1 2025:CGHC:58775-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 876 of 2025 Jitesh Kumar Patel S/o Amar Singh Patel Aged About 31 Years Unemployed, R/o Ward No. 04, Gram Lebda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Finance Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Its Chairman, Raipur, District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Limited (Apex Bank) Through Its Secretary Cooperative, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Raigarh, District -Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.12.04 19:06:31 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Jitesh Kumar Patel, Appellant in person For Respondent/State: Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No. 2: Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate For Respondent No. 3: Shri Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.12.2025 1. Heard Shri Jitesh Kumar Patel, Appellant in person. Also heard Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Shri Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 9729/2023, whereby and whereunder the writ petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The facts of the case is that an advertisement was issued on 04.09.2023, by Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Limited (commonly known as "Apex Bank"), for recruitment on the posts of Field OfÏcer, OfÏce Assistant, General Assistant and Society 3 Manager. The petitioner was also one of the aspirants in the recruitment process. The written examination for selection was conducted on 29.10.2023, by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (commonly known as "VYAPAM"), in which the petitioner also participated. A total of 100 questions were set up, which were to be answered by the participants. After the written examination, the respondent No. 2 issued a Model Answer on 06.11.2023. The petitioner claims that the answer set up in the Model Answer for question Nos. 21, 22, 24, 29, 80 and 83 are incorrect answers. The petitioner made a detailed objection on 07.11.2023 for question Nos. 21, 22, 24, 29, 46, 74, 79, 80, 83 and 85 of SET-D (CBAS23). The respondent No. 2 deleted the 03 questions from the question paper, i.e. question Nos. 46, 74 and 79. Thereafter, without considering the objection of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 issued the merit list along with a score card on 04.12.2023. The petitioner secured fewer marks; therefore, he could not find a place in the merit list of selected candidates. The petitioner again made his detailed representation to the respondent No. 2, through e-Mail on 06.12.2023, regarding the answer to question Nos. 21, 22, 24, 29, 80, 83 and 85 and the detailed representation on 07.12.2023 through Registered Post, explaining the details of the answer 4 and its correctness. It is also the case of the petitioner that some of the questions which were deleted could not have been deleted, as the answers given in the model answer key were correct. Some of the answers were wrongly corrected, as the answers given by the petitioner were correct and they ought to have been accepted. 4. Learned Single Judge after appreciating the rival submissions of the parties and considering all the aspects of the matter dismissed the writ petition observing thus at paras: “xxx xxx xxx 23. The grievance of the petitioner is only with respect to 10 questions, which were found not correct or sustainable because of ambiguity or due to more answers or having been framed wrongly without giving proper answer, the marks available in respect of 10 questions have to be reevaluated amongst all the candidates who participated in the examination in uniformity. All the candidates, who participated in the examination are either beneficiary or not a looser in any manner, and hence there cannot be any valid or sustainable grievance or cause of action for the writ petitioner. 24. The above mentioned questions and answers as 5 considered and opined by the expert committee have been referred by this Court only to point out that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the genuineness of his objections. There is absolutely no challenge as to the competence of the expert committee constituted by the VYAPAM or as to any instance of mala fides. This being the position, the interpretation of the writ petitioner with reference to the way, in which it has been pointed in some of the text books/literature and sought to be relied on by him to suit his stand cannot be a ground to tilt the balance in respect of the opinion given by the expert committee. After considering all the objections, the opinion was formed by the expert committee leading to finalization of the answer as per their experts report, therefore, the decision making process pursued by the VYAPAM is quite in order, and there is no scope for interference in this regard. 25. The another objection raised by the respondent No.2/VYAPAM that all the selected candidates who have joined on their respective posts have not been made as a party respondents in the present writ petition is concerned, would be redundant in view of the consideration that the petitioner could not succeed in demonstrating that he is entitled for more marks in aforesaid questions as per his own interpretation and this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not 6 entitled for reevaluation of his answer sheet for the aforesaid questions and answers. 26. Though the petitioner had tried to support his claim by citing certain judgments, however, in view of the aforementioned judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner by the judgments cited by him, as the issue has been answered in above mentioned cases considered in this order. 27. In view of the aforesaid consideration, this Court does not find any scope of interference in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.. " 5. The petitioner/appellant in person would further submit that learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has not at all appreciated the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. The contention of the appellant in person is that the respondent No. 2 has incorrectly valued the answer sheet of the petitioner, and they valued the correct answers given by the petitioner as incorrect answers. The detailed representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent No. 2. The questions were objective type, and answers were to be given in the OMR sheet. He would further submit that the question Nos. 21, 22, 24 and 29 of SET-D 7 (CBAS23) of the question paper relate to the Chhattisgarh Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short "Act of 1960"), and the answer given by the petitioner for question No. 21 was correct as per the provisions of Section 56(2), (3) and Section 2 of the Act of 1960. Question No. 22 relates to Sections 17 and 18 of the Insurance Act. Question No. 24 relates to the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India for the KCC Scheme and the Economic Survey. Question No. 29 relates to Sections 8, 53(k) (4) and 70 of the Act of 1960. He would further submit that question No. 59 of SET-D (CBAS23), of the question paper was a mathematical question regarding the area of a triangle, which was correctly answered by the petitioner, but the same has been deleted by the respondent No. 2. Questions No. 80 and 83 of SET-D (CBAS23) question paper relates to English grammar, and the petitioner gave a correct answer as per the Cambridge Dictionary and perfect English Book authored by Mr. V.K. Sinha, but the respondent No. 2 marked as incorrect answer. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is very lower in rank in the examination result. Even if the marks are to be allotted to him, he could not come in the merit position, as the merit position of others would also be changed and then the entire result would 8 be affected. The valuation of the answer sheet is based on the model answer, which was prepared by the expert committee, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. They would further contended that that on 28.04.2025 they have submitted the experts' report, in which a detailed analysis of the correct answer has been given as to why the subject experts had chosen the correct answer. The petitioner has not challenged the constitution of the expert committee. The authentic books have been referred by the subject experts. After thoroughly examining the questions under objection, the expert committee submitted their opinion and as per their opinion, three questions were deleted and marks of deleted questions were granted to the candidates according to the examination rules. No irregularity or illegality has been committed by the respondent/VYAPAM in issuance of final answer key and the process adopted by the VYAPAM was quite transparent in all respects. The selected candidates have joined on their posts and the petitioner has not made them as a party respondents in the present writ petition, and if the petitioner would be granted any relief, their service condition would be affected, therefore, they are the necessary parties in the present writ petition. Even if, it is to be held that the petitioner have referred to some literature in his hand to 9 support his answer, that by itself is not sufÏcient to hold that the experts opinion relied on by the respondent/VYAPAM is bad in all respects are to be ignored. They would further contended that the recruitment process is completed and the candidates are joined on their posts. Though some posts are vacant, because some of the candidates are not joined, but the same would be filled up by the separate recruitment process. The cut-off marks was 55.6, whereas the petitioner secured 51.08, therefore he cannot claim to be appointed on the posts after getting benefit of revaluation of his answer as per his own interpretation. 7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. 8. Having considered all the aspect of the matter and on going through the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, it is evident that the objections were considered by the Expert Committee. There is absolutely no challenge to the competence of the Expert Committee constituted by the Vyapam or as to any instance of mala fides. 9. The committee consisting of experts in various subjects, who have examined the questions and answers and also examined the objections raised by the candidates. The Courts cannot 10 take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct 10. Learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter in its true perspective has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant in person. The same is just and proper warranting no interference by this Court. 11. It is the trite law that the Court should not ordinarily interfere in the opinion formed by the Expert Committee. It is also a trite law that after participating in the selection process and when he could not succeed in the selection process has no right to question the entire selection process. 12. In view of the above, the writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib