1 CGHC010364112026 2026:CGHC:42194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6880 of 2026 1 - Nikhilesh Soni S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Soni Aged About 37 Years R/o Besides B.R. Memorial Hospital, Chantidih, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Vivek Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Ramesh Prasad Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ramchandrapur, Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Nishu Kashyap S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Kashyap Aged About 38 Years R/o Chulghat, Police Station- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Jamini Yadav D/o Shri Sukhdev Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 286, Village Anjora, Police Station Pulgaon, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Akshay Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Bharat Lal Aged About 31 Years R/o Budgahan, Tahsil Baloda District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Prashant Sharma S/o Shri Gyarshi Lal Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Police Station- Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) 7 - Kislay Shrivastava S/o Late S.K. Shrivastava Aged About 37 Years R/o Mig- 1/95, Ravishankar Shukla Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.09.30 10:39:02 +0530 2 8 - Kuldip Singh S/o Shri Bharat Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Pudu, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Dimpee Patel D/o Late K.N. Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Police Station- Pussaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) 10 - Tuleshwar Dhiwar S/o Shri Suklawl Dhiwar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nariyara, Ward No. 11, P.S. Mulmula, Tahsil Akaltara District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission North Block, Sector- C-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), Through The Secretary. 3 - The Chairman, The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector- C-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Controller Of Examination, The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector- C-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 6976 of 2026 3 1 - Neeraj Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram- Charpara, P.S. Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Gaurav Dewangan S/o Shri Basant Kumar Dewangan Aged About 31 Years R/o Sorid Nagar Shanti Chowk, P.S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Miss Rashi Pali D/o Rajkumar Pali Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Chantidih, Rapta Road, Sarkanda Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Mohit Dewangan S/o Santosh Dewangan Aged About 38 Years R/o Dwangan Mohalla, Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Controller Of Examination, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Respective Petitioners : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel and Prashant Singh, Advocates For Respondents/ State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate For Respondents/ PSC : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate 4 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners, in substance, are seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to re- evaluate their answer scripts by constituting an independent expert committee and have also challenged the entire selection process. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.11.2025, the petitioners participated in the selection process conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC), and the result of the Main Examination was declared on 31.08.2026, whereby 608 candidates were shortlisted for interview against 265 advertised posts. They further submit that, under the applicable Rules, the petitioners claim that candidates ought to have been called for interview in the prescribed 1:3 ratio and that their representations seeking rechecking/re-evaluation of answer scripts and transparency in the selection process have not been properly considered. Learned counsel, therefore, would pray for appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners' grievance in accordance with the applicable Rules and advertisement. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPS No.6976 of 2026 would also submit that, in previous examinations also, there were instances of anomalies and the 5 candidates who sought their answer scripts were not provided to them. 3. On the last date of hearing, this Court directed the counsel appearing for the PSC to file an affidavit apprising the Court of the correct facts and factual position of the case. In compliance with the said direction, an affidavit has been filed on 26.09.2026. 4. By referring to the said affidavit, learned counsel appearing for the PSC submits that it has been specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 thereof that, as per the advertisement, the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the Main Examination are 33% for candidates belonging to the Unreserved category and 23% for candidates belonging to the reserved categories, in accordance with the applicable Rules. He submits that only 608 candidates could secure the prescribed minimum qualifying marks in their respective categories and, accordingly, only those candidates were called for interview. He further submits that there is no provision under the applicable Rules of the PSC for re-evaluation of answer scripts and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for re-evaluation cannot be accepted. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309, and submits that, in the absence of any provision permitting re- evaluation, the Court cannot direct re-evaluation or scrutiny of 6 answer scripts. Hence, he submits that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a bare perusal of the affidavit filed by the PSC, it is evident that, as per the advertisement, the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the Main Examination are 33% for candidates belonging to the Unreserved category and 23% for candidates belonging to the reserved categories, in accordance with the applicable Rules. It is also evident that, according to the prescribed Rules, only 608 candidates could secure the prescribed minimum qualifying marks in their respective categories and, accordingly, only those candidates were called for interview. Hence, there appears to be no discrepancy in this regard. It is also evident that there is no provision under the applicable Rules of the PSC for re-evaluation of answer scripts and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for re-evaluation cannot be considered and is not sustainable at this stage. 7. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re- evaluation of answer sheets, the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 held that the Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the 7 academic matters are best left to academics. The Supreme Court in the said judgment further held as follows: (at para 31) "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 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. 8. A perusal of the above judgment 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 Court itself to arrive at the correct answers is not permissible. 9. So far as the contention of the petitioners that candidates ought to have been called for interview in the prescribed ratio of 1:3 is concerned, from the affidavit filed by the PSC, it is evident that the candidates who were called for interview were those who had 8 secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed under the advertisement and the applicable Rules. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate from the material available on record that any candidate who had secured the prescribed minimum qualifying marks was excluded from consideration for interview. Therefore, the said contention of the petitioners does not warrant any interference with the selection process. 10. As far as the contention of the petitioners in WPS No.6976/2026 regarding anomalies in previous examinations is concerned, the said grievance, at this stage, cannot be considered merely on the basis of an assumption. The ground questioning the present Main Examination also cannot be considered at this stage in the absence of proper pleadings and sufficient facts in the present writ petition. 11. It is also not in dispute that there is no provision under the applicable Rules permitting re-evaluation of answer scripts. In the absence of any such provision, and particularly when the petitioners have not demonstrated any specific illegality in the evaluation of their answer scripts, no direction for re-evaluation can be issued merely on the basis of apprehension or dissatisfaction with the marks obtained. 12. In view of the above and applying the well-settled principles of law and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioners for re-evaluation of their 9 answer scripts or interference with the selection process cannot be considered at all. 13. Accordingly, both the writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar