Chattisgarh High Court
Chandrapraksh Singh Kashatri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:31251
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4987 of 2018
1 - Chandrapraksh Singh Kshatri S/o Shri Ramswaroop Singh Aged
About 26 Years Behind Hari Om Pan Centre, Bazar Chowk Yadunandan
Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban
Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development,
D- Block, Fourth. Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Vyapam Bhawan,
North Block Sector 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Payavas Bhawan, North Block, 19,
Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Chhattisgarh State Co- Operative Dairy Federation Limited, Nagar
Ghadi Chowk, Abhyodaya Parisar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.Animesh Verma, Advocate
For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
08.07.2025
-2-
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1 It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly
be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to
the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal including
the entire select list of the CACC18 entrance
examination.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ, order thereby quashing
the select list of CACC18 entrance examination so
far as it relates to petitioner’s non-selection.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ, order thereby setting
aside & quashing the select list of CACC18 entrance
examination so far as it selected the candidates
having secured less numbers then the petitioner.
Or
That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue an appropriate writ, order thereby directing the
respondents to re-issue the select list of CACC18
entrance examination after deleting/amending the
questions to which objections are raised by the
petitioner.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ, order thereby directing
the respondents to select the petitioner & further to
issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post
of accountant as per the priority list given by the
petitioner in the application form.
10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ, order thereby quashing
the petitioner’s marksheet (Annexure P/1) so far as it
relates to less marks given to him based on
evaluation on the basis of wrong answers.
10.6 Any other relief/reliefs, which may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner completed his
graduation and applied for the post of Accountant pursuant to the
advertisement dated 12.02.2018 published by the Directorate,
Urban Administration & Development showing the vacancy of 103
posts for the open category. In between, the Chhattisgarh Housing
Development Board and Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Milk
Federation Ltd. also published an advertisement for the posts of
Accountants. The Chhattisgarh Vyapam decided to conduct an
3
entrance examination. All advertised posts were to be filled by the
joint examination and thus, the total number of vacancies became
123 and 108 posts were kept for the open category. The
Chhattisgarh Vyapam issued the examination directives for the
Entrance Examination, 2018. Clause 9 of the directives provides
for the disposal of objections with respect to the model answer
issued by Vyapam. It further states that if a candidate/examinee
raises any objection over the model answer issued by the Vyapam,
such a candidate may file an objection through email or post or
personally. Further, Clause 10 of the directives states the
cancellation of wrong questions and the formula for allotment of
marks in such a situation.
3. The petitioner submitted his online application form and after
verification, the online admit card was issued. His roll number was
13060079 and the center was at Government Boys Higher
Secondary School, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.). The examination
was held on 01.04.2018. The petitioner participated in the
examination. One question was repeated in Set -C. The petitioner
attempted all questions of Set-C.
4. The Chhattisgarh Vyapam published model answers to all the
questions. The petitioner found discrepancies in question Nos. 21,
39, 48, 51,53, 57, 58, 66, 67, 87 & 123 with respect to Set-C. The
petitioner submitted his objection through an email on 23.04.2018
and the physical copy was also submitted in the office of Vyapam
on 24.04.2018 supported by proof of correct answers from relevant
textbooks.
-4-
5. The petitioner found that the answer to one question was different
from the answer of the answer sheet of the MARKFED, 2017
examination, which was published by the Vyapam itself. The result
was declared on 21.07.2018 and the petitioner could not qualify for
the examination. The final result of the examination was released
on 21.07.2018 along with the final model answer after considering
the objections raised by the aspirants. The petitioner’s objections
with respect to questions No. 39, 48, 51, 53, 57, 58, 66 & 67 were
not considered separately and answers were also not amended.
The petitioner secured 77.551 marks whereas the 10th candidate
on the merit list had secured 96.684 marks. The petitioner has
pleaded that if his objections had been considered then he had
obtained 82.50 marks.
6. The petitioner further pleaded that after due efforts, he came to
know about one more candidate, namely Vivek Singh Bharadwaj
who secured 85.204 marks and was selected and appointed.
According to the pleadings made in para 8.13 of this petition, Vivek
Singh Bharadwaj was placed at rank No.83 against a total of 103
vacancies. It is further pleaded that the action of the respondents
was arbitrary, illegal, malafide and violative of Articles 14 & 19 of
the Constitution of India.
7. Mr. Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
argue that the action of the respondents is arbitrary as the result
was declared based on the incorrect answers to some questions.
He would further argue that the objections raised by the petitioner
were not considered properly. He would submit that the incorrect
5
answers to the questions have vitiated the entire selection
process. Mr. Verma would also submit that the respondents have
not provided ‘the Level Playing Field’ to the petitioner.
Mr. Verma would further submit that I.A. No.2/2025 has been
moved by the petitioner on 07.07.2025 to refer the issue of
disputed questions and answers to an independent expert. He
would further contend that the answers shown by the petitioner are
correct according to the textbook and other sources. He would also
contend that admittedly two questions were repeated and answers
to two questions were incorrect. He would pray to consider the
application I.A. No.2 of 2025.
8. On the other hand, Dr. Pande, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr.
Verma. He would submit that the objections raised by the petitioner
and other candidates were duly examined by the Expert
Committee. He would further submit that though two questions
were repeated but option ‘D’ was the correct answer according to
Vyapam and the same was notified in the model key answer. He
would also submit that there is no provision to cancel a question
on this ground. He would contend that option ‘C’ of question No.48
of Set-C was a correct answer, whereas, according to the
petitioner, the correct answer was ‘B’. He would further contend
that two experts examined the question and found answer ‘C’
correct according to the book “Financial Accounting” authored by
Dr. A. Karim, Dr. S.S. Khanuja and Dr. Piyush Mehta.
9. With regard to question No.51, he would contend that experts have
-6-
found the answer ‘A’ correct. He would further argue that option ‘D’
of question No.53 and option ‘D’ of question No.57 of Set-C were
found correct according to the textbook “Financial Accounting”
authored by Dr. A. Karim, Dr. S.S. Khanuja and Dr. Piyush Mehta.
He would also argue that option ‘D’ of question No.58 of Set-C was
found correct as per the textbook “Financial Accounting” authored
by. Dr. S.M. Shukla and Dr. Sudhir Sukla. It is also contended that
option ‘D’ of question No.66 and option B of question No.67 of Set
-C were found correct according to the textbook “Financial
Accounting” authored by Dr. A. Karim, Dr. S.S. Khanuja and Dr.
Piyush Mehta.
10.It is contended by Mr. Pande that it was not practically possible to
inform each and every candidate, who made objections, therefore,
the final key answer was published.
11.Dr. Pande would further state that in the open category, the cut-off
mark was 84.694, whereas, the petitioner secured 77.551 and thus
he was much below in the merit list. He would contend that the
difference of two or three marks would not change the fate of the
petitioner.
12.Dr. Pande would further state that the objected questions have
already been scrutinized by the Expert Committee and there is no
provision to re-examine the correctness of the model answer key.
He would further submit that the result was declared on
21.07.2018 and thereafter, the select list was also issued. He
would contend that the appointment orders were issued to the
selected candidates but the petitioner has not arrayed those
7
appointees as party respondents.
13.With regard to I.A. No.2 of 2025, Dr. Pande would submit that
there is no provision to refer the issue of disputed questions and
answers to an independent expert.
14.Learned Advocates appearing for other respondents would support
the contentions made by Dr. Pande. Dr. Pande has placed reliance
on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, 2018(2) SCC 357.
15.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents placed on the record.
16.First of all, this Court proceeds on to decide the application I.A.
No.2 of 2025 moved by the petitioner i.e. the application for
referring the issue of disputed questions and answers to an
independent expert which was moved on 07.07.2025, whereas,
this petition was filed on 30.07.2018.
17.A perusal of the documents placed on record by respondent No.3
would show that the experts considered the objections raised by
the petitioner and other candidates and came to the conclusion
that the options reflected in the model answer key are correct. The
Expert Committee scrutinized every objection raised by the
petitioner and other candidates and satisfactorily answered the
objections.
18.It is a well-settled principle of law that the benefit of revision of the
model answer key or any incorrect questions or repeated
-8-
questions should not be limited only to those candidates who had
approached the Court but should be extended to all candidates
since the fault does not lie with them but with the examination
body. Thus, the benefit would go to all candidates who participated
in the examination, therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Verma
that if his objections had been considered by the expert body, he
would have been on the merit list. Such a submission is
misconceived in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Richal and others Vs. Rajasthan
Public Service Commission and others, 2018(8) SCC 81 ,
particularly para 27 which is reproduced herein below:-
“27. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is
mentioned that the result has been revised of only 311
appellants who are before this Court. We are of the
view that key answers having been corrected, merit of
all the candidates except those who have already
been selected needs to be redetermined. In our order
dated 16-1-2018 (Richal v. Rajasthan Public
Service Commission, 2018 SCC OnLineSC 749) it
is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those
who have already been selected. We, thus, are of the
view that the Commission should revise the entire
result of all the candidates except those who have
been selected on the basis of the report of the Expert
Committee and publish revised result of all the
candidates. When the key answers are correct of the
candidates who appeared in the examination, they are
entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not
lie with the candidates but lies with the examination
body. It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit
to those candidates who have not come to the Court
being satisfied with the steps taken by the
Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which
was given the task of revising the key answers.”
19.Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Verma and
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Richal and others (supra), IA. No.2 of 2025 is hereby rejected.
9
20.In the present case, the petitioner participated in the recruitment
process and when he was declared unsuccessful, he filed a writ
petition after the declaration of the result. Admittedly, objections
were raised by the petitioner with regard to incorrect questions,
repeated questions and their answers before the Vyapam and the
documents filed by respondent No.3 would show that the
objections were duly considered and answered on the basis of the
recognized textbooks. Further, the benefit of revision should not be
limited only to the petitioner, who approached this Court but it
should be extended to all candidates, thus, the petitioner would not
get any additional benefit rather all candidates would get the
benefit of such a revision and the position of the petitioner in the
merit list would remain the same.
21.In the matter of Ran Vijay and others (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that if a statute, Rule or Regulation
governing an examination permits 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; if the Rule
does not permit so it cannot be done but at the same time, the
Court may permit re-valuation or scrutiny. It is further held that the
Court should not at all revaluate or scrutinize the answer-sheets of
a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic
matters are best left to academics. The Court should presume the
correctness of the key answers and in the event of a doubt, the
benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the
candidate. Relevant paras 30, 31, and 32 are reproduced herein
-10-
below:-
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and
we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are:
30.1 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;
30.2 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;
30.3 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;
30.4 The Court should presume the
correctness of the key answers and
proceed on that assumption; and
30.5 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 erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally,
though some might suffer more but that cannot be
helped since mathematical precision is not always
possible. This Court has shown one way out of an
impasse – exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions
11
of this Court, some of which have been discussed
above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of
examinations. This places the examination authorities in
an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny
and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and
sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes
with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that
candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an
examination, it must not be forgotten that even the
examination authorities put in equally great efforts to
successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of
the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but
the Court must consider the internal checks and
balances put in place by the examination authorities
before interfering with the efforts put in by the
candidates who have successfully participated in the
examination and the examination authorities. The
present appeals are a classic example of the
consequence of such interference where there is no
finality to the result of the examinations even after a
lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination
authorities even the candidates are left wondering about
the certainty or otherwise of the result of the
examination – whether they have passed or not;
whether their result will be approved or disapproved by
the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or
University or not; and whether they will get recruited or
not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty
results in confusion being worse confounded. The
overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest
suffers.”
22.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Richal
and others (supra) and Ran Vijay and others (supra), in my
opinion, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this
petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha