UDYAN DUBEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of writ petitions raises common question of facts and law and analogous submissions are made as such are decided together. The selection procedure for qua preliminary examination of Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission 2019 is under challenge.

(2.) Initially 242 posts were advertised by the C.G. PSC and the exam were held on 09.02.2020. After the exam, model answers were issued by the PSC on 12.02.2020 in the website of the PSC and objections were invited in between the period of 20th of February, 2020 to 1st of March, 2020. During the limited time to file objection to the model answer, 840 candidates filed their objection in respect of 50 questions of the first question paper (General Studies) and 7 candidates filed their objections for 9 questions of the second question paper (Eligibility Test). Thereafter, the PSC constituted the expert body and the expert body published their answers on 29.05.2020. Subsequent thereto on 12.06.2020 result of the preliminary examination was declared thereby for the mains examination 3616 candidates were shortlisted. After the declaration of the result, this bunch of writ petitions have been filed, whereby few of the answers settled by expert body are under challenge.

(3.) According to the PSC initially out of 90 petitioners, 23 persons raised their objection within stipulated time before the PSC. Rest 67 persons have not raised any objection. The PSC after receipt of objections deleted 4 questions. Petitioners contended that the deletion of the questions was without any basis or material defect in the question and answer. The petitioners further contended that the further questions in set-B in hindi version ought to have been deleted, thereby the model answer issued by the respondents prima facie is erroneous and wrong model answers have been published. The petitioners contended that the mass deletion of questions without any rational rhyme or reason would adversely affect the order of merit of the petitioners and it would lead to elimination from the selection procedure on the basis of absolute wrong. The petitioners have questioned the validity of the answers which was arrived at by the experts and further have contended that by the wrongful procedure the eligible candidates have been eliminated.