V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.03.03

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 R amesh 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 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.

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