Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 September, 2021
1
WA No.258 of 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 258 of 2021
[Arising out of order dated 23.7.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WPS No.2426 of 2021]
1. Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Rajendra Prasad Singh Aged About
38 Years R/o Shiv Sagar Nagar, Behind Collectorate,
Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, General
Administration Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralya, 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. Aman Kumar Gupta S/o Raj Kumar Gupta Aged About 25
Years R/o Aman Press Ward No 8, Wadrafnagar, District
Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
5. Pravesh Kumar Soni S/o Prem Lal Verma Aged About 25
Years R/o Central Jail, Jail Colony, Ward No 48, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh
6. Kapil Bhatt S/o Mukesh Bhatt Aged About 40 Years R/o
Kotra Road, Railway Bangla Para Ward 15 District Raigarh,
District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
7. Pitamber Yadav S/o Sinha Aged About 27 Years R/o 156
Ward No. 18 Nehru Nagar Supela District Durg,
Chhattisgarh
2
WA No.258 of 2021
8. Ashish Soni S/o Dattatre Soni Aged About 28 Years R/o
H.No. 123 Ward No. 26 Lohar Para Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
9. Tarun Tandekar S/o Harish Chandrtandekar Aged About 30
Years R/o H.No. 77 Barfani Ashram Ward No. 19,
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
10. Aarti Namdev S/o Bihari Lal Namdev Aged About 29 Years
R/o 155 Ward No. 27 Durga Chowk District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Appellant :- Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent-State :- Mr. Vikram Sharma, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent/PSC :- Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
By
Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
06/09/2021
1. The appellant (henceforth 'the petitioner') preferred the writ
petition seeking setting aside of modal answer dated
14.3.2021 to the extent of deletion of questions No.11, 14,
18, 37, 70, 88, 89,91 of set B Hindi Version; a direction to
the respondents to correct the answer of questions No.16,
20, 48, 58, 71, 93 on account of material defects; a direction
to the respondent/PSC to evaluate the deleted question 53
of set B which has been deleted without any legal basis and
WA No.258 of 2021
a direction towards PSC to declare the marks obtained by
the candidate appeared in examination and direct the
respondents to publish the new mark-sheet after correction.
2. The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination
conducted by the PSC for State Services Examination 2020
on 14-2-2021. The model answer was published on 15-2-
2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the
subject questions were attempted by the petitioner 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
petitioner. Had the answers been not changed the petitioner
would have been qualified.
4. While dismissing the writ petition, 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.
5. 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
2 (2018) 2 SCC 357 : AIR 2018 SC 52
WA No.258 of 2021
correction in the model answer the PSC has followed the
opinion of the experts, therefore, the same cannot be
interfered under writ jurisdiction.
6. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra) the following principles have
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
WA No.258 of 2021
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.
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
WA No.258 of 2021
uncertainty results in confusion being worse
confounded. The overall and larger impact of all
this is that public interest suffers. "
7. In the case at hand, the experts appointed by the PSC were
examining the objections putforth by the candidates as to
the correctness of the model answer to certain questions,
including the questions pointed out by the petitioner. 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
WA No.258 of 2021
same is beyond the jurisdictional domain of this Court.
8. 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
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.
9. As an upshot, the writ appeal, sans substratum, is liable to
be and is hereby dismissed at this motion stage itself.
SD/- SD/-
(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Rajani Dubey)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Ayushi
