Assistant Professor recruitment challenges concerned disputed answer keys and SET qualifications acquired after the application deadline. The court declined interference with expert-reviewed answers and held the later-qualified candidates ineligible. All writ petitions were dismissed and interim orders vacated.
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.
Page 1 of 30
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Pronounced On : 01.02.2023
Versus
WPS No. 884 of 2021
Page 2 of 30
Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPS No. 1014 of 2021
Page 3 of 30
R/o House No. 132 Near School Para Bahigao, Village Bahigao , Block Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
Versus
WPS No. 1195 of 2021
Versus
Page 4 of 30
WPS No. 1293 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 1305 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 1372 of 2021
---- Petitioner
Versus
Page 5 of 30
WPS No. 1377 of 2021
Versus
Versus
Page 6 of 30
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
WPS No. 2067 of 2021
Versus
WPS No. 2148 of 2021
---- Petitioner
Versus
Page 7 of 30
Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
WPS No. 3797 of 2020
WPS No. 3855 of 2020
Page 8 of 30
Chhattisgarh
WPS No. 3862 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
Page 9 of 30
WPS No. 3864 of 2020
Versus
WPS No. 3936 of 2020
Page 10 of 30
Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
Versus
WPS No. 4242 of 2021
Versus
-Respondents
Page 11 of 30
For State : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate For PSC : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Mr. Anuroop Panda on behalf of Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocates
For Vyapam : Dr. Sourabh Pandey, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
CAV ORDER
Page 12 of 30
02/2019/ Pariksha/ Dated 18.1.2019 for appointment to the vacant posts of Assistant Professor in different faculties. The brief discussion of the petitioners and their challenge are given as under:
WPS NO. 751/2021: The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 5, 12, 19, 28, 46 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-A and question Nos. 25, 28, 37, 71, 73, 89 of “Geography” Set-C.
WPS NO. 884/2021: The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 22, 32, 39 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-D.
WPS NO. 1014/2021 : The petitioners have raised objection about question Nos. 5, 12, 19, 27, 28, 31, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-A and question No. 62, of “Physics” Set-A, question No. 7 of “sociology” SetC. The petitioners have also submitted that 22 questions were deleted out of total 100 questions by PSC for physics subject and 41 questions out of 100 questions have been wrongly prescribed in english words in hindi Devnagri Lipi. The petitioners who have participated for Assistant Professor Hindi raised objection with regard to question No. 50, 79, 92, 96 of Set A. The petitioners who have participated for Assistant Professor History has raised objection with regard to question No. 20, 24, 89 of the Set D.
WPS NO. 1195/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection
Page 13 of 30
about question Nos. 5, 26, 36 and 42 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-B and question Nos. 4, 22 and 71 of “Hindi” Set-B.
WPS NO. 1293/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 32 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-D about question Nos. 10,19,49, 50, 51,56, 70, 95 of “Commerce” Set-D.
WPS NO. 1305/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 10, 19, 34, 50, 73, 79, 91, 92, 97 of “Political Science” Set-A.
WPS NO. 1372/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 75 and 76 of “Economics” Set-C.
WPS NO. 1377/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 5, 12, 29, 31, 39, 40 and 46 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-A and about question Nos. 1, 3, 26, 35, 36, 42, 43, 45, 52, 56, 67, 72, 74, 86, 90 of “Political Science” Set-B.
WPS NO. 1452/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 9, 10 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-C about question No. 4 (deleted), 26, 72, 82, 86 of “Political Science” Set-B. According to the petitioner question No. 32 ought to have been deleted.
WPS NO. 2067/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 11, 13, 19, 21, 46, 47, 49, 58, 59, 62 of the “Sociology” Set-B. According to the petitioner in these questions
Page 14 of 30
there is difference between English and Hindi version.
WPS NO. 2148/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 22, 43, 63, 74 of “Physics” Set-A.
WPS NO. 4242/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 12, 19, 46 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-A.
WPS No. 3797/2020, WPS No. 3855/2020, WPS No. 3862/2020, Writ Petition (S) No. 3864/2020, WPS No. 3936/2020 : The petitioners have prayed that they may be allowed to participate in Assistant Professor Examination, 2019 as they have cleared the SET examination, 2020 on 24.06.2020 whereas the advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor was issued on 23.01.2019 and the last date for submission of the form was 05.03.2019. This Court vide its order dated 02.11.2020 has provisionally allowed the petitioners to appear in the examination subject to further order of this Court. It has also been directed by this Court that this order shall not create any right in favour of the petitioners who obtained the degree subsequently. Any discrimination has to be tested.
