Courts cannot ordinarily direct the re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of a statutory provision or rule allowing for it, as they cannot interfere with the policy decisions of the examining body unless they are contrary to statutory law.

1CGHC010357272026 2026:CGHC:40574 NAFR SOURABH BHILWAR

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.09.17 17:40:57 +0530

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for re-evaluation of his answer sheet of the Civil Judge (J.D.) Mains Examination, 2024 and also seeks a direction to consider and decide his pending representation dated 11.05.2026.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the Civil Judge (J.D.) Mains Examination, 2024 pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.12.2024, but his name was not included in the select list published on 20.02.2026. He submits that, upon obtaining the answer sheet under the RTI Act, the petitioner found that certain answers had not been properly evaluated. He further submits that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 11.05.2026 seeking re-evaluation of his answer sheet, which is still pending consideration. He, therefore, prays for appropriate directions to the respondents to consider and decide the said representation in accordance with law.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ CGPSC would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2026 passed in WPS No. 5890 of 2026 (Krishna Devi Nag vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), wherein this Court held as under:-

“7. A perusal of Clause 15 of the advertisement clearly reveals that there is no provision for recounting or revaluation of the answer sheets in the examination conducted by the respondent authorities. The advertisement specifically stipulates that no representation seeking recounting or revaluation shall be entertained.

8. It is a settled principle of law that in the absence of any statutory provision or rule providing for revaluation, the Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ordinarily direct revaluation of answer sheets.

9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commisson Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. reported in 2010 (6) SCC 759 held thus at paras 24,25 & 26:-

24. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc. wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under:

16.......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act......…”

25. This view has been approved and relied upon and re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors, observing as under:

A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul- Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State, Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda, Board of Secondary Education, v. D. Suvankar, W.B. Council of