Himanshu Gupta S/o Prafull Kumar Gupta, Aged About 26 Years R/o Infront Of v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5048 of 2022 Himanshu Gupta S/o Prafull Kumar Gupta, Aged About 26 Years R/o Infront Of Bharat Gas Agency, Tusma, Road Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Additional Director Directorate Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Block-Ii, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur Through Its Controller Of Examination Vyapam Bhawan, North Block Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 3 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 29-08-2025 1) Facts of the present case are that an advertisement was published by the Additional Director, Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, State of Chhattisgarh, i.e., respondent No. 2, on 2 04.01.2022 for appointment to 84 posts of Food & Civil Supplies Inspector. Examination was conducted by respondent No. 3. Petitioners and other eligible candidates appeared in the written examination held on 20.02.2022. After examination, the model key answer was declared and uploaded to the website. After the issuance of the model answer, the petitioner raised an objection with regard to the model answer to Questions No. 63, 114, 161, 188, 191, and 200 in Set-A. The extermination conducting body, after deciding the objection raised by candidates, declared the result wherein the petitioner secured 131.564 marks and got the 50th rank. 2) Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Model Answer Key, answers to six questions in Set-A were incorrect, and later on, three questions were deleted by the examination conducting body, and no decision was taken with regard to the remaining three questions and their answers. She further submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, as the result was declared on the basis of incorrect answers to the aforementioned questions. She contends that the objections raised by the petitioner and other aspirants were not considered properly, and incorrect answers to the questions have vitiated the entire selection process. She further contends that the matter may be referred to an independent expert committee to examine the objection raised by the petitioner. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 submits that objections raised by the petitioner and other candidates were duly considered and scrutinized by an expert committee but it was not practically possible to inform all candidates, 3 who raised objections; therefore, the final answer key was published. He further submits that out of aforementioned six questions, three were deleted and the remaining three questions were found correct by the expert committee. He contends that the benefit of the deleted questions went extended to all the participating candidates and the petitioner would not get any additional benefit, thus this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) It is a well-settled principle of law that the benefit of revision of the model answer key or any incorrect questions or repeated questions or answers to alleged questions should not be limited only to those candidates who had approached the Court, but should be extended to all candidates, since the fault does not lie with them but with the examination body. Thus, the benefit would go to all candidates who participated in the examination. 7) On a similar issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Richal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, 2018(8) SCC 81, particularly in para 27 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 (Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, 2018 SCC OnLineSC 749) it is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those who 4 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 the present case, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process, and when he was declared unsuccessful, he filed a writ petition after the declaration of the result. Admittedly, the objections were raised by the petitioner with regard to incorrect questions and their answers before Respondent No. 3, and the objections were duly considered and replied to on the basis of the recognized textbooks. Further, the benefit of revision should not be limited only to the petitioner, who approached this Court, but it should be extended to all candidates; thus, the petitioner would not get any additional benefit, rather all candidates would get the benefit of such a revision, and the position of the petitioner in the merit list would remain the same. 9) In the matter of Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of UP., (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; if the Rule does not permit so it cannot be done but at the same time, the Court may permit re-valuation or scrutiny. It is further held that the Court should not at all reevaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate, as 5 it has no expertise in the matter, and the academic matters are best left to academics. The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers, and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. Relevant paras 30, 31, and 32 are reproduced herein below:- “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re- evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, process of without reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; any “inferential 30.3 The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4 The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 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 6 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.” 10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Richal and others (supra) and Ran Vijay Singh (supra), in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 11) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE AjinkyaDigitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.01 17:41:19 +0530