Anil Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8267-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 125 of 2025 Anil Kumar Sahu S/o. Bhishma Dev Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o. Near Vivekanand School, Shanti Vihar Colony, Daganiya, Raipur, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food And Drug Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Controller Food and Drug Administration Department, Block-1, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.18 17:39:01 +0530 For Appellant For Respondent/State For Respondent No. 3 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 18 .02.2025 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant through video conferencing. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Mr. Avinash Singh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2679 of 2015 (Anil Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has
Decision
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant have filed the writ petition bearing WPS No. 2679 of 2015, against the arbitrary act of respondent authority for not correcting the question which were either correct or were liable to be cancelled with bonus marks, this way the appellant suffered the loss of minus marking as well as he suffered gaining marks, therefore, he was not selected in the examination of Drug Inspector, in which otherwise he would have been selected. She also submits that there was advertisement by the respondent department for the post of Drug Inspector, Food Security OfÏcer and Sample Assistant by the ofÏce of respondent No.2, which was uploaded in the website. The appellant applied for the post of Drug Inspector, there are total 38 post of 3 Drug Inspector amongst which 12 post of reserved for the OBC category, the appellant belongs to OBC category. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this examination was conducted by respondent No. 3. There were total 150 questions, one mark for each question and for wrong answer there was minus marking of 4 mark was to be deducted. The question was three set, A for pharmacy, В for other topic and C for general knowledge. She would submit that the appellant appeared in the examination, result was declared and he has secured total marks 71.591. Thereafter, one press release was issued on 17.04.2015 for making objections, if any, related to question and answer along with the model answer copy. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant made objection on several questions, in which two objections are related to question No. 90 in B-set. Apart which there were several more objections by the appellant, they are related to question Nos. 41, 62, 100, 141, 07, 38, 68, 22, 89 and 81, all these objections were decided by the respondent No. 3. She further states that apart from the first two objections, all other objection decided accordingly it was corrected in their final answer, but respondents have not corrected the two questions and answers, if this would have corrected, the appellant would have been selected. Finally, the appellant has not been selected and the successful candidates are at the state of verification of documents. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had made application under RTI Act for getting correct answer for his objection on 05.06.2015, which has been replied by the 4 respondent No.3 on 22.06.2015. She also contended that they have not referred to specialist and has denied to give any opinion related to objection. Against which, the appeal was preferred by the appellant on 27.06.2015. From perusal of question paper, question No. 20 is as follows: “(20) How are prescription drugs different from OTC drugs ? (A) They contain higher amount of active ingredients (B) They are unsafe for use without medical supervision (C) Both (A) and (B) (D) None of the above.” The appellant wrote none of the above as it is correct answer, but their model answer says that the answer of question No. 20 is (B), they are not safe without medical supervision. The appellant has made answer (D) none of the above. Likewise, the question No. 90 of B-Set is (90) In a prescription "STA.T" Means (A) AT once (B) Single Tablet at a time (C) Straight (D) Stop after some time. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the merit list was published and appellant is not in that merit list as he secured 71.591% marks, had it been these two marks were given to the appellant, he would have placed in merit list. Now the respondent department is verifying the documents of selected candidate on different dates. She further submits that there were so many mistakes in the question paper, the petitioner also made several objections to the respondent authorities, 5 which were corrected and new model answer was issued by the department, but these two questions have not been corrected. She also submits that there is serious dispute in to question, the expert report was required into the matter, but the respondent authorities did not allow the same. Accordingly, by minus marking ½ the marks twice have been deducted from the appellant’s marks. As if at all there is a dispute in awarding the marks, the matter is required to be placed before the expert committee, therefore, the act of the respondent authorities for not placing the dispute before the expert committee, is bad in law. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.11.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3 submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. They further submit that the two questions were referred to the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee has found option ‘B’ as the correct answer to question No. 20 and further found that question No. 90 is the correct question. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 10. The matter was referred to the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee has filed its report which states as under: vkS"kf/k fujh{kd HkrhZ ijh{kk & 2015 ¼fo"k; fo’ks"kK lfefr fjiksVZ½ 6 fo"k; & Pharmacy nkokdrkZ dk uke & vfuy dqekj lkgw iz’u dz- O;kie dk mRrj nkokdrkZ dk nkokdrkZ }kjk izLrqr nkok@vkifRr ij fo’ks"kKksa Q.N.20 B mRrj C dh Vhe The applicant’s objection is not valid. As per the documentary evidence submitted it is very clear that “the prescription drugs listed in Schedule H, in accordance with Rule 65(9), can be sold only on the basis of a prescription issued by a Registered Medical Practitioner. Hence, the option ‘B’ as mentioned in model Q.N.90 A iz’u esa =qfV gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;k answer is correct. The applicant’s objection is not valid. As mentioned by the applicant there tkos exists a very minor printing mistake, which is negligible because any qualified pharmacist should be capable of understanding the meaning of Latin term used in the mentioned question. Looking into such miniscule error, the question should not be cancelled. Lfefr lnL;ksa dk uke] 1- lgh@& gLrk{kj inuke ,oa gLrk{kj ¼izkpk;Z½ dksyafc;k baLVhV~;wV vkWQ QkWesalh] jk;iqj 2- lgh@& gLrk{kj ¼lgk;d izk/;kid½ dksyafc;k baLVhV~;wV vkWQ QkWesalh] jk;iqj 11. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that the two subject questions were referred to the Expert Committee and the 7 Expert Committee on close scrutiny held that answer to question No. 20 is option ‘B’ and question No. 90 is the correct question, which is the correct view of the matter and considering the model answers to the two subject questions, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the two subject questions referred herein-above. 12. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan