Chattisgarh High Court
Durgesh Dixena vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 July, 2021
1
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 205 of 2021
[Arising out of order dated 23.7.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WPS No.2426 of 2021]
1. Ashish Kumar Goyal S/o Lalit Kumar Goyal Aged About 32
Years R/o Shanti Nagar Lailunga District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh Pin 496113.
2. Manoj Kumar Sarthi S/o Makkar Lal Sarthi Aged About 39
Years R/o Jila Panchayat Road, Near Abhinav School,
Chote Attarmuda District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
3. Naveen Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav Aged
About 24 Years R/o Of Village Pokhra , Post Office Parsada
Josi, Tehsil Rajim District Gariyaband , Chhattisgarh. Pin
493885
4. Udyan Dubey S/o Vimal Kumar Dubey Aged About 26 Years
R/o Near Siddh Shikhar Appartments Mig 2/4, Narmada
Nagar , Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Shiv Charan Deshmukh S/o Ram Singh Deshmukh Aged
About 28 Years R/o Village Behind Post Suregaon, Tehsil
Dondi Laura District Balod Pin Code 491225.
6. Madhuri Sahu D/o Mr Ishwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 24
Years Village And Post Office Nawagaon , Rajim Tehsil
Abhanpur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code 493885.
7. Kunal Mishra S/o Mr Madhusudan Mishra Aged About 30
Years R/o Ward No. 21 Shitilpara Nawapara, Tehsil
Nawapara , District Raipur , Chhattisgarh Pin Code 493881.
8. Nirmal Kumar S/o Shri Kamal Singh Aged About 30 Years
Resident Of Sargipat Para (Near Pani Tanki), District
Kondagaon , Chhattisgarh Pin Code 494226.
9. Surbhi Shukla D/o Mr Suhsil Kumar Shukla Aged About 27
2
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
Years Resident C/o Satish Sharma , Civil Engineer Near
Mukthidham Chowk New Sarkanda Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
10. Ayush Agrawal S/o Kamlesh Agrawal Aged About 23
Years R/o Building No. 12 Ashoka Rattan, Lic Colony
Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 492007
11.Devyani Sao W/o Aninash Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o
Geetanjali Vihar Phase 2 Narmada Nagar, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
12. Munmun Baidya D/o Subhash Chandra Baidya Aged
About 29 Years R/o Plot No 37 Uday Nagar Colony, Kanker ,
Pin Code 494334 , In Front Of Govt Pg College Kanker
Chhattisgarh.
13. Madhuri Baria D/o Keshav Baria Aged About 26 Years
R/o House No. 756 , Patel Para Sarvamangla Road Korba
Ward No. 01 , Korba Chhattisgarh.
14. Krishnakant Choudhary S/o Kushiram Choudhary
Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 51, Ram Nagar High
School, Lailunga Village District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Pin
Code 496113
15. Rajendra Singh S/o Jaipal Singh Aged About 31 Years
R/o S- / 26, Annapurna Vihar, Ganesh Nagar, Bilaspur ,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary General
Administration Department , Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya , Naya Raipur , Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin Code
495001.
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commision Through Secretary,
Shankar Nagar , Road, Raipur , Chhattisgarh Pin Code 492
001.
3. Examinar Chhattisgarh Public Service Commision Through
3
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
Examiner Controller, Shankar Nagar, Road, Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
4. Rajesh Singh Rathore S/o Jaichandra Singh Rathore R/o
Durg Mandir Sukli, Village And Post Office Sukli , Janjgir ,
Pin 495668 , Tehsil Janjgir , District Jangir Champa.
5. Pallavi Kshatry D/o Damodar Singh Kshatry Aged About 27
Years R/o House No. 123 Bherimura, Ratanpur , Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
WA No. 203 of 2021
[Arising out of order dated 23.7.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WPS No.2576 of 2021]
1. Harishankar Verma S/o Devi Prasad Verma Aged About 30
Years R/o Aditya Nagar, Near Naveen School, Ward 20
District Durg Chhattisgarh
2. Veerbhadra Singh S/o Bhojray Banchhor Aged About 29
years R/o M.N. 14 Shashtri Chowk Demar Devada, Patan
District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary General
Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Neeraj Kumar Dewangan S/o Yashwant Kumar Aged About
27 Years R/o Katul Board Yadav Gali, Hari Nagar, S. A. F.
Line Durg Chhattisgarh
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
5. Bhanendra Kumar Sinha S/o Dikeshwar Sinha Aged About
27 Years R/o Mahverapara Sankra Ward No. 18, Nagari
District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
6. Manish Verma S/o Prem Lal Verma Aged About 25 Years
R/o Central Jail, Jail Colony, Ward No. 48, District Durg
Chhattisgarh
7. Payal Sinha S/o Sinha Aged About 27 Years R/o 156 Ward
No. 18 Nehru Nagar Supela District Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 204 of 2021
[Arising out of order dated 23.7.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WPS No.2658 of 2021]
Durgesh Dixena S/o Laxman Prasad Dixena Aged About 26
Years Resident Of Village Lakhanpur Post Office Sutarra Pin
Code 495445 Tehsil Pondi , Uprora District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, General
Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan , Mantralaya
Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. Sanjay Kumar Tandon S/o Vijay Kumar Tandon Aged About
26 Years R/o Minimata Chowk Temri, Bemetara , District
Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
For Appellant in WA No.205/2021:-Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
For Appellant in WA No.203/2021 :- Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate
& WA No.204/2021
For Respondent-State :- Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Dy.A.G.
For Respondents No.2&3:- Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
Proceedings through Video Conferencing
Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
Judgment On Board
By
Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
30/07/2021
1. Since all the writ appeals involve common grounds and
common question of law, they are being considered and
decided by this judgment.
2. The appellants (henceforth 'the petitioners') preferred the
writ petitions seeking for the following reliefs:-
WA/205/2021 WA/203/2021 WA/204/2021
(WPS No.2426/2021) (WPS No.2576/2021) (WPS No.2658/2021)
Seeking Seeking setting Seeking
quashment of aside of modal quashment of
the entire answer dated modal answer
selection 14.3.2021 to the dated 14.3.2021
process dated extent of to the extent of
14.3.2021 deletion of deletion of
issued by the question No.14, question No.14;
respondent/PS 18, 37, 70, 88,
C; seeking a
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
seeking a 89, 91; direction
direction to the towards the
PSC to issue seeking a PSC to correct
fresh result of direction to the the answer of
the preliminary respondents to questions No.
examination on correct the 20, 48, 58, 71
the basis of answer of on account of
proper questions material defects
calculation No.16, 20, 48, and 67 and 97
based on 58, 71, 93 on of the CSAT
correct question account of paper;
and answers, material
in accordance defects; seeking a
with law; and direction to PSC
seek a direction to evaluate the
seeking a to the deleted
direction respondent/PS questions 53,
towards the C to evaluate 98 of set B
PSC to allow the deleted which have
them to sit in questions 53 been deleted
the main and 98 of set B and;
examination. which have
been deleted seeking a
without any direction
legal basis; and towards the
PSC to declare
seeking a the marks
direction obtained by the
towards PSC to candidate
declare the appeared in
marks obtained examination
by the and direct the
candidate respondents to
appeared in publish the new
examination mark-sheet
and direct the after correction.
respondents to
publish the new
mark-sheet
after correction.
3. The petitioners in all the writ appeals appeared in the
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
preliminary examination conducted by the PSC for State
Services Examination 2020 on 14-2-2021. The model
answer was published on 15-2-2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the
subject questions were attempted by the petitioners and had
given correct answers yet the expert appointed by the PSC
for examining the objections putforth by the candidates,
have modified/changed the answer to the detriment of the
petitioners. Had the answers been not changed the
petitioners would have been qualified.
5. While dismissing the writ petitions, learned Single Judge has
relied upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court in Umang Gauraha v State of Chhattisgarh &
Others 1 and quoted paras 17 to 20 of the said judgment.
6. In Umang Gauraha (supra) the Division Bench has referred
the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay
Singh and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2
particularly paras 30 to 32 thereof to hold that while making
correction in the model answer the PSC has followed the
opinion of the experts, therefore, the same cannot be
interfered under writ jurisdiction.
7. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra) the following principles have
2 (2018) 2 SCC 357 : AIR 2018 SC 52
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
been laid down by the Supreme Court as to the scope of
interference in matters relating to the revaluation or scrutiny
of answers :
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, without any
"inferential process of reasoning or by a process
of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional
cases that a material error has been committed;
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 candidates suffer
equally, though some might suffer more but that
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
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. "
8. In the case at hand, the experts appointed by the PSC were
examining the objections putforth by the candidates as to
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
the correctness of the model answer to certain questions,
including the questions pointed out by the petitioners. Upon
evaluation by the team of experts, the model answers were
corrected. Writ Court is not expected to adorn itself the role
of expert of experts by re-examining the opinion accorded by
the experts. Even otherwise, the occasion for examination
by experts arose because the model answers published on
15-2-2021, in respect of the subject questions, were
objected by several other candidates. Thus, there are two
sets of candidates who have competing claims about
correctness of the model answers or the answers suggested
by the experts. If the PSC chooses either of them, the matter
is bound to be brought to the writ Court and it is precisely for
this reason the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra)
has laid down the principles that interference in such matters
should be only in rare or exceptional cases where the error
in the model answers or the answer suggested by the
experts are writ large. If examination of the answer which
has been questioned before this Court requires inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization, the
same is beyond the jurisdictional domain of this Court.
9. For the foregoing, in our considered view, the learned Single
Judge has correctly applied the principles governing the
issue by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court
WA No. 205 of 2021 &
other connected matters
in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and the Division Bench of this
Court in Umang Gauraha (supra). The orders impugned
passed by the learned Single Judge are just and proper,
warranting no interference of this Court.
10. As an upshot, all the writ appeals, sans substratum, are
liable to be and are hereby dismissed at this motion stage
itself.
11.Certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties
only after defect is cured.
SD/- SD/-
(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Ayushi
