Civil Judge recruitment candidates challenged procedural deviations, deletion of nine preliminary examination questions and pro rata redistribution of marks. The Court rejected the challenges, declined interference with the amended final answers and Expert Committee findings, and dismissed all 52 writ petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 5286 of 2020
Prafull Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Shiv Shankar Tiwari, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bazar Mohalla, Marwahi, Post and Block Marwahi, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
… Petitioner
Versus
... Respondents
WPS No. 231 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 253 of 2021
... Petitioner
Versus
WPS No. 255 of 2021
... Petitioner
Versus
2
WPS No. 262 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 886 of 2021
Versus
... Respondents
WPS No. 73 of 2021
... Petitioner
Versus
3
WPS No. 101 of 2021
WPS No. 168 of 2021
4
WPS No. 478 of 2021
WPS No. 585 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 720 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 190 of 2021
... Petitioners
Versus
5
WPS No. 271 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 278 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 280 of 2021
Versus
6
WPS No. 323 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 327 of 2021
WPS No. 331 of 2021
Versus
Versus
7
Versus
... Petitioner
... Respondents
WPS No. 610 of 2021
8
WPS No. 584 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 471 of 2021
Versus
... Respondents
... Petitioner
Versus
9
WPS No. 570 of 2021
... Petitioner
Versus
10
WPS No. 580 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 597 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 617 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 628 of 2021
Versus
11
Versus
12
Versus
Versus
... Petitioner
Versus
13
14
Versus
WPC No. 42 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 855 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 856 of 2021
Versus
For Petitioners:
Mr. Shivang Dubey, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Mr. T.K. Jha, Mr. Yashwant Thakur, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Shobhit Sharma, Mr. Vivek Mishra, Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Mr. Shreyankar Nandy, Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri with Mr. Pankaj Singh & Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Mr. Malay Shrivastava with Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondent - State:
Mr. Rahul Jha and Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocates.
For Respondent - High Court:
Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent - CGPSC:
Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate.
15
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy “ORDER ” Reserved on 10/03/2021 Pronounced on 18/03/2021
1. The present is a bunch of 52 Writ Petitions filed with a common grievance in respect of the results declared of Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination-2020 conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (in short, “CGPSC”).
2. Facts common in all the Writ Petitions and the grounds and contentions of the Counsels appearing for the parties also being similar, if not identical, and the relief sought for also being common, this bunch of Writ Petitions is being decided by this common order.
3. The relevant facts necessary for appreciation of the facts of the present case, common in all the Writ Petitions, are as under:
The CGPSC published an Advertisement on 5.2.2020 for filling up of 32 posts of Civil Judge (Entry Level) in the State of Chhattisgarh. Advertisement was issued on 5.2.2020. Preliminary Examination initially was ordered to be conducted on 17.5.2020. However, because of COVID19 pandemic, the examination as per the schedule could not be convened and finally the date of Preliminary Examination was rescheduled and conducted on 10.11.2020. The CGPSC published the model answers on 12.11.2020. Objections were called from all the candidates, if any, and the final amended model answers were declared on 20.12.2020. When the final amended answers were published, it was found that the CGPSC has deleted 9 questions and the answer to one question was amended, which has given rise to the filing of the present bunch of Writ Petitions. The 9 questions which have been deleted are in fact Law related questions.
4. There were primarily two major grounds that were raised by Petitioners in common. Firstly, the examination itself was conducted in an inappropriate and illegal manner contrary to the rules governing the field and also contrary to the Advertisement, prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the candidates and therefore should be interfered with in exercise of its power of Judicial Review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The second ground
16
was that after the objections were called on the publication of amended answers, the CGPSC has wrongly deleted the 9 questions holding that they were contrary to the available sources and literature, leading to the Petitioners being put to a substantial loss and as a result being declared ineligible for the Mains examination.
5. Another common ground raised by a few of the Petitioners was that as a result of deletion of 9 questions, the results of the Petitioners have been adversely affected as the awarding of marks after the deletion of 9 questions does not show the awarding of marks to be from 100 Marks. Another ground raised by some of the Petitioners was that while publishing the results, there was no cut off marks published or declared.
6. So far as ground of procedural lapse is concerned, the contention of learned Counsels for Petitioners is that when the Advertisement as such was published on 5.2.2020, as per the Scheme of Examination for the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination-2020 the examination was said to be conducted in 3 parts; first part would be the Preliminary Examination; second part would the Mains Examination and the third part shall be that of viva voce Interview.
7. For the purpose of conducting of Preliminary Examination, 3 centers were prescribed, that are, (1) Bilaspur, (2) Durg-Bhilai and (3) Raipur. As per the scheme floated along with the Advertisement; the Preliminary Examination shall be conducted online; the examination shall be of 100 Marks, and the Question Paper shall consist 100 Objective Type questions with each question having 4 Options of answer out of which one option had to be chosen to be correct answer. The Appendix to the Scheme of Examination also revealed that the time for the examination schedule was 2hours. Now, the grievance of the Petitioners is that though when the Advertisement was issued, the mode of examination was said to be online. Subsequently, when the call letters were issued they were informed that the examinations shall be conducted off-line instead of online. The time schedule was shown to be 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM. The total marks alloted was 200 Marks for 100 questions. Further, in the Question Paper that was circulated the valuation
17
procedure prescribed reflected that there shall be negative marking for each wrong answer, which initially was not reflected in the Advertisement or the Scheme for Examination floated along with the Advertisement. This made the candidates quite apprehensive in attempting the answers fearing negative marking and it was only after a considerable period of time in the course of examination that the authorities passed on an instruction/message that there shall be no negative marking and the said condition in the Question Paper shall be treated as cancelled or deleted.
8. Further contention of learned Counsels for Petitioners is that though in the Question Paper the time schedule showed the examination to be conducted from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM but in fact the time granted was only for 2hours that is from 10:00 AM to 12:00PM which again created a lot of confusion in the mind of the participants. Likewise, the Question Paper showed that each question would carry 2 Marks taking the maximum marks to 200 whereas under the Advertisement the maximum marks prescribed were 100 Marks which means 1 Mark was to be allotted to a correct answer. Thus, all these procedural lapses had put the candidates to a mental strain in the course of attempting the questions and thereby their interest has been prejudicially affected so far as their performance is concerned. Further, highlighting on the procedural lapses, learned Counsels for Petitioners submitted that the Maxim “Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus ” should be brought into force and it should be held that since the foundation of conducting of the examination itself was erroneous, all subsequent process also has to be deemed to be erroneous and it would stand collapsed and vitiated without any further necessity of judicial scrutiny in respect of subsequent proceedings. 9. Coming to the second major ground of the 9 questions being deleted to be improper, the contention of all the Petitioners was that the CGPSC while publishing the amended and final answers to the question paper has committed an error of law and error of judgment. According to learned Counsels for Petitioners, there was no necessity for the Respondents to have deleted the 9 questions and which has substantially and adversely affected the results so far as
18
the Petitioners are concerned. The answers given in the model answers initially published by the CGPSC were, proper, legal and logical and justified and there was no scope of any alteration to the said answers in any manner.
10. Learned Counsels appearing for Petitioners also harped upon the Instruction No.7 provided with the Question Paper which envisages that the candidates were expected of understanding and perceiving the questions after considering the Hindi and English format of the questions so far as the minor spelling and other mistakes in any one of the languages is concerned. Which, in other words, means that since the Petitioners were all Graduates, slight errors or otherwise in the questions, the petitioners/candidates are to perceive and understand the question in its proper perspective and attempt the answers. This, in other words, also means that the slight errors in the questions were to be ignored by the CGPSC also in the course of publishing the amended and final answers while considering the objections that were called on the publication of model answers.
11. Further contention of learned Counsels for Petitioners is that the answers arrived at by the CGPSC in the course of publishing the amended and final answers were highly conflicting and contradictory and were also in contravention to the legal provisions as it stand. Thus, the deletion of the 9 questions is bad in law as it adversely affected the prospects of the Petitioners, leading to the filing of the present Writ Petitions and thus the Writ Petitions therefore need to be allowed and the Petitioners to be given appropriate benefit of the same.
12. Learned Counsels for Petitioners in support of their contentions relied upon the cases of Kanpur University & Others v . Samir Gupta & Others reported in 1983 (4) SCC 309, Manish Ujjawal & Others v . Maharishi Dayanand Sarawati University & Others reported in 2005 (13) SCC 744, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission & Others v. Rahul Singh & Another reported in 2018 (7) SCC 254 and also on W.P.(S) No. 2403/2019 ( Chandrasen Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ) and WA No. 605/2019 ( Rituraj Burman & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ).
19
13. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-CGPSC, on advance notice, having sought instructions has produced before this Court the records in respect of 14 Questions which were dealt with on receiving the objections from the candidates after the publication of model answers. He submits that immediately after the model answers were published, the objections were called on and many of the candidates have submitted their objections to the model answers. As per the procedure, the CGPSC subsequently constituted a committee of Experts and as regards the questions relating to the subject of Law, a senior level Committee was constituted with the approval of the High Court. That, according to learned Counsel for CGPSC, the said committee consisted of three of the senior Judicial Officers in the State of Chhattisgarh and all the three Judicial Officers are in the Super Time Pay Scale category Officers having rich experience in the field of Law. This Committee having scrutinized the entire objections has given the finding that 9 questions have to be deleted and one question has to be amended so far as the correct answers are concerned.
14. Learned Counsel for CGPSC further submitted that all the candidates who had participated in the examination have been granted pro rata marks for the 9 questions that were deleted and which redresses their grievances as they have not been put to loss on the questions being deleted. Moreover, according to learned Counsel for CGPSC, this awarding of pro rata marks on the deletion of questions is not something which has been introduced for the first time, rather, it is this practice and procedure adopted since ages and is also applied in all the examinations conducted either by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission or by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. Therefore, the Petitioners do not have the right to cry foul of on such a procedure being adopted. Learned Counsel for CGPSC in support of his contentions submitted that it is always within the prerogative of the CGPSC insofar as adopting the mode and process of examination is concerned. Initially, when the Advertisement was published on 5.2.2020, the candidates were made to know that there will be 3 examination centers, that are, (1) Bilaspur, (2) Durg and (3) Raipur which by itself clearly
20
suggests that the candidates were required to go to the examination centers for attempting the answers and therefore they should not carry the impression that only because the examination was said to be conducted online they were not required to go to the examination centers. According to learned Counsel for CGPSC, it was subsequently decided that the examination has to be conducted off-line and the questions would be the Objective Type and the candidates were required to fill up the OMR sheet so far as the correct option is concerned. This, therefore, has not in any manner adversely affected the performance of the candidates. Likewise, it was also contended by learned Counsel for CGPSC that as regards the contention of Petitioners of there being a confusion so far as the negative marking is concerned, there is a report available with the CGPSC which would show that immediately when the error regarding negative marking in the valuation procedure was depicted in the question paper, the CGPSC had issued instructions to all the Nodal Officers deputed in the 3 examination centers to immediately intimate the concerned centers in respect of there being no negative marking and in just around 15 minutes of time from the start of the examination there was a public announcement made at all the 3 centers in respect of the said correction.
15. Apart from the aforesaid contentions, it was also the contention of learned Counsel for CGPSC that immediately after the examination was conducted, except for one candidate who had raised the aforementioned procedural lapses immediately after the Preliminary Examination, none of the candidates has raised any objection which would also suggests that there was in fact not much grievance for the candidates, so far as procedural lapses are concerned and it was only for the sake of adding the ground to the Writ Petition, this ground procedural lapse has been raised. Thus, learned Counsel for CGPSC submitted that given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case there is hardly any scope for interference left for this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
21
16. According to learned Counsel for CGPSC, after the objections having been scrutinized by the Experts in the field, there is no further scope of judicial review available for the High Court under under Article 226 of the Constitution to further test the veracity of the finding of a team of Experts. Moreover, when the team of Experts has been constituted with the consent and approval of the High Court itself, their competence and findings cannot be doubted and thus he prayed for the dismissal of the present Writ Petitions.
17. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, what is necessary to be taken note of is that, true it is when the Advertisement was published on 5.2.2020 it was mentioned in the advertisement that the Preliminary Examination shall be conducted online; there will be 100 questions of Objective nature; the maximum marks would be 100 Marks and the duration of time shall be 2hours. Further, there was no reference of any negative marking. However, subsequently, when the Preliminary Examination was conducted on 10.11.2020, the Question Paper that was circulated to each of the candidates contained certain instructions which were not there in the Advertisement such as negative marking in the process of valuation procedure. Likewise, the maximum marks were said to be 200 Marks as compared to 100 Marks which were published in the advertisement. The time schedule given in the Question Paper was for 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM reflecting it to be of 3hours time.
18. Immediately, when the Writ Petitions were filed by the Petitioners, this Court had directed the learned Counsel for CGPSC to make available the records. From the records made available, it is revealed that there were three Nodal Officers appointed for the three centers at Bilaspur, Raipur and Durg. On the date of examination, immediately on the circulation of the question papers, the objections were received in respect of the instructions of negative marking reflected in the question paper. The matter was reported at the Head Office of the CGPSC and immediately instructions were sent to the three Nodal Officers to immediately make a public announcement of there not being any negative marking and the instructions in the question paper are to be ignored.
22
19. As regards the controversy so far as time schedule of 3hours is concerned, the question paper specifically carried a column where apart from the time schedule the question paper also had duration of examination reflected and in the duration column it was specifically mentioned that the duration shall be that of 2hours. This also was specifically intimated to the candidates appearing in the examination. Similarly, the contention of Petitioners that in the Advertisement the maximum of 100 Marks for 100 Questions being reflected whereas in the examination 200 Marks for 100 Questions were shown, this as such would not have prejudiced the claim of the Petitioners in any manner as only by increasing the marks for each question, the total marks or the percentage of marks would not get affected in any manner.
20. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any substantial hamper and prejudice occurring in the course of attending the examination by the candidates on the procedural front. The fact that there was no objection received from any of the candidates except for one, these grounds raised by the Petitioners do not seem to have sufficient force and the same therefore stand negated.
21. Coming to the major ground of alleged wrongful deletion of 9 questions, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the 9 questions in the 4 different Set of Question Papers circulated:-
| Set | Questions | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Set-A | 18 | 21 | 23 | 25 | 47 | 63 | 75 | 90 | 96 |
| Set-B | 58 | 61 | 63 | 65 | 87 | 03 | 15 | 30 | 36 |
| Set-C | 94 | 97 | 99 | 53 | 75 | 37 | 49 | 12 | 18 |
| Set-D | 12 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 41 | 51 | 63 | 78 | 84 |
22. As per the model answers, the correct answers as per Set-A to these 9
questions are as under:-
| Questions | Model Answer |
|---|---|
| 18 | D |
| 21 | B |
| 23 | C |
| 25 | A |
| 47 | A |
| 63 | A |
23
| 75 | A |
|---|---|
| 90 | D |
| 96 | C |
23. After the amended and final answers were published, the aforementioned 9 questions have been ordered to be deleted.
24. It would now be relevant to take note of these 9 questions which are the bone of contentions made by the Petitioners of having been wrongly deleted. For ready reference, the 9 questions from Set-A as also the findings of the Expert Committee in respect of these 9 questions on the basis of which they have ordered for deleting the questions, are reproduced herein below:-
Question No.18 in Set-A
| vk;ksx }kjk fn;k x;k ekWMy mRrj &D | |
|---|---|
| 18- flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk 1908 ds mica/kksa ds varxZr vfHkopuks dk la'kks/ku fd;k tk ldrk gS % A)dsoy fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k |
18. Pleading can be amended under which of the provisions of Civil procedure code 1908 : |
| B)dsoy izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; ds le{k C)dsoy f}rh; vihyh; U;k;ky; ds le{k D)fopkj.k U;k;ky; izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; vFkok f}rh; vihyh; U;k;ky; esa ls fdlh Hkh ds le{k |
A) Before the trial court only B) before the first Appellate court only C) Before the second Appellate court only D) Before either the trial Court, first Appellate Court or second Appellate Court |
bl iz'u ds lUnHkZ esa fofHkUu vkifRr dh xbZ gaS] fdUrq bl iz'u ds ^^fgUnh iz'u^^ ,oa ^^vaxzsth iz'u^^ esa rkfRod fHkUurk gS] nksuksa iz'u dk vk'k; fHkUu gS vkSj vk'k; fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k mRrj Hkh fHkUu gksaxsA
fgUnh iz'u esa ^^U;k;ky;^^ iwNk x;k gS fdl U;k;ky; ds le{k vfHkopuksa esa la'kks/ku fd;k tk ldrk gS] tcfd vaxzsth iz'u esa ^^Provision^^ izko/kku iwNk x;k gS] fd fdl izko/kku esa vfHkopuksa esa la'kks/ku fd;k tk ldrk gSA vaxzsth iz'u esa iwNs x;s iz'u ds lgh mRrj fn;s x;s ugha gSaA
vr% bl iz'u dks fujLr dh tkus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA
SD/SD/SD/fo"k; fo'ks"kK fo"k; fo'ks"kK fo"k; fo'ks"kK uke&R.K. Agrawal uke&R.K. Tiwari uke&Susma sawant inuke@fo"k;&Legal advisor to inuke@fo"k;&D.J. inuke@fo"k;& D.J. Mahasamund laLFkk dk uke&Governor Raipur laLFkk dk uke Raipur laLFkk dk uke&
Question No.21 in Set-A
vk;ksx }kjk fn;k x;k ekWMy mRrj&B 21- fdlh vkns'k dh voKk ;k mldks Hkax djus ij 21. The period of detention in civil flfoy dkjkxkj esa ---------------ls vukf/kd vof/k ds fy, imprisonment as a consequence of fu:) fd;k tk;sxk %& disobedience or breach of any injunction shall not exceed A) ,d ekg A) One month B) rhu ekg B) Three months
24
C) N% ekg C) Six months D) ,d lky D) One year
iz'ku ds vaxzsth :ikUrj.k ds vuqlkj ;g iz'u ^^Breach of injunction^^ ds laca/k esa gS] ftls fgUnh esa O;kns'k vFkok fu"ks/kkKk fy[kk tkuk Fkk] fdUrq fgUnh iz'u esa vkns'k 'kCn dk mYys[k gS vkns'k dbZ izdkj ds gks ldrs gSA
bls vykok ;g iz'u The Code of Civil procedure, 1908 ds vkns'k 39 mls lacaf/kr gS] tks Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Order ls lacaf/kr gS] ysfdu u rks fgUnh iz'u esa vLFkkbZ u vaxzsth iz'u esa Temporary 'kCn dk iz;ksx gqvk gSA
vr% iz'u iw.kZr% vLi"V gS] lgh mRrj nsus dh fLFkfr ugh gSA
vr% vkifRr;kW Lohdkj dj iz'u fujLr dh tkus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA
| SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
|---|---|---|
| uke&R.K. Agrawal | uke&R.K. Tiwari | uke&Susma sawant |
| inuke@fo "k;&Legal advisor to |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. Mahasamund |
| laLFkk dk uke&Governor Raipur | laLFkk dk ukeRaipur | laLFkk dk uke& |
Question No.23 in Set-A
vk;ksx }kjk fn;k x;k ekWMy mRrj&C
23- tgkW fdlh i{kdkj dh e`R;q lquokbZ dh lekfIr ij fdUrq fu.kZ; mn~?kksf"kr djus ds iwoZ gksrh gS rks
| 23- tgk fdlh i{kdkj dh e`R;q lquokb dh lekfIr ij fdUrq fu.kZ; mn~?kksf"kr djus ds iwoZ gksrh gS rks A)okn dk mi'keu gksxk B)okn dk mi'keu ugha gksxk Z ss s |
23. Where conclusion before pr judgement, A) The suit |
a of onou shal |
party dies after the hearing and ncement of the l abate |
|---|---|---|---|
| C);g ekuk tk,xk dh fu.k; i{kdkj dh e`R;q gku d igys mn~?kksf"kr fd;k x;k D)mi;qZDr esa ls dksbZ ugha |
B) The suit C) It will judgement before death D) None of |
shal be has of t the a |
l not abate deemed that the been pronounced he party bove |
O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 ds vkns'k 22 fu;e 6 ds izko/kku fuEukuqlkj %&
^^6- lquokbZ ds i'pkr~ eR;q gks tkus ls mi'keu u gksuk& iwoZxkeh fu;eksa esa fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq;s Hkh] pkgs okn gsrqd cpk gks ;k u cpk gks] lquokbZ dh lekfIr vkSj fu.kZ; ds lqukus ds chp okys U;k;ky; esa fdlh Hkh i{kdkj dh eR;q ds dkj.k dksbZ Hkh mi'keu ugha gksxk] fdUrq ,slh n'kk esa eR;q gks tkus ij Hkh fu.kZ; lquk;k tk ldsxk vkSj mldk ogh cy vkSj izHkko gksxk] ekuks og eR;q gksus ds iwoZ lquk;k x;k gksA^^
bl izko/kku ds vuqlkj mRrj fodYi B ,oa C nksuksa lgh gSA
blfy, vkifRr;kW Lohdkj djrs gq;s] iz'u fujLr dh tkus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA
| SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
|---|---|---|
| uke&R.K. Agrawal | uke&R.K. Tiwari | uke&Susma sawant |
| inuke@fo "k;&Legal advisor to |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. Mahasamund |
| laLFkk dk uke&Governor Raipur | laLFkk dk ukeRaipur | laLFkk dk uke& |
Question No.25 in Set-A
| vk;ksx }kjk fn;k ekWMy mRrj&A | |
|---|---|
| 25- focU/k D;k gS|25. What is estoppel? | |
| A)fdUgha rF;ksa dks izekf.kr djus ls izfr"ks/k B)laifRr dk nkok djus ls izfr"ks/k |
A) Prohibition form proving a certain fact B) Prohibition form claiming a |
25
| C)fdlh O;fDr dks jksduk D)mi;qZDr esa ls dksbZ ugha |
certain property C) To stop a person |
|---|---|
| D) None of the above |
Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 ds ^^v/;k;&8 focU/k^^ esa /kkjk 115 ls 117 rd ds izko/kkuksa dks ns[krs gq;sA bl iz'u ds fy;s mRrj fodYi A vkSj C nksuks lgh gSaA
mRrj ds ,d ls vf/kd fodYi gksus ls vkifRr;kW Lohdkj dj iz'u fujLr djus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA
SD/SD/SD/fo"k; fo'ks"kK fo"k; fo'ks"kK fo"k; fo'ks"kK uke&R.K. Agrawal uke&R.K. Tiwari uke&Susma sawant inuke@fo"k;&Legal advisor to inuke@fo"k;&D.J. inuke@fo"k;& D.J. Mahasamund laLFkk dk uke&Governor Raipur laLFkk dk uke Raipur laLFkk dk uke&
Question No.47 in Set-A
| vk;ksx }kjk fn;k x;k ekWMy mRrj&A | |
|---|---|
| 47- vijk/k ds dkSu ls 2 vko';d rRo gS|47-Which are the essential | |
| A)gsrqd ,oa d`R; | elements of an offence? |
| B)gsrqd ,oa nks"k fl)h | A) Motive and Act |
| C)gsrqd ,oa {kfr | B) Motive and Conviction |
| D)rS;kjh ,oa n.M | c) Motive and Injury D) Preparation and Punishment |
| SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
|---|---|---|
| uke&R.K. Agrawal | uke&R.K. Tiwari | uke&Susma sawant |
| inuke@fo "k;&Legal advisor to |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. Mahasamund |
| laLFkk dk uke&Governor Raipur | laLFkk dk ukeRaipur | laLFkk dk uke& |
Question No.63 in Set-A
vk;ksx }kjk fy;k x;k ekWMy mRrj&A
63- fuEufyf[kr esa ls dkSu lk vuq;ksT; nkok ugha gS\ 63- Which of the following is not an actionable claim? A) Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrs dk vf/kdkj B) ,y,ych dh ijh{kk esa opuxghrk ds mRrh.kZ gksus A) Right to a Provident Fund ij :- 5000@& Hkqxrku djus dk opu Account C) opuxghrk }kjk fdlh fof'k"V yM+dh ls fookg B) Promise to pay Rs. 5000/-, if the djus ij :- 2000@& Hkqxrku djus dk djkj promisee succeeds in L.L.B. D) lafonk tks nkf;Ro ls ;qfXer ds ykHk dk nkok djus Examination. dk vf/kdkj C) Agreement to pay Rs. 2000/- if the promisee marries a particular woman.
26
D) Right to claim benefit of a contract coupled with a liability.
LakifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 dh /kkjk 3 esa mfYyf[kr ^^vuq;ksT; nkos^^ ^^Actionable claim^^ dh ifjHkk"kk ds vuqlkj ekWMy vkalj esa fn;k x;k mRrj fodYi ^A^ lgh ugh gS] D;ksafd fodYi A vuq;ksT; nkos ^^Actionable claim^^ esa vk;sxkA blfy;s ;g mRrj xyr gSA
blds vkykok oSdfYid mRrj esa B vkSj C, D esa mfYyf[kr nkos Hkh vuq;ksT; nkos ds vUrZxr vkrs gSA vr% ,d ls T;knk mRrj lgh gksus ls vkifRr;kW Lohdkj djrs gq;s ;g iz'u fujLr fd;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA
| SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
|---|---|---|
| uke&R.K. Agrawal | uke&R.K. Tiwari | uke&Susma sawant |
| inuke@fo "k;&Legal advisor to |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. Mahasamund |
| laLFkk dk uke&Governor Raipur | laLFkk dk ukeRaipur | laLFkk dk uke& |
Question No.75 in Set-A
vk;ksx }kjk fn;k x;k ekWMy mRrj&A
| 75- Nr~rhlx<+ HkkM**+**k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e 2011 ds varxZr fdlh fof'k"V dks izkIr vf/kdkj izko/kkfur gS& |
75-The right available to a tenant under the Chhattisgarh Rent |
|---|---|
| A)vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph 1 esa | Control Act 2011 is provided in- |
| B)vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph 2 esa | A) Schedule 1 of the Act |
| C)vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph 3 esa | B) Schedule 2 of the Act |
| D)vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph 4 esa | C) Schedule 3 of the Act d) Schedule 4 of the Act |
fgUnh iz'u esa ^^fof'k"V^^ 'kCn dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k gS] tcfd vaxzsth iz'u esa ^^tenant^^ 'kCn dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k gSA ftldk fgUnh vuqokn ^^fdjk;snkj^^ gSA
fgUnh iz'u esa tenant ds fy;s lgh 'kCn dk iz;ksx ugh gqvk gS] blfy;s fgUnh iz'u iw.kZr% vLi"V gks x;k gS ftldk lgh tokc fn;k tkuk laHko ugh jg x;k gSA
blfy;s vkifRr Lohdkj djrs gq,] bl iz'u dks fujLr djus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA
| SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
|---|---|---|
| uke&R.K. Agrawal | uke&R.K. Tiwari | uke&Susma sawant |
| inuke@fo "k;&Legal advisor to |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. Mahasamund |
| laLFkk dk uke&Governor Raipur | laLFkk dk ukeRaipur | laLFkk dk uke& |
Question No.90 in Set-A
vk;ksx }kjk fn;k x;k ekWMy mRrj&D
| 90- Nrrhlx<+ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e 1915 ds varxZr dfri; vijk/kksa ds i'pkrorhZ nks"k fl)h ds fy, of.kZr n.M dk izko/kku gS& A)/kkjk 34(1)esa B)/kkjk 34(2)esa |
90. Provision for enhanced punishment in case of subsequent conviction for certain crimes punishable under Chhattisgarh Excise Act 1915 is provided under- |
|---|---|
| C)/kkjk 36 esa D)/kkjk 45 esa |
A) Section 34(1) B) Section 34(2) C) Section 36 D) Section 45 |
27
Nrrhlx<+ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1915 dh /kkjk 34 mi/kkjk (1) ,oa /kkjk 34 mi/kkjk(2) ds ijUrq ^^Provided^^ esa i'pkrorhZ nks"kflf) gsrq n.M dk izko/kku of.kZr gSA tcfd /kkjk 45 /kkjk 34] 35] 36] 36d] 36[k] 36x ;k /kkjk 40x ds v/khu i'pkr~&orhZ nks"kflf) esa ^^iwoZ nks"kflf) ds i'pkr~ of/kZrn.M^^ ^^Enhanced punishment after previous conviction^^ dk izko/kku lfEefyr :i ls fn;k x;k gSA
,slh fLFkfr es iz'u ds fgUnh :i esa ^^of.kZr n.M^^ 'kCn dk iz;ksx gksus ls fodYi A /kkjk 34(1)] fodYi B- /kkjk 34(2) rFkk fodYi D- /kkjk 45 rhuks lgh mRrj gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mRrj ds ,d ls vf/kd fodYi lgh gksus ds dkj.k vkifRr lgh gS] D;ksafd ek= fodYi D gh lgh ugh gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa iz'u fujLr djus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA
| SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
SD/- fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
|---|---|---|
| uke&R.K. Agrawal | uke&R.K. Tiwari | uke&Susma sawant |
| inuke@fo "k;&Legal advisor to |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. Mahasamund |
| laLFkk dk uke&Governor Raipur | laLFkk dk ukeRaipur | laLFkk dk uke& |
Question No.96 in Set-A
vk;ksx }kjk fn;k x;k ekWMy mRrj&C
| 96- ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e 1881 dh /kkjk ds varxZr fMekaM MªkQ~V ifjHkkf"kr gS |
96-A 'Demand Draft' is defined under section____ of the Negotiable |
|---|---|
| A)/kkjk 17 B)/kkjk 18(B) C)/kkjk 85(A) D)/kkjk 7 |
Instruments Act 1881 A) Section 17 B) Section 18(B) C) Section 85(A) D) Section 7 |
ijkdzE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 dh /kkjk& 85A esa ^^Demand Draft^^ 'kCn dks ifjHkkf"kr ugh fd;k x;k gS] ek= MªkQV 'kCn dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gSA bl /kkjk esa MªkQV ds mUekspu ds laca/k esa izko/kku fd;k x;k gSA
blfy, ekWMy vkalj esa fn;k x;k mRrj fodYi&C lgh ugh gS vkSj u gh dksbZ vU; fodYi
lgh gSA
vr% iz'u fujLr fd;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA
| SD/- |
SD/- |
SD/- |
|---|---|---|
| fo"k; fo'ks"kK | fo"k; fo'ks"kK | fo"k; fo'ks"kK |
| uke&R.K. Agrawal | uke&R.K. Tiwari | uke&Susma sawant |
| inuke@fo "k;&Legal advisor to |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. |
inuke@fo "k;&D.J. Mahasamund |
| laLFkk dk uke&Governor Raipur | laLFkk dk ukeRaipur | laLFkk dk uke& |
25. On perusal of the findings arrived at by the Expert Committee and the explanation given by them and on perusal of record, it would clearly reflect that the Committee has taken into consideration the available literature and legal position as it stand and there appears to have been a clear application of mind applied while reaching to the conclusion and the findings are based on cogent materials and conclusions arrived at.
26. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of “ Ran Vijay Singh And Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others ”, (2018) 2 SCC 357, dealing with a similar issue after referring to all the judicial pronouncements in the past on the subject in
28
Paragraph 30 while concluding the issue laid down certain instructions and guidelines. For ready reference, the conclusion and instructions given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 30 are reproduced herein under:
“ 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. ”
After laying down the aforesaid instructions and conclusions, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court further went on and in Paragraphs 31 & 32 and held as under:
“ 31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing reevaluation 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 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
29
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. ”
27. Again, a similar matter came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of “Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission & Another v. Rahul Singh & Another”, (2018) 7 SCC 254, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the aforementioned judgment in the case of “ Ran Vijay Singh ” (supra) in Paragraphs 12, 14 & 15 has held as under:
“ 12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the 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 -
13. xxx xxx xxx
14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.
15. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions which amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field. As far as the objection of the appellant - Rahul Singh is concerned, after going through the question on which he raised an objection, we ourselves are of the prima facie view that the answer given by the Commission is correct. ”
30
28. A Division Bench of this High Court in one of its recent decisions in W.A. No.108/2020 (Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board v. Vikram Singh Rana & others) in Paragraph 14 has held as under:
29. Likewise, dealing on the issue of deleting 9 questions and the distribution of marks having drastically got disturbed and that maximum marks thereafter do not arrive at 100 Marks, it would be relevant to take note of Paragraph 16 of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 108/2020 (supra).
31
30. More recently, a Division Bench of this High Court again in a bunch of Writ Appeals, leading case of which is W.A. No. 165/2020 (Umang Gauraha v. State of Chhattisgarh & others), decided on 10.12.2020, in Paragraphs 17, 19, 20 & 21 has held as under:-
“ 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.
18. xxx xxx xxx
19. As observed in paragraph-30.5, the Apex Court alerted all concerned that in the event of a doubt, the benefit 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 Petitioners have referred to some literature in their hand to support their answers, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the Expert opinion relied on by the Respondent-Board is bad in all respects or to be ignored. The observations made by the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) were adverted to in the subsequent decision in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra). It was reiterated in the said judgment (paragraph-12) that the law is well settled that the onus is on the 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. It was simultaneously observed 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. The Apex Court then held in paragraph-14 that if there are conflicting views, then the Court must bow down to the opinion of the Experts, Judges are not and cannot be Experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the Experts.
20. When the Writ Petitioners seek to rely on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and Others reported in (2005) 13 SCC 749 (paragraph-12) seeking to revisit the final answer key, it is discernible from the declaration made by the Apex Court in 'paragraph-9' of the same verdict that, insofar as the key answers are concerned, the benefit of doubt, as per the law well settled by the Apex Court, has to go in favour of the examining body. Similarly, we are of the view that the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Richal and Others v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81 (paragraph-20) sought to be relied on by the Petitioners to cause reappraisal of the key answer by another Expert Committee does not come to their rescue, as the inference made therein is for the reasons as discussed on specific facts; simultaneously alerting that the scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited.
32
21. As mentioned already, there is no dispute with regard to the course and events insofar as after conducing the examination, the model answers were published by the Board inviting objections from the interested participants. The objections obtained were forwarded and subjected to scrutiny by the Expert Committee. Considering the objections, the Expert Committee found that some questions were 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 Board, followed by further steps. This clearly shows that the course pursued by the Respondent-Board was quite transparent in all respects and it cannot be held as arbitrary, malafide or unreasonable in any manner. ”
31. In both the aforesaid judgments, the view of the Division Bench was that once the matter having been scrutinized by an Expert Committee, there is hardly any scope left for the Writ Court to interfere with the findings unless it is blatantly perverse or contrary to the materials available.
32. As regards the judgments relied upon by learned Counsels for Petitioner s, a bare perusal of those judgments would clearly reveal that those judgments have been pronounced under entirely different contextual background and the objections and point of issues involved in all those writ petitions also were distinct from the facts and issues in the present case and many of the judgments are those which have been passed long back and much water have since flowed. The scope of judicial review in such matters have now been settled in the judgments of the recent past discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
33. Given the aforesaid legal position as it stands and on the basis of the judicial pronouncements, the contentions and the objections raised by the Petitioners so far as the rule of the game having been changed or the procedure prescribed in the Advertisement having been deviated from etc., are concerned, the same do not have much force, particularly for the reason that no prejudice as such has caused. Another reason for the contentions raised by Petitioners deserving rejection is the fact that from a large section of many thousands candidates who had appeared, the grievance has been raised only by these 52 Petitioners and of which also except for one Petitioner, that is the Petitioner in WPS No. 5286/2020 (Prafull Kumar Tiwari), not a single candidate had raised
33
objection immediately after the examination was conducted so far as the deviation of the procedural part is concerned.
34. As regards the issue of negative marking is concerned, from the records submitted by the CGPSC before this Court, it clearly reflect that the Nodal Officers had taken all steps promptly at all the three centers by making announcement that there shall not be any negative marking and the instructions given in respect of negative marking in the question papers were to be treated as cancelled.
35. This Court therefore finds it difficult to hold that the entire procedure has to be treated as having vitiated on these grounds. Likewise, also the issue of distribution of the marks on pro rata basis to all the candidates has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board” W.A. No. 108/2020 (supra) holding that such deletion of questions and the distribution of marks to all candidates will not vitiate the examination and thus this ground of the Petitioners also would not be sustainable.
36. As regards the 9 deleted questions, if we take into consideration the report of the Expert Committee in respect of each of the 9 Questions, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the findings so arrived at by the Committee was based on sufficient reasonings and the same cannot be in any manner held to be either arbitrary or contrary to law. Since the Expert Committee has given its report after due consideration of the subject matter and based on cogent materials available with them, therefore, merely because another view was possible or another view could had been taken does not mean that the report of the Expert Committee is without any basis or contrary to law. Another aspect which needs consideration is that the committee of Experts has been constituted with the consent and approval of the High Court and the team of Experts was consisting of three of the senior Judicial Officers in the State, all of whom having a vast experience of judicial service. Further, there is also no challenge to the competency of this team of Experts from the side of the Petitioner s.
34
37. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the firm view that no strong case has been made out by Petitioners calling for an interference to the amended and final answers published by Respondents and more particularly to the findings given by the Expert Committee in deleting the 9 Questions.
38. As a consequence, all these Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE
sharad
3 issues framed by the court
Did deviations from the advertised examination procedure vitiate the Civil Judge preliminary examination?
Did the Expert Committee's deletion of nine questions warrant judicial interference?
Did deletion of questions and pro rata redistribution of marks vitiate the examination?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kanpur University & Others v. Samir Gupta & OthersDistinguished¶633
1983 (4) SCC 309 · Who else cites this
Manish Ujjawal & Others v. Maharishi Dayanand Sarawati University & OthersDistinguished¶633
2005 (13) SCC 744 · Who else cites this
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission & Another v. Rahul Singh & AnotherRelied on¶611
(2018) 7 SCC 254 · Who else cites this
Chandrasen Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & OthersDistinguished¶633
W.P.(S) No. 2403/2019
Rituraj Burman & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & OthersDistinguished¶633
WA No. 605/2019
Ran Vijay Singh And Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh And OthersRelied on¶594
(2018) 2 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board v. Vikram Singh Rana & othersApplied¶638
W.A. No.108/2020 (Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board v. Vikram Singh Rana & others)
Umang Gauraha v. State of Chhattisgarh & othersRelied on¶625
W.A. No. 165/2020 (Umang Gauraha v. State of Chhattisgarh & others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prafull Kumar Tiwari
State Of Chhattisgarh
High Court Of Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission
The Examination Controller, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission
Amita Shrivastava
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
