1 - Dinesh Kumar Chandra S/o Shri Keshav Prasad Chandra Aged About 40 Years v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.04.08 15:51:36 +0530 2025:CGHC:6378 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5021 of 2022 1 - Dinesh Kumar Chandra S/o Shri Keshav Prasad Chandra Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Line Attendant- I, In E E (Vig.) Office C S P D C L Korba, R/o House No. Se- 458, C S E B Colony Korba, East, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Through Its General Manager (HR) Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bhupendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Ramnath Verma Aged About 37 Years Junior Engineer- Electrical, O/o Executive Engineer (City East), Kachna Zone, C. S. P. D. C. L. Dagania, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Suresh Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years, Junior Engineer (Plant)- Trainee, O/o Executive Director/chief Enginner (Training) Pgti, C. S. P. D. C. L. Korba East, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dakeshwar Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years, Junior Engineer (Plant) Trainee, 2 O/o Executive Director/chief Engineer, (Training) Pgti, C. S. P. D. C. L. Korba, East, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. 7 - Raj Kumar Haripal Aged About 44 Years, Junior Engineer (Electrical), O/o Executive Engineer (M. R. T. Cum- Sub- Station) Division, 220 K. V. Substation, Korba, C. S. P. T. C. L. District- Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 5064 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
1 - Yogendra Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 38 Years Presently Posted As Line Attendent - I In Ee (O And M) Office Cspdcl Raigarh, R/o Upar Para Bendojhariya, Gram Panchayat Khairpali, Bendo Jhariya, Kunkuni, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Through Its General Manager (HR), Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bhupendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Ramnath Verma Aged About 37 Years Junior Engineer- Electrical, O/o Executive Engineer (City East), Kachna Zone, C.S.P.D.C.L., Dangania,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Suresh Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years Junior Engineer (Plant) - Trainee, O/o Executive Director/chief Engineer (Training) Pgti, C.S.P.G.C.L., Korba East, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Dakeshwar Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years Junior Engineer (Plant)- Trainee, O/o Executive Director/chief Engineer (Training) Pgti, C.S.P.G.C.L., Korba East, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 7 - Raj Kumar Haripal Aged About 44 Years Junior Engineer (Electrical), O/o Executive Engineer (M.R.T. -Cum-Sub-Station) Division, 220 K.V. Substation, Korba, C.S.P.T.C.L., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 5067 of 2022 1 - Sukdeo Prasad Deshmukh S/o Shri Kedar Singh Deshmukh Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted As Line Attendant - I In Ee (City Division) Cspdcl Durg , R/o 188, Ward No. 07, Bhata Para, Purana Basti Kohka, Supela Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur , Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Through Its General Manager (HR) Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhupendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Ramnath Verma Aged About 37 Years Junior Engineer - Electrical, O/o Executive Engineer (City East), Kachna Zone, C.S.P.D.C.L., Dangania, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Suresh Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years, Junior Engineer (Plant) - Trainee, O/o Executive Director / Chief Engineer (Training) Pgti, C.S.P.G.C.L., Korba East, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Dakeshwar Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years , Junior Engineer (Plant) - Trainee, O/o Executive Director/chief Engineer (Training) Pgti, C.S.P.G.C.L. , Korba East, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 7 - Raj Kumar Haripal Aged About 44 Years , Junior Engineer (Electrical), O/o Executive Engineer (M.R.T. - Cum-Sub-Station) Division , 220 K.V. Substation, Korba C.S.P.T.C.L., Distirct - Korba Chhattsgarh --- Respondents 4 WPS No. 5070 of 2022 1 - Nehansh Kumar Markandey S/o Shri Puranik Ram Markandey Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Line Attendant- I In E E (O And M) Office C S P D C L Kurud, R/o 39 Ghasidas Para, Ward No. 2, Kotgaon, Darba, Kurud Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Through Its General Manager (HR) Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhupendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Ramnath Verma Aged About 37 Years Junior Engineer Electrical, O/o Executive Engineer (City East), Kachna Zone, C. S. P. D. C. L., Danganiya District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Suresh Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years Junior Engineer (Plant) Trainee, O/o Executive Director/ Chief Engineer (Training) P G T I, C. S. P. G. C. L., Korba East, District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Dakeshwar Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years Junior Engineer (Plant) Trainee, O/o Executive Director/ Chief Engineer (Training) P G T I, C. S. P. G. C. L., Korba East District Korba Chhattisgarh 7 - Raj Kumar Haripal Aged About 44 Years Junior Engineer (Electrical), O/o Executive Engineer (M. R. T. Cum Sub Station) Division, 220 K. V. Substation, Korba, C. S. P. T. C. L., District Korba Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 5 WPS No. 5032 of 2022 1 - Jitendra Kumar Malakar S/o Shri Tiharu Ram Malakar Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Line Attendant I In E E (O And M) Office Cspdcl Raigarh, R/o 818 Ward No. 6 Lata Sadan, Madhuban Para Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Through Its General Manager (HR) Danganiya Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhupendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Ramnath Verma Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Attd. Gra I(L) At Saragaon Dc Under (O And M) Dn. Raipur 5 - Suresh Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted At O/o Ed/ce (Gen.) Htps Kwb 6 - Dakeshwar Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted At O/o Ed/ce(Gen), Abvtps, Marwa 7 - Raj Kumar Haripal Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As Testing Assistant Grade I (Testing) At 220 K.V. Sub Centre, Chhuri (Kerwa) Under Executive Engineer (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) --- Respondents For Respective Petitioners For Respective Respondents : : Shri Mateen Siddiqui and Shri Harsh Wardhan Agrawal, Advocates Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate, Shri Saumitra Kesharwani, Advocate on behalf of Shri Nirnay Gupta, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer 6 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 4/02/2025 1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court by which the respondents Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company/Power Distribution Company, i.e., the respondent/company have denied legitimate right of the petitioners for their appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the aforesaid company. On an advertisement issued for appointment of Junior Engineers in Electrical, Mechanical and Civil Branches, the respondent/company invited applications from the eligible aspirants. Accordingly, the petitioners who were satisfying the eligibility criteria have put their candidature and accordingly they have participated in the competitive examination held by the respondent/company on 10.4.2022 for the recruitment on the post of Junior Engineers. In the examination, 100 questions were to be answered and there was minus marking of 0.25 marks for the per incorrect answer. The qualifying marks set up was 40% for the General and OBC Candidates and 30% for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Candidates. In the said examination conducted by the respondent/company, 10 questions in the question papers had 5 answer choices, i.e., A, B, C, D, E, but, in the OMR answer sheets provided to the candidates for putting their answers has multiple choice answer there is only mention of A, B, C, D and 5th choice was not mentioned in the OMR answer sheets. The aforesaid fact was apprised by the candidates appearing in the examination. However, no satisfactory answer was given to the candidates and orally it was informed to them that it will be taken care in the later stage. The petitioners obtained 33.50 marks and they were declared disqualified. 7 According to the petitioners the respondent/company has failed to consider this aspect that the questions No.81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 98, 99 were having 5 multiple choices, i.e., A, B, C, D, E, but, in the OMR answer sheet only A, B, C, D, has been mentioned to be blackened, but the 5th option, i.e., E has not been mentioned in the OMR sheets. After declaration fo the result, the petitioners immediately filed representations on 20.4.2022 with a request to the respondents authorities to provide them “pro-rata” marks and also to all the candidates for the defective questions, however, it has not been taken into consideration and the respondent/company has not given any heed to the grievance raised by the petitioners. The petitioners filed application and have obtained some documents under the Right to Information Act. They also applied for providing copy of their question papers, however, they have not been supplied the same. When the documents as sought by the petitioners have not been provided to them, they filed an appeal before the appellate authority for supply of necessary documents, but, it has not been provided on the ground of pendency of some of the writ petition. The respondents themselves have the practice of awarding “pro-rata” marks for defective questions as evident from Annexure P/8. In this recruitment also, during the pendency of the present petitions, question No.54 and 75 have been cancelled and “pro-rata” marks have been awarded, as a result, two new candidates have been recently appointed vide Annexure P/9. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs, which are almost identical in each of the petitions: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be kindly pleased to call for the entire records in respect of the recruitment process and the grievance of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to award pro-rata marks to all candidates in respect of the defective questions. 8 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to prepare results, final select list and complete the recruitment process accordingly after granting pro-rata marks to all candidates. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioner if found above the benchmark along with all consequential benefits. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case along with cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submit that due to the mistake of the respondent/company the petitioners were not selected and as many as for the 10 questions required option “E” was not provided in the OMR answer sheets, as such they could not opt for that answer which is primarily the mistake committed by the respondent/company which is evident from the documents appended in the petition, as such the respondent/company is required to give “pro-rata” marks to the petitioners. If the petitioners would have been given “pro-rata” marks due to the incorrect OMR answer sheet they would have been selected for the post of Junior Engineer. The representation filed by the petitioners were also not considered in an illegal and arbitrary manner, as such the petitioners were left with no other option except to file these petitions for redressal of their grievances. 3. The respondent/company has filed its return/reply while admitting this fact that about 8 questions were having 5 options, however, in the OMR sheet there were only 4 options. The merits of the candidates were considered after leaving these questions and the cut off marks were reasonably considered. They submitted that once the candidates have opted for participating in the examination they are precluded from challenging the process of examination 9 and for this reason alone the petitions themselves are not maintainable. They have relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Vinodh Kumar, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100. After supplying the question papers, it was reported by some of the candidates that there were more than 4 options given in certain questions. The invigilators were instructed to allow the candidates to answer that extra option if they so desire but in a separate column made for that purpose in the answer sheets. The merit of the candidates was assessed taking into consideration following questions: 81, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 98 and 99 having 5 options and those candidates who secured the minimum pass marks, 40 for UR/OBC candidates and 30 marks by SC/ST candidates were declared successful in the test. The cut off marks for selection was 51.25 for posts in CSPDCL for UR candidates, 40.00 for posts in CSPGCL for UR and in CSPTCL 30.5 marks for ST candidates. A candidate who has participated in the selection process knowing well the rules governing the test is not permitted to turn round and question the selection process as per the decision and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinodh Kumar (supra). Therefore the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 4. It was argued on behalf of the respondent/company that the petitioners have participated in the examination and as such even if there are some anomalies in the OMR answer sheets they are precluded from raising these objections and they cannot be permitted to raise any doubt in this respect. Marks of all the aspirants have been given by excluding the disputed questions as raised by the petitioners, as such no interference is required for. 5. I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and perused the record with great circumspection. 10 6. It is admitted position that questions No.81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 98, 99 were having 5 options in the question papers, however, in the OMR answer sheets, only 4 options have been given and the right option was E in some questions which was not mentioned in the OMR sheet. There was minus marking of 0.25 marks for each incorrect answer and also the petitioners could not mark it. They have raised an objection in the examination hall itself about the said anomaly, however, their objections and grievances were not redressed. Subsequently, after declaration of the result also, they have properly represented with their grievances, however, then also it has not been redressed. When this anomaly was admitted by the respondent/company then “pro-rata” marks are required to be given to the petitioners and on the basis of “pro-rata” marks the select list would have been prepared. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/company that the posts of Junior Engineer are available in the department. This aspect has been considered and dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494 and the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below: “16. It is not in dispute nor it can be disputed that for the purposes of re-evaluation, the eight questions found incorrect were deleted and their marks were rightly allotted on a pro rata basis in accordance with Clause 14 of the Rules which reads as under: "14. Wrong (Defective) objective type question, its cancellation and marks to be allotted in lieu of it. After the exams, the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) gets each question examined by the subject expert. If, upon examination by the subject experts, the questions 11 are found defective/wrong, it is rejected. Questions may be rejected on the following reasons: (i) if the structure of the question is wrong; (ii) out of the options given as answers, if more than one options are correct; (iii) if no option is correct; (iv) if there is difference in Hindi and English translation of any question because of which different meaning is drawn from both and one correct answer could not be ascertained; (v) if any other printing mistake is there because of which correct answer is not ascertainable or more than one option is correct. On such rejection of question upon the recommendation of Subject Expert Committee, on such questions the marks would be awarded by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) to the candidates in proportion to their marks obtained in the particular question paper. Whether the rejected question has been or not been attempted. The question papers in which the questions have been rejected, their evaluation procedure would be as follows, if in any question papers out of 100 questions 2 questions are rejected and after evaluation candidate secures 81 marks out of 98 questions then in such case calculation of marks would be done as (81 x 100)/100 – 2 = 82.65. On which basis merit would be determined." The other eight questions whose answers were found incorrect in the earlier model answers key were re-evaluated on the basis of revised model answers key. In Paper 1, only the objective type questions were re- evaluated with the aid of model answers key prepared and provided to the examiners for the first time after the inquiry by the respondent Board. 18. In respect of the respondent Board's propriety in taking the decision of re-evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the respondent Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty 12 of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of experts and is empowered to decide upon re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Sahiti v. Dr N.T.R. University of Health Sciences. It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re-evaluation. The respondent Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re-evaluation in respect of the eight questions, answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterised as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re-evaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein. 19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of re-evaluation by the respondent Board was a valid decision which could not be said to have caused any prejudice, whatsoever, either to the appellants or to the candidates selected in the revised merit list and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court to the aforesaid extent.” 7. Recently, in the matter of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Hage Mamung, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 66, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: “17. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as the answer keys with respect to two questions, namely, question No. 12 and question No. 31 of the General Knowledge Paper were found to be wrong, a conscious decision was taken by the Public Service Commission to cancel the aforesaid two questions and with a view to see that no candidate should be penalised for the mistakes in the answer keys provided by the resource persons, it was decided to award marks against question No. 12 and 13 question No. 31 to all the candidates on pro-rata basis. The original writ petitioner including original respondent No. 5 and all the candidates therefore were awarded two marks each on pro-rata basis. Therefore, after such process with corresponding Increase in the marks of all the candidates, the rank/merit would remain the same and in fact remained the same. In fact, the original writ petitioner is also allotted two marks on pro-rata basis with respect to question Nos. 12 & 31 along with all the candidates. Merely because, according to the original writ petitioner, she correctly answered both question Nos. 12 & 31 and original respondent No. 5 answered one question correctly and one question wrongly, the Division Bench of the High Court is not justified in ordering re- evaluation of the papers of only two candidates, namely, the original writ petitioner and original respondent No. 5, against a conscious decision taken by the Public Service Commission to award two marks to each candidate on pro-rata basis with respect to two questions of which the answer keys were found to be wrong. 18. As per clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017, where in the question in the examination paper itself is wrong and thus could not possible be evaluated to have correct answer, there may be deletion of such incorrect questions and the consequent pro-rata distribution of the marks allocated to them. Applying the same analogy with respect to wrong answer keys and thereafter when a conscious decision was taken to allocate the marks on pro-rata basis with respect to two questions whose answer keys were found to be wrong and when all the candidates were awarded two marks (one mark each for the aforesaid two questions), it cannot be said that the Public Service Commission acted illegally and/or arbitrarily and/or committed any wrong. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in ordering re-evaluation of only two candidates, namely, the original writ petitioner and original respondent No. 5 only.” 8. In light of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in light of the admission made by the respondent/company that there were anomalies in the answers and answers sheets, however, in consequence of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent/company that the 14 posts of Junior Engineer are lying vacant in the department, this Court is of the fortified view that the respondent/company is required to give “pro-rata” marks to the petitioners for questions No.81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 98, 99 and accordingly they are required to pass appropriate orders while awarding marks to each of the petitioners and if the petitioners secure the cut off marks as prescribed for the different categories then appropriate orders for their appointment shall be passed in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to complete this exercise within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions are hereby allowed. 10.
Decision
No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh