1 CGHC010357272026 2026:CGHC:40574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6814 of 2026 Srijan Kumar Verma S/o Sanjay Kumar Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. D-10 Street No. 1, Daldal Seoni Mowa, Avanti Vihar, Daldal Seoni, Raipur (C.G.) - 492007 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block Sector- C-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chairman, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Controller Of Examination, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For Respondents/ CGPSC : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.09.17 17:40:57 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 17.09.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for re-evaluation of his answer sheet of the Civil Judge (J.D.) Mains Examination, 2024 and also seeks a direction to consider and decide his pending representation dated 11.05.2026. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the Civil Judge (J.D.) Mains Examination, 2024 pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.12.2024, but his name was not included in the select list published on 20.02.2026. He submits that, upon obtaining the answer sheet under the RTI Act, the petitioner found that certain answers had not been properly evaluated. He further submits that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 11.05.2026 seeking re-evaluation of his answer sheet, which is still pending consideration. He, therefore, prays for appropriate directions to the respondents to consider and decide the said representation in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ CGPSC would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2026 passed in WPS No. 5890 of 3 2026 (Krishna Devi Nag vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), wherein this Court held as under:- “7. A perusal of Clause 15 of the advertisement clearly reveals that there is no provision for recounting or revaluation of the answer sheets in the examination conducted by the respondent authorities. The advertisement specifically stipulates that no representation seeking recounting or revaluation shall be entertained. 8. It is a settled principle of law that in the absence of any statutory provision or rule providing for revaluation, the Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ordinarily direct revaluation of answer sheets. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commisson Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. reported in 2010 (6) SCC 759 held thus at paras 24,25 & 26:- 24. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc. wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory 4 provision. The Court held as under: “14"..........It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act... * * * 16.......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act......…" 25. This view has been approved and relied upon and re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors, observing as under: “7..."Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re- evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking 5 whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks." (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul- Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State, Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda, Board of Secondary Education, v. D. Suvankar, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences. 26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation. 10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, after placing reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ku. Preeti Rani Chauhan (supra), while dealing with an identical issue arising out of the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination, has categorically held that where the applicable rules or the advertisement do not provide for revaluation of answer sheets, no such direction can be issued by the Court. The said decision has also been affirmed by the 6 Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 85 of 2024. This Court finds no reason to take a view different from the one already taken by the Coordinate Bench and affirmed in appeal. 11. Insofar as the challenge to the interview marks is concerned, it is well settled that the assessment made by the duly constituted Selection Committee/Interview Board is entitled to due deference and judicial review in such matters is extremely limited. In the absence of any specific pleading or material demonstrating mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of any statutory provision in the conduct of the interview, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the Interview Board or substitute its own opinion with that of the expert body. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural irregularity in the selection process warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.” 4. Learned counsel further submits that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WPS No. 5890 of 2026, this petition may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WPS No. 5890 of 2026, this Court 7 deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in the aforesaid writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 04.08.2026 passed in WPS No. 5890 of 2026. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar