The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, dismissed a series of petitions challenging the evaluation criteria of the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Main Examination 2023 conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC). The bench, led by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, held that candidates are not entitled to prior notification of the examination pattern and emphasized adherence to instructions provided in the examination booklet.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, including law graduates who appeared for the examination, argued that they were disqualified arbitrarily due to changes in the examination process. The case revolved around CGPSC’s alleged failure to notify candidates about the requirement to answer questions sequentially in the designated spaces provided in the Question-Answer Booklet (QAB).
The Civil Judge recruitment process began with an advertisement on June 7, 2023, announcing 49 vacancies. After clearing the preliminary exam held on September 3, 2023, candidates were invited to take the main examination on August 25, 2024. Results were declared on October 8, 2024, shortlisting 151 candidates for viva voce.
Several candidates were disqualified because their answers did not follow the mandatory sequential format prescribed in the QAB. This prompted petitions alleging that the CGPSC altered the “rules of the game” mid-process, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Key Legal Issues
1. Right to Prior Notification of the Exam Pattern: Petitioners argued that the changes in the answer format were not disclosed in the advertisement or any prior notification.
2. Adherence to the “Rules of the Game” Doctrine: Candidates contended that changes to the answer format after the recruitment process commenced were impermissible.
3. Fairness in Evaluation: Petitioners challenged the rejection of their answer sheets based on format non-compliance, calling it arbitrary and unfair.
Court’s Observations
Justice Pandey ruled that the petitioners’ claims lacked