JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the improper procedure in respect of deleting question or not deleting the improper question or having the correct given options, for the written examination conducted for the post of Naib Tahsildar to be filled from Revenue Inspector/Patwari, which was held on 20.07.2014.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the Petitioner, are that an advertisement No.F-2-61/Saat-2/2007, Raipur Dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure P/1) was published for 57 posts of Naib Tahsildar in which 28 posts are to be filled from Revenue Inspectors & Patwari Cadre and 20 from Clerks Cadre. The date of written examination was fixed for 20.07.2014. The Petitioner has duly appeared in the written examination and thereafter the model answer were declared vide dated 31.07.2014 by the Respondent Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (in short Vyapam). The Petitioner has got Set-B (Annexure P/2) and in respect of question No.28, which is quoted below for ready reference:

"28. Who among the following was the first recipient of Padmashri honour of this state?

(A) Pt. Mukutdhar Pandey

(B) Dr. Mahadev Prasad Pandey

(C) John Martin Nelson

(D) Habib Tanveer"

3. The Petitioner has put/chosen the answer as Pandit Mukutdhar Pandey and in the model answer (Annexure P/3) also the Vyapam has mentioned the answer of question No.28 as "A". An objection- claim/ Dawa-Apatties were invited upto 06.08.2014. Since the Petitioner was not aggrieved by the answer of question No.28, has not moved any objection for the same. Thereafter, final answers of Set-B was issued vide dated 04.02.2015 (Annexure P/4), wherein the question No.28 has been deleted. According to the Petitioner, it is not the case that the said question is the disputed or incorrect one or may have two or more than two different answers & the answers have been given incorrect, as there is no quarrel that the first person who has got "Padmashree' is Pandit Mukutdhar Pandey, as he has got the same in year 1976. The same also proves from the official website of the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology, as the list has been published (Annexure P/5) showing the total names of the persons who have got 'Padmashree' having total names in which the name at serial No.7 Pandit Mukutdhar Pandey has been shown. Thereafter the results (Annexure P/6) were declared and the Petitioner got 118.862 marks and declared as 'not eligible'. Further, in respect of question No.50 of Set-B, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

50. Who is the Governor of this State?

(A) Shekhar Dutt

(B) Ram Naresh Yadav

(C) E.S.L. Narsimhan

(D) None of the above"

4. The answer to the above question opted by the Petitioner is ‘A’ (Shekher Dutt), but in the model answer & the final answer, the Vyapam has given the answer of question No.50 as 'B' "Ram Naresh Yadava". According to the Petitioner, the said question should have been deleted for the reason that the question does not say that who is the present Governor of the State, but only asked who is the governor of the State and the answer (A), (B), (C) to question No.50 all are correct for the reason that the option (A) Shekher Dutt and option (C) E.S.L. Narsimhan both were the Governor of the State and had it been the question that who is the present governor of this State, then the answer should have been (B) the Ram Naresh Yadav', therefore, this question ought to have been deleted and general marking should have been done of this question. Thereafter, the Petitioner came to know that in respect of question No.68 of SET-B (General Knowledge) that, laLd`fr dk fo'ys"k.k gS%&^^, in which the Respondent Vyapam has given the options as (C) laLd`frd the relevant documents,", but as per the Petitioner and the correct answer is (D) lkWLd`frd. For this, the Petitioner has also submitted the representation-cum-objection (Annexure P/7) with the relevant document (Annexure P/8) s