UMANG GAURAHA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above four writ appeals are connected with a common cause of action, arising from two separate judgments passed on different dates in two different writ petitions. The first two appeals have been preferred by the Appellants who were not parties to the writ petitions, after getting leave of the Court. The other two appeals have been filed by the Chhattisgarh Professional Education Board, Naya Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') who happens to be Respondent No.3 in Writ Appeal No.165 of 2020 and Respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal No.236 of 2020.

(2.) Grievance is mainly with regard to the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge directing to constitute a fresh Expert Committee and to examine the validity of the disputed questions and final answer keys in connection with the selection to the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department; without giving any specific reason for interference but for simply placing reliance on the verdict passed earlier under similar circumstance, ordering such reconsideration.

(3.) The factual matrix reveals that an advertisement was issued on 19.12.2018 by the Board and the examination for selection was conducted on 03.02.2019, which was participated by both the Petitioners. In fact, 150 questions were set up which were to be answered by the participants and the candidates were alerted that there will be 'negative marking', if any wrong answer was cited by them, without being sure of the correct answer. Answer sheets were to be evaluated using the Optical Mark Reader ('OMR') device. On completion of the examination, model answers were published inviting objections, if any. On receipt of the objections from different corners, disputing the questions and answers, the matter was referred to the Expert Committee constituted in this regard who considered the same in detail. After assessing the merit/demerit of the objections, recommendations were submitted by the Expert Committee to the effect that some of the questions had to be deleted, whereas in respect of the some other questions, the model answers given were to be corrected. Accepting the report of the Expert Committee, necessary changes were made by the Board and final answer key was published, followed by issuance of the select list. The Petitioners contend that some of the questions which were deleted could not have been deleted as the answers given in the model answer key were correct. It was also contended that some of the answers were wrongly corrected, while the answers given by the Petitioners were correct and they ought to have been accepted. Placing reliance on some literature available with the Petitioners, they moved this Court by filing Writ Petition (S) Nos.5847 of 2019 and 6918 of 2019, respectively.