Alok Kumar Jaiswal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The appellant, Alok Kumar Jaiswal, challenged a High Court order that dismissed his writ petition. The petition concerned his non-selection for the post of Deputy Collector, advertised by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) on December 28, 2011. The appellant cleared preliminary and mains examinations but raised objections regarding the Set-B Botany Paper due to irregularities. Amended model answers were published, and the appellant was interviewed. However, he was not selected in the final merit list. He contended that his answer sheets were not evaluated correctly due to errors in the model answers, which the CGPSC itself admitted and corrected. The CGPSC denied the appellant's averments in its return. The appellant filed a rejoinder, and the learned Single Judge ultimately dismissed the writ petition.

Held

The High Court held that the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted the timeline of events, including the advertisement date, examination dates, publication of model answers, invitation of objections, interviews, and publication of the final merit list. The appellant participated in the selection process up to the interview stage but was not selected. The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Ran Vijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, which emphasizes that courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinize answer sheets unless there is a very clear and material error, and that academic matters are best left to academics. The Court also referred to its own recent decision in Nanshi Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, which, relying on Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Others v. Arun Kumar & Others, dismissed a similar writ appeal. The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the learned Single Judge's order and concurred with its findings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition, given that the CGPSC admitted to incorrect model answers and subsequently corrected them, thereby impacting the appellant's selection prospects? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the evaluation of examination process and fairness). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: The learned Single Judge erred by ignoring the CGPSC's admission that the model answers were incorrect and were subsequently corrected. This error on the part of the authority conducting the examination should not deny the appellant appointment, as the incorrect valuation directly led to his non-selection. Respondent/State and CGPSC: The order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and warrants no interference. They rely on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding judicial interference in examination matters.