?-' \ '~^< v^; ^^> ^&^^^^'9'5^ HI6H COURT OF OWATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.687/2006 CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nayak. Chief Justice A Hon'ble Shri Oilip Raosaheb Oeslunukh, J. PETITCONERS RESPON NTS 1. Vhwsk Shukla, S/o Shri C.LShukki, aged otoout 27 years, R/o House No.108. Trimurh' Chowk, Sundamegar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.6.) 2. Dr. Tulsictas Markam, S/o Shri Ram Chondro Singh, aged about 27 years, R/o. C/o. Savitri Yadav, Villoge Bade Urld,Post Abhonpur, District-Ruipur (C.6). Versus 1. State of Chhatt-isgerh throigh Secretary, of -the fieneral Administrotion Deparhnent, D.K.S.Bhawan, AAantralaya, Raipur (C.6.) 2. Chhatt'isgarh Public Service CommiMuin, Through its Chdrmon, District Raipur (C.6.) Shri Prnteek Sfusrma. Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vincy Harit, Dy.A.&. for the State. Shri A^iish Shrivustowa, Counsel for respondent No.2 ORALOftDER (Passed on 5.4.2006) The following orol order of the Court' Was passed by S.R.N/IYAK, C.J. In this writ petition, the actwn of the Chhatl'isgnrh Public Service Commisswn, "•Ihe Commission" for shorl', in concelling preliminary exammation, 2005 as a whole conducted for filling about 181 posts in the services under •the Chhattisgarh State, is assouled. 105 2. The fiovemor of Chhattisgarh Starte hos freuned Rules for the Combined CompetitivB Exammation (CCE) calted State Services Examination Rutes (for short lluhss^ for recruiting personnel to v -e- vurious posts/services imder the Storte and has en^wiiwed the Commission to conduct examinations annuatly in -tha* regard and *o send the select list of Ihe candidates for considemtion of Ihe State fiovemment for their eypointment in the re^wetive services under theState. Accordingly and in tenns of theRutes, Ihe QihattisgaFli Stocte Sovemment on or nbout 27.8.2(X)5 issued an emplpyment notification and the same was published m Newspapers calling for applications from the eligibte candidortes for filling about 181 posts h vartous cadres. The examinations consisted of •hw stiiges; (i) PTeliminary Examination (objectwe lype), for seleef-ion of candidates for •the main exomination; ond (ii) Main Exdmination (writfen and interview) for final selectionof Ihe candidates. 3. In response to employnientnotification, 79,953 candidates including the present petitioners a(^>lied for the postfc Of Ihem 60,592 <andidates oppeared in the pretiminary exammtrtwn conducted on 6.11.2005, os per the schedule. Results of Preliminury ExtMnnwt'ion were decloa'ed on 19.12.2005 and"the soune were publiAed in the Rojgar AurNiyojon wi 28.12.2005. 2716 condidateswhich includethe petitioners passed the Prelhnmary Exoromation. 4. On 20.12.2005, •the Commission floactedmodelananerpopersin •the intemet ond that ted to Ihe controversy by compbmmg •that some model answer papers show wrong onswers and Ihat no onswers twve been mentioned in front ofsome questions etc. 5. The Commission acting on -the above complaints, in its ineeting heldon 13.1.2006 cancelled the resultsof IhePpelimmary Examinact'ion dectaredwi 19.12.2005 and decided to hokl fresh Prelimmary Examination and that decisionwas reported in Ifae Rojgar Aur Niyojcm on 18.1.20)6. -5- - 3 - 6. The petitioners bemg aggrieved by -the above aetions of •the Commission have preferred •thisiwit petition proying for •ttie folbwm9 reliefs: "7. RELEEFfS) SOU6HT:- The petitioners nwst req)ectftilly prayed for the following reliefs: "7.1 That, the Hon'ble High Courf be pleased to cdl for the entire records of the case. 7.2 That, the impugned ctecision chted 13/1/2006 of respondent no.2 published on 14/1/06 vide Armexure P/10 mny kindly be quashed." 7. The writ petition is contested by -the Commission by filing retum. In Ihe retum, it is stnted •that when it came to know 1hat technical errors had crept m the preporation of model answwsr sheets by the then Exammation Controller, it took the impugned action not only to ccncel the results of the Preliminary Examnwtion but also to conduct fresh Preliminory Excuninatton; that its decision is bona fide and is mtended to mamtain transporency in conduct of 1te Preliminury Examination. 8. We have heard Shri Prateek Shorma leamed counal for 1+ie petitior»rs,Shri Vinay Harit. leamed Oepu'ty Advocate Senerol for the State of Chhatt-isgarh who appeared for the State of Chhatt'isgarh and Shri Ashish Shrwoatwn, leamed counsd for the Commission. Leamed coinsel for Ihepetitioners uwuld cwitend •that though there uus justification for concelling the results of the Preliminary Examination, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for cancelling the Prelimn'iary Examination itself and taking decisjon to hold fresh Preliminary Examination. It was highlighted by the teamed counsel for the petitioners that if the assessment of anawer «r4>ts of the Prelimjnary Examination is erroneous because of 1tie mistakes -that crept in the preparatjgnof model onaNers and fceding •them in t< - 108 •<4- the Web-Site by the then Controller of Examinations, Ihat mistake can be rectified and answer scripts alreody avaubble coukl be assessed in occorddnce with the correct model mswers. 9. Leamed counsel for •the reapondents, howrever, NfouU ayport' the impugned decision of the Commission. 10. Having heard the teamed coimsel for 1+)e pwties, •the onty yjestion that arises for decision is tKhe-rtier Ihe Commisshm is justified and legally acted in cancelling not only Ihe results of Preliminary Examination, 2005 but oJso cancellffg the sakl Exammation and tnking decision to conduet Preliminary Examination once agam to fill posts in vurious services under the State? IL We cannot take any exception to •the uction of the Commission m so f<n' as it has cancelled Ihe results of -the Pnelimhwry ExaminatKm, 2005 is concemed. We say this, because, the results of the Prelimuiary Examination are cancetled by •the Commission on •the ground ttiat the model answers fed into Web-Site are erroneous o»Kl if they were allowed to stond, it would have resulted n prejwlice to •the condidates who appeared in 1he Preliminary Examination ondwrote correct cnswers. Houiever, we cannot sustain •rtw8 decisum of 1tie Commission wi-th regard to canceltation of the Preliminary Examination, 2005 itself ond deciding to conAict Preliminary Exnminatiwi de rwvo for roughly 80,000 candidates at •the cost of the State Exehequer ond at the peril ond mconvenience of -Ihe candidutes. It needs to be noticed thttt there was absohitely no good reason for •the Commissfon to cancel -Ihe Preliminary Examination itself. The onswer scrpts ofall those ccndidates who appeared in •the Pretiminary Exammation are available wilh the Commission and Ihey could conveniently und correctly be re-assessed in accordonce with •Ihe correcf' medel answers -that moy be floated into Web-Sitie.^Sudia cmirse of action -5- 109 --S- on the part- of the Commission, which is quite feasible cnd pracMcable. would avoid unnecessary e»q>enditure by the State as well by the candidates for vartous posts and also -the inconwnience nnd hardship •that may be caused to •the candidates 'm the event of the Commission holding Prelimhicu^ Bxamirwtion once again. Therefore, w»are of •the considered opinion that the decision of the Commisston to cancel the Preliminary Examination is totntty arbitrary, wireasomible and it does not stand the scrutiny of Articte 14 postulates. That ctecision of the Commission would not ae.rw. ony public interest. If it is orfbwed to stand, it will be in^jrious to (xiblic hterestas well os Ihe interestof the candidates who have applied for various posls. AHhough 1hi» Court under Article 226 is very slow to interfere wi'fh the decisions of the Universi'ty and its academic bodies, a weighty ground is made wit in -this case warronting our interference. We are convinced that our refusal to interfere would reailt in public mischief. 1-.J" 12. In -the resutt and for the foregoing reasons, u»dlow the iwit petition ond quosh the impugned decision of the Cbmmission in so far as it has decided to hold fresh Prelimmary Exnmination (objective •type) is concemed. We make it very ctear -that •the actton of the Commission in cancellmg the results of Preliminary E»aimmation,20(® shall stand. However, in -Ihe focts and circumstonces of case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Juclge A"vnc