Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Santawana Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 February, 2023
Page 1 of 30
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 751 of 2021
Order Reserved On : 01.12.2022
Order Pronounced On : 01.02.2023
Shivendra Bahadur S/o Shri Hirendra Singh Aged About 28
Years R/o Village And Post- Korar, District- Kanker,
Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commissioner Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Dr. T.L. Verma Principal J. Yoganandam Chhattisgarh Collage,
Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed For
Geography Subject), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Dr. Sheela Shridhar Assistant Professor, Dudhadhari Bajrng,
Girls College, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Expert
Appointed For Geography Subject), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
6. Dr. Ranjana Sharma Assistant Professor, Government Science
College, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed
For Geography Subject), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
7. Dr. Rajhans Kaur Kohli Assistant Professor, Government
College, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Expert
Appointed For Geography Subject), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
8. Dr. Vaidehi Sharma Assistant Professor, Government College,
Bori, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed For
Geography Subject), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 884 of 2021
Lily Grace Tirkey D/o Gareeb Sai Tirkey Aged About 37 Years
Resident Of Village- Mudapara (Bandupara) Post - Pakargaon,
Page 2 of 30
Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General
Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal
Nagar District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary,
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road,
Near Bhagat Singh Square, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission,
Shankar Nagar Road, Near Bhagat Singh Square, District-
Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 1014 of 2021
1. Moradhvaj Singh Thakur S/o Kunwar Singh Thakur Aged About
30 Years R/o Village Tarri, Post Pateva, Near Rajim , Police
Station Gobra , Nawapara , Raipur , District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Mahesh Kumar Verma S/o Kali Ram Verma Aged About 44 Years
R/o House Of Suresh Baghel , Adarsh Colony, Ward No. 22,
Police Station Gobra Navapara , Raipur , District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Manish Dubey D/o Bhola Prasad Dubey Aged About 30 Years
R/o Mahamaya Para , Near Rajim , Raipur , District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Sunil Kumar Nag S/o Late K.R. Nag Aged About 44 Years R/o
Danteshwari, Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
5. Akhilesh Kumar Prajapati S/o Jeevan Lal Prajapati Aged About
33 Years R/o Village Kareli Chhoti, Gondpara, Tahsil Magarload ,
District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
6. Chandrakant Khunte S/o Harnarayan Khunte Aged About 34
Years R/o Village Loharsi, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
7. Mukeshwar Sonwani S/o Ramratan Sonwani Aged About 30
Years R/o Village Kodebod, Post Marauda, Tahsil Kurud, District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
8. Sirish Sudarhshan Vishwakarma S/o Shankar Saran
Vishwakarma Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 14 Devdutt
Enclave , Behind Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ambikapur , District
Ambikapur Chhattisgarh.
9. Lambodar Rana S/o Ghudau Ram Rana Aged About 41 Years
Page 3 of 30
R/o House No. 132 Near School Para Bahigao, Village Bahigao ,
Block Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District :
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
10. Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Vijay Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 37
Years R/o Ward No. 05, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education
Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary,
Shankar Nagar, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Raipur , District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District
: Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Dr. M.L. Verma Professor, D.B. Girls College, Raipur , District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Dr. Meera Gupta Professor, Government Science College,
Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed For
Physics Subect), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. Dr. S.K. Gupta Professor , Government Science College ,
Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed For
Physics Subejct), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7. Dr. Kusumanjali Jha Assistant Professor, Government College,
Jamul, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
8. Dr. Ravi Sharma Assistant Professor , Government College,
Devendra Nagar Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 1195 of 2021
Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Manrakhan Lal Yadav Aged
About 36 Years R/o Mahamaya Para, Sitapur, Tahsil Sitapur,
District Surguja Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
Page 4 of 30
WPS No. 1293 of 2021
Yash Wadhwa S/o Mahesh Wadhwa Aged About 28 Years
Resident Of House No. 18, Sahyog Para, Mahavir Nagar, Police
Station New Rajendra Nagar Raipur , District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary ,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road , Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 1305 of 2021
Dr. Santawana Thakur D/o Shri Ram Gulam Singh Thakur Aged
About 34 Years R/o Purani Basti , Professor Colony, Raipur ,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District
: Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 1372 of 2021
Preeti Vaishnav D/o Shri Upendra Shankar Das Vaishnav Aged
About 35 Years R/o In Front Of St. Michael's Higher Secondary
School, Samta Nagar, Govindpur, Kanker, District Kanker
Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Page 5 of 30
2. Secretary General Administration Department Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District
: Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 1377 of 2021
1. Akash Dewangan, S/o Shri Suresh Dewangan, Aged About 28
Years R/o House No 114, Gali No 2 Sant Ravidas Nagar, Juna
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Bhupendra Khute, S/o Ude Ram Khute, Aged About 27 Years
R/o Ward No 11, Palari, Palari, Baloda Bazaar, Chhattisgarh,
District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Higher Education
Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commision Through Secretary,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Examinar Chhattisgarh Public Service Commision, Through
Examiner Controller, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 1452 of 2021
Gyaneshwar Prasad Dewangan S/o Jhadu Ram Dewangan
Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bharda (Tatenga) Tahsil Daundi
Lohara, P.S. Deori, Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh., District :
Balod, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary,
Shankar Nagar, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
Page 6 of 30
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Dr. Seema Khan Proffesor, Government D.B. Girls College
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Dr. Manisha Sharma Proffessor, Government Radha Bai Naveen
Kanya Mahavidyalay, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
6. Dr. Mallika Sur, Assistant Professor, Government Collage
Abhanpur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7. Dr. Kirtan Kumar Sahu Assistant Professor, J. Yoganandam
Chhattisgarh Collage Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
8. Dr. Digvijay Kumar Dwivedi Assistant Professor, Government
Sanskrit College, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 2067 of 2021
Vikash Banjare S/o Shri Kamal Narayan Banjare Aged About 30
Years R/o H. No. 73, Satnami Para, Village Sendh, Post Palod,
Police Station Mandirhasaud, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General
Administration Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, New
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh State Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
4. The Director Higher Education Department, Nagarjun P. G.
Government College Of Science Premises, Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 2148 of 2021
Deepa Chaturvedi W/o Abhinav Pandey Aged About 37 Years
R/o Punarnava, Street No. 8a, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pin No. 492007, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Page 7 of 30
Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar,
Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination, Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 3797 of 2020
Gaurav Ranjan Yadav S/o Dr. Surendra Kumar Yadav Aged
About 25 Years R/o House No. Hig C - 19, Parijat Extension,
Nehru Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through
Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh State Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through
Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector - 19, Nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5. Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan,
Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 3855 of 2020
1. Ajay Kumar Laheri S/o Radheshyam Laheri, Aged About 37
Years R/o House No. 123, Ward No. 10, Village Kurud, Post
Silyari, P.S. Dharsiwan, Tehsil Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Kamal Narayan Sahu S/o Madhoram Sahu, Aged About 35 Years
R/o Village Ninwa, Post Manohara, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Shkrajit Pradhan S/o Bodhan Pradhan, Aged About 31 Years R/o
Village Maharajpur, Post Panchadhar, Tehsil Baramkela, P.S.
Sariya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh,
Page 8 of 30
Chhattisgarh
4. Sakshi Sahu D/o Devendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 23 Years
R/o 233/a Ima Type, Hospital Sector, Dallirajhara, Tehsil Dondi,
District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
5. Yachika Deshmukh D/o Narayanlal Deshmukh Aged About 23
Years R/o Qtr. No. 6-A, Street 12, Sector 8, Bhilai Nagar, District
Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
6. Komal Prasad Dhruw S/o Janakram Dhruw, Aged About 30
Years R/o Village And Post Amera, P.S. Palari, Tehsil Palari,
District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
7. Jitendra Kumar S/o Santosh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village Koliyari, P.S. Arjuni, Tehsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through
Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination, Chhattisgarh State Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through
Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5. Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan,
Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 3862 of 2020
Vaibhav Ranjan Yadav S/o Dr. Surendra Kumar Yadav, Aged
About 24 Years R/o House No. H I G C-19, Parijat Extension,
Nehru Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
Page 9 of 30
2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through
Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through
Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4. Director, Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan,
Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Controller Of Examination, Chhattisgarh State Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 3864 of 2020
Aman Rohit Tirkey S/o A. Tirkey, Aged About 23 Years R/o House
No.- Hig B-25, Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, District - Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur,
Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through
Secretary Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District - Raipur
(Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination, Chhattisgarh State Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District - Raipur
(Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through
Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Director Derectorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan,
Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 3936 of 2020
1. Pramod Kumar S/o Ambarlal Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
And Post Nipania, P.S. Bhatapara, District Bhatapara
Balodabazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara,
Chhattisgarh
2. Daneshwar S/o Bhupendra Aged About 26 Years R/o Village And
Post Maroud, P.S. Kurud, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari
Page 10 of 30
Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
3. Basudeo Bariha S/o Shyamlal Bariha Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Remda, Post - Salhetarai, P.S. Basna, Block - Pithora,
District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
4. Ramesh Kumar Mongre S/o Dulare Ram Mongre Aged About 29
Years R/o Village And Post Seoni, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through
Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh State Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan,
Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 4242 of 2021
Yeestdev Dewangan S/o Shri Ramdeen Dewangan Aged About
29 Years R/o Village- Bharda And Post- Tatenga, Tahsil- Dondi
Lohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan , Naya Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur,chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Mukesh Kumar (Roll No. 190207101380), S/o- Abhimanyu
Patel, R/o- Village And Post- Pithora, District- Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
-Respondents
Page 11 of 30
________________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Mr. Rohit
Sharma, Mr. Prateek Sharma, Mr. P. Acharya, Mr.
Alok Kumar Dewangan, Mr. Anupam Sharma and
Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocates
For State : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate
For PSC : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Mr. Anuroop Panda on
behalf of Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocates
For Vyapam : Dr. Sourabh Pandey, Advocate
________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
CAV ORDER
1. Since an identical issue is involved in bunch of these cases, they
are heard analogously and are being disposed off by this
common order.
2. The petitioners in bunch of petitions have prayed for quashing of
the result of written examination for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor in various teaching faculties on the count
that objections with regard to correctness of the model answer
for English, Physics, Political Science, Home Science,
Chemistry, Maths, Economics, Commerce, Botany, Geography,
Social Science, Geology, Computer Science, Biotechnology,
Computer Application, Law, Microbiology, Biochemistry, Forestry,
Information Technology and General Studies issued by the
Public Service Commission (in short 'PSC') have not been
considered.
3. Brief facts as reflected from the petitions are that the PSC has
issued an advertisement on 23.1.2019 vide Advertisement No.
02/2019/ Pariksha/ Dated 18.1.2019 for appointment to the
vacant posts of Assistant Professor in different faculties. The
brief discussion of the petitioners and their challenge are given
as under:
WPS NO. 751/2021: The petitioner has raised objection about
question Nos. 5, 12, 19, 28, 46 of the " General Knowledge Of
Chhattisgarh" Set-A and question Nos. 25, 28, 37, 71, 73, 89 of
"Geography" Set-C.
WPS NO. 884/2021: The petitioner has raised objection about
question Nos. 22, 32, 39 of the "General Knowledge Of
Chhattisgarh" Set-D.
WPS NO. 1014/2021 : The petitioners have raised objection
about question Nos. 5, 12, 19, 27, 28, 31, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, of
the "General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh" Set-A and question
No. 62, of "Physics" Set-A, question No. 7 of " sociology" Set-
C. The petitioners have also submitted that 22 questions were
deleted out of total 100 questions by PSC for physics subject
and 41 questions out of 100 questions have been wrongly
prescribed in english words in hindi Devnagri Lipi. The
petitioners who have participated for Assistant Professor Hindi
raised objection with regard to question No. 50, 79, 92, 96 of Set
A. The petitioners who have participated for Assistant Professor
History has raised objection with regard to question No. 20, 24,
89 of the Set D.
WPS NO. 1195/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection
about question Nos. 5, 26, 36 and 42 of the "General
Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh" Set-B and question Nos. 4, 22 and
71 of "Hindi" Set-B.
WPS NO. 1293/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection
about question Nos. 32 of the "General Knowledge Of
Chhattisgarh" Set-D about question Nos. 10,19,49, 50, 51,56,
70, 95 of "Commerce" Set-D.
WPS NO. 1305/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection
about question Nos. 10, 19, 34, 50, 73, 79, 91, 92, 97 of
"Political Science" Set-A.
WPS NO. 1372/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection
about question Nos. 75 and 76 of "Economics" Set-C.
WPS NO. 1377/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection
about question Nos. 5, 12, 29, 31, 39, 40 and 46 of the " General
Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh" Set-A and about question Nos. 1, 3,
26, 35, 36, 42, 43, 45, 52, 56, 67, 72, 74, 86, 90 of "Political
Science" Set-B.
WPS NO. 1452/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection
about question Nos. 9, 10 of the " General Knowledge Of
Chhattisgarh" Set-C about question No. 4 (deleted), 26, 72, 82,
86 of "Political Science" Set-B. According to the petitioner
question No. 32 ought to have been deleted.
WPS NO. 2067/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection
about question Nos. 11, 13, 19, 21, 46, 47, 49, 58, 59, 62 of the
"Sociology" Set-B. According to the petitioner in these questions
there is difference between English and Hindi version.
WPS NO. 2148/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection
about question Nos. 22, 43, 63, 74 of "Physics" Set-A.
WPS NO. 4242/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection
about question Nos. 12, 19, 46 of the " General Knowledge Of
Chhattisgarh" Set-A.
WPS No. 3797/2020, WPS No. 3855/2020, WPS No.
3862/2020, Writ Petition (S) No. 3864/2020, WPS No.
3936/2020 : The petitioners have prayed that they may be
allowed to participate in Assistant Professor Examination, 2019
as they have cleared the SET examination, 2020 on 24.06.2020
whereas the advertisement for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor was issued on 23.01.2019 and the last date
for submission of the form was 05.03.2019. This Court vide its
order dated 02.11.2020 has provisionally allowed the petitioners
to appear in the examination subject to further order of this
Court. It has also been directed by this Court that this order shall
not create any right in favour of the petitioners who obtained the
degree subsequently. Any discrimination has to be tested.
4. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that
amended model answers and model answers issued by the PSC
are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. The respondent PSC
has not considered the objection raised by the petitioners which
is nothing but an act of arbitrariness and illegality
which is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. The
respondent authorities have appointed expert of Subject but it
appears that they have not done their duty with sincerity and
have done empty formalities. Had it been an earnest effort by the
expert such clash would not have been cropped up. It has also
been contended that the petitioners have attached documentary
proofs which are based upon the authentic documents in support
of their case, but no explanation had been given by the
respondents for not considering the objections raised by the
petitioners. It has also been contended that the approach of the
PSC which is a constitutional body is casual and without any
consideration of material on the subject have deleted many
questions causing irreparable loss to the petitioners.
5. It has also been submitted that contentions raised by the PSC
that the High Court lacks expertise in academic matters and
courts have to show indifference and consideration to the
recommendation of the expert committee who have the expertise
to evaluate and make recommendations is incorrect submission
in veiw of the material placed by the petitioner with regard to the
answer given in the model answer or in the amended model
answer, therefore, this Court should interfere and should quash
the result which has been prepared on 19.11.2019 on the basis
of wrong answers. It has been further submitted that so far as
objection raised by the petitioners with regard to constitutional
provision this Court is the expert over the subject, as such, this
Court can very well examine the correctness of the question
which is related to constitutional provision.
6. It is further contended that an expert Committee can be of any
specific subject but not for the general knowledge where as
petitioners have mostly challenged the questions related to
General Knowledge for which no one can be expert than the
judiciary who is expert of the expert can definitely interfere in the
matter. It has been further contended that as per the
advertisement, the respondents have mentioned in Schedule - I
that there will be 5 options for each questions to choose upon,
however it is evident from the perusal of the Question paper itself
that there were only 4 options in MCQ which is clearly in
contravention of the advertisement.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that
the coordinate bench has dealt with the same issue in W.P. (S)
no. 2526/2020 where it was held that :
"Applying the aforesaid principles as it is found that
three questions ie. question Nos.2. 76, & 99. the
answers given by the experts appear to be palpably
wrong on the face of it on the basis of the
documents on which the experts have relied upon.
Apart from the fact that the PSC before this Court as
an institution has fairly admitted the answers one
one question to be wrong. In such case when the
negative marking exists, then the entire result would
require to reshuffle after fresh key answer are
reverified on the basis of new answer. Therefore, in
view of the discussion above, it is directed that the
PSC shall send the above mentioned three
questions & answers again to the expert body who
will revisit the answer and thereafter if the answers
are changed, the entire list of the candidates shall
be reshuffled according to the new available
answers given by the students. The aforesaid
exercise shall be carried out as early as possible
within an outer limit of two months so that certainty
for the subsequent main examination for the
succeeded students can be arrived at, at the
earliest."
8. The petitioners to substantiate their submissions have relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar
and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others 1 Richal and
Others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and
Others 2 and Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others 3.
9. The learned counsel for the Public Service Commission would submit
that in the bunch of first set of writ petitions, petitioners have
challenged the amended model answer issued by the
Commission. It is submitted that the PSC has issued the model
answer and on the same day invited objections from all the
candidates including the petitioners on 19.11.2020 and placed
their objection before the subject expert committee
constituted by it and it is only as per the report/opinion submitted
by the experts, the Commission has issued the Amended Model
Answer on 18.01.2021. The books / study materials relied upon by
the expert committee against objections received are detailed
below:-
Sr.No. Subject Name of Book Author Publication
1 Hindi Hkk"kk foKku Dr. Bholanath Kitab Mahal
Tiwari
fgUnh O;kdj.k Kamtaprasad Guru Agrawal
Publishing House
2. Physics ;wuhQkbM HkkSfrd R.P. Goyal Shivlal Agrawal
foKkku and Company
3. Economics Priciples of Dr. S.K. Singh Sahitya Bhawan
Public Finance Publication : Agra
and Indian
Public Finance
Advanced H.L. Ahuja S.Chand and
Economic Company Ltd.
Theory -
Microeconomic
Analysis
Modern Dr. K.K. Dewett Shyam Lal
Economic Charitable Trust
Theory
1 (2013) 4 SCC 690
2 (2018) 8 SCC 81
3 (2018) 2 SCC 357
The Economics M.L. Jhingan Vrinda
of Development
and Planning
Quantitative Dr. S.M. Shukla Sahitya Bhawan
Methods Dr. S.P. Sahay Publication : Agra
4. Commerce Statistical Dr. S.M. Shukla Sahitya Bhawan
Analysis Dr. S.P. Sahay Publication : Agra
Income Tax - Dr. H.C. Mehrotra Sahitya Bhawan
Law and Dr. S. P. Goyal Publication : Agra
Accounts
Management Dr. Priyawrat Sahitya Bhawan
and Narayan Yadav Publication : Agra
Organizational
Behaviour
Principles of Dr. R.C. Gupta Sahitya Bhawan
Business Publication : Agra
Management
Business R.C. Agrawal Sahitya Bhawan
Regulatory Publication : Agra
Framwork
Auditing Dr. T.R. Sharma
5 Geography vkS|ksfxd Hkwxksy Dr. Rajmal Lodha Rajasthan Hindi
Dr. Deepak Granth Academi,
Maheshwari Jaipur
Economic Dr. V.K. Shrivastava Wasundhara
Geography Dr. B.P. Rao Publication,
Gorakhnath
Geography of Dr. Mohhamad Wasundhara
Resources Harun Publication,
Gorakhnath
Hkwxksy & flfoy lsok D.R. Khullar Tata McGraw Hill
izkjfEHkd ijh{kk gsrq Education Private
Ltd.
Ekkufp= }kjk Hkwxksy K. Sidharth Kisalaya
S. Mukherjee Publication Pvt.
Ltd.
Hkwxksy lexz fo'o ,oa Dr. Alka Gautam Sharda Pushtak
Hkkjr Bhawan
Hkwvkd`fr foKku S.L. Gupta fganh ek/;e dk;kZUo;
funs'kky;
HkkSfrd Hkwxksy Savindra Singh
6 General d`f"k lkaf[;dh lkj.kh Govt. of
Knowledge o"kZ 2019 Chhattisgarh
Area, Govt. of
Production and Chhattisgarh -
Productivity of Commissioner
Kharif Crops Land Record
(Year 2017)
Sarva Shiksha Manual - State
Abhiyan AWP Component
and B -2005-06
NRrhlx<+ i;ZVu o"kZ Dainik Bhaskar
7 Political Ikk'pkR; jktuhfrd Haridutt Vedalankar Saraswati
Science fparu dk bfrgkl Sadan, Delhi
vk/kqfud jktuhfrd Haridutt Vedalankar Saraswati
fparu Sadan, Delhi
Comparative J.C. Johari
Politics
jktuhfr 'kkL= ds ewy Dr. Veerkeshwar P. Gyanda
fl}kar Singh Publication
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku Dr. Jai Narayan Central Law
Pandey Agency - 46th
Edition
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku 1996 - Govt. of
India, Law and
Legislature
Secretariat
Comparative C.V. Gena Vikash
Politics Publishing
House Pvt. Ltd.
Hkkjr vkSj fo'o Dr. Nagpal Gupta Sahitya
jktuhfr Bhandar, Ujjain
(1986-87)
Political Theory Rajeev Bhargava, Pearson
An Introduction Ashok Acharya Education
Google
10. Therefore, it is submitted that the PSC has taken every step to
complete the recruitment process in a fair manner. In General
Studies it was found that the objections raised by the petitioners
were incorrect therefore, amended model answers were issued
without any change. It has also been contented that similar exercise for
all the other subjects as political science, commerce, economics, physics,
hindi, has been done by them and the model answer and amended
answer have been prepared. Since, the experts of all the subjects have
given their opinion and on their opinion the PSC has acted upon, the PSC
has acted fairly and without any biased manner giving similar treatments
to all the candidates therefore, the petitioners now cannot raise grievance
and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. He would further submit
that the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 165/2020 and other
connected appeal vide order dated 10.12.2020 has set aside the direction
given by the coordinate bench of this Court in WPS NO. 5847/2019
directing the State to constitute a fresh expert committee and to examine
the validity of disputed questions and final answer keys in connection to
the selection to the post of Sub-engineer (Civil) in Public Works
Department. As such, no direction can be issued to the PSC for re-
examination of validity of disputed question and final answer keys.
11. In support of his submission learned counsel for the PSC has relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union public
service commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya 4, Bihar Public service
commission & others Vs. Kamini & Others 5, University of Mysore
Vs. Govinda Rao 6, M.H. State Board of secondary & Higher
education & Ors. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Speth etc. 7;Ganpath
Singh Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput Vs. Gulbarga
University through its registrar 8.
12. In batch of petitions where the petitioners have raised the issue as to
whether the candidate who obtained requisite eligibility after the last
date of submission of their application is eligible to participate in the
examination or not, he would submit that law has been well settled
that the cut off date for requiring the qualification advertised is the
last date of application whereas in the present case the petitioners
have cleared the SET examination on 24.06.2020 i.e. after the last
date of submission of form which was 05.03.2019. As such on the
last date of submission of forms the petitioners are not eligible were
not having requisite qualification therefore, their candidature has
rightly not been considered by the PSC. He would draw attention of
this Court towards the appendix in the advertisement which reads
as under :-
4 2018 15 SCC 796
5 (2007) 5 SCC 519
6 AIR 1965 SC 591
7 (1984) 4 SCC 27
8 (2014) 3 SCC 76
13. He would further submit that this Court vide interim order 02.11.2020
has allowed them to participate in the examination but this court has
clarified that permission granted to them does not create any right
and it has been observed by this Court that the discrimination has to
be tested. He would submit that in the light of well settled legal
position that the candidate should have requisite qualification on the
last date of submission of form, which petitioners do not possess,
therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in WPS NO.
3797/2020, WPS NO. 3855/2020, WPS NO. 3862/2020, WPS
3864/2020, WPS No. 3936/2020 deserve to be dismissed.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with
utmost satisfaction.
15. From the records produced by the PSC it is quite vivid that expert
committee of subjects as detailed above has been constituted and they
have examined the objections raised by the petitioners. Details of their
objections raised and material on which it has been considered by the
expert committee have also been placed on record. From perusal of these
records it is quite vivid that the PSC has examined the matter in great
depth and redressed the grievances of the petitioners, therefore, the issue
requires to be answered in this petition is whether this Court exercising its
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue
direction to the PSC to reexamine the questions afresh which has already
been examined by the Expert Committee of the subject.
16. In the light of above factual back ground and law as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court it is well settled that constitutional courts must
exercise great restrain in interference with the key answers provided by
the expert committee. What is the extent and power of the court to
interfere in the matter of academic nature has been subject matter of
number of decided case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul
Singh 9 in paragraph Nos. 8 to 12, 14 :-
"8. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of
academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases.
We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us.
9. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others vs. Samir
Gupta and Others 1, this Court was dealing with a case relating to
the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter
himself had provided the key answers and there were no
committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key
answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of
the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the
key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are
pertinent:-
"16...........We agree that the key answer should be assumed
to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it
should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of
reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be
clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be
such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the
particular subject would regard as correct........."
The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with
one that the State Government should devise a system for
moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters.
10. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others2,
this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements
summarized the legal position in the following terms:-
"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 scrutinise the
9 (2018) 7 SCC 254
answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the
matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
2 (2018) 2 SCC 357 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."
11. We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and
32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint
in such matters:-
"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 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."
12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not
only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a
glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or
reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The
Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters
and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the
correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case (supra),
the Court recommended a system of - (1) moderation; (2) avoiding
ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude
suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.
14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long
process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the
stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books.
When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to
the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in
all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should
not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts."
17. Considering the submission and considering the exercise carried out by
the expert committee of the subject the well settled preposition of law that
this court cannot at all reevaluate or scrutinise the answer sheet of a
candidate, as it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are
best left to the academics and this court should presume the correctness
of the key answers and proceed on that assumptions, even if there is a
doubt the benefit should be given to the examination authority rather than
to the candidates. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ranvijay Singh
vs. State of U.P. 10 at para 32 has held as under :-
"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
10 (2018) 2 SCC 357
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."
18. Similarly, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.
165/2020 has reiterated the same principle, relevant paragraph thereof is
extracted below:-
"21. As mentioned already, there is no dispute with regard to the course
and events insofar as after conducing the examination, the model
answers were published by the Board inviting objections from
the interested participants. The objections obtained were
forwarded and subjected to scrutiny by the Expert
Committee. Considering the objections, the Expert
Committee found that some questions were liable to be
deleted because of the defects either in the questions or the
answers and in respect of some other questions, the model
answers were noted as required to be corrected. It was on the
basis of the said opinion of the Experts that the final answer key
was published by the Board, followed by further steps. This
clearly shows that the course pursued by the Respondent-Board
was quite transparent in all respects and it cannot be held as
arbitrary, malafide or unreasonable in any manner."
19. From the above stated legal position and also considering the exercise
carried out by the Public Service Commission or Examination Body the
prayer made by the petitioners with regard to non consideration of their
objection and further reliefs as sought by them seeking quashment of the
result dated 19.01.2021 cannot be accepted.
20. So far as petitioners in WPS No. 3797/2020, WPS No. 3855/2020, WPS
No. 3862/2020, WPS 3864/2020 and WPS No. 3936/2020 are concerned
they are not having requisite qualification on the last date of submission of
form i.e. 05.03.2019 and they have cleared the SET examination on
24.06.2020 which is essential qualification for the post of Assistant
Professor. The law has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union of India 11 and judgment
reported in Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Others 12 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that cut off date for
acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 to 21 held as under:-
"11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the
selection process commences on the date when applications are
invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the
application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy
provided he fulfils the requisite qualification.
12. In U.P Public Service Commission v. Alpana 1994 2 SCC 723, this
Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments,
held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last
date for receipt of applications by the Commission. That too was a
case where the result of a candidate was declared subsequent to
the last date of submission of the applications. This Court held that
as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and
eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of
submission of applications, therefore, a candidate, whose result has
not been declared up to the last date of submission of applications,
would not be eligible.
13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in M.V Nair v. Union of India
1993 2 SCC 429 held as under: (SCC p. 434, para 9)
"9. ... It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have
to be considered with reference to the last date for
receiving the applications, unless, of course, the
notification calling for applications itself specifies such
a date."
14. In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions 1995 Supp 4
SCC 706 this Court held: (SCC p. 707, para 2)
"2. ... It is to be seen that when the recruitment is
sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for
receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates,
who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date,
alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for
recruitment according to the rules."
15. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 1993
Supp 3 SCC 168 held: (SCC p. 175, para 10)
"10. The contention that the required qualifications of
the candidates should be examined with reference to
the date of selection and not with reference to the last
date for making applications has only to be stated to
11 (2007) 4 SCC 54
12 (2013) 11 SCC 58
be rejected. The date of selection is invariably
uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date
the candidates who apply for the posts would be
unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts
in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the
qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a
fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are
to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or
otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates
who do not possess the requisite qualifications in
praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The
uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary
consequence viz. even those candidates who do not
have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to
acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for
the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But
a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may
leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of
selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to
entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily.
Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the
advertisement/notification inviting applications with
reference to which the requisite qualifications should
be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the
qualifications will be the last date for making the
applications. ... Reference in this connection may also
be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P
Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra 1990
2 SCC 669 and Vizianagaram Social Welfare
Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi
1990 3 SCC 655."
16. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher 1993 Supp 2 SCC
611 [hereinafter referred to as Ashok Kumar (1993)], the majority
view was as under: (SCC pp. 616-17, para 15)
"15. The fact is that the appellants did pass the
examination and were fully qualified for being selected
prior to the date of interview. By allowing the appellants
to sit for the interview and by their selection on the
basis of their comparative merits, the recruiting
authority was able to get the best talents available. It
was certainly in the public interest that the interview
was made as broad based as was possible on the
basis of qualification. The reasoning of the learned
Single Judge was thus based on sound principle with
reference to comparatively superior merits. It was in
the public interest that better candidates who were fully
qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected,
notwithstanding that the results of the examination in
which they had appeared had been delayed for no
fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on the
dates of the interview and taking into account the
generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the State of
Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that the technical
view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division
Bench was incorrect...."
However, the opinion of R.M Sahai, J. had been that these 33
persons could not have been allowed to appear for the interview as
they did not possess the requisite eligibility/qualification on the last
date of submission of applications.
17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v.
Chander Shekhar 1997 4 SCC 18 reconsidered and explained the
judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) observing: (Chander
Shekhar case, SCC pp. 21-22, para 6)
"6. The proposition that where applications are
called for prescribing a particular date as the
last date for filing the applications, the eligibility
of the candidates shall have to be judged with
reference to that date and that date alone, is a
well-established one. A person who acquires
the prescribed qualification subsequent to such
prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An
advertisement or notification issued/published
calling for applications constitutes a
representation to the public and the authority
issuing it is bound by such representation. It
cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind
this proposition is that if it were known that
persons who obtained the qualifications after
the prescribed date but before the date of
interview would be allowed to appear for the
interview, other similarly placed persons could
also have applied. Just because some of the
persons had applied notwithstanding that they
had not acquired the prescribed qualifications
by the prescribed date, they could not have
been treated on a preferential basis. Their
applications ought to have been rejected at the
inception itself. This proposition is indisputable
and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the
majority judgment."
The Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma further explained that the
majority view in Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) was not
correct, rather the dissenting view by R.M Sahai, J. was
correct as the Court held as under: (SCC p. 22, para 6)
"6. ... The reasoning in the majority opinion that by
allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the
interview, the recruiting authority was able to
get the best talent available and that such
course was in furtherance of public interest is,
with respect, an impermissible justification. It is,
in our considered opinion, a clear error of law
and an error apparent on the face of the record.
In our opinion, R.M Sahai, J. (and the Division
Bench of the High Court) was right in holding
that the 33 respondents could not have been
allowed to appear for the interview."
18. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid case
reference to Rekha Chaturvedi appears to have been made by a
typographical error as the said judgment is by a two-Judge Bench
of this Court. In fact the Court wanted to make a reference to the
case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993).
19. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 2011 this
Court placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court
held: (SCC p. 268, para 13)
"13. ... The High Court has held (i) that the cut-off
date by reference to which the eligibility
requirement must be satisfied by the candidate
seeking a public employment is the date
appointed by the relevant service rules and if
there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules
then such date as may be appointed for the
purpose in the advertisement calling for
applications; (ii) that if there be no such date
appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be
applied by reference to the last date appointed
by which the applications have to be received
by the competent authority. The view taken by
the High Court is supported by several
decisions of this Court and is therefore well
settled and hence cannot be found fault with."
20. This Court lately in State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari AIR
2012 SC 3281 held: (SCC p. 550, para 14)
"14. A person who does not possess the requisite
qualification cannot even apply for recruitment
for the reason that his appointment would be
contrary to the statutory rules, and would
therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for
the post cannot be cured at any stage and
appointing such a person would amount to
serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such
a person cannot approach the court for any
relief for the reason that he does not have a
right which can be enforced through court. (See
Prit Singh v. S.K Mangal 1993 Supp 1 SCC
714 and Pramod Kumar v. U.P Secondary
Education Services Commission 2008 7 SCC
153.)"
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar v.
U.P Secondary Education Services Commission and State of
Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty 2011 3 SCC 436.
21. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite
qualification on the last date of submission of the application though
he applied representing that he possessed the same. The letter of
offer of appointment was issued to him which was provisional and
conditional subject to the verification of educational qualification i.e
eligibility, character verification, etc. Clause 11 of the letter of offer
of appointment dated 23-2-2009 made it clear that in case
character is not certified or he did not possess the qualification, the
services will be terminated. The legal proposition that emerges from
the settled position of law as enumerated above is that the result of
the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. A
person would possess qualification only on the date of declaration
of the result. Thus, in view of the above, no exception can be taken
to the judgment of the High Court."
21. The said judgment has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 8828/2022 decided on 23.11.2022 in case of Electricity
Board Limited and others vs. Dharmendra Singh in paragraph 9 has
held as under :-
"9. This Court in the Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 22. 54 and in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported 23. in (2013) 11 SCC 58 has
held that the cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is
the last date of application."
22. In the light of the above legal position, it is crystal clear that if the
candidate is not having the requisite qualification on the last date of
submission of form, he cannot be allowed to participate in the selection
process. Since, the petitioners are not having the requisite qualification
they are not eligible to participate in the selection process and they have
rightly been denied by the PSC.
23. Accordingly, the bunch of Writ Petitions are liable to be and are hereby
dismissed. The interim orders passed by this court stand vacated.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
kkd
