1 / 7 2025:CGHC:22962-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 82 of 2023 1 - Kajal Banjare D/o Shri Jaipal Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Near R.K. General Store, Sai Nagar, Uslapur, Bilaspur, Police Chowki- Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Law And Legislative Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - District And Session Judge Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), 3 - Chairman, Selection Committee, O/o District And Session Judge Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), 4 - Kameshwari D/o Shri Samaru Ram Stenographer, (Hindi) In The O/o District And Session Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), ... Respondents For Appellant : Appellant in person. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.11 13:20:53 +0530 2 / 7 10.06.2025 1. The appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 02/01/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 4317/2020, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 04.10.2019 an advertisement was issued by the office of District and Sessions Judge, Raigarh for appointment on the post of Assistant Programmer, Stenographer English and Hindi and Assistant Grade-III. As per the advertisement, four posts for stenographer (Hindi) were notified out of which 1 post was for the unreserved category and one post each was reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class candidates. The petitioner had participated in the selection process. Earlier the examiner has found that the petitioner has committed 20 mistakes while transcribing the dictation given to her, but later on it has been found that petitioner has committed three more mistakes, thus she has committed 23 mistakes, therefore, she was not selected and respondent No. 4 has been selected on the post of Stenographer (Hindi). 3. The writ petitioner preferred the writ petition questioning the selection of the respondent No.4 as Stenographer contending 3 / 7 that the petitioner applied for answer sheet on 14.09.2020 under Right to Information Act, 2005 but no satisfactory information was given to her, therefore, she preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act, 2005 but the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 25.01.2020. Thereafter on 27.01.2020 the petitioner has submitted another application under the RTI Act, In response to the same on 05.02.2020, question paper, transcription and computer typed answer book were provided to the petitioner. 4. The writ petitioner further contended that from perusal of computer typed answer book of the petitioner, earlier 20 mistakes have been counted and subsequently it has been converted into 23 mistakes and there was tampering in the answer sheet, which amounts to interference in the recruitment process just to give due weightage to respondent No. 4. She further submits that grave illegality was done in the second stage of the selection process, meaning thereby that the conditions were divided into two parts i.e. the first part has to be written on the shorthand note book as per the dictation within 5 minutes by the candidates @ speed of 100 WPM and in the second part candidates have to type the same on computer within 30 minutes. Earlier 20 mistakes were counted by some other person subsequently 23 mistakes was counted by some other person in the typing. She further contended that the respondents have adopted different yardstick for appointing the 4 / 7 respondent No. 4. 5. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “17. It is quite vivid that the documents sought in the application are not at all relevant for adjudication of this case, as this Court cannot conduct roving enquiry to the allegations made by the petitioner. The respondent No.1 has filed their return, in which the answer sheet of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 have been annexed wherein the mistakes clearly indicated and would reveal that the respondent No. 4 after checking by the expert has done 19 mistakes whereas the petitioner after checking by expert has done 23 mistakes, these are the material documents which were made available by the respondents, therefore, the documents mentioned in I.A. No. 01/2020 are not relevant for just and proper adjudication of the case. Accordingly the I.A. 01/2020 is also rejected. Consequently, it is held that the petitioner is unable to point out any favouritism or partiality while conducting selection process by respondents No. 2 & 3. 18. Considering the entire facts and material on 5 / 7 record, I do not find any good reason to interference in the selection process which has been conducted by respondent No. 2 and 3 and appointment of respondent No. 4 does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.” 6. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant reiterating the same plea and it was contended that the petitioner applied for answer sheet on 14.09.2020 under Right to Information Act, 2005 but no satisfactory information was given to her, therefore, she preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act, 2005 but the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 25.01.2020. Thereafter on 27.01.2020 the petitioner has submitted another application under the RTI Act, In response to the same on 05.02.2020, question paper, transcription and computer typed answer book were provided to the petitioner. 7. Appellant/writ petitioner in person submits that from bare perusal of computer typed answer book of the petitioner, earlier 20 mistakes have been counted and subsequently it has been converted into 23 mistakes and there was tampering in the answer sheet, which amounts to interference in the recruitment process just to give due weightage to respondent No. 4. She further submits that grave illegality was done in the second stage of the 6 / 7 selection process, meaning thereby that the conditions were divided into two parts i.e. the first part has to be written on the shorthand note book as per the dictation within 5 minutes by the candidates @ speed of 100 WPM and in the second part candidates have to type the same on computer within 30 minutes. Earlier 20 mistakes were counted by some other person subsequently 23 mistakes was counted by some other person in the typing. She further submits that the respondents have adopted different yardstick for appointing the respondent No. 4, hence, the order of learned Single Judge is not just & proper and the learned Single Judge committed grave error in deciding the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner, as such, impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, being without substance, is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition that the answer sheet of the petitioner and respondent 7 / 7 No. 4 have been annexed wherein the mistakes clearly indicated and would reveal that the respondent No. 4 after checking by the expert has done 19 mistakes whereas the petitioner after checking by expert has done 23 mistakes and due to which, the appellant/writ petitioner could not select in the said post. 11. Be that as it may, it is the well settled proposition of law that the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the decision taken by the expert body. 12. In view of foregoing, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/ Amardeep