Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Alok Kumar Jaiswal, S/o. Late Shri Kunj Bihari - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Raipur, C.G. & Ors. - Respondents
WPS No. 4743 of 2014
Decided On : 29-01-2024
Article 226 - Writ Petition - State Services Exam 2011 - Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 21 - State Service Exam Rules, 2008
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the correctness of the model answers and the evaluation process after not being selected for the post of Deputy Collector, despite qualifying the examinations and participating in the interview.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's challenge to the selection process at a later stage was not permissible.
Issues: Challenge to the correctness of model answers and evaluation process, entitlement to challenge the selection process at a later stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner cannot challenge the selection process at a later stage, and the grievance should have been raised at the threshold.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:-
10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased directed R/2 & R/3 to correctly valuate on the basis of the Authentic Books/Answers for the BOTANY 1st and 2nd Question paper, Annexure P/3 and P/4 of the P.S.C. Mains Examination Year 2011.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased directed R/2 & R/3 to correctly valuate on the basis of the Authentic Books/Answers for the BOTANY 1st and 2nd Question paper, Annexure P/3 and P/4 of the P.S.C. Mains Examination Year 2011 arid on this basis recalculate the total marks of the petitioner, than allotted the Actual Rank in the final merit List/selection list for the post of Deputy Collector.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased directed R/2 & R/3, for correct valuation send the record to expert of the Botany Subject and they decide, on the basis of authentic Books/Answers for the BOTANY 1st and 2nd Question paper Annexure P/3 and P/4 of the P.S.C. Mains Examination Year 2011.
10.5 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased directed R/1 to passed the suitable, appointment order as per the petitioner's actual Rank in the final merit List/selection List [after due consideration] for the post of Deputy Collector.
10.6 Any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioner's, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.
10.7 Cost of the petition may also be imposed on the respondents.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent No.2 on 28.12.2011 for the post of Deputy Collector. The petitioner applied for the same and successfully cleared Pre and Mains Examinations, but the objections were raised by the petitioner and other candidates regarding Set-B Botany Paper and there being some irregularities found, amended model answers were published and the petitioner was called for interview and thereafter final merit list was published, wherein the petitioner has not been selected for the aforesaid post, upon which he filed representation before the respondent authorities agitating his grievance that answer sheets have not been evaluated correctly, but when nothing was done, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and against Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of the Respondent Authority is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same also violates the State Service Exam Rules, 2008. The petitioner and candidates had also raised the objection before the respondent-PSC but nothing has been done, whereas the respondent-PSC itself corrected some answers and questions by admitting its fault but the same has not been done in the petitioner’s case. It is further submitted that the respondent-PSC has not considered many oral and written objections and it ought to have considered the case of the petitioner and should have awarded extra 8 marks to the petitioner for total 4 right questions/answers, as such the petitioner would have got 1072.66 marks and would find place at 28th rank in the merit list. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the case of the petitioner be directed to be considered by the Respondent Authorities. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by this Court in the matter of Shivendra Bahadur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., passed in WPS No.751 of 2021 and other connected matters, decided on 01.02.2023 and in the matter of Dr. Suman Singh and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in WPS No.1761 of 2013, order dated 18.07.2023.
4. Learned counsel for
The petitioner cannot challenge the selection process at a later stage.
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
The court upheld the authority of the examination body, emphasizing minimal judicial intervention in academic matters unless clear errors are demonstrated.
Courts should be cautious in interfering with the evaluation process and expert opinion, especially after a significant period has passed.
Courts should defer to the opinion of subject experts in public examinations and should not interfere with the examination process unless there is a glaring mistake that is totally apparent without a....
The Court cannot interfere with expert opinion unless key answers are patently wrong, and there is no provision for re-evaluation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
