[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Prakash Kumar Yadu (Pet. In Person) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2026.03.03
15:54:37 +0530
2026:CGHC:9814-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 148 of 2026
Prakash Kumar Yadu (Pet. In Person) S/o Shri Chinta Ram Yadu Aged About 33 Years
R/o Ram Sagar Ward Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. Mob No.
6260648438. ... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
Development Department, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
2 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through Controller Of
Examination, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Appellant in person
For Respondent/State : Shri P Das, Addl AG
For Respondent-2 : Dr Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25.02.2026
Heard the appellant in person. Also heard Shri P Das learned Addl
AG for the State, and Dr Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for
respondent-2/Vyapam.
1. The appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order
dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure A1) passed by the learned Single Judge in
Wa 148 of 2026
WPS-11143 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein is dismissed.
2. The subject matter of the writ petition was that petitioners therein
were candidates in selection process to the post of Assistant
Development Extension Officer (for short, 'ADEO'), advertised on
02.04.2025 by the Chhattisgarh Vyapam for 200 posts of the said post.
The petitioner appeared in the examination held on 15.06.2025 and a
model answer key was published on 25.06.2025 and the CG Vyapam
invited objections from the candidates to the model answers through
online portal. Pursuant thereto, objections were submitted by the
petitioner as well as by other candidates. After considering the said
objections, the final answer key was issued by the CG Vyapam on
14.08.2025. The petitioner considering that his grievances have not been
considered by the CG Vyapam, filed writ petition claiming for correction
of the answers of Question Nos.33, 73, 76 and 45, and also for a
direction to delete the Question Nos.84 and 33, and to grant one mark for
each of the deleted questions. After hearing the parties, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioners
therein were unable to dilute the recommendations given by the experts
by placing suppression permissible material and thus the final selection
list was published based on the model answer which was prepared on
the opinion of the subject experts. Hence this writ appeal.
Wa 148 of 2026
3. The writ appellant appearing in person would submit that the
learned Single Judge has not considered the model answer as well as
the literature which has been produced by the petitioner with respect to
correct answers of the questions. Many questions were taken more than
one option as the correct answer but the model answer shows only one
correct answer, for which the petitioner's answer should be taken as
correct answer and should be marked in his favour. He would further
submit that if the petitioner would be allotted the proper marks for correct
answers, there is every probability that he would be in the selection list on
the advertised post. The impugned order suffers from perversity and the
same is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
supported the impugned order.
5. We have heard the appellant in person and the learned counsel for
the respondents and perused the record of the writ petition as well as the
writ appeal.
6. From perusal of the order impugned, it transpires that learned
Single Judge in presence of subject experts Dr Himanshu Agarwal,
Controller and Shri Kedar Nath Patel, Joint Director, CG Vyapam, along
with a team of subject experts the controversy raised by the petitioner
regarding correctness of answers have considered at the time of hearing
of the writ petition, which reflected from para-2 of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. Further, the correctness of the questions and
Wa 148 of 2026
answers has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order, in the purview of the legal parameters by invoking the
jurisdiction of Article 226 of the constitution of India. Further, considering
the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission through its Chairman and another Vs.
Rahul Singh and another, (2018) 7 SCC 254, and Vikas Kumar Gupta
and another Vs State of Rajasthan and others, (2021) 2 SCC 309,
decided the writ petition holding that petitioner could not be able to
demonstrate any material which shows that the model answer keys or
incorrect.
7. The learned Single judge also considered the limited scope of
interference of the High Court in the field of experts and has dismissed
the writ petition filed by the petitioners. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh
and others Vs State of UP and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that :
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we
only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They
are:
(i) 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;
Wa 148 of 2026
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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;
(iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key
answers and proceed on that assumption; and
(v) 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
Wa 148 of 2026
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
Wa 148 of 2026
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. Further, in the matter of Bihar Staff Selection Committee and
others Vs. Arun Kumar and others, (2020) 6 SCC 362 Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that:
"24. In Khushboo Shrivastava (supra) too, a similar view was
echoed:
"9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public
Service Commission, Patna and Ors. (supra) has
clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (supra) that in
the absence of any provision for the re-evaluation of
answers books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an
examination has any right to claim or ask for re-
evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar
Wa 148 of 2026
Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna and Ors. (supra) was followed by
another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Board of
Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr.
(2004) 13 SCC 383 in which the direction of the High
Court for re- evaluation of answers books of all the
examinees securing 90% or above marks was held to
be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the
Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which Ranjan
Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383; Himachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr (2010) 6
SCC 759; Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional
Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602; Central Board of
Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-
Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination & Ors. v.
Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors (2014) 14 SCC 523 and
Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
(2018) 2 SCC 357. conducted the examination, did not
make any provision for re- evaluation of answers books
in the rules.
10. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India
Pre- Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007
conducted by the CBSE did not provide for re-
examination or re-evaluation of answers sheets. Hence,
Wa 148 of 2026
the Appellants could not have allowed such re-
examination or re-evaluation on the representation of
the Respondent No. 1 and accordingly rejected the
representation of the Respondent No. 1 for re-
examination/re-evaluation of her answer sheets. The
Respondent No. 1, however, approached the High
Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court
directed production of answer sheets on the
Respondent No. 1 depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and
when the answer sheets were produced, the learned
Single Judge himself compared the answers of the
Respondent No. 1 with the model answers produced by
the CBSE and awarded two marks for answers given by
the Respondent No. 1 in the Chemistry and Botany, but
declined to grant any relief to the Respondent No. 1.
When Respondent No. 1 filed the LPA before the
Division Bench of the High Court, the Division Bench
also examined the two answers of the Respondent No.
1 in Chemistry and Botany and agreed with the findings
of the learned Single Judge that the Respondent No. 1
deserved two additional marks for the two answers.
11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned
Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court
could have substituted his/its own views for that of the
Wa 148 of 2026
examiners and awarded two additional marks to the
Respondent No. 1 for the two answers in exercise of
powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution as these are purely academic matters. This
Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (supra) has observed:
'29.......As has been repeatedly pointed out by
this Court, the Court should be extremely
reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is
wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic
matters in preference to those formulated by
professional men possessing technical expertise
and rich experience of actual day-to-day working
of educational institutions and the departments
controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the
Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic
approach to the problems of this nature, isolated
from the actual realities and grass root problems
involved in the working of the system and
unmindful of the consequences which would
emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to
a pragmatic one were to be propounded.
Wa 148 of 2026
12. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the
writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. We
are informed that the first Respondent was admitted to
the MBBS Course subsequently. If so, her admission in
the MBBS Course will not be affected."
25. The decision in Ran Vijay Singh 2018 (2) SCC 357, after a
review of all previous decisions, held as follows:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear
and we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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
Wa 148 of 2026
reasoning or by a process of rationalisation"
and only in rare or exceptional cases that a
material error has been committed;
(iii) 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;
(iv) The Court should presume the correctness
of the key answers and proceed on that
assumption; and
(v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should
go to the examination authority rather than to
the candidate.
* * *
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
Wa 148 of 2026
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
Wa 148 of 2026
confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this
is that public interest suffers."
26. Given the clear declaration of law in the judgments of this
court, we are of the opinion that the unilateral exercise of re-
valuation undertaken by the High Court (both by the single
judge and the Division Bench) has not solved, but rather
contributed to the chaos. No rule or regulation was shown by
any party during the hearing, which justified the approach that
was adopted. The BSSC, in our opinion, acted correctly in the
first instance, in referring the answers to a panel of experts. If
there were justifiable doubts about the recommendations of
that panel, the least that should have been done, was to
require the BSSC to refer the disputed or doubtful questions to
another expert panel. That was not done; the "corrections"
indicated by the single judge were accepted by the BSSC;
several candidates who made it to the select list freshly drawn
up pursuant to his directions, were appointed. The Division
Bench, thereafter undertook the entire exercise afresh,
compounding the matter further by not referring the disputed
questions to any panel of experts. We are left reiterating the
lament, (made in Ran Vijay) that the High Court's interference
has not resulted in finality "to the result of the examinations"
despite a long lapse of time. There is an air of uncertainty
about the entire selection - nay, the entire cadre, because the
Wa 148 of 2026
inter se seniority of selected (and appointed) candidates is in a
state of flux."
9. Further in case of Umang Gouraha and others Vs State of CG
and others, in Writ Appeal- 165 of 2020 decided on 10.12.2021 by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, it has been held as under :
"17. It is settled law that the Constitutional Courts must
exercise great restraint in such matters and should be
reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the
key answer, as the Judges are not Experts in every field to
decide the issue either one way or the other. The matter can
be dealt with only by the Experts in the field and judicial
scrutiny can only be to the limited extent, to see whether
proper course of action has been pursued by the agency
conducting the selection or whether the final answers given
are palpably wrong as discernible from the face of it, without
going for any research."
10. Further, in case of Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board
through its controller Vs Vikram Singh Rana and others, (2020) SCC
online CG 2185 (Writ Appeal-108 of 2020) decided on 06.03.2020, the
Coordinate Bench of this court has also considered that whether the
decision making process persuaded by the Chhattisgarh Vyapam was
correct or not, and whether there is any scope of interference. The
specific observations made in the said case in para-14 that:
Wa 148 of 2026
"14. The above questions and answers, as considered and
opined by the Expert Committee, have been referred to by this
Court only to point out that the Petitioners have miserably failed
to demonstrate the genuineness of their objections before the
writ Court, which was essential, in view of the ruling rendered
by the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
(supra), before any relief was granted. There is absolutely no
challenge as to the competence of the Expert Committee,
constituted by the Appellant-Board or as to any instance of
mala fides. This being the position, the idea of the writ
petitioners with reference to the way in which it has been
painted in some of the textbooks and sought to be relied on by
them to suit to their stand cannot be a ground to tilt the balance
in respect of the opinion given by the Expert Committee, for the
reasons as given in Annexure-A/5. The course of action
pursued by the Appellant-Board is demonstrated as transparent
in all respects. The questions were framed by the Experts and
after completion of the Examination, the Model Answers were
published as per Annexure-A/3, giving a chance to the
candidates to submit the objections, if any. It was after
considering all the objections, that the opinion was formed by
the Expert Committee, leading to finalization of the answers as
per Annexure-A/4 and the publication of merit list. This being
the position, the 'decision making process' pursued by the
Wa 148 of 2026
Appellant-Board is quite in order and there is no scope for
interference in this regard."
11. The above mentioned facts & circumstances of the case as well as
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Coordinate Bench of
this Court, it is quite vivid that the question and answers have considered
and opined by the expert committee have been referred by the learned
Single Judge and the writ appellant has failed to demonstrate the
genuineness of his objections. This being the position, the interpretation
of the writ petitioner / writ appellant with reference to the way, in which it
has been pointed in some of the text books / literature and sought to be
relied upon by him to suit his stand cannot be a ground to tilt the balance
in respect of the opinion given by the expert committee. After considering
all the objections, the opinion was formed by the expert committee
leading to finalization of the answer as per their experts' report.
Therefore, the decision making process persuaded by the Chhattisgarh
Vyapam is quite in order and there is no scope for interference in this
regard.
12. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has
been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable
reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted
unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the
facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order.
Wa 148 of 2026
13. In view of the above, We do not find any sufficient ground to
interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and
the present writ appeal liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma
