A^ ^.3,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR S.B. : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTm, J, WMT PETITION W.P.fS) No. 1501 of PETITIONER Bhartendra Bhushan Tripathi S/o Sfari Haldhar Prasad Tripathi aged about 30 years, Residcnce of Ward No. 9 Dharmshala Marg (Beside Murli Jeweks) Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh 1 fC-G.-) VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarfa, through Secretary of the General Administration Departmen.t D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipw (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through its Chainnan Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) Shri Rewa Shankar Patel, Advocate for ffae petitioner. Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 14al March, 2007) By this petition, the petitioner seefcs for a writ in the nature of mandamus/direction to the respondente to scaie the answer sheets ofthe petitioner and dwlare the result tl tter. It is fiirther sought that the respondente be directed to comply witt the provisions of Ciause 38 of the ciroular issued by the Chhattisgarb Piiblic Service Commission (Annexiire P/5) wherein, it is provided that in the State Service Preiiniinary Examination, 2005 and Main Exammation 2005, valuation of ts scalinK system would andthe marks would bc awarded on scale. t^'. •¥'• 2. The tacts in autshell are that Ifae petitioaer, alongwith others, applied for appointment in State Services. The petitioner appeared in the prelimiaary examination condwted i?y sgarh Pubiic Serviee Commission, (for sh C.G.P.S.C.) held on 6.11.2005 aad onthe basis ofresultofthe preliminary examination, the petitionerappeared in tiie main examiBation held from 15.06.2006 to 27.7 30-06.2006- Tfae result was declared w 31.01.2007, Tfae petitioner was unsuecessful ia the main examination. The petitioaer has filed this petition challenging the result of tiie main examination declared oh 25.01.2007 on the sround that scsling svstem has not been done.as accoriine to <i7 ^/ —— —^ ^,- ^.—,„- --~ — .-.-,-.-.-^ newspaper report, the scaling was not possible withia a period oftwo days. The Chainnan, C.G.P.S.C., in his interview, has declared that tfac resiilt was declared after applying scalini system. Leamed couasel appearing forthe petitioner submits ^ Bl •-f':'•>: y' that on 25.01.2007, it was reported in fhe news paper that the result could not be declared on account ofnon-completion of scaling work and thereafter, the result was declared on 31.01,2007 after scaling. According to him, this is practically impossible to comptete scaling witfain such a short period as there were 9736 answer sbeets. The interview is to be held ni the month ofMarch 2007, ft appeare that the entire petition is based on certsin aews paper reports which have no bseis to siipport tbe coBtention of the petitioner that the scaling of the answer sheets was not such a short period. Learaed eouasel appearing for the petitioner has not pointed out asto how many experts in scaling works were involved, faow many answer sheetswere scaled in one hour and how much wofk they have performed, In absence ofthe above materials, it is not possible to issw a writ in the nature of mandamus as sought for by this petition in this sketefay petition •withoyt 4. The petitioner has obtained tfae marfesheet of the main examination uaderthe provisions ofRight to Infonnation Act. The marksheet itself indicates that the scaling was done aod marks were ailotted on scale. It is well settl a eandidate on finding himself as unsuccessfid in tfae w£ --)' a 1 i.1 •& ¥-- IAS examination, cannot raise the dispute with regard to procedure adopted in fte examination. In the case of Chandra Prakasb Tiwari <& Others 1 Shakuntela Shukla & Others, (2002) 6 S.C.C. !27, 1 Supreme Court held as under:- "32..-... ...It is a remedy whieh stands barred and it is in ti perspective in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shuli a three-Judge Bench ofthis Court iaid down in no uncerto terms that when a candidate appeara at tiie exammatii without protest andsubsequentiy found to be aot successfiil the examination, question of entertaining a petiiK challenging tfae said examination would sot arise." "33. Subsequently, tfae decision in Qm Prakash stan< followed by a later decision ofthis Conrt in Madan State ofJ&K wherein this Court stated as below; (SCC p. 49: paras9-10) "9. Before dealing with this conteation.we must keep 'm vie' the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the eontestin successfiil candidates beiag respondents concemed hereii were al' found eligible in the light ofmarks obtained in th written test, to be eligible to be caHed for oral mterview. Up t this stage there is no dispute between the parties. Th petitioner also appeared at the oral interview coaducted by th members concemed of the Commission who interviewed th' petitioners as wel! as tfae contesting respondents concerned Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selwtei at the said oral interyiew. Only because they did oot fSo( themselves to have emerged successfiil as a result oftbei combined performaace both at written test and oral iaterview .^ ^'.S'SS^.S^-c.S^gaSaceB^'.'^g^^^ NNiNS—toNMlNlNT "i they have filed this pstition. It is now well settled that ifa candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result ofthe intervicw is not palatable to him, he cannot tum round and subsequentty rontend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In tbe case ofOm Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been cleariy laid down by a Bencfa ofthree leamed Judges ofthis Court that when the petitioner appeared at the e?aimination without protest and when he found that he would not succwd in examination he filed a petition challenging Ihe said examination, the High Court should not have granted any reliefto such a petitioner," 6. In view of the dicte laid down by the Supreme Gourt, this petition is not entertamable as 1fae petitioner has appeared in the examination and he.having faiied in the main exaaimation, questions the non-appiicatiori of scaling systsm which is evident from the factthat deciaratioa ofresylt ww delayed as admitted' by the Chairman, C.G.P.S.C. on aocount of time consumed it»the process ofscaling ofthe answer-sheets. The marksheet obtained by the petitioaer under fte Right to lafonnation Act cleftriy iadicates application of scalifi| system. 7. In view offoregoing and for fhe reasons stated hereinaliove this petition is dismissed, summarily. No order as to costs. Sd/- -.„, i' SatistiK.Agnihotri , Judge .; ^ ATn-it