1 2026:CGHC:26645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2371 of 2017 1 - Rajnish Singh S/o Lalmunai Singh, Aged About 26 Years R/o 3/4, Police Line Near Old Bus Stand Behind, City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Atul Tiwari S/o Shri Dharampal Tiwari R/o Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Santosh Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Rathore R/o Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Mohd. Abid Khan S/o Late Mohd. Amanat Khan R/o Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Risabh Swarnkar S/o Shri Rajesh Swarnkar R/o Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Sujeet Kumar Sinha S/o Kaushal Kumar Sinha R/o Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Pushpendra Kumar S/o Yuvraj Singh R/o Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, 2 Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Yogesh Dewangan S/o Shri Lochan Prasad Dewangan R/o Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Mithlesh Verma S/o Ramkumar Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post Ganiyari, Via Kharora, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Navin Kumar Sahu S/o Ashok Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Aruna Sahu D/o Awadh Ram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village And Post Borigarka, Post Pauwara, Police Station Utai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 13 - Mahendra Kumar Nourange S/o Kumar Nourage Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khaira, Post Mudpar, Tahsil Palari, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 14 - Jitendra Bhushan S/o Prem Lal Banerji Aged About 26 Years R/o Flat No. 403, Tower-2, Op Jindal Housing Colony, Gharghoda Road, Punjipthra, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 15 - Parul Thakur D/o G.S. Thakur Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Balram Talkies Gandhi Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 16 - Nitin Singh S/o Veernarayan Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o 171/a, Gangapurkhurd, Near Tulsibaba Chowk, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 17 - Ravindra Kumar Thakur S/o Shyam Lal Thakur Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 16/a, Old Kacharipara, Post And Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 18 - Dumesh Kumar Thakur S/o Ghanshyam Singh Thakur Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Matekata, Post Murmunda, Tahsil Dongargarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 19 - Aditya Narayan Bhoi S/o Krishna Kumar Bhoi Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 236, Sidar Mohalla, Main Gali Nagar Panchayat Dabhra, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 20 - Pravin Kumar Dhruve S/o B.S. Dhurve Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 21/a, Street No.12, Sector-2, Bhilai Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 21 - Prachi Verma D/o Ramesh Kumar Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Shivam Vihar Colony, Behind Ramkrishna Insstitute, Mahadev Ghat, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 22 - Chandni Kanwar D/o Shiv Sharan Singh Kanwar Aged About 26 Years R/o Telecom Colony, Type 3/9, Rajkishore Nagar, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 23 - Dageshwar Singh Rajput S/o Bhukhan Singh Rajput Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Kali Mandir, Rawabhata, Lavkush Nagar, Post Sunder Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 24 - Ashutosh Sahu S/o Daulal Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o 181-B, Sanjay Gandhi Ward 04, Indira Colony Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 25 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Gore Lal Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Mamta Kirana Store, Ambedkar Chowk, Chhattisgarh Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 26 - Santosh Kumar Haripal S/o T.S. Haripal Aged About 27 Years R/o B-801, Yamuna Vihar, Block-3, Ntpc Township, Jamanipali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Adv. along with Mr. Aniruddha Singh, Adv. For State/ Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, G.A. For Respondents No. 2 to 26 : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30.6.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs :- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the merit list (final selection)list for the post of T.S.I 2017 (Annexure p/4) for the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to call for the entire records relating to the matter of petitioner and verifying the wrong question and answer which was taken into the consideration for the final selection list. 4 10.3 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed. 10.4. That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for setting aside/quashing the expert opinions given by experts (Annexure P/19). 2) Facts of present case are that Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission published an advertisement on 27.7.2016 for appointment to the posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (A.R.T.O.) and Sub Inspector (Transport). Petitioner applied for the aforesaid posts and participated in the written examination held on 7.1.2017. Model Answer Key was published on 12.1.2017, objections were invited and the last date for submission of objections was 19.1.2017. Petitioner raised objection against 17- 18 questions and CGPSC deleted three questions namely Question Nos. 39, 125 and 137. Thereafter, an amended model answer key was published on 1.3.2017 ; petitioner sent written objection before the CGPSC and requested to re-consider his objections. Result was declared on 22.3.2017, petitioner scored 190.4476 marks and he appeared in interview on 20.4.2017. The final result was published by CGPSC on 25.4.2017 but the name of petitioner was there in the merit list. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner had scored four additional marks, he had been selected. He further submits that in Question No. 6, the word ‘literary’ is wrongly mentioned instead of ‘library’ whereas in Question No. 7, model 5 answer describes third option as correct but correct answer would be second option as per the textbooks. He contends that Question No. 21 is based on guidelines issued by Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources and option one is correct but the model answer key projects option three to be the correct option. He further contends that answers of Question Nos. 26, 28, 29, 40, 70, 74 and 84 were also incorrect and the expert opinion is contrary to the textbooks. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor Versus Samir Gupta and Others1 and Rajesh Kumar and Others Versus State of Bihar2. He prays to quash the expert opinions (Annexure P/19) and set aside the merit list. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner has filed writ petition after participating in the recruitment process when he could not find place in the final merit list. He further submits that written examination was conducted on 7.1.2017 and thereafter model answer key was published and objections were invited and after scrutiny of the objections, as many as 15 questions were deleted. He contends that an expert committee was constituted which submitted its report/ opinion and thereafter amended merit list was published. He further contends that even for the sake argument, if objections raised by petitioner are accepted, the benefit will go to all the candidates who participated 1. (1983) 4 SCC 309 2. (2013) 4 SCC 690 6 in the examination. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P and others3. He argues that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6) It appears that in the relief clause, petitioner has not sought any relief for himself, instead he has challenged the entire merit list and sought quashing of the expert opinions. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of revaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets held that sympathy or compassion cannot be a ground for directing re-evaluation of answer sheets. It has been further held that where an error is committed by the examining authority, all candidates are affected equally, and the entire selection process should not be disturbed merely because some candidates are disappointed. Relevant paragraphs 31 and 32 read as under :- “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 or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or 3. (2018) 2 SCC 357 7 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 exercise concludes with an air of 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 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.” 7) In Richal and Others Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others4, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 4. (2018) 8 SCC 81 8 benefit of revision should not be limited only to those candidates who had approached court but should be extended to all candidates since fault does not lie with them but with examining body. Relevant paragraph 27 is held as under :- 27. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentioned that the result has been revised of only 311 appellants who are before this Court. We are of the view that key answers having been corrected, merit of all the candidates except those who have already been selected needs to be redetermined. In our order dated 16-1-2018 it is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those who have already been selected. We, thus, are of the view that the Commission should revise the entire result of all the candidates except those who have been selected on the basis of the report of the Expert Committee and publish revised result of all the candidates. When the key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which was given the task of revising the key answers. 8) In Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Others5, Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the decision in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) holding that it is not open to the High Courts to examine the correctness of question papers and answer key to come to a conclusion different that of an expert committee. It has been further held courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. Relevant paragraph 17 reads as under :- 5. (2021) 2 SCC 309 9 17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel. 9) Pertinently, petitioner participated in the recruitment process knowing fully well the terms and conditions of the advertisement and upon being unsuccessful, he has preferred this writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anupal Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others6, while dealing with the similar issue in paragraphs 55 to 61, held as under: “55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. 6. (2020) 2 SCC 173 10 56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486, it was held as under:- “9. ….. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. …..” 57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395, it was held as under:- 73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper……..”. 58. In Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, it was held as under:- “19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, it was further observed:- “34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate 11 appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not ‘palatable’ to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.” 59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others (2008) 4 SCC 619 wherein, it was held as under:- “59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ……The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise……..” 61. The private respondents knew that by the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the number of vacancies of different categories have been changed and knowing the same, they participated in the interview and have taken a chance and opportunity thereon without any protest. Having participated in the interview and having failed in the final selection, it is not open to the private respondents to turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the revised requisition of the number of vacancies in different categories. Having regard to the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not have granted any relief to the private respondents/intervenors.” 12 10) In view of the aforesaid legal principles established by the Apex Court and the discussion made herein-above, no case is made for interference. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.02 16:23:06 +0530