Chattisgarh High Court
Jitesh Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:47903
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 9729 of 2023
Order reserved on 17/06/2025
Order delivered on 17/09/2025
1 - Jitesh Kumar Patel S/o Amar Singh Patel Aged About 31 Years
Unemployed, R/o Ward No. 04, Gram Lebda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Finance
Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Its
Chairman, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Limited (Apex Bank) Through Its
Secretary Cooperative, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Collector Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Petitioner (in person) : Mr. Jitesh Kumar Patel For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming for quashing of the Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN examination result of the Apex Bank and District Cooperative Central Bank Date: 2025.09.17 18:24:10 +0530 2 Recruitment Examination, a direction to the respondent No. 2 to award marks on his answer to certain questions of SET-D and prayed for the following reliefs:-
"10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the declaration of Examination result of Apex Bank and District Central Cooperative Banks Recruitment Examination (CBAS23) qua petitioner (Annexure P/1), declared by Respondent No. 2 Vyapam.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue wnt(s)/direction(s)/order(s) for setting aside/ quashing the Examination result of Apex Bank and District Central Cooperative Banks Recruitment Examination (CBAS23) qua petitioner (Annexure P/1), declared by Respondent No. 2 Vyapam.
10.3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) directing the Respondent No. 2 Vyapam to consider and decide the objection along with detailed representations (Annexure P/2) preferred before it, raising the objection concerning the questions of question paper SET D received to petitioner and thereby may kindly be pleased to hold that any recruitment made in the vacant post by respondent no. 3 Bank will be subject to the final outcome of the decision of objection with representation (Annexure P/2) of petitioner by respondent no. 2.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) directing the Respondent No. 3 to proceed with the sequential recruitment process to the vacant post only after the consideration and decision of objections with representation (Annexure P/2) of petitioner by the Respondent no. 2 (Vyapam).
10.5 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other relief(s) in favour of the petitioner, as it may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.3
10.6 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.
10.7 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) directing the respondent no. 2 VYAPAM to award marks to the petitioner in respect of Question No. 21, 22, 24, 29, 59, 80 and 83 of SET-D"
2. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 04.09.2023, by Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Limited (commonly known as "Apex Bank"), for recruitment on the posts of Field Officer, Office Assistant, General Assistant and Society Manager. The petitioner was also one of the aspirants in the recruitment process. The written examination for selection was conducted on 29.10.2023, by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (commonly known as "VYAPAM"), in which the petitioner also participated. A total of 100 questions were set up, which were to be answered by the participants. After the written examination, the respondent No. 2 issued a Model Answer on 06.11.2023. The petitioner claims that the answer set up in the Model Answer for question Nos. 21, 22, 24, 29, 80 and 83 are incorrect answers. The petitioner made a detailed objection on 07.11.2023 for question Nos. 21, 22, 24, 29, 46, 74, 79, 80, 83 and 85 of SET-D (CBAS23). The respondent No. 2 deleted the 03 questions from the question paper, i.e. question Nos. 46, 74 and 79. Thereafter, without considering the objection of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 issued the merit list along with a score card on 04.12.2023. The petitioner secured fewer marks; therefore, he could not find a place in the merit list of selected candidates. The petitioner again made his detailed representation to the respondent No. 2, through e-Mail on 06.12.2023, regarding the answer to question Nos. 21, 22, 24, 29, 80, 83 and 85 and the detailed representation 4 on 07.12.2023 through Registered Post, explaining the details of the answer and its correctness. It is also the case of the petitioner that some of the questions which were deleted could not have been deleted, as the answers given in the model answer key were correct. Some of the answers were wrongly corrected, as the answers given by the petitioner were correct and they ought to have been accepted. Placing reliance on some literature available with the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition claiming the aforesaid reliefs.
3. The petitioner in person, would submit that the respondent No. 2 has incorrectly valued the answer sheet of the petitioner, and they valued the correct answers given by the petitioner as incorrect answers. The detailed representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent No. 2. The questions were objective type, and answers were to be given in the OMR sheet. He would further submit that the question Nos. 21, 22, 24 and 29 of SET-D (CBAS23) of the question paper relate to the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short "Act of 1960"), and the answer given by the petitioner for question No. 21 was correct as per the provisions of Section 56(2), (3) and Section 2 of the Act of 1960. Question No. 22 relates to Sections 17 and 18 of the Insurance Act. Question No. 24 relates to the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India for the KCC Scheme and the Economic Survey. Question No. 29 relates to Sections 8, 53(k)(4) and 70 of the Act of 1960. He would further submit that question No. 59 of SET-D (CBAS23), of the question paper was a mathematical question regarding the area of a triangle, which was correctly answered by the petitioner, but the same has been deleted by the respondent No. 2. Questions No. 80 and 83 of SET-D (CBAS23) question paper relates to English grammar, and the 5 petitioner gave a correct answer as per the Cambridge Dictionary and perfect English Book authored by Mr. V.K. Sinha, but the respondent No. 2 marked as incorrect answer.
4. It is also submitted that as per clause 12 of the instructions to candidates mentioned in the question papers, if there is a contradiction in the Hindi and English versions of the question papers, the English version shall be considered authentic. He would further submit that though the candidates who have been selected in the recruitment process have joined their respective posts, they are not the necessary party to the writ petition because he filed the writ petition much before their joining. The vacant posts are still there with the respondent Bank. The petitioner could have secured total of 59.58% of marks if those 07 answers had been considered in his favour. The answer of question No. 21 of SET-D is shown as "A", which is wrong because the punishment cannot be imposed upon the cooperative society, and no reason has been assigned in the expert's report. Punishment of a cooperative society would make it liable to be punished, and then the penalty would be paid from the money deposited by the general public. Section 56(2) and (3) of the Act of 1960 provides that the punishment should be imposed upon the responsible officer/employee.
5. In the second expert's report submitted on 28.04.2025, the answer to question No. 21 of SET-D is also provided as "A". He would submit that the reasoning and interpretation of the provision is wrongly taken by the experts. The answer to question No. 24 is given as "D", whereas, as per the petitioner, the correct answer is "A". The cooperative society can provide financial assistance to the members for agricultural activities for all purposes, like Fisheries, beekeeping, poultry farming, etc. The farmers can utilise the 6 amount of the loan for any purposes as per Clause 3 of the master circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India for the Kisan Credit Card. During his submissions, he would question the answer to question Nos. 21, 22, 24, 29, 46, 74, 79, 80, 83 and 85 of SET-D. He would submit his submissions about the reasoning of the answer given by him and the expert, and tried to demonstrate that the answer given by the VYAPAM and the expert is incorrect.
6. The petitioner in person relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Kanpur University and Others v. Samir Gupta and Others", 1983 (4) SCC 309, "Manish Ujwal and Others v. Maharshi Dayanand University", 2005 (13) SCC 744, "Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others", 2024 (9) SCC 641 and 2024 (10) SCC 743, "Om Prakash Verma v. NTA", 2024 SCC Online (Del.) 909, order passed by Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of "K. Vinopratha v. The Teacher Recruitment Board and another" in WP (MD) No. 22119 of 2022 and WMP (MD) No. 16284 of 2022, decided on 02.11.2022, order passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of "Vinay Kumar v. Union of India and others" in WP(C) No. 14638 of 2024 and CM APPL. 61445 of 2024, decided on 26.11.2024, order passed by Allahabad High Court in the matter of "Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another", in Application U/s. 482 No. 42296 of 2023, on 26.01.2024, order passed by this High Court in the matter of "Kumar Saurav v. State of Chhattisgarh" in WPC No. 2403 of 2019, decided on 15.11.2019.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 4/State would submit that the petitioner is very lower in rank in the examination result. Even if the marks are to be allotted to him, he could not come in the 7 merit position, as the merit position of others would also be changed and then the entire result would be affected. The valuation of the answer sheet is based on the model answer, which was prepared by the expert committee, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 opposes the submissions made by the petitioner in person and has submitted that on 28.04.2025 they have submitted the experts' report, in which a detailed analysis of the correct answer has been given as to why the subject experts had chosen the correct answer. The petitioner has not challenged the constitution of the expert committee. The authentic books have been referred by the subject experts. After thoroughly examining the questions under objection, the expert committee submitted their opinion and as per their opinion, three questions were deleted and marks of deleted questions were granted to the candidates according to the examination rules. No irregularity or illegality has been committed by the respondent/VYAPAM in issuance of final answer key and the process adopted by the VYAPAM was quite transparent in all respects. The selected candidates have joined on their posts and the petitioner has not made them as a party respondents in the present writ petition, and if the petitioner would be granted any relief, their service condition would be affected, therefore, they are the necessary parties in the present writ petition. Even if, it is to be held that the petitioner have referred to some literature in his hand to support his answer, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the experts opinion relied on by the respondent/VYAPAM is bad in all respects are to be ignored. He would rely upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others" 2018 8 (2) SCC 357, "Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and another v. Rahul Singh and others" 2018 (7) SCC 254, "Bihar Staff Selection Commission and others v. Arun Kumar and others" 2020 (6) SCC 362, order dated 13.06.2025, passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 303 of 2024 (Nanshi Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh), order dated 10.12.2020 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 165 of 2020 (Umang Gauraha v. State of Chhattisgarh and others).
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/Bank would submit that the recruitment process is completed and the candidates are joined on their posts. Though some posts are vacant, because some of the candidates are not joined, but the same would be filled up by the separate recruitment process. The cut-off marks was 55.6, whereas the petitioner secured 51.08, therefore he cannot claim to be appointed on the posts after getting benefit of revaluation of his answer as per his own interpretation.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition by the parties.
11. The petitioner's claim is that the model answer key issued by the VYAPAM for question Nos. 21, 22, 24, 29, 46, 74, 79, 80, 83 and 85 of the question paper of SET-D is incorrectly given and the answer sheet of the petitioner may be revalued for those questions as per its correct position and he should be given marks on those questions and accordingly he should be placed in the merit list. To understand the question and its answer as per the model answer key issued by the VYAPAM, it would be necessary to reproduce the question Nos. 21, 22, 24, 29, 46, 74, 79, 80, 83 and 85 of the question paper of SET-D and its answer, which reads as under:-
9
प्रश्न क्र. 21 What is the penalty for a Co- सहकारी सोसाइटी द्वारा उचित तरीके से operative Society that fails to खातों और अभिलेखों का रखरखाव नहीं maintain proper accounts and records? करने पर क्या दण्ड मिलता हैं?
A. जुर्माना A. Fine B. चेतावनी पत्र B. Warning letter C. कर्मचारियों का निलंबन D. विशेष दण्ड का उल्लेख नहीं C. Suspension of staff D. No specific penalty mentioned व्यापम द्वारा लिया गया उत्तर विकल्प A प्रश्न क्र. 22 A Society is insured under the सोसाइटी का निक्षेप बीमा निम्न प्रावधान के provision of-
अनुसार किया जाता है-
A. Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 A. निक्षेप बीमा और साख प्रत्याभूति निगम B. Liquidation of Bank or any अधिनियम, 1961 Compromise B. बैंक का परिसमापन वा कोई समझौता C. Amalgamation of Bank C. बैंक का संविलियन D. All of the above D. उपरोक्त सभी व्यापम द्वारा लिया गया उत्तर विकल्प A प्रश्न क्र. 24 Can a Co-operative Society provide कृ षि गतिविधियों के लिए क्या सहकारी Financial Assistance to its members for agricultural activities? सोसाइटी अपने सदस्यों को वित्तीय A. Yes, without any restrictions सहायता देती है?
B. Only with approval from the A. हां, बिना किसी प्रतिबंध के Registrar B. के वल रजिस्ट्रार के अनुमोदन के बाद C. No, it is not allowed C. नहीं, ये नहीं दी जा सकती D. Only for specific crops D. के वल विशेष फसलों के लिये व्यापम द्वारा लिया गया उत्तर विकल्प D 10 प्रश्न क्र. 29 As per Co-operative Society Act, 1960 सहकारी सोसाइटी अधिनिष्म, 1960 के the liquidation of society are-
अंतर्गत सोसाइटी का परिसमापन किया A. Under Section 59 जाता है-
B. Under Section 59 and receipt of an A. धारा 59 के अधीन application made by not less than three-fourth of members B. धारा 59 और कम से कम तीन-चौघाई सदस्यों के आवेदन पर C. Less amount of share capital C. अंश पूजी की राशि कम होने पर D. None of the above D. उपरोक्त में से कोई नहीं व्यापम द्वारा लिया गया उत्तर विकल्प B प्रश्न क्र. 80 Read the given sentence.
Ms. Chhaya will open a cake shop next week.' Now, which of the following expressions give(s) the same meaning?
A. Ms. Chhaya is going to open a cake shop next week.
B. Ms. Chhaya is opening a cake shop next week.
C. Ms. Chhaya opens a cake shop next week.
D. All of the above व्यापम द्वारा लिया गया उत्तर विकल्प D प्रश्न क्र. 83 The possible active voice of the given statement is/are:-
'It was said."
A. People said it.
B. Someone said it.
C. They said it.
D. All of the above.
व्यापम द्वारा लिया गया उत्तर विकल्प D प्रश्न क्र. 46, 74, 79 and 85 → Not available in the record.11
12. The VYAPAM had get the answer key of the model answer examined by the expert committee consists of subject experts and obtained report, who also gave their experts report and as per their reports, the following are the opinion of the experts with respect to the subject questions:-
SET- 'D' Question No. 21 ekMy vkalj lgh gSA 'A' lgdkjh lkslkbVh }kjk mfpr rjhds ls [kkrksa vkSj vfHkys[kksa dk j[kj[kko ugha djus ij tqekZuk dk n.M fn;k tkrk gSA ¼layXu NRrhlx<+ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 dh Nk;kizfr½ SET- 'D' Question No. 22 ekMy vkalj lgh gSA 'A' lkslkbVh dk fo{ksi chek&fo{ksi chek vkSj lk[k izR;kHkwfr fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1961 vuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA SET- 'D' Question No. 24 ekMy vkalj lgh gSA 'D' d`f"k xfrfof/k;ksa ds fy, lgdkjh lkslkbVh vius lnL;ksa dks dsoy fo'ks"k Qlyksa ds fy, foRrh; lgk;rk nsrh gSA SET- 'D' Question No. 29 ekMy vkalj lgh gSA 'B' /kkjk 55 ds varxZr tkap mijkar iath;d ifjlekiu dk vkns'k dj ldrk gS ,oa rhu pkSFkkbZ lnL;ksa ds vkosnu ij Hkh ifjlekiu fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% fodYi 'B' lgh gSA 12 SET- 'D' Question No. 80 Simple future tense can be expressed through the 'D' structure 'be+ going to +v1', 'be+ v. ing' and 'v1'. Hence, the model answer provided is correct. Proof attached. (Wren and Martin).
SET- 'D' Question No. 83 When the subject in a sentence are 'people', 'D' 'someone' or 'they', then while passivising such subjects are omitted. Hence, model answer is correct.
SET- 'D'
Question No. 85
As per 'High School English grammar and 'C'
composition' by Wren and Martin and its
corresponding key the abstract noun form of 'pursue' is 'pursuit'. Cambridge dictionary (Wed Ed.) says 'the act of trying to achieve a plan, activity or situation, usually over a long period of time.
Hence, the model answer is correct as per the contact proof attached.
13. The petitioner raised objection with respect to the model answer key and the first expert report and submitted certain literature in support of his objection and then the matter was again referred to expert committee consists of subject experts, who again gave their opinion with reasoning and based on the literature from which they extracted their reasoning, which reads as under:-
13
SET- 'D' Question No. 21 NRrhlx<+ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e 1960 dh /kkjk 32 ds varxZr 'A' (4) izR;sd lgdkjh lkslkbVh vius jftLVMZ ifr ij nSfud dkjksckj fØ;kfUor djsxh rFkk vius jftLVMZ irs ij lgdkjh lkslkbVh ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k la/kkfjr djsxh vkSj ;fn lgdkjh lkslkbVh& ¼,d½ --------------
¼nks½ --------------
¼rhu½ --------------
rks jftLVªkj ftEesnkj vf/kdkj dks lquokbZ dk ;qfDr;qDr volj nsus ds i'pkr~ ipkl gtkj :i;s vf/kd Hkh 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir dj ldsxkA mDr vk/kkj ij fodYi ^A^ lgh gSA lanHkZ%& NRrhlx<+ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e 1960 ,oa fu;e 1962 (ys[kd izselk; lisjkt) dk i`"B Øekad 75 ,oa 76 ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½ SET- 'D' Question No. 22 NRrhlx<+ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e 1960 dh /kkjk 52 (ST) esa 'A' mYysf[kr gS fd chfer lgdkjh cSad ls vfHkizsr gS] ,slh lkslkbVh tks fo{ksi chek vkSj lk[k izR;kHkwfr fuxe vf/kfu;e 1961 (1961 dk 47) ds mica/kksa ds v/khu rd chfer cSad gksA mDr vk/kkj ij fodYi ^A^ lgh gSA lanHkZ%& NRrhlx<+ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e 1960 ,oa fu;e 1962 (ys[kd izselk; lisjkt) dk i`"B Øekad 161 ,oa 162 ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½ SET- 'D' Question No. 24 d`f"k xfrfof/k;ksa ds fy, lgdkjh lkslk;Vh vius lnL;ksa dks d`f"k Qly 'D' +_.k ,oa d`f"k ls lacaf/kr vU; iz;kstuks a gsrq Hkh _.k iznku fd;k tkrk gSA iz'u Øekad 33 ds fodYiksa esa fodYi 'D' dsoy fo'ks"k Qlyksa ds fy, fudVre lgh mRrj gS] 'ks"k fodYi A, B ,oa C lgh ugha gSA miyC/k pkjksa fodYiksa es a ls fodYi 'D' fudVre lgh mRrj gSA lkslk;Vh }kjk fo'ks"k Qlyks a ds vykok vU; d`f"k xfrfof/k;ks a gsrq Hkh _.k iznku fd;k tkrk gSA 14 SET- 'D' Question No. 80 The given sentence < Ms. Chhaya will open a cake 'D' shop next week. > is in the simple future tense, indicating a future action that is likely certain or planned. The given sentence is not a part of any larger text, rather an independent structure. Hence, the meaning of all the options given is same based on its face value.
Justification for < Option D: All of the above > According to Wren and Martin High School English grammar and composition, Section 234 of the book itself says, "There are several ways of talking about the future in English: the simple future tense, the going to form, the simple present tense, etc. "implying that there are multiple acceptable structures in English to express future actions. Hence, the focus here is on meaning rather than structure. Multiple structures can imply the same meaning. Here are the reasoning :-
=> According to Section 235, "The simple future tense is used to talk about things which we cannot control. It expresses the future as fact. Here, in this sentence < Ms. Chhaya will open a cake shop next week.> it expresses the future as fact.
=> According to Section 238, "We use the going to farm when we have decided to do something before talking about it."
The sentence <Ms. Chhaya is going to open a cake shop next week.> will be valid and equivalent in meaning as it would denote Ms. Chhaya has already made the deciding and begun preparations. => Section 244 of the book says, "We use the present continuous tense when we talk about something that we have planned to do in future. <Ms. Chhaya is 15 opening a cake shop next week.> is used for personal, prearranged plans.
=> According to Section 242 of the referred book, "The simple present tense is used for official programmes and timetables." Although less common for personal events. It is acceptable to say <Ms. Chhaya opens a cake shop next week.> Thomson and Martinet in their Practical English Grammar say, "It can be used for a planned future action or series of actions, particularly they refer to a journey.> e.g. We leave Landon at 10.00 next Tuesday and arrive in Paris at 13.00 etc. Conclusion All the three alternative expressions (options A, B and C) convey the same essential meaning as the original future sentence, each through a grammatically valid structure for referring to future actions.
As the candidate claims that option A, only is the correct answer is not a valid claim. All the three sentences given in options i.e. A, B and C are correct, hence as per the question, <Option D. All the above> is the correct answer.
Reference and enclosures:-
1. Scanned pages of <Wren P.C. and H. Martin, High School Grammar and Composition. Revised by N.D.V. Prasada Rao, Multi. Co. Ld. S. Chand & Company Pvt. Ltd. 2016, page 84-85.
2. Scanned pages of Hewings, Martin. Advanced Grammar is Use 3rd Ed., Cambridge University Press, 2013, Unit 9 and 10 page 18-21.
3. Scanned pages of Practical English Grammar, by Thomson and Martinet, Oxford University Press 4 th Ed. 1980, page 116.16
SET- 'D' Question No. 83 The sentence <It was said> is in the passive voice, 'D' and its active voice can be expressed in multiple ways, especially when the agent (the doer) is indefinite or unknown.
Justification for option <D. All of the above> According to Wren & Martin, High School English Grammar and Composition, Section 197, the following key guidance is provided:-
"The passive is, therefore, generally preferred when the active form would involve the use of an indefinite or vague pronoun or noun (somebody, they, people, we, etc.) as subject, that is, when we do not know the agent or when it is clear enough who the agent is."
The examples cited include:-
*I was asked my name → (They asked me my name.) *My pen has been stolen. → (Somebody has stolen my pen.) *English is spoken all over the world. → (People speak English all over the world.) By parallel reasoning:-
*<It was said.> can correspond to: → A. People said it.
→ B. Someone said it.
→ C. They said it.
Each option uses a vague or indefinite subject, which is typical in converting passive constructions like <It was said> to active voice. All three are contextual equivalents and grammatically sound reconstructions of the passive sentence.
Hence, <Option D: All the above> is the correct answer, as all the listed subjects- 'people', 'someone' and 'they' serve as legitimate active agents implied in the original passive construction.17
As the candidate claims that Option A, is the only correct answer, is a misplaced judgment. All the three options i.e. A, B and C are correct. Hence, as per the question, <Option D: All of the above> is the correct answer.
Reference and Enclosures:-
(1) Wren, P.C. and Martin H. High School English Grammar and Composition. Rev. by N.D.V. Prasada Rao, Mult. Co. Ed. & Chand & Company Pvt. Ltd. 2016, page 72.
(2) Hewings, Martin. Advanced Grammar is use, 3 rd.
Ed. Cambridge University Press, 2013, Unit 24, Using passives. Page 48-49.
14. When there is detailed report of subject experts are available with reasoning, even if another view is possible, the interference of the Court in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, particularly in the field of experts' opinion. In such matters, the Court should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of key answer as the judges are not the subject experts in every field to decide the issue one way or other. The matter can only be dealt with by the experts report in the field and the judicial scrutiny is available to a limited extent to see whether proper course of action pursued by the agency conducting the selection process or whether the final answer given are palpably wrong as discernible from the face of it without going for any research.
15. In the matter of "Ran Vijay Singh" (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 30, 31 and 32 that:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:18
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.19
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions 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."
16. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra) is reiterated in "Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission"
(supra) and in para 12 of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission's case, it has been held that:-
"12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the 20 candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of -
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions."
17. As observed in para 30.5, the Hon'ble Apex Court alerted all concerned that in the event of a doubt, the benefits should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. This being the position, even if it is to be held that the writ petitioner has preferred some literature in his hand to support his answers, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the experts opinion is bad in all respects or to be ignored.
18. Further, in the matter of Bihar Staff Selection Commission's case (supra), in para 23, 24, 25 and 26 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:-
"23. This court reiterates that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters concerning evaluation of candidates-particularly, for purpose of recruitment to public services is narrow. The previous decisions of the court ; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors (1984) 4 SCC 27; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714; Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas have constantly underscored that in the absence of 21 any provision for re- evaluation of answer sheets, judicial review should be rarely exercised - preferably under exceptional circumstances. A three judge Bench of this court, in Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) held as follows:
"7. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re- evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re- evaluation of his marks."
24. In Khushboo Shrivastava (supra) too, a similar view was echoed:
"9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors. (supra) has clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (supra) that in the absence of any provision for the re- evaluation of answers books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors. (supra) was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this 22 Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383 in which the direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answers books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was held to be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383; Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr (2010) 6 SCC 759; Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602; Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors (2014) 14 SCC 523 and Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2018) 2 SCC 357 conducted the examination, did not make any provision for re- evaluation of answers books in the rules.
10. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre- Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by the CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of answers sheets. Hence, the Appellants could not have allowed such re- examination or re-
evaluation on the representation of the Respondent No. 1 and accordingly rejected the representation of the Respondent No. 1 for re-
examination/re-evaluation of her answer sheets. The Respondent No. 1, however,
approached the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed production of answer sheets on the Respondent No. 1 depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and when the answer sheets were produced, the learned Single Judge himself compared the answers of the Respondent No. 1 with the model answers produced by the CBSE and awarded two marks for answers given by the Respondent No. 1 in the Chemistry and 23 Botany, but declined to grant any relief to the Respondent No. 1. When Respondent No. 1 filed the LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Division Bench also examined the two answers of the Respondent No. 1 in Chemistry and Botany and agreed with the findings of the learned Single Judge that the Respondent No. 1 deserved two additional marks for the two answers.
11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to the Respondent No. 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (supra) has observed:
29... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-
day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded....
12. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside 24 the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. We are informed that the first Respondent was admitted to the MBBS Course subsequently. If so, her admission in the MBBS Course will not be affected."
25. The decision in Ran Vijay Singh (supra f.n.2), after a review of all previous decisions, held as follows:
"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.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX 25
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions 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."
26. Given the clear declaration of law in the judgments of this court, we are of the opinion that the unilateral exercise of re-valuation undertaken by the High Court 26 (both by the single judge and the Division Bench) has not solved, but rather contributed to the chaos. No rule or regulation was shown by any party during the hearing, which justified the approach that was adopted. The BSSC, in our opinion, acted correctly in the first instance, in referring the answers to a panel of experts. If there were justifiable doubts about the recommendations of that panel, the least that should have been done, was to require the BSSC to refer the disputed or doubtful questions to another expert panel. That was not done; the "corrections" indicated by the single judge were accepted by the BSSC;
several candidates who made it to the select list freshly drawn up pursuant to his directions, were appointed. The Division Bench, thereafter undertook the entire exercise afresh, compounding the matter further by not referring the disputed questions to any panel of experts. We are left reiterating the lament, (made in Ran Vijay) that the High Court's interference has not resulted in finality "to the result of the examinations" despite a long lapse of time. There is an air of uncertainty about the entire selection - nay, the entire cadre, because the inter se seniority of selected (and appointed) candidates is in a state of flux."
19. Further, in Umang Gauraha's case (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that:-
"17. It is settled law that the Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answer, as the Judges are not Experts in every field to decide the issue either one way or the other. The matter can be dealt with only by the Experts in the field and judicial scrutiny can only be to the limited extent, to see whether proper course of action has been pursued by the agency conducting the selection or whether the final answers given are palpably wrong as discernible from the face of it, without going for any research."27
20. In the matter of "Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another v. State of Rajasthan an others" 2021 (2) SCC 309 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, the practice of reevaluation and secreting of questions by Courts, which lack expertise in academic matters, must be discouraged and it is not permissible for the High Court to examine question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when commission had assessed inter se merits of the candidates. The scope of judicial review in the matter has also been discussed reiterating the ratio laid down in Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra) in para 14, 15, 16 and 17, it has been held that:-
"14. The Division Bench heard all the review petitions as well as the appeals and passed an order dated 28th April, 2015 referring the seven disputed questions/ answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee. On or about 18th May, 2015 the Expert Committee gave its Report to which the appellants filed objections. Eventually, by the judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2015 the Division Bench directed a fresh evaluation of the answer sheets on the basis of the Report of the Expert Committee. This decision of the Division Bench is under challenge before us.
15. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, the third re- evaluation was completed by the Board. The result of the third re- evaluation has been kept in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was initially filed before us but later returned to learned counsel for the Board.
16. We are pained that an examination for recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers advertised in January, 2009 has still not attained finality even after the passage of more than eight years. The system of holding public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and reviewed so that selected candidates are not drawn into litigation which could go on for several years. Be that as it may, we have still to tackle the issues before us.28
17. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder do not provide for any re- evaluation of the answer sheets and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have undertaken that exercise at all. Reference was made to the following passage from Mukesh Thakur which considered several decisions on the subject and held:
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.""
21. There is no dispute with respect to the course and events in so far as after conducting the examination, the model answers were published by the VYAPAM inviting objections from the interested candidates. The objections obtained were forwarded and subjected to scrutiny by the expert committee. Considering the objections, the expert committee found that some questions are liable to be deleted because of the defects either in the questions or the answers and in respect of some other questions, the model answers were noted as required to be corrected. It was on the basis of the said opinion of the experts that the final answer key was published by the VYAPAM followed 29 by further steps. Subsequently, a detailed report of the experts along with the reasoning have also been obtained, which has been annexed with the present petition also. This clearly shows that the course adopted by the respondent/VYAPAM was quite transparent in all respects and it cannot be held as arbitrary or unreasonable, in any manner.
22. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the WA No. 108 of 2020 (Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board v. Vikram Singh Rana and others), decided on 06.03.2020, has also considered, whether the "decision making process" pursued by the VYAPAM was correct or not, and whether there is any scope of interference. The specific observations made in Vikram Singh Rana's case (supra) in para 14 that:-
"14. The above questions and answers, as considered and opined by the Expert Committee, have been referred to by this Court only to point out that the Petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate the genuineness of their objections before the writ Court, which was essential, in view of the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra), before any relief was granted. There is absolutely no challenge as to the competence of the Expert Committee, constituted by the Appellant- Board or as to any instance of mala fides. This being the position, the idea of the writ petitioners with reference to the way in which it has been painted in some of the textbooks and sought to be relied on by them to suit to their stand cannot be a ground to tilt the balance in respect of the opinion given by the Expert Committee, for the reasons as given in Annexure A/5. The course of action pursued by the Appellant-Board is demonstrated as transparent in all respects. The questions were framed by the Experts and after completion of the Examination, the Model Answers were published as per Annexure A/3, giving a chance to the candidates to submit the objections, if 30 any. It was after considering all the objections, that the opinion was formed by the Expert Committee, leading to finalization of the answers as per Annexure A/4 and the publication of merit list. This being the position, the 'decision making process' pursued by the Appellant-Board is quite in order and there is no scope for interference in this regard."
23. The grievance of the petitioner is only with respect to 10 questions, which were found not correct or sustainable because of ambiguity or due to more answers or having been framed wrongly without giving proper answer, the marks available in respect of 10 questions have to be reevaluated amongst all the candidates who participated in the examination in uniformity. All the candidates, who participated in the examination are either beneficiary or not a looser in any manner, and hence there cannot be any valid or sustainable grievance or cause of action for the writ petitioner.
24. The above mentioned questions and answers as considered and opined by the expert committee have been referred by this Court only to point out that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the genuineness of his objections. There is absolutely no challenge as to the competence of the expert committee constituted by the VYAPAM or as to any instance of mala fides. This being the position, the interpretation of the writ petitioner with reference to the way, in which it has been pointed in some of the text books/literature and sought to be relied on by him to suit his stand cannot be a ground to tilt the balance in respect of the opinion given by the expert committee. After considering all the objections, the opinion was formed by the expert committee leading to finalization of the answer as per their experts report, therefore, the decision making process pursued by the VYAPAM is quite in order, and there is no scope for interference in this regard. 31
25. The another objection raised by the respondent No.2/VYAPAM that all the selected candidates who have joined on their respective posts have not been made as a party respondents in the present writ petition is concerned, would be redundant in view of the consideration that the petitioner could not succeed in demonstrating that he is entitled for more marks in aforesaid questions as per his own interpretation and this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for reevaluation of his answer sheet for the aforesaid questions and answers.
26. Though the petitioner had tried to support his claim by citing certain judgments, however, in view of the aforementioned judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner by the judgments cited by him, as the issue has been answered in above mentioned cases considered in this order.
27. In view of the aforesaid consideration, this Court does not find any scope of interference in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved