1 2026:CGHC:22107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5293 of 2022 1 - Banarshi Prasad Yadav S/o Dileshwar Prasad Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Sarbhoka, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.). 2 - Varsha Kachhap D/o L.V. Kachhap Aged About 33 Years R/o Tarbahar Indra Colony Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Anamika D/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khaira, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Than Singh S/o Radhe Lal Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Gotatola Tahsil Chhuriya District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 5 - Shikha Dwivedi W/o Santosh Dwivedi Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Bharridand, Tahasil Marwahi, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.). 6 - Parshottam S/o-Gorelal Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Katai, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.). 7 - Aakanksha Shukla D/o-K.S. Shukla Aged About 28 Years R/o- Kushalpur, Banjari Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 8 - Radhika D/o-Krishnavatar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Dhaniyadoli, Tahsil-Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.). 9 - Thaneshwari Sahu D/o-Mitthu Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Lafandi, Tahsil-Rajim, District-Gariyaband (C.G.). 10 - Premin Nayak W/o-Vishanu Prasad Nayak Aged About 38 Years R/o-Village Gudiyari, Tahsil-Patan, District Durg (C.G.). 11 - Gangotri W/o Dhanna Lal Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o-Village- Dumardih, Tahsil And District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 12 - Durgesh Nandini Dhruw D/o-Bharatlal Dhruw Aged About 27 Years R/o-Village Megha Tahsil Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 13 - Mahendra S/o-Daulal Aged About 26 Years R/o-Village Belar, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 14 - Monesh Kumar Sinha S/o-Murari Lal Sinha Aged About 23 Years R/o-Mathpurena, Raipur, Tahsil And District-Raipur (C.G.). --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Chhattisgarh, Professional Examination Board, Raipur Through Examination Controller, Pension Bada Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Chhattisgarh State Council Of Education Research And Training Raipur Through Its Director, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) 3 WPC No. 767 of 2023 1 - Angesh Kumar Sori S/o Shri Keshaw Ram Sori Aged About 39 Years R/o- Dhola Chowk, Risali Basti, Civil Center, Bhilai District Durg Chhattigarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam) Through Secretary Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19 Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Examination Of Controller Through Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam) Through Secretary Vyapam, Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19 Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 240 of 2023 1 - Shashi Kiran Sahu W/o Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Near T.V. Tower, Chhote Antarmuda Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 2 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur Through Examination Controller, Pension Bada Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Council Of Education Research And Training Raipur Through Its Director, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 5483 of 2022 1 - Sadesh Kumar S/o Jaiprakash Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Chhindiya, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur Through Examination Controller, Pension Bada Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Chhattisgarh State Council Of Education Research And Training Raipur Through Its Director, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3686 of 2023 1 - Namita Sidar D/o Nehrulal Sidar Aged About 25 Years R/o - Baigandih, Post- Singhanpur, Tahsil- Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) 5 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Under Secretary Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Respective Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sibasish Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) / State : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent/Vyapam : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPC No. 5293/2022 (Banarshi Prasad Yadav 6 and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same. “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the correct answer are "Piaget, Stimulus response theory, Opening a new school, Evaluation, Chomsky & Synthetic Method" it and further direct the respondent CG Vyapam to allot the marks of the same to the petitioners. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to delete the question No.70"The word heart-rending means" it and further direct the respondent CG Vyapam to allot the marks of the same to the petitioners. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice..” 3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No.2 for Chhattisgarh Teachers Eligibility Test 2002 (TET 2022), petitioners submitted their application forms and appeared in the examination held on 18.09.2022. Vyapam declared the result of TET 2022. Vyapam has also uploaded the model answer and have called objections to the model answer. Some of the aspirants who participated in the examination have raised their objection which was considered by the Committee constituted in this regard. Petitioners could not 7 secure the minimum marks required for passing the examination and thereafter have filed this petition seeking relief as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in all the connected writ petitions, submits that the petitioners had appeared in the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (CG TET), 2022 conducted by Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CG Vyapam) for Primary and Upper Primary levels and had answered the questions strictly in accordance with the standard textbooks, NCERT materials, D.El.Ed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in all the connected writ petitions, submits that the petitioners had appeared in the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (CG TET), 2022 conducted by Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CG Vyapam) for Primary and Upper Primary levels and had answered the questions strictly in accordance with the standard textbooks, NCERT materials, D.El.Ed. books, grammar books, and other recognized academic sources; it is submitted that after the examination, model answer keys were initially published by the respondent authorities and several answers therein supported the answers marked by the petitioners, however, subsequently while publishing the final answer keys and results, the respondent authorities arbitrarily changed, deleted, or modified several answers and questions without assigning any proper reason and without granting any opportunity to the petitioners to raise objections against such changes; learned counsel submits that many of the answers finalized by the respondent authorities are contrary to the prescribed academic material and accepted educational standards, and despite the petitioners having submitted detailed objections supported by authoritative textbooks and reference materials, no proper consideration was made by the respondents; it is further contended that in certain 8 cases questions were deleted without clarifying the manner in which marks would be awarded, whereas in other cases correct answers marked by the petitioners were wrongly treated as incorrect, thereby materially affecting the petitioners’ final scores and their eligibility to qualify the TET examination; learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities, while conducting a public examination affecting future employment opportunities of candidates, are under a legal obligation to ensure fairness, transparency, and accuracy in the evaluation process, however, the arbitrary alteration and deletion of answers after publication of the model answer keys has caused grave prejudice to the petitioners and infringed their rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; it is also submitted that the respondent authorities failed to properly address or decide the objections raised by the petitioners and acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner, thereby vitiating the fairness of the examination process and seriously affecting the petitioners’ prospects of qualifying the CG TET examination and securing future public employment opportunities. 5. Learned counsel for Vyapam submits that submission of learned counsel for petitioners that Vyapam has taken wrong answers is absolutely wrong. Vyapam is a Board constituted by the Department of Higher Education, Technical Education, Manpower Planning, Science & Technology of the Government of Chhattisgarh with an object for conducting Pre-Entrance 9 Examinations for Medical, Ayurvedic, Engineering, Agriculture Colleges and Polytechnic or any other examination as authorized by the Government of Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh has assigned the work of conducting C.G. TET 2022 examination in accordance with rules framed by the Department of State Council of Educational Research & Training (In short “SCERT”). The examination was conducted on Optical Mark Reader Answer Sheet (in short “OMR Sheet”). After conducting examination, Vyapam published model answer of the respective sets of questions papers/book let in the official website of Vyapam. After publication of model answer, Vyapam called for “Claims and Objections” from participating candidates. The claim and the objection submitted by candidates were duly considered by the panel of experts of Vyapam and thereafter final answers were published in official website and only thereafter the results of TET 2022 examination was published. The claims and the objections submitted by aspirants were considered by the panel of experts by giving thoughtful consideration. The objections were considered by the panel of experts referring the study material and papers which is also mentioned in the report of experts. The copy of opinion given by the experts based on the objections raised by aspirants participated in the TET 2022 examination. Petitioners failed to make out a case that final answer which was published is absolutely not correct and not supported with any material. If the panel of experts while considering the objections 10 have given their thoughtful consideration referring to the study material, books, papers and others, the opinion of the experts are not to be interfered and it has to be given weightage. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, in case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Through Its Chairman and Another Vs. Rahul Singh & Another, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254 and two decisions of Division Bench of this Court one of which is reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 2185 parties being Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board through Its Controller, Vyapam Bhawan Vs. Vikram Singh Rana & Ors., another in Writ Appeal No.165 of 2020 parties being Umang Gauraha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and other connected writ appeals, decided on 10.12.2020. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- ‘30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet 11 or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re- evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3 The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4 The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed 12 or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse – exclude the suspect or offending question. 32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of 13 the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination – whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers. 8. In case of Rahul Singh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court while taking note of decision in case of Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 as also the decision in case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) has observed thus :- “12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In 14 Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of - (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions. 13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot 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.” 9. Division Bench of this Court while dealing with identical issue in case of Vikram Singh Rana (supra) has observed as under :- 15 “15. The above questions and answers, as considered and opined by the Expert Committee, have been referred to by this Court only to point out that the Petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate the genuineness of their objections before the writ Court, which was essential, in view of the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra), before any relief was granted. There is absolutely no challenge as to the competence of the Expert Committee, constituted by the Appellant- Board or as to any instance of mala fides. This being the position, the idea of the writ petitioners with reference to the way in which it has been painted in some of the textbooks and sought to be relied on by them to suit to their stand cannot be a ground to tilt the balance in respect of the opinion given by the Expert Committee, for the reasons as given in Annexure-A/5. The course of action pursued by the Appellant-Board is demonstrated as transparent in all respects. The questions were framed by the Experts and after completion of the Examination, the Model Answers were published as per Annexure-A/3, giving a chance to the candidates to submit the objections, if any. It was after considering all the objections, that the opinion was formed by the Expert Committee, leading to finalization 16 of the answers as per Annexure-A/4 and position, the 'decision making process' pursued by the Appellant- Board is quite in order and there is no scope for interference in this regard.” 10. In case of Umang Gauraha (supra), Division Bench of this Court taking note of decision in case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and Rahul Singh (Supra) has observed thus :- “21. As mentioned already, there is no dispute with regard to the course and events insofar as after conducing the examination, the model answers were published by the Board inviting objections from the interested participants. The objections obtained were forwarded and subjected to scrutiny by the Expert Committee. Considering the objections, the Expert Committee found that some questions were liable to be deleted because of the defects either in the questions or the answers and in respect of some other questions, the model answers were noted as required to be corrected. It was on the basis of the said opinion of the Experts that the final answer key was published by the Board, followed by further steps. This clearly shows that the course pursued by the Respondent- Board was quite transparent in all respects and it cannot be held as arbitrary, malafide or unreasonable in any manner.” 17 11. If the facts of the present case are considered in light of the aforementioned decision, it is apparent that Vyapam immediately after conducting examination has published model answers called claims and objections from the participating candidates on the model answers and only thereafter the final answers were published based on the opinion of the experts and only thereafter result was declared. The course pursued by Vyapam clearly shows that the procedure adopted was transparent and therefore, it cannot be said that the action pursued by Vyapam is arbitrary, malafide or unreasonable in any manner. The Court has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academicians and once the objections were considered by the panel of experts interference of the Court in the academic matters is not permissible unless it is proved that the mistake pointed out is glaring mistake and is apparent which in the facts of the case is not appearing. Petitioner has not challenged the competency of the experts or raised and established the ground of any malafides. The Committee has published the model answers, invited objections and the model answers and objections were placed before the panel of experts for their opinion. Panel of experts after considering the issue relying upon the material submitted their opinion. Only because the opinion of experts not suits the petitioner in the facts of the case would not be a ground for interference. 12. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner is 18 on different facts. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has remitted back the case to the High Court leaving open for the Division Bench to call for the experts opinion on the question of which answers were objected. 13. For the forgoing discussions made here-in-above, I do not find any merits in these petitions, which are liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat