BHIM SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petitioner is the Appellant. Challenge is raised against the course and proceedings pursued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short 'the PSC') in re-evaluating the answer sheet of the Appellant in respect of one of the two papers of the main examination for selection to the post of Civil Judge, Entry Level 2004-2005 and the reduction of marks in respect of some questions, which stands repelled by the learned Single Judge, is put to challenge in this appeal.

(2.) We heard Shri Vinay Pandey, the learned counsel for the Appellant, Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/Respondents No. 1, Shri Ashish Shrivastava, the learned counsel representing the Respondent-PSC, Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, the learned counsel representing the 3rd Respondent and Shri Praveen Das, the learned counsel representing the Respondent-High Court of Chhattisgarh.

(3.) The writ petition filed in the year 2006 came to be finalised as per the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge recently in the year 2019. The sequence of events reveals that Annexure P/1 Notification was issued by the 2nd Respondent/PSC inviting applications to fill up the notified posts of 30 (which subsequently came to be enhanced to 61) Civil Judges, Class II under the Ministry of Law and Legislative Affairs of the State. The Appellant having satisfied all the qualifications applied for the post and was invited to participate in the preliminary examination which was of objective type. On coming out successful in the weeding out exercise, the Appellant was let to participate in the main examination which consists of two papers; Paper I Law and Paper II Essay, Translation and Judgment Writing, consisting of 3 hours duration and carrying 100 marks each. With reference to the number of posts, the eligible candidates coming within the zone of consideration were to be invited for interview, which was to carry 25 marks and thus, the total process of selection was to carry 100+100+25 = 225 marks, as revealed from clause 15 and elsewhere of the Annexure P/1 Notification. The Appellant came out successful in the main written examination and he obtained 53 marks out of 100 in respect of Paper I Law and 47 marks in respect of Paper II. On giving chance to participate in the interview, the Appellant scored 12 out of 25 and thus, obtained a total of 53+47+12 = 112. Annexure P/4 is the statement of marks as aforesaid.