Chattisgarh High Court
Jitendra Kumar Malakar vs Shri Subodh Kumar Singh on 2 March, 2026
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2026:CGHC:10890
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CONT No. 1646 of 2025
1 - Dinesh Kumar Chandra S/o. Shri Keshav Prasad Chandra, Aged About
43 Years Presently Posted As Line Attendant- I, In E E (Vig.) Office C S P D
C L Korba, R/o. House No. Se-458 C S E B Colony, Korba, East, District
Korba (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Shri Subodh Kumar Singh Chairman Chhattisgarh State Power
Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Shri Rohit Yadav, Chairman And Secretary, Energy Department,
Daganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Shri R.K. Shukla, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power
Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Shri Bhim Singh Kanwar, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power
Distribution Company Ltd., Daganiya Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Shri A.M. Pariyal, Chief Engineer/ General Manager (Hr) Managing
Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya,
Raipur (C.G.)
6 - Shri Rajendra Prasad, Chief Engineer (Hr), Chhattisgarh State Power
Distribution Company Ltd. Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
BALRAM PRASAD CONT No. 1592 of 2025 DEWANGAN Digitally signed 1 - Sukdeo Prasad Deshmukh S/o Shri Kedar Singh Deshmukh Aged About by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 45 Years Presently Posted As Line Attendant - I In Ee (City Division) Office Cspdcl Durg , R/o 188, Ward No. 07, Bhata Para, Purana Basti Kohka, Supela Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri Subodh Kumar Singh Chairman Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur C.G. 2 2 - Shri Rohit Yadav Chairman And Secretary, Energy Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh.
3 - Shri R.K. Shukla, Managing Director,chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur C.G. 4 - Shri Bhim Singh Kanwar, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur C.G. 5 - Shri A.M. Pariyal, Chief Engineer/general Manager (Hr) Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur C.G. 6 - Shri Rajendra Prasad, Chief Engineer (Hr), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur C.G.
--- Respondent(s) CONT No. 1672 of 2025 1 - Yogendra Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted As Line Attendant-I, In E E (O And M) Officer Cspdcl Raigarh, R/o Upar Para Bendohhariya, Gram Panchayat Khairpali, Bendo Jhariya, Kunkuni, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri Subodh Kumar Singh Chairman Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Daganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shri Rohit Yadav Chairman And Secretary, Energy Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh.
3 - Shri R.K. Shukla Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Shri Bhim Singh Kanwar Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Daganiya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Shri A.M. Pariyal Chief Engineer/general Manager (Hr) Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Shri Rajendra Prasad Chief Engineer (Hr), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Daganiya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s) 3 CONT No. 1575 of 2025 1 - Jitendra Kumar Malakar S/o Shri Tiharu Ram Malakar Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Line Attendant-I, In E E (O And M) Office C S P D C L Raigarh, R/o 818 Ward No. 6 Lata Sadan, Madhuban Para Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri Subodh Kumar Singh Chairman Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Rohit Yadav Chairman And Secretary, Energy Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri R.K. Shukla Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shri Bhim Singh Kanwar Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri A.M. Pariyal Chief Engineer/ General Manager (H R), Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shri Rajendra Prasad Chief Engineer (H R), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Dnganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioners : Ms. Aparajita Pandey. Advocate For Respondents : Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 02/03/2026
1. Petitioners have filed this petition alleging willful disobedience of order dated 04.02.2025, passed in WPS No.5021 of 2022 and other connected matters.
2. Learned counsel for respondents submits that order dated 04.02.2025 passed in WPS No.5021 of 2022 and other connected matters, have 4 been duly complied with. Petitioner - Dinesh Kumar Chandra had earlier secured 32.75 marks, petitioner - Yogendra Prasad Sahu secured 34.50 marks, petitioner Jitendra Kumar secured 31.50 marks and Sukhdeo Prasad Deshmukh secured 29.00 marks, which are based on the 100 questions. He further submits that for calculating Pro-rata marks, total marks of written examination remain same and that was made for 90 questions instead 100 questions and accordingly, the marks which were awarded to petitioners i.e. petitioner - Dinesh Kumar Chandra earlier as 32.75 marks is enhanced to 36.39, petitioner - Yogendra Prasad Sahu as 34.50 is enhanced to 38.33 marks, petitioner Jitendra Kumar as 31.50 is enhanced to 35.50 marks and Sukhdeo Prasad Deshmukh as 29.00 is enhanced to 32.22 marks. It is contention of learned counsel for respondents that, even after awarding Pro-rata marks, petitioners did not qualify, and accordingly, no further orders were passed in their favour. Proceedings have been enclosed along with additional reply.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners seeks further time to file additional documents.
