2026:CGHC:683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 362 of 2019

1 - Rajendra Pratap Singh S/o Shri S.P. Singh Aged About 54 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-I, Government Revtiraman Mishra, P.G. Collage, Surajpur, Tahsil And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Treasury Account And Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Director Treasury Account And Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

06/01/2026

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition calling in question the legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure-P/13), whereby the petitioner’s request for revaluation of his answer sheet was rejected on the ground that there is no provision or rule permitting revaluation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents were wholly unjustified in rejecting the application for revaluation by assigning unjustifiable and untenable reasons, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

5. The petitioner appeared in the departmental examination conducted in the month of August, 2017, in which he was declared ‘Fail’. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted representations dated 07.05.2018, 20.06.2018, 14.07.2018, and 07.08.2018. All the representations were rejected on the ground that there is no provision for revaluation of answer sheets under the relevant rules.

6. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the law with regard to revaluation of answer sheets and held in paragraphs 30 and

31 as under:

“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 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 er