Page 15 of 30
respondent authorities have appointed expert of Subject but it appears that they have not done their duty with sincerity and have done empty formalities. Had it been an earnest effort by the expert such clash would not have been cropped up. It has also been contended that the petitioners have attached documentary proofs which are based upon the authentic documents in support of their case, but no explanation had been given by the respondents for not considering the objections raised by the petitioners. It has also been contended that the approach of the PSC which is a constitutional body is casual and without any consideration of material on the subject have deleted many questions causing irreparable loss to the petitioners.
Page 16 of 30
“Applying the aforesaid principles as it is found that three questions ie. question Nos.2. 76, & 99. the answers given by the experts appear to be palpably wrong on the face of it on the basis of the documents on which the experts have relied upon. Apart from the fact that the PSC before this Court as an institution has fairly admitted the answers one one question to be wrong. In such case when the negative marking exists, then the entire result would require to reshuffle after fresh key answer are reverified on the basis of new answer. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, it is directed that the PSC shall send the above mentioned three questions & answers again to the expert body who will revisit the answer and thereafter if the answers are changed, the entire list of the candidates shall be reshuffled according to the new available answers given by the students. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out as early as possible within an outer limit of two months so that certainty for the subsequent main examination for the succeeded students can be arrived at, at the earliest.”
Page 17 of 30
below:-
| Sr.No. | Subject | Name of Book | Author | Publication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hindi | Hkk"kk foKku | Dr. Bholanath Tiwari |
Kitab Mahal |
| fgUnh O;kdj.k | Kamtaprasad Guru | Agrawal Publishing House |
||
| 2. | Physics | ;wuhQkbM HkkSfrd foKkku |
R.P. Goyal | Shivlal Agrawal and Company |
| 3. | Economics | Priciples of Public Finance and Indian Public Finance |
Dr. S.K. Singh | Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra |
| Advanced Economic Theory – Microeconomic Analysis |
H.L. Ahuja | S.Chand and Company Ltd. |
||
| Modern Economic Theory |
Dr. K.K. Dewett | Shyam Lal Charitable Trust |
Page 18 of 30
| The Economics of Development and Planning |
M.L. Jhingan |
Vrinda | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantitative Methods |
Dr. S.M. Shukla Dr. S.P. Sahay |
Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra |
||
| 4. | Commerce | Statistical Analysis |
Dr. S.M. Shukla Dr. S.P. Sahay |
Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra |
| Income Tax – Law and Accounts |
Dr. H.C. Mehrotra Dr. S. P. Goyal |
Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra |
||
| Management and Organizational Behaviour |
Dr. Priyawrat Narayan Yadav |
Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra |
||
| Principles of Business Management |
Dr. R.C. Gupta |
Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra |
||
| Business Regulatory Framwork |
R.C. Agrawal | Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra |
||
| Auditing | Dr. T.R. Sharma | |||
| 5 | Geography | vkS | ksfxd Hkwxksy | Dr. Rajmal Lodha Dr. Deepak Maheshwari |
| Economic Geography |
Dr. V.K. Shrivastava Dr. B.P. Rao |
Wasundhara Publication, Gorakhnath |
||
| Geography of Resources |
Dr. Mohhamad Harun |
Wasundhara Publication, Gorakhnath |
||
| Hkwxksy & flfoy lsok izkjfEHkd ijh{kk gsrq |
D.R. Khullar |
Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Ltd. |
||
| Ekkufp= }kjk Hkwxksy | K. Sidharth S. Mukherjee |
Kisalaya Publication Pvt. Ltd. |
||
| Hkwxksy lexz fo'o ,oa Hkkjr |
Dr. Alka Gautam |
Sharda Pushtak Bhawan |
||
| Hkwvkd`fr foKku | S.L. Gupta | fganh ek/;e dk;kZUo; funs'kky; |
||
| HkkSfrd Hkwxksy | Savindra Singh | |||
| 6 | General Knowledge |
d`f"k lkaf[;dh lkj.kh o"kZ 2019 |
Govt. of Chhattisgarh |
|
| Area, Production and Productivity of Kharif Crops (Year 2017) |
Govt. of Chhattisgarh - Commissioner Land Record |
Page 19 of 30
| Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan AWP and B -2005-06 |
Manual - State Component |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| NRrhlx<+ i;ZVu o"kZ 2001 |
Dainik Bhaskar | ||
| 7 Political Science |
Ikk'pkR; jktuhfrd fparu dk bfrgkl |
Haridutt Vedalankar |
Saraswati Sadan, Delhi |
| vk/kqfud jktuhfrd fparu |
Haridutt Vedalankar |
Saraswati Sadan, Delhi |
|
| Comparative Politics |
J.C. Johari | ||
| jktuhfr 'kkL= ds ewy fl}kar |
Dr. Veerkeshwar P. Singh |
Gyanda Publication |
|
| Hkkjr dk lafo/kku | Dr. Jai Narayan Pandey |
Central Law Agency – 46th Edition |
|
| Hkkjr dk lafo/kku | 1996 – Govt. of India, Law and Legislature Secretariat |
||
| Comparative Politics |
C.V. Gena | Vikash Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. |
|
| Hkkjr vkSj fo'o jktuhfr |
Dr. Nagpal |
Gupta Sahitya Bhandar, Ujjain (1986-87) |
|
| Political Theory An Introduction |
Rajeev Bhargava, Ashok Acharya |
Pearson Education |
|
Page 20 of 30
connected appeal vide order dated 10.12.2020 has set aside the direction given by the coordinate bench of this Court in WPS NO. 5847/2019 directing the State to constitute a fresh expert committee and to examine the validity of disputed questions and final answer keys in connection to the selection to the post of Sub-engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department. As such, no direction can be issued to the PSC for reexamination of validity of disputed question and final answer keys.
5 (2007) 5 SCC 519
6 AIR 1965 SC 591
7 (1984) 4 SCC 27
8 (2014) 3 SCC 76
4 2018 15 SCC 796
Page 21 of 30
Page 22 of 30
interfere in the matter of academic nature has been subject matter of number of decided case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh9 in paragraph Nos. 8 to 12, 14 :-
“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 scrutinise the
9 (2018) 7 SCC 254
Page 23 of 30
answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
2 (2018) 2 SCC 357 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.
whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the
Page 24 of 30
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.”
10 (2018) 2 SCC 357
Page 25 of 30
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.”
Page 26 of 30
Professor. The law has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union of India11 and judgment reported in Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others12 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that cut off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 to 21 held as under:-
“9. … It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date.”
“2. … It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to the rules.”
“10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to
11 (2007) 4 SCC 54 12 (2013) 11 SCC 58
Page 27 of 30
be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. … Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra 1990 2 SCC 669 and Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1990 3 SCC 655.”
Page 28 of 30
dates of the interview and taking into account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was incorrect….”
However, the opinion of R.M Sahai, J. had been that these 33 persons could not have been allowed to appear for the interview as they did not possess the requisite eligibility/qualification on the last date of submission of applications.
“6. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment.”
The Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma further explained that the majority view in Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) was not correct, rather the dissenting view by R.M Sahai, J. was correct as the Court held as under: (SCC p. 22, para 6)
Page 29 of 30
course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview.”
Page 30 of 30
153.)”
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P Secondary Education Services Commission and State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty 2011 3 SCC 436.
Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge
kkd
2 issues framed by the court
Should the court direct re-examination of Assistant Professor recruitment answer keys after subject experts considered candidates’ objections?
Could candidates who acquired the essential SET qualification after the application deadline participate in the selection process?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. (S) no. 2526/2020Referred¶236
Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and OthersReferred¶239
(2013) 4 SCC 690 · Who else cites this
Richal and Others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and OthersReferred¶239
(2018) 8 SCC 81 · Who else cites this
Ranvijay Singh vs. State of U.P.Applied¶288
(2018) 2 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
Union public service commission Vs. M. Sathiya PriyaReferred¶253
2018 15 SCC 796 · Who else cites this
Bihar Public service commission & others Vs. Kamini & OthersReferred¶253
(2007) 5 SCC 519 · Who else cites this
University of Mysore Vs. Govinda RaoReferred¶253
AIR 1965 SC 591 · Who else cites this
U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul SinghApplied¶266
(2018) 7 SCC 254 · Who else cites this
Writ Appeal No. 165/2020Relied on¶293
Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union of IndiaApplied¶298
(2007) 4 SCC 54 · Who else cites this
Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and OthersApplied¶298
(2013) 11 SCC 58 · Who else cites this
Electricity Board Limited and others vs. Dharmendra SinghRelied on¶330
Electricity Board Limited and others vs. Dharmendra Singh
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivendra Bahadur
State Of Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission
Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commissioner
Dr. T.L. Verma
Dr. Sheela Shridhar
Narendra Kumar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