4. These cases were earlier listed on 23.02.2026 on the said date, Mr. Harsh Wardhan, learned advocate appeared on behalf of petitioners and sought time to file additional documents and prays for listing of this case in the next week, accordingly, these cases are listed today.
5. Petitioners have filed rejoinder pleading therein that questions No.54 and 75 (defective questions) were cancelled and thereafter awarded pro-rata marks. It is further pleaded that since rule is not applicable in respondent - corporatary and this was never pleaded. The rule of 5 awarding marks as pointed out by petitioners of granting 1 mark each in respect of defective question were never disputed by respondents.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties.
7. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.02.2025, passed in WPS No.5021 of 2022 and other connected writ petitions, is extracted below for ready reference : -
"6. ............... This aspect has been considered and dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494 and the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below:
"16. It is not in dispute nor it can be disputed that for the purposes of re-evaluation, the eight questions found incorrect were deleted and their marks were rightly allotted on a pro rata basis in accordance with Clause 14 of the Rules which reads as under:
"14. Wrong (Defective) objective type question, its cancellation and marks to be allotted in lieu of it.
After the exams, the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) gets each question examined by the subject expert. If, upon examination by the subject experts, the questions are found defective/wrong, it is rejected. Questions may be rejected on the following reasons:
(i) if the structure of the question is wrong;
(ii) out of the options given as answers, if more than one options are correct;6
(iii) if no option is correct;
(iv) if there is difference in Hindi and English translation of any question because of which different meaning is drawn from both and one correct answer could not be ascertained;
(v) if any other printing mistake is there because of which correct answer is not ascertainable or more than one option is correct.
On such rejection of question upon the recommendation of Subject Expert Committee, on such questions the marks would be awarded by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) to the candidates in proportion to their marks obtained in the particular question paper. Whether the rejected question has been or not been attempted. The question papers in which the questions have been rejected, their evaluation procedure would be as follows, if in any question papers out of 100 questions 2 questions are rejected and after evaluation candidate secures 81 marks out of 98 questions then in such case calculation of marks would be done as (81 x 100)/100 - 2 = 82.65. On which basis merit would be determined."
The other eight questions whose answers were found incorrect in the earlier model answers key were re-evaluated on the basis of revised model answers key. In Paper 1, only the objective type questions were re- evaluated with the aid of model answers key prepared and provided to the 7 examiners for the first time after the inquiry by the respondent Board.
18. In respect of the respondent Board's propriety in taking the decision of re-evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the respondent Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of experts and is empowered to decide upon re- evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Sahiti v. Dr N.T.R. University of Health Sciences. It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re-evaluation. The respondent Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re-evaluation in respect of the eight questions, answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterised as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re-evaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein.
19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and 8 circumstances of the case the decision of re- evaluation by the respondent Board was a valid decision which could not be said to have caused any prejudice, whatsoever, either to the appellants or to the candidates selected in the revised merit list and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court to the aforesaid extent."
* * *
8. In light of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in light of the admission made by the respondent/company that there were anomalies in the answers and answers sheets, however, in consequence of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent/company that the posts of Junior Engineer are lying vacant in the department, this Court is of the fortified view that the respondent/company is required to give "pro-rata"
marks to the petitioners for questions No.81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 98, 99 and accordingly they are required to pass appropriate orders while awarding marks to each of the petitioners and if the petitioners secure the cut off marks as prescribed for the different categories then appropriate orders for their appointment shall be passed in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to complete this exercise within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
8. From the aforementioned order, it is clearly appearing that Court has directed the respondents to give "Pro-rata marks" to the petitioners for question No.81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 98, 99, which are 10 in numbers and there is further direction that they are required to pass appropriate orders while awarding marks to each of petitioners and if 9 petitioners secured cutoff marks as prescribed for the different categories, then appropriate orders for their appointment shall be passed.
9. Proceedings as directed by this Court has been recorded and placed along with additional reply. Minimum passing marks is fixed by respondents as 40, however, even after awarding Pro-rata marks, petitioners could not qualify and only one petitioner i.e. Nehansh Kumar Markandey, who belongs to scheduled caste category was found eligible as he secured 30.28 marks against minimum 30 marks and was found eligible for selection.
10. The pleadings made in the rejoinder that one marks is to be awarded for each question number as forming part of the order is not specifically mentioned in the order but it only mentions grant of 'Pro-
rata marks'. In the proceeding enclosed by the respondents have awarded pro-rata marks as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vikas Pratap Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494.
11. In the aforementioned facts of the case in the opinion of this Court the direction issued by this Court in order dated dated 04.02.2025, passed in WPS No.5021 of 2022 and other connected writ petitions have been complied with. Accordingly the contempt proceeding initiated against respondents is dropped. Contempt petitions are closed. Notice issued to respondents stands discharged.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram