W; ®7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(g)w1<Io. Wif/ /2009 $ENGLE gENCH / Shiv Kumar Dewangan, S/o Laxmi V law Moatowyméé Narayan DewanganA R/o Sardar Patel Ward, House no. 10, Mungeli, District: Bilaspur (C.G) PETITIONER VERSUS REPNDENTS : 1../State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panehayat and Rural Development, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM), through its Chairman, Pensionbada, Raipur (CG). / 3.Incharge and Controller of the Shiksha Karmi Examinations at Govt. Girls Hr. Sec. School, Manendragarh (Shiksha Vibhag), District: Korea WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SO .j WR T PETWO‘J ’Sé NO "M51 Or 2(309 PETmoNV‘ER > ‘ 3 " saw Kumaraewaman ‘v’afsus V RESPONDENTS ' ' ‘V' -J"Staieof CE1hattisg&;'h & Oihers {writ Petiiion undef"Amc’§e 22'6 of ihe constaiutmn cf mam) ’ ~--,S§ng§erBehch : Hah’bin Shri’Satish K Agnihctri J Present - 8hr: Vired Deshmukh AdvacatE f0r%he peiimner Sh? P K Bhadun Faneé Lawyelionhe State am Paa zkaj Amawal Acivocate far the resimndent NO 2 ‘. r SREERjORAL) iPaased 0n this 6E3: of March 2m With the conseni 9f eeamed ceunsei appearing fer the games; khe peiitjcn §s heard finaihj. By >ih§s petitipn; the pe’iitEwer seeks a dikrecticn is the ¥eSpondent euihroréties‘ ”i0 coneuc’t written” exeminetim fer the ,_ gosf of Shiksha Karmi Grade — ii afreshfor the peiitioner. Learned sour-Isa! appearing fer the petitiona' submits that pmsua’zt ta he adveri se’ren’t the patmoner apples} for the post Df Sriksha Karmi Grade — ii Admit cam was {eceaved by h§m to appear iri'téae wrii‘ien’ exammaticn én 6422699: 0n the date of examinatiokn, an the quesiion ‘imoklet the petitiener “L found‘some diecrepemies and immediate§y he infefmed the _ same to the eutnemes Genremed at the examinaticn centre ~bu: thew have mi taken anv ectaen Tne petztsoner also submitted a reeresentation ,daieci i1—12-2m9hwfech Vie. etm ehdagg eggéidergtjgeg sariaeeshmukh fume”, submes mat‘ \ K /‘ /\ H be COURT GF CHHAW W ARH e LASPUR \W/ / ' p “k i)x ia 0 rd thes s me? mwaw ai ihe acin f the espment auarit§ i ga) a nt é violatien 9f Arcies 4 ”a6 e‘f‘ th Contii§on 0f n ii 1 and e $wt india. 0a the other hand! ieamed Couse! apprén or the n eag f respodms sbmit th te candidate ought ‘ ave am - ne u at h tc h rmed 'ih dcrepancs in the quetion beckie within 5 minuts e isie s t‘ 1 e eet me to t wh i afier reip af the sa he invigiiator eyeas in he insta case t etitioner has rerd' bt he nt he p epte aou i dEecrpacies in the qu‘éen eakiei afer iaese cf mor than en es b t e ne d hf hous. Even then ao ie au’thos f he o an ai r is h mée o t , ke n the e o eti examination senee isod ito grievancs f the ptionw v nor § ehe t and proéded him athe set o questinokiet. At he time of insptn made th iyin sqad i Le. ‘Tahsiida, ecio by e tg u aso i Meng, t titr s red a t andraarh he petene he not ais ny ebjecien. Thus, e piticner not emitt t ay ieiiei‘i th et is ed o n ‘ i v he iarne ,cnSei appeati fr t art, hae ard ed ou ng e he pies pesed padng nd th docehe appd ru the ieis a e umt ende- t thereo. Admittediy, on the top of question bookiet instructions to candidates haverbeeh taunted. in cieuse 4 it is cieariy provided that “if aey disei’epency is found, pieaee Worm the invigiiator and get the contact eookiet.” the petitioner was expected to compiy with the instructions promotiy. if «on perusai it was found that the queetione were not printeo" property in the question booklet; the petitioner ought to have .. brought inko notice of ihe invigiéator befere writEng the aflSW‘e.r$. By iet€er dated 642-20139 (Annexure — RH), the Cenier $uperin€eiwdent cf ‘éhe examination cenwe informed to the ControRer, ProfEss%anai Examinata’cn Board that the petitiener has not ra§sed the issue immed§ately as “ihe examinahon commenced at "MIEO am and he raised the iesue at about 1E0 plm. after having ahewered the subsianha? questéons 0f ihe question bcokiet. if was further infermed by 1Lhe invigiia‘ker vide letier da’€ed’ 6-12-2Q3§ éAhnexure — RI2} ‘that the petitioner pointed out the defeéts ei‘ter abeut one and heif hours. At the time of iespeoiion made by ‘ihe Taheiidar eise the petitioner has noi raised any obieeiioh: which is eviden‘i ' from inspeciion note {Annexure - W3). 8. it is weii settied that the examination ie hot the process of. seiection, but also‘ihe process of eiiinineiioo having regard ‘io the iarge number of candidates appearing for iimited seats availabie. The petitiorier oughi io he‘Je raised the issue immediaieiy beiore writing answere io the questions contained in the questioe’bookiet and; es seoh, the petiiion is not sustainabie. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, ihe wrii eeti‘tion faiis and is hereby dismissed. There wiii be no order asio costs. i I Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge / Gowri