SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV V. CHHATTISGARH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

WPS/1195/2021

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by candidates (petitioners) who contested the model answers provided by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (PSC) for an examination conducted for the recruitment of Assistant Professors. The petitioners argued that their objections to certain questions and answers were not adequately considered, leading to incorrect results. The PSC defended its process, stating that an expert committee reviewed all objections and amended the model answers where necessary. The court examined the procedures followed by the PSC and the qualifications of the petitioners, ultimately deciding in favor of the PSC and dismissing the petitions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 732996 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, Richal and Others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others, Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Union public service commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya, Bihar Public service commission & others Vs. Kamini & Others, University of Mysore Vs. Govinda Rao, M.H. State Board of secondary & Higher education & Ors. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Speth etc., Ganpath Singh Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput Vs. Gulbarga University through its registrar, U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh, Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others, Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union of India, Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others, Electricity Board Limited and others vs. Dharmendra Singh, Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekher, Bhupinderpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, State of Gujarat vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R M SOLAPURKAR; ANAND TIWARI; ANUROOP PANDA; SOURABH PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY PANDEY; SHAILENDRA SHARMA; ROHIT SHARMA; PRATEEK SHARMA; P ACHARYA; ALOK DEWANGAN; ANUPAM SHARMA; GHANSHYAM KASHYAP
• Keywords: Assistant Professor; Examination; Expert Committee; Objections; Public service commission; Model Answer

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 30 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 751 of 2021 Order Reserved On : 01.12.2022 Order Pronounced On : 01.02.2023 Shivendra Bahadur S/o Shri Hirendra Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post- Korar, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commissioner Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Dr. T.L. Verma Principal J. Yoganandam Chhattisgarh Collage, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed For Geography Subject), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Dr. Sheela Shridhar Assistant Professor, Dudhadhari Bajrng, Girls College, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Expert Appointed For Geography Subject), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Dr. Ranjana Sharma Assistant Professor, Government Science College, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed For Geography Subject), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7. Dr. Rajhans Kaur Kohli Assistant Professor, Government College, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed For Geography Subject), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8. Dr. Vaidehi Sharma Assistant Professor, Government College, Bori, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed For Geography Subject), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 884 of 2021 Lily Grace Tirkey D/o Gareeb Sai Tirkey Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Village- Mudapara (Bandupara) Post - Pakargaon, Page 2 of 30 Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Near Bhagat Singh Square, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Near Bhagat Singh Square, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 1014 of 2021 1. Moradhvaj Singh Thakur S/o Kunwar Singh Thakur Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tarri, Post Pateva, Near Rajim , Police Station Gobra , Nawapara , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Mahesh Kumar Verma S/o Kali Ram Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o House Of Suresh Baghel , Adarsh Colony, Ward No. 22, Police Station Gobra Navapara , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Manish Dubey D/o Bhola Prasad Dubey Aged About 30 Years R/o Mahamaya Para , Near Rajim , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Sunil Kumar Nag S/o Late K.R. Nag Aged About 44 Years R/o Danteshwari, Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5. Akhilesh Kumar Prajapati S/o Jeevan Lal Prajapati Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kareli Chhoti, Gondpara, Tahsil Magarload , District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 6. Chandrakant Khunte S/o Harnarayan Khunte Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Loharsi, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7. Mukeshwar Sonwani S/o Ramratan Sonwani Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kodebod, Post Marauda, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 8. Sirish Sudarhshan Vishwakarma S/o Shankar Saran Vishwakarma Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 14 Devdutt Enclave , Behind Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ambikapur , District Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. 9. Lambodar Rana S/o Ghudau Ram Rana Aged About 41 Years Page 3 of 30 R/o House No. 132 Near School Para Bahigao, Village Bahigao , Block Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 10. Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Vijay Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Dr. M.L. Verma Professor, D.B. Girls College, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Dr. Meera Gupta Professor, Government Science College, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed For Physics Subect), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Dr. S.K. Gupta Professor , Government Science College , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Expert Appointed For Physics Subejct), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Dr. Kusumanjali Jha Assistant Professor, Government College, Jamul, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8. Dr. Ravi Sharma Assistant Professor , Government College, Devendra Nagar Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 1195 of 2021 Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Manrakhan Lal Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Mahamaya Para, Sitapur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents Page 4 of 30 WPS No. 1293 of 2021 Yash Wadhwa S/o Mahesh Wadhwa Aged About 28 Years Resident Of House No. 18, Sahyog Para, Mahavir Nagar, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary , Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 1305 of 2021 Dr. Santawana Thakur D/o Shri Ram Gulam Singh Thakur Aged About 34 Years R/o Purani Basti , Professor Colony, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 1372 of 2021 Preeti Vaishnav D/o Shri Upendra Shankar Das Vaishnav Aged About 35 Years R/o In Front Of St. Michael's Higher Secondary School, Samta Nagar, Govindpur, Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Page 5 of 30 2. Secretary General Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 1377 of 2021 1. Akash Dewangan, S/o Shri Suresh Dewangan, Aged About 28 Years R/o House No 114, Gali No 2 Sant Ravidas Nagar, Juna Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Bhupendra Khute, S/o Ude Ram Khute, Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No 11, Palari, Palari, Baloda Bazaar, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commision Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Examinar Chhattisgarh Public Service Commision, Through Examiner Controller, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 1452 of 2021 Gyaneshwar Prasad Dewangan S/o Jhadu Ram Dewangan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bharda (Tatenga) Tahsil Daundi Lohara, P.S. Deori, Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh., Page 6 of 30 District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Dr. Seema Khan Proffesor, Government D.B. Girls College Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Dr. Manisha Sharma Proffessor, Government Radha Bai Naveen Kanya Mahavidyalay, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Dr. Mallika Sur, Assistant Professor, Government Collage Abhanpur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Dr. Kirtan Kumar Sahu Assistant Professor, J. Yoganandam Chhattisgarh Collage Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8. Dr. Digvijay Kumar Dwivedi Assistant Professor, Government Sanskrit College, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 2067 of 2021  Vikash Banjare S/o Shri Kamal Narayan Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o H. No. 73, Satnami Para, Village Sendh, Post Palod, Police Station Mandirhasaud, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. The Director Higher Education Department, Nagarjun P. G. Government College Of Science Premises, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 2148 of 2021 Deepa Chaturvedi W/o Abhinav Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Punarnava, Street No. 8a, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pin No. 492007, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Page 7 of 30 Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 3797 of 2020 Gaurav Ranjan Yadav S/o Dr. Surendra Kumar Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. Hig C - 19, Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 3855 of 2020 1. Ajay Kumar Laheri S/o Radheshyam Laheri, Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 123, Ward No. 10, Village Kurud, Post Silyari, P.S. Dharsiwan, Tehsil Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Kamal Narayan Sahu S/o Madhoram Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Ninwa, Post Manohara, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Shkrajit Pradhan S/o Bodhan Pradhan, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Maharajpur, Post Panchadhar, Tehsil Baramkela, P.S. Sariya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Page 8 of 30 Chhattisgarh 4. Sakshi Sahu D/o Devendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o 233/a Ima Type, Hospital Sector, Dallirajhara, Tehsil Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5. Yachika Deshmukh D/o Narayanlal Deshmukh Aged About 23 Years R/o Qtr. No. 6-A, Street 12, Sector 8, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6. Komal Prasad Dhruw S/o Janakram Dhruw, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Amera, P.S. Palari, Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 7. Jitendra Kumar S/o Santosh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Koliyari, P.S. Arjuni, Tehsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination, Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 3862 of 2020 Vaibhav Ranjan Yadav S/o Dr. Surendra Kumar Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. H I G C-19, Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Page 9 of 30 2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Director, Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Controller Of Examination, Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 3864 of 2020 Aman Rohit Tirkey S/o A. Tirkey, Aged About 23 Years R/o House No.- Hig B-25, Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through Secretary Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination, Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Director Derectorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 3936 of 2020 1. Pramod Kumar S/o Ambarlal Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Nipania, P.S. Bhatapara, District Bhatapara Balodabazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Daneshwar S/o Bhupendra Aged About 26 Years R/o Village And Post Maroud, P.S. Kurud, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Page 10 of 30 Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3. Basudeo Bariha S/o Shyamlal Bariha Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Remda, Post - Salhetarai, P.S. Basna, Block - Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4. Ramesh Kumar Mongre S/o Dulare Ram Mongre Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Seoni, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 4242 of 2021 Yeestdev Dewangan S/o Shri Ramdeen Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Bharda And Post- Tatenga, Tahsil- Dondi Lohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan , Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur,chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Mukesh Kumar (Roll No. 190207101380), S/o- Abhimanyu Patel, R/o- Village And Post- Pithora, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh -Respondents Page 11 of 30 ________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Prateek Sharma, Mr. P. Acharya, Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Mr. Anupam Sharma and Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocates For State : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate For PSC : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Mr. Anuroop Panda on behalf of Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocates For Vyapam : Dr. Sourabh Pandey, Advocate ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. Since an identical issue is involved in bunch of these cases, they are heard analogously and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. The petitioners in bunch of petitions have prayed for quashing of the result of written examination for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in various teaching faculties on the count that objections with regard to correctness of the model answer for English, Physics, Political Science, Home Science, Chemistry, Maths, Economics, Commerce, Botany, Geography, Social Science, Geology, Computer Science, Biotechnology, Computer Application, Law, Microbiology, Biochemistry, Forestry, Information Technology and General Studies issued by the Public Service Commission (in short ‘PSC’) have not been considered. 3. Brief facts as reflected from the petitions are that the PSC has issued an advertisement on 23.1.2019 vide Advertisement No. Page 12 of 30 02/2019/ Pariksha/ Dated 18.1.2019 for appointment to the vacant posts of Assistant Professor in different faculties. The brief discussion of the petitioners and their challenge are given as under: WPS NO. 751/2021: The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 5, 12, 19, 28, 46 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-A and question Nos. 25, 28, 37, 71, 73, 89 of “Geography” Set-C. WPS NO. 884/2021: The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 22, 32, 39 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-D. WPS NO. 1014/2021 : The petitioners have raised objection about question Nos. 5, 12, 19, 27, 28, 31, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-A and question No. 62, of “Physics” Set-A, question No. 7 of “sociology” Set- C. The petitioners have also submitted that 22 questions were deleted out of total 100 questions by PSC for physics subject and 41 questions out of 100 questions have been wrongly prescribed in english words in hindi Devnagri Lipi. The petitioners who have participated for Assistant Professor Hindi raised objection with regard to question No. 50, 79, 92, 96 of Set A. The petitioners who have participated for Assistant Professor History has raised objection with regard to question No. 20, 24, 89 of the Set D. WPS NO. 1195/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection Page 13 of 30 about question Nos. 5, 26, 36 and 42 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-B and question Nos. 4, 22 and 71 of “Hindi” Set-B. WPS NO. 1293/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 32 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-D about question Nos. 10,19,49, 50, 51,56, 70, 95 of “Commerce” Set-D. WPS NO. 1305/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 10, 19, 34, 50, 73, 79, 91, 92, 97 of “Political Science” Set-A. WPS NO. 1372/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 75 and 76 of “Economics” Set-C. WPS NO. 1377/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 5, 12, 29, 31, 39, 40 and 46 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-A and about question Nos. 1, 3, 26, 35, 36, 42, 43, 45, 52, 56, 67, 72, 74, 86, 90 of “Political Science” Set-B. WPS NO. 1452/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 9, 10 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-C about question No. 4 (deleted), 26, 72, 82, 86 of “Political Science” Set-B. According to the petitioner question No. 32 ought to have been deleted. WPS NO. 2067/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 11, 13, 19, 21, 46, 47, 49, 58, 59, 62 of the “Sociology” Set-B. According to the petitioner in these questions Page 14 of 30 there is difference between English and Hindi version. WPS NO. 2148/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 22, 43, 63, 74 of “Physics” Set-A. WPS NO. 4242/2021 : The petitioner has raised objection about question Nos. 12, 19, 46 of the “General Knowledge Of Chhattisgarh” Set-A. WPS No. 3797/2020, WPS No. 3855/2020, WPS No. 3862/2020, Writ Petition (S) No. 3864/2020, WPS No. 3936/2020 : The petitioners have prayed that they may be allowed to participate in Assistant Professor Examination, 2019 as they have cleared the SET examination, 2020 on 24.06.2020 whereas the advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor was issued on 23.01.2019 and the last date for submission of the form was 05.03.2019. This Court vide its order dated 02.11.2020 has provisionally allowed the petitioners to appear in the examination subject to further order of this Court. It has also been directed by this Court that this order shall not create any right in favour of the petitioners who obtained the degree subsequently. Any discrimination has to be tested. 4. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that amended model answers and model answers issued by the PSC are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. The respondent PSC has not considered the objection raised by the petitioners which is nothing but an act of arbitrariness and illegality which is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. The Page 15 of 30 respondent authorities have appointed expert of Subject but it appears that they have not done their duty with sincerity and have done empty formalities. Had it been an earnest effort by the expert such clash would not have been cropped up. It has also been contended that the petitioners have attached documentary proofs which are based upon the authentic documents in support of their case, but no explanation had been given by the respondents for not considering the objections raised by the petitioners. It has also been contended that the approach of the PSC which is a constitutional body is casual and without any consideration of material on the subject have deleted many questions causing irreparable loss to the petitioners. 5. It has also been submitted that contentions raised by the PSC that the High Court lacks expertise in academic matters and courts have to show indifference and consideration to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations is incorrect submission in veiw of the material placed by the petitioner with regard to the answer given in the model answer or in the amended model answer, therefore, this Court should interfere and should quash the result which has been prepared on 19.11.2019 on the basis of wrong answers. It has been further submitted that so far as objection raised by the petitioners with regard to constitutional provision this Court is the expert over the subject, as such, this Court can very well examine the correctness of the question which is related to constitutional provision. Page 16 of 30 6. It is further contended that an expert Committee can be of any specific subject but not for the general knowledge where as petitioners have mostly challenged the questions related to General Knowledge for which no one can be expert than the judiciary who is expert of the expert can definitely interfere in the matter. It has been further contended that as per the advertisement, the respondents have mentioned in Schedule - I that there will be 5 options for each questions to choose upon, however it is evident from the perusal of the Question paper itself that there were only 4 options in MCQ which is clearly in contravention of the advertisement. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the coordinate bench has dealt with the same issue in W.P. (S) no. 2526/2020 where it was held that : “Applying the aforesaid principles as it is found that three questions ie. question Nos.2. 76, & 99. the answers given by the experts appear to be palpably wrong on the face of it on the basis of the documents on which the experts have relied upon. Apart from the fact that the PSC before this Court as an institution has fairly admitted the answers one one question to be wrong. In such case when the negative marking exists, then the entire result would require to reshuffle after fresh key answer are reverified on the basis of new answer. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, it is directed that the PSC shall send the above mentioned three questions & answers again to the expert body who will revisit the answer and thereafter if the answers are changed, the entire list of the candidates shall be reshuffled according to the new available answers given by the students. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out as early as possible within an outer limit of two months so that certainty for the subsequent main examination for the succeeded students can be arrived at, at the earliest.” Page 17 of 30 8. The petitioners to substantiate their submissions have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others 1 Richal and Others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others2 and Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others3. 9. The learned counsel for the Public Service Commission would submit that in the bunch of first set of writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the amended model answer issued by the Commission. It is submitted that the PSC has issued the model answer and on the same day invited objections from all the candidates including the petitioners on 19.11.2020 and placed their objection before the subject expert committee constituted by it and it is only as per the report/opinion submitted by the experts, the Commission has issued the Amended Model Answer on 18.01.2021. The books / study materials relied upon by the expert committee against objections received are detailed below:- Sr.No. Subject Name of Book Author Publication 1 Hindi Hkk\"kk foKku Dr. Bholanath Tiwari Kitab Mahal fgUnh O;kdj.k Kamtaprasad Guru Agrawal Publishing House 2. Physics ;wuhQkbM HkkSfrd foKkku R.P. Goyal Shivlal Agrawal and Company 3. Economics Priciples of Public Finance and Indian Public Finance Dr. S.K. Singh Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra Advanced Economic Theory – Microeconomic Analysis H.L. Ahuja S.Chand and Company Ltd. Modern Economic Theory Dr. K.K. Dewett Shyam Lal Charitable Trust 1 (2013) 4 SCC 690 2 (2018) 8 SCC 81 3 (2018) 2 SCC 357 Page 18 of 30 The Economics of Development and Planning M.L. Jhingan Vrinda Quantitative Methods Dr. S.M. Shukla Dr. S.P. Sahay Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra 4. Commerce Statistical Analysis Dr. S.M. Shukla Dr. S.P. Sahay Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra Income Tax – Law and Accounts Dr. H.C. Mehrotra Dr. S. P. Goyal Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra Management and Organizational Behaviour Dr. Priyawrat Narayan Yadav Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra Principles of Business Management Dr. R.C. Gupta Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra Business Regulatory Framwork R.C. Agrawal Sahitya Bhawan Publication : Agra Auditing Dr. T.R. Sharma 5 Geography vkS|ksfxd Hkwxksy Dr. Rajmal Lodha Dr. Deepak Maheshwari Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academi, Jaipur Economic Geography Dr. V.K. Shrivastava Dr. B.P. Rao Wasundhara Publication, Gorakhnath Geography of Resources Dr. Mohhamad Harun Wasundhara Publication, Gorakhnath Hkwxksy & flfoy lsok izkjfEHkd ijh{kk gsrq D.R. Khullar Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Ltd. Ekkufp= }kjk Hkwxksy K. Sidharth S. Mukherjee Kisalaya Publication Pvt. Ltd. Hkwxksy lexz fo'o ,oa Hkkjr Dr. Alka Gautam Sharda Pushtak Bhawan Hkwvkd`fr foKku S.L. Gupta fganh ek/;e dk;kZUo; funs'kky; HkkSfrd Hkwxksy Savindra Singh 6 General Knowledge d`f\"k lkaf[;dh lkj.kh o\"kZ 2019 Govt. of Chhattisgarh Area, Production and Productivity of Kharif Crops (Year 2017) Govt. of Chhattisgarh - Commissioner Land Record Page 19 of 30 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan AWP and B -2005-06 Manual - State Component NRrhlx<+ i;ZVu o\"kZ 2001 Dainik Bhaskar 7 Political Science Ikk'pkR; jktuhfrd fparu dk bfrgkl Haridutt Vedalankar Saraswati Sadan, Delhi vk/kqfud jktuhfrd fparu Haridutt Vedalankar Saraswati Sadan, Delhi Comparative Politics J.C. Johari jktuhfr 'kkL= ds ewy fl}kar Dr. Veerkeshwar P. Singh Gyanda Publication Hkkjr dk lafo/kku Dr. Jai Narayan Pandey Central Law Agency – 46th Edition Hkkjr dk lafo/kku 1996 – Govt. of India, Law and Legislature Secretariat Comparative Politics C.V. Gena Vikash Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Hkkjr vkSj fo'o jktuhfr Dr. Nagpal Gupta Sahitya Bhandar, Ujjain (1986-87) Political Theory An Introduction Rajeev Bhargava, Ashok Acharya Pearson Education Google 10. Therefore, it is submitted that the PSC has taken every step to complete the recruitment process in a fair manner. In General Studies it was found that the objections raised by the petitioners were incorrect therefore, amended model answers were issued without any change. It has also been contented that similar exercise for all the other subjects as political science, commerce, economics, physics, hindi, has been done by them and the model answer and amended answer have been prepared. Since, the experts of all the subjects have given their opinion and on their opinion the PSC has acted upon, the PSC has acted fairly and without any biased manner giving similar treatments to all the candidates therefore, the petitioners now cannot raise grievance and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. He would further submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 165/2020 and other Page 20 of 30 connected appeal vide order dated 10.12.2020 has set aside the direction given by the coordinate bench of this Court in WPS NO. 5847/2019 directing the State to constitute a fresh expert committee and to examine the validity of disputed questions and final answer keys in connection to the selection to the post of Sub-engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department. As such, no direction can be issued to the PSC for re- examination of validity of disputed question and final answer keys. 11. In support of his submission learned counsel for the PSC has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union public service commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya 4, Bihar Public service commission & others Vs. Kamini & Others 5, University of Mysore Vs. Govinda Rao6, M.H. State Board of secondary & Higher education & Ors. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Speth etc. 7;Ganpath Singh Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput Vs. Gulbarga University through its registrar8. 12. In batch of petitions where the petitioners have raised the issue as to whether the candidate who obtained requisite eligibility after the last date of submission of their application is eligible to participate in the examination or not, he would submit that law has been well settled that the cut off date for requiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application whereas in the present case the petitioners have cleared the SET examination on 24.06.2020 i.e. after the last date of submission of form which was 05.03.2019. As such on the last date of submission of forms the petitioners are not eligible were not having requisite qualification therefore, their candidature has rightly not been considered by the PSC. He would draw attention of this Court towards the appendix in the advertisement which reads as under :- 4 2018 15 SCC 796 5 (2007) 5 SCC 519 6 AIR 1965 SC 591 7 (1984) 4 SCC 27 8 (2014) 3 SCC 76 Page 21 of 30 13. He would further submit that this Court vide interim order 02.11.2020 has allowed them to participate in the examination but this court has clarified that permission granted to them does not create any right and it has been observed by this Court that the discrimination has to be tested. He would submit that in the light of well settled legal position that the candidate should have requisite qualification on the last date of submission of form, which petitioners do not possess, therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in WPS NO. 3797/2020, WPS NO. 3855/2020, WPS NO. 3862/2020, WPS 3864/2020, WPS No. 3936/2020 deserve to be dismissed. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost satisfaction. 15. From the records produced by the PSC it is quite vivid that expert committee of subjects as detailed above has been constituted and they have examined the objections raised by the petitioners. Details of their objections raised and material on which it has been considered by the expert committee have also been placed on record. From perusal of these records it is quite vivid that the PSC has examined the matter in great depth and redressed the grievances of the petitioners, therefore, the issue requires to be answered in this petition is whether this Court exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue direction to the PSC to reexamine the questions afresh which has already been examined by the Expert Committee of the subject. 16. In the light of above factual back ground and law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is well settled that constitutional courts must exercise great restrain in interference with the key answers provided by the expert committee. What is the extent and power of the court to Page 22 of 30 interfere in the matter of academic nature has been subject matter of number of decided case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh9 in paragraph Nos. 8 to 12, 14 :- “8. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us. 9. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others 1, this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:- “16………..We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct………” The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Government should devise a system for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. 10. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others2, this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms:- “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the 9 (2018) 7 SCC 254 Page 23 of 30 answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 2 (2018) 2 SCC 357 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” 11. We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in such matters:- “31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse — exclude the suspect or offending question. 32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination — whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Page 24 of 30 court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.” 12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of - (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions. 14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.” 17. Considering the submission and considering the exercise carried out by the expert committee of the subject the well settled preposition of law that this court cannot at all reevaluate or scrutinise the answer sheet of a candidate, as it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics and this court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumptions, even if there is a doubt the benefit should be given to the examination authority rather than to the candidates. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ranvijay Singh vs. State of U.P.10 at para 32 has held as under :- “32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must 10 (2018) 2 SCC 357 Page 25 of 30 consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination – whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.” 18. Similarly, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 165/2020 has reiterated the same principle, relevant paragraph thereof is extracted below:- “21. As mentioned already, there is no dispute with regard to the course and events insofar as after conducing the examination, the model answers were published by the Board inviting objections from the interested participants. The objections obtained were forwarded and subjected to scrutiny by the Expert Committee. Considering the objections, the Expert Committee found that some questions were liable to be deleted because of the defects either in the questions or the answers and in respect of some other questions, the model answers were noted as required to be corrected. It was on the basis of the said opinion of the Experts that the final answer key was published by the Board, followed by further steps. This clearly shows that the course pursued by the Respondent-Board was quite transparent in all respects and it cannot be held as arbitrary, malafide or unreasonable in any manner.” 19. From the above stated legal position and also considering the exercise carried out by the Public Service Commission or Examination Body the prayer made by the petitioners with regard to non consideration of their objection and further reliefs as sought by them seeking quashment of the result dated 19.01.2021 cannot be accepted. 20. So far as petitioners in WPS No. 3797/2020, WPS No. 3855/2020, WPS No. 3862/2020, WPS 3864/2020 and WPS No. 3936/2020 are concerned they are not having requisite qualification on the last date of submission of form i.e. 05.03.2019 and they have cleared the SET examination on 24.06.2020 which is essential qualification for the post of Assistant Page 26 of 30 Professor. The law has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union of India11 and judgment reported in Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others12 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that cut off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 to 21 held as under:- “11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfils the requisite qualification. 12. In U.P Public Service Commission v. Alpana 1994 2 SCC 723, this Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the Commission. That too was a case where the result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. This Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of applications, therefore, a candidate, whose result has not been declared up to the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible. 13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in M.V Nair v. Union of India 1993 2 SCC 429 held as under: (SCC p. 434, para 9) “9. … It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date.” 14. In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions 1995 Supp 4 SCC 706 this Court held: (SCC p. 707, para 2) “2. … It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to the rules.” 15. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp 3 SCC 168 held: (SCC p. 175, para 10) “10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to 11 (2007) 4 SCC 54 12 (2013) 11 SCC 58 Page 27 of 30 be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. … Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra 1990 2 SCC 669 and Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1990 3 SCC 655.” 16. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher 1993 Supp 2 SCC 611 [hereinafter referred to as Ashok Kumar (1993)], the majority view was as under: (SCC pp. 616-17, para 15) “15. The fact is that the appellants did pass the examination and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing the appellants to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound principle with reference to comparatively superior merits. It was in the public interest that better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the examination in which they had appeared had been delayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on the Page 28 of 30 dates of the interview and taking into account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was incorrect….” However, the opinion of R.M Sahai, J. had been that these 33 persons could not have been allowed to appear for the interview as they did not possess the requisite eligibility/qualification on the last date of submission of applications. 17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar 1997 4 SCC 18 reconsidered and explained the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) observing: (Chander Shekhar case, SCC pp. 21-22, para 6) “6. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment.” The Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma further explained that the majority view in Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) was not correct, rather the dissenting view by R.M Sahai, J. was correct as the Court held as under: (SCC p. 22, para 6) “6. … The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such Page 29 of 30 course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview.” 18. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid case reference to Rekha Chaturvedi appears to have been made by a typographical error as the said judgment is by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. In fact the Court wanted to make a reference to the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993). 19. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 2011 this Court placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court held: (SCC p. 268, para 13) “13. … The High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with.” 20. This Court lately in State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari AIR 2012 SC 3281 held: (SCC p. 550, para 14) “14. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (See Prit Singh v. S.K Mangal 1993 Supp 1 SCC 714 and Pramod Kumar v. U.P Secondary Education Services Commission 2008 7 SCC Page 30 of 30 153.)” A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P Secondary Education Services Commission and State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty 2011 3 SCC 436. 21. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application though he applied representing that he possessed the same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him which was provisional and conditional subject to the verification of educational qualification i.e eligibility, character verification, etc. Clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated 23-2-2009 made it clear that in case character is not certified or he did not possess the qualification, the services will be terminated. The legal proposition that emerges from the settled position of law as enumerated above is that the result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. A person would possess qualification only on the date of declaration of the result. Thus, in view of the above, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court.” 21. The said judgment has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8828/2022 decided on 23.11.2022 in case of Electricity Board Limited and others vs. Dharmendra Singh in paragraph 9 has held as under :- “9. This Court in the Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 4 SCC 22. 54 and in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported 23. in (2013) 11 SCC 58 has held that the cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application.” 22. In the light of the above legal position, it is crystal clear that if the candidate is not having the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of form, he cannot be allowed to participate in the selection process. Since, the petitioners are not having the requisite qualification they are not eligible to participate in the selection process and they have rightly been denied by the PSC. 23. Accordingly, the bunch of Writ Petitions are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. The interim orders passed by this court stand vacated. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kkd "