C/QKaé/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA ATIR T TURE CHHTSGAH A R BILASPU WRIT PETITION (S) No. f 0 “WA O 209 Petitioner: ABHISEK KUAR PANDE S/ o Shrl Ramabhlakh Pandey, aged 23 year Bangahpara Saranda Bilaspur, Tahsil and Dist Bilaspur (CG) Versus Resgondents 1. State of Chhattisgh Through, The Secretary, General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through its Secretary Shanker nager, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Chairman, M Y l s k ar g? Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shanker Nager Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ‘ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI .PROHABITAION, etc. AND / OR FOR ORDER AND /’OR DIECTION / DIRECTIONS IN NATURE OF WRIT. / W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 2457 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No. 3202 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No. 2807 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No. 5074 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No. 4141 of 2009 Post for pronouncement of the order on 712.201 1. Sdl- r r Pritinker Diwaker; Judge ' ,x/ '“H V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ PetitionLS) No. 2457 of 2009 PETITIONERS Sanjay Tiwari and others VERSUS RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and another Writ Petition (S) No}. 3202 of 2009 Anant Verma and another PETITIONERS VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another Writ Petition (S) No. 2807 of 2009 ‘ PETITIONERS Narendra Kumar Dhiwar and others VERSUS RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh .Public Service ommission Writ Petition (S) No. 5074 of 2009 PETITIONER Shambhu Kumar Gupta VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others x Writ Petition (S) No. 4141 of 2009 'Abhishek Kumar Pandey N PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS IState of Chhattisgarh and others z C WW _2_ Shri Parag Kotecha, Shri Vijay Deshmukh, Shri Prateek Sharma, Shri Somkant Verma and Shri Amrito Das, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri B.D.Guru, counsel for the respondent/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondent/State. WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF‘THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (7 .12.2o11) As the issue to be adjudicated upon is one and the same, all the aforesaid petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. ln all these petitions, the petitioners have called in question the impugned result of the State Services (Preliminary) examination for selection of the candidates appearing in the main examination for various posts. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on 3.11.08 advertisement No. 09/2008 was published by the C.G. Public Service Commission, Raipur inviting applications to participate in the preliminary examination for appointment on various posts prescribed under Rule 1 of the CG State Services Examination Rules (hereinafter referred to as Examination Rules). Pursuant to the said advertisement, various candidates filled-in their forms and participated in the preliminary examination which was conducted on 01 02.2009. 4. For convenience/it would be appropriate to mention the reliefs sought for in all these cases which are enumerated as under: 5. In W.P.(S) No. 2457/09 {Saniay Tiwari & Others Vs. CGPSC & ‘ AnotheQ, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: 10.2 That this Honible-Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or certiorari, thereby quashing the result of l preliminary examination 2008, published in Rojgar Aur . Nlyojan on 06.05.09, by the respondent PSC and direct l the respondent to declare fresh result on the basis of _3_ ‘ Kb proper calculation based on correct questions and answers in accordance with Iaw. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to declare the fresh merit list of selected candidates bearing name and roll number and position obtained in the over all merit, as well as category wise merit, in view of fairness and transparency in selection process. According to the petitioners, in question Nos. 13, 16, 25, 39, 52, 58, 81 & 82 of Set ‘D’, there are some defects. 6. In W.P.(S) No. 2807/09 (Narendra Kumar Dhiwar & Others Vs. CGPSC & Another), the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: 10.2 _This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari‘, for quashing the result of State Service (pre) Examination 2008, held on 1.2.09 published vide Rojgar Aur Niyojan dated 06.05.09 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to command the respondent to reassess the marks of candidates along with petitioners on the basis of proper calculation based on correct questions and answers and declare fresh result accordingly. According to the petitioners, ‘questions Nos. 2, 24,27,50,86,87 & $8 of Set ‘A’, were wrong and in relation to Q. No.10, two options i.e. answers ‘A’ & ‘C’ are correct. In respect of question No.65, according to the petitioners, the correct answer is ‘A’ whereas the model answer is ‘C’. 7. In W.P.(S) No. 3202/09 (Ana’nt Verma & Another Vs. CGPSC & OthersL the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside advertisement dated 22.09.2008 for < , w‘ z . 10.3 \V\ selection to the public service to the extent it relates to the posts of Assistant Director, Department of Public Relations, and Excise Sub-Inspector, Sales Tax (Excise) Department. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned select list for the qualified candidates in the Preliminary Examination 2009, published in the Rojgar Aur Niyojan on 06.05.2009, by respondent No.2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to issue fresh result of the said Preliminary Examination2009 on the basis of proper calculation based on correct questions, and answers, in accordance with law. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to declare the fresh merit list of selected candidates bearing name and roll number and position obtained in the overall merit, as well as category wise merit list, for maintaining the transparency in the selection process. According to the petitioners, in question Nos. 2,10,24,27,50,61,65,66,86,87 & 88 of Set ‘A’, there are some defects. / Further in this petition the petitioners have challenged the examination on the basis of reservation roster adopted by the PSC, however, after seeing reply of the PSC and the State Government during the course of arguments, the petitioners have not pressed this petition so far as it relates to the reservation roster. 10.4 10.5 In W.P. (S) No. 4141/2009, (Abhishek Kumar Pandey Vls. State of C.G. & Others) the petitioners have prayed for the following relief. 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased directed to the respondents to re—conduct the Preliminary Q Ch \ examination of Public Service Commission States Services for the year 2008. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased directed R/2 &R/3 to be correctly evaluate the answer sheets o candidates with fairly and honestly under the guidance. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased directed to the respondents not to be followed next step of means examination on 12‘“ & 13m September, 2009 till the disposal of the writ petition. .2 10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased directed to the respondents that the pre-exam 2008 should be cancelled or to allOw to appear the petitioner in the mains exam which fixed. for 12‘“ & 13th September, 2009. According to the petitioners, in question Nos. 2,9,17,20,24,32 & 96 of Set ‘C’, there are some defects. Counsel for the petitioners have further pointed out that the objection raised by the petitioners on 18.2.09 (Annexure P/5) were duly received by the PSC and the acknowledgement was also given to the petitioners on 18.02.09. In this petition also the petitioners have challenged the validity of the examination on the ground of excessive selection to the outsider candidates however during arguments the petitioners have not pressed this point as they were satisfied with the reply submitted by the PSC and the State Government. 9. ln W.P.(S) No. 5074/09 (Sambhu Kumar Gupta Vls. the State of C.G. & Others) the petitioner has prayed for the following relief. 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the result of Preliminary Examination 2008 dated 06/05/09 by the Respondent No. 2 & 3 and directed the respondent to declare ,fresh result on the proper calculation of marks after giving the correct answer of the question of 16, 21, 52 & 58 in the D-set. \%\ 10.2 Or in alternative the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 & 3 to conduct the fresh Preliminary Exams. According to the petitioner, in questions Nos. 16, 21, 52, and 58 of Set ‘D’ there are some defects. 10. According to the petitioners, 1, 28,152 candidates appeared in the preliminary examination. On 5.2.09, model answers of 98 questions were published in the website of the C.G. Public Service Commission in which it was mentioned that two questions and answers have been deleted by the Public Service Commission. On 5.2.09 itself, notice was published by the C.G. Public Service Commission inviting objections in respect of the model answers within 15 days there-from. On 6.5.09, the result was declared by the C.G. Public Service commission (for short the PSC) on the basis of evaluation of 94 questions because according to the PSC after receiving objections from various candidates the PSC has further‘decided to delete four more questions. x 11. As per the return filed by the respondent/PSC these questions which were deleted by it i.e. two at the time of declaration of model answers and four after receiving objections. In respect of 6 questions, pro-rata marks were awarded to the candidates. Further undisputed facts are that in the preliminary examination, the candidates were required to answer all the questions 100 in number, each carrying 3 marks and preliminary examination was merely a/ screening test for the main examination followed by the interview. It is further not disputed that the marks obtained by the candidates in the preliminary examination were not to be counted for any further examination. It is further not disputed that the preliminary examination was related to general knowledge and mental ability of the candidates. As per the pattern of PSC examination, four sets i.e. A, B, C & D were given to the candidates containing 100 common questions and answers in different serial numbers. 12. Challenge in all these petitions is to the legality and validity of certain questions and answers which were asked from the candidates and according to the petitioners, some of the questions have wrongly been \CQ/ #7‘_ deleted by the PSC though they were correct and in respect of some of the questions though objections were raised by the candidates but they have not been correctiy decided by the PSC as either the question or the question and answer both are wrong and that way the final outcome would carry variation in the resuit. In different writ petitions the petitioners have chaiienged the iegality and validity of various questions. However, during arguments counsel appearing for the petitioners after due deliberation have submitted that they are confining their argument in respect of only five questions and they have also given the gist of these questions containing various sets and for ready reference, these five common questions are being taken from set ‘D’ i.e. Q 16, Q 21, Q 52, Q 58 and Q. 64. 13. Question No. 16 of set D (Q.65 in set ‘A’, Q23 in set B and Q 2 in set‘C’)reads as under: EEW—mwwwamgémaé’fwe1/6Wsl W—mwqahahmsWWH—s‘tsi mwdewwmaé‘rmi thwaantmaatastsawwmwaawWmmsl afoataaantwatafiwsmmawamwmmsl at) $24? est s W W m sl smzaaanaasmweé‘rsl Assertion (A) — The weight of human being on the moon is 1/6 in comparison to eanh Reason (R) — The moon does not have gravity like earth Select the answer from the/following codes- a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A. b) Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A. c) A is true, but R is false. d) A is false, but R is true. According to respondent/CGPSC, the model answer of the above question is ‘C’ which is correct whereas according to the petitioners the model answer is not correct. Petitioners’ further assertion is that none of the answers (ABCD) is correct. ln relation to this question it is further argued on behalf of the PSC that model answer and correct answer is “C” in Set — D and as per the opinion of the expert of physics subject reason has not been given whether the gravitational force in moon is less and more in the earth. ”.‘8—~ \0‘3 14. Q. No. 21 of set D 9 (Q. 70 in set ‘A", Q. 28 in set B and QJ in Set ‘C’ reads as under: W1 (awm)ww2(m)an§a$wwm— W1 $2 W W WW mm mm W WW mam v’/ .. aksvp‘r, q) 141, 2—si,.3+a, 4—H ii) 14:, 2—11. 3—3I, 4—H w) 1—451, 2—H, 3~1r, 4—H E3) 1—3, 2—3, 34L 4—a‘ Match List 1 (Scientists) and List 2 (inventions) on the basis ai List 1 1 . Rutherford A. Powerloom 2. Alfred Nobel B. Telephone 3. Cartwright ‘C. Dynamite 4. Graham Bell D. Atom Bomb a) 1-C, 2-A, 3-B, 4—D b) 1-D, 2—C, 3-A, 4-B c) 1-A, 2-B, 3—D, 4-C d) 1-B, 2-D, é—C, 4—A According to respondent/CGPSC, the model answer of fhe above question is ‘B’ which is correct whereas according to the petitioners this question itself is wrong and no answer is correct. According to the model answer of the PSC. Rutherford had invented atom bomb whereas according to the petitioners, Rutherford had only. invented Theory of Atom and not Atom Bomb. In W.P. (S) No. 5074/09, the petitioner has filed documents showing that Atom Bomb was invented by Auto Han. In relation to this question it is further argued by the counsel for-the PSC that there was no objection by any of the candidates and therefore this question was not. considered by the PSC. However, the'record shows that the petitioner of WP (S) 4141/2009 had raised an objection within time which was duly received by the PSC vide Annexure P-5, However, the objection with regard to the said question has not been considered by the/PSC. 15. Q. No. 52 of set D (Q. 10 in set ‘A", Q. 59 in set B and Q24 in set ‘C’ reads as under: scmqm'sanamwgzwtwtsarateadmwammw antarwaé’rns‘? ' ' wow-chum? snan—ujntgmttw WWW _3_ \Cbkx Which prize was instituted by KIK. Birla Foundation in 1992 for outstanding contribution in literature? a) Saraswati Samman b) Acharya Tuisi Samman (c) Vyas Samman d) Yati Yatanial Samman According to respondent/CGPSC, the model answer of the above question is ‘A’ which is correct whereas according to the petitioners this question itself is wrong and no answer is correct as Saraswati Samman as well Vyas Samman were instituted in the year 1991 by Birla Foundation whereas in the question it was related to the year 1992. in relation to this question it is further argued on behalf of the PSC that model answer and correct answer is “A" because the expert opinion was that K.K. Birla Foundation was instituted in the year 1991. According to him, the main object of the question is to be seen and the year of its institution whether 1991 or 1992 is immaterial. 16. Q. No. 58 of set D (Q. 02 in set ‘A", Q. 44 in set B and Q.09 in set ‘C’ reads as under: WWdWnsznnéaa W%? Q)W,F1Wanqehsr et’r)lnm,atsrafhmrr Waistwa‘nafhoiar snatmmafharm Which of the following elements are included in stainless steel? a) Chromium, Nickel and lron b) Nickel, Iron and Carbon c) lron, Carbon and Copper d) lron, Chromium and Carbon According to respondent/CGPSC, the model and correct answer is ‘D’ whereas as per the petitioners, the correct answer is ‘A’ because in stainless steel elements are included i.e. Chromium, nickel and iron. ln support of this, the petitioner’s have-filed relevant document in W.P (S) 2437/2009 (Annexure P-19). ln relation to this question it is further argued that expert opinion was taken from the expert of chemistry subject and the model and correct answer is “D" because the stainless steel is a low carbon steel in which presence of chromium is a must and therefore most suitable answer is D 17. Q. No. 64 of set D (Q. 50 in set ‘A", Q. 36 in set B and Q.57 in set ‘C’ reads as under: Wmwmwmmwmms? winls‘rfremig Elf) m sit) arm :éi) W Which dance is performed by male? l os ~Io_ \Ch a) Mohini Attam b) Odissi c) Kathakali d) Manipuri According to respondent/CGPSC model answer and correct answer is ‘C’ whereas as per the petitioners this question itself is wrong and no answer is correct. In support of this, the petitioners have filed relevant document in W.P. (S) No. 3202/09 (Annexure P—1 3). In relation to this question the expert opinion was taken from the retired professor of History subject and according to which model and correct answer is C Reasoning which has been given by'the expert is that though women also participate in Kathakali dance yet it is a male dominated dance and in most of the presentations male are shown to be the dancers. Expert further says that in the question itself the word “only" should not have been used rather it should have been used as “mal dominated”. 18. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that as per the examination plan published by the Public Service Commission along-with the advertisement (Annexure P-2) it was made clear that question paper of preliminary examination would be objective type, each question will have four probable answers grouped under A, B, C & D of which only one will be correct answer. The examination plan further says that the candidate was required to record in the answer book only A, B, C or D as may be adjudged by him/her to be the correct answer. Counsel for the petitioners further submit that there is no mention in the examination plan that the candidate can give the nearest possible answer or can he/she say that the question or answer is defective and therefore according to him it was the duty of P S C not to put ambiguous question to the candidates Counsel for the petitioners further submit that respondent/P S C is requrred to correct the model answers In relation to the aforesaid five questions and then evaluate the answer sheets of the candidates. He argued that as these question/answers are defective, the panel of experts in the concerned subject should be appointed to give its report and then based on the said report this Court may proceed further. According to the counsel for the petitioners it was expected from the P.S.C. to be fair and honest while conducting the most important examination of the State and should have taken due care before moderating the question paper and publishing the model answers. According to him, apart from six questions which have already been deleted by the P.S.C. they should have corrected the e CbQ: \ —II—— aforesaid five questions along-with their answers after taking the opinion from the panel of experts in the subject concerned and not on the basis of so-caiied one expert appointed by them. Counsei for the petitioners submit that in their return respondent/P.S.C. have not even bothered to controvert the questions and answers as pointed out by the petitioners and that their return is silent to this effect. It is argued that the petitioners have submitted the required Iiterature to substantiate their pleadings relating to the aforementioned five questions with answers whereas the respondents have not filed even a single document to show that the modei answer given by them is correct. It is argued by counsel for the petitioners that from the beginning itself the conduct of the respondent/P.S.C. was as such where it was not only negligent in conducting the examination but it did not act in a transparent manner. According to the counsel for the petitioners immediately after the examination there was unrest amongst the candidates who had appeared in the examination and just to subside the same, the respondent/P.S.C. invited objection from the candidates in relation to the model answers published by it but thereafter it has taken a decision in a closed cordon without disclosing to the candidates as to how it has proceeded and what method had been adopted by it. lt is further argued by the counsel for the petitioners that after inviting objections it was the duty of the respondent/P.S.C. to consider the same in an objective manner and then again publish the correct model answers so that the candidates could have come to know whether their objections have rightly been decided by the P.S.C. or not. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that when the matter/is of public importance and future of lakhs of candidates is involved, minor technicalities in pleadings should not come in the way of the petitioners. According to them, the petitioners may not have made very appropriate prayer as to what they want from this Court but from the prayer made in other petitions it is apparent that they are interested to get their questions and answers checked correctly and not as per the whims and fancies of the respondent/PSC. They further submit that the matter relates only to preliminary examination and till date no right has accrued in favour of any candidate and therefore the eligible candidates are not necessary party. According to them, till date names of the eligible candidates have not been published by the PSC either in the newspaper or % {0 website and therefore question of impleading. them is literally impossible. They submit that it is not clear as to who is going to be affected if fresh evaluation is done on the basis of correct answers and therefore it is difficult for the petitioners to pinpoint the private individuals. They submit that PSC and the State of Chhattisgarh are protecting the interest of the eligible candidates for the main examination and therefore also they are not necessary party. According to them, what has been argued by the PSC and the State of Chhattisgarh, could have been best argued by the eligible candidates and on this count as well they are not the necessary party. According to the petitioners each question carrying three marks is very important in the competitive examination and even a single mark has a great value as thousands of candidates participate in the examination. According to the petitioners, in the case in hand if five questions and their answers are taken to be incorrect then there would be variation of 15 marks and thus result of the examination would be largely affected. ln support of their submissions, counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others v. Inder Mohan Bensiwal Re: with Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd Re. reported in AIR 1999 SC 2583, in the matter of Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy reportedin AIR 2005 SC 2090, in the matter of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54, in the matter of State of Manipur and others. v. Y. Token Singh and others reported in (2007) 5 SCC 65, in the matter of Subhash Chandra Verma and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in 1995 S'upp (1)'“SCC 325 and in the matter of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309. 19. Replying to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners, it