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.02.06 11:47:59 +0530 2 22.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P/7) by which the petitioner’s candidature on the post of Stenographer has been denied by the respondents No. 1 & 2. 2. The brief facts reflected from the record are that respondents No. 1 & 2/High Court of Chhattisgarh has issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Stenographer and as per the advertisement last date for submission of form was 20.06.2023. Initially, the advertisement was issued for 29 posts and later on it was increased to 65 posts out of which 25 posts were for unreserved category. The petitioner participated in the selection process and after qualifying Phase-I, admission card for skill test was issued and he appeared in skill test. It was found that the petitioner has secured 86 marks whereas last selected candidates (respondents No. 3 & 4) in the merit list have secured 87 marks, therefore, candidature of the petitioner on the post of Stenographer was not considered. Being aggrieved with this non-selection the petitioner has filed writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that dictation test paper of the petitioner would show that he has committed only 13 mistakes but due to inadvertence, at the time of counting of the mistake, it has been counted as 14 mistakes, in place of 13, therefore, impugned counting mistake needs to be corrected and the petitioner be given total 87 marks. He would further submit that as per terms of the advertisement, 1 mark was to be deducted for each mistake and thus 3 deduction of one additional mark by the respondent authorities is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He would further submit that respondent authorities ought to have appreciated that, if the mistakes committed by the petitioner would have been properly calculated, then he would have secured 87 marks, instead of 86 marks, thus, he would have been selected, over and above the respondents No. 3 & 4 who are last selected candidates under “UR” category. Further, as the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.06.1997 and respondents No. 3 & 4 are younger to the petitioner, therefore, as per Rule 12(2) of the C.G. High Court Service (Appointment, Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules of 2017, in case of two or more members were placed at the same position in the merit list, the person senior in age, shall be given seniority over other, the petitioner would have been placed over and above the respondents No. 3 & 4 in the select list. He would further submit that in such cases, interference is called for from this Hon'ble Court as the subject by itself is not one which requires technical expertise, which is usually said to be beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. 4. He would further submit that the subject matter of this petition is not a technical subject, as such this Court can very well interfere with the impugned action of the respondents without seeking expert opinion on the subject. He would further submit that evaluation of answer sheet is required to be conducted as per the scheme of the examination and the failure to do so has resulted in violation of very important right of the petitioner to be fairly considered in the process of appointment. While appointment is not a right, fair consideration of candidature in the 4 process of appointment has been held to be a fundamental right by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would further submit that if the respondents had correctly evaluated the answer book of the petitioner, the petitioner would have been granted 87 marks and would have been selected over and above of the respondents No. 3 & 4, as the last candidate in the unreserved category. He would further submit that the merit list, the select list, the waiting list and the consequential appointment order are therefore vitiated. He would further submit that wrongly one mark has been deducted whereas there is no such procedure known to the candidates for deduction of marks and would pray for allowing the petition. 5. The respondents No. 1 & 2 has filed their return in which they have submitted the scheme of valuation according to which one mark is to be deducted for each mistakes. As per direction for each unnecessary words one mark has to be deducted and certain directions have also been issued to examiner for evaluation of answer sheet and the valuers have applied uniform formula for all the answer sheet of the candidates, as such the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief. The scheme for evaluation of answer sheets reads as under: eq[; ewY;kadudrkZ ¼ Head Valuer ½ ,oa ewY;kadudrkZ ¼ Valuer ½ gsrq fn’kk funsZ’k foKkiu esa fn;s x;s fn’kk funsZ’k ds vuqlkj LVsuksxzkQj ds dkS’ky ijh{kk gsrq dqy 100 vad fu/kkZfjr gS rFkk izR;sd xyrh ij 01 vad dkVk tk;sxkA fuEukuqlkj xyrh ij ,d vad dkVk tk;s& 1. orZuh esa xyrh ¼spelling mistake½ 2. iw.kZ fojke ¼Full Stop½ 3. cM+k v{kj @ NksVk v{kj ¼Capital Letter/Small Letter ½ 4. iSjkxzkQ ¼Paragraph½ 5 5. ‘kCnksa dks NksM+k tkuk ¼ftrus ‘kCn NwVs gksaxs mruh xyrh ekuh tk;s½ 6. vuko’;d ‘kCn fy[kk tkuk ¼ftrus vuko’;d ‘kCn gksaxs mruh xyrh ekuh tk;s½ 7. ‘kCnksa ds chp esa varj ¼Space½ uk fn;k tkuk vFkkZr nks ;k nks ls vf/kd ‘kCnksa dks ,d lkFk tksM+dj fy[kukA 8. ,d ‘kCn dks rksM+dj mlds chp esa varj ¼Space½ nsukA 9. Para Justified u gksus ij izR;sd Para dk 01 vad dkVk tk;sA 10. Mcy ykbZu Lisl ¼Double line space½ u nsus ij laiw.kZ eSVj gsrq mls ,d xyrh ekurs gq, dsoy 01 vad dkVk tk;sA blh rjg Font Size ‘14’ ls fHkUUk gksu ij laiw.kZ eSVj gsrq mls ,d xyrh ekurs gq, dsoy 01 vad dkVk tk;sA Font Size ‘14’ esa Mcy ykbZu Lisl ¼Double line space½ ds iSjka dk mnkgj.k fuEu gS& “Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer” 11. ^^FIR**,oa ^^FSL** ‘kCn ds izR;sd v{kj Capital Letter esa fy[kk tkuk gSA ,d Hkh v{kj dks Small Letter esa fy[ks tkus ij izR;sd ‘kCn dks 01&01 xyrh ekuh tk;s rFkk mDr ‘kCnksa ds chp esa iw.kZ fojke ¼Full Stop½ ,oa varj ¼Space½ nsus ij mls xyrh ugha ekuh tk;sA 12. 304(B) ‘kCn esa ^^B** dks cM+k v{kj@ NksVk v{kj ¼Capital Letter/ Small Letter½ fy[ks tkus ij mls xyrh ugha ekuh tk;sA 13. izR;sd i`”B ds xyfr;ksa dh la[;k dks ml i`”B ds ihNs vafdr fd;k tk;s ,oa mlds uhps ewY;kadudrkZ }kjk gLrk{kj fd;k tk;sA 14. Comma, Colon, Semi Colon, Apostrophy =qfV@ xyrh ugha ekuh tk;sA 6 15. ew[;ewY;kadudrkZ dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os ;g lqfuf’pr djsa dh ewY;kadu i=d esa vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk izkIr vadks dks dksM vuqlkj alphabetically Hkjs tk;sA 16. mRrj iqfLrdk dh tkWp 100 xyrh gksus rd vFkkZr ‘kwU; ^00* vad izkIr gksus rd dh tk;sxh] mlds i'pkr~ mRrj i=d dh tkWp ughs dh tk;sA 6. From the answer sheet, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has typed the word which was not dictated by the examiner, therefore, one mark was deducted for this and 13 marks have been deducted for other 13 mistakes committed by the petitioner, accordingly 14 marks have been deducted, as such he was given 86 marks. Thus he would submit that the allotment of marks is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. He would further submit that same procedure has been followed for each and every candidate, therefore, no discrimination has been done and a uniform system of marking was adopted, as such the petitioner cannot claim that he was discriminated or a wrong procedure has been adopted to deprive the petitioner from being selected, thus he would pray for dismissal of the petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Considering the submission made by the parties and also considering the material placed on record, particularly the directions given to the examiner wherein it has been specifically mentioned that if one word is missed or wrongly typed one marks has to be deducted accordingly deduction was made. The petitioner is unable to point out that this system of examining has not been uniformly adopted for all candidates, thus the procedure followed by the respondents No. 1 & 2/High Court of Chhattisgarh is uniform to all and no discriminatory treatment has 7 been meted out against the petitioner, thus the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that evaluation of answer sheet is subject matter of expert wherein the interference by this Court is extremely limited unless so cogent reason is assigned which is not available in the present facts of the case, as such also the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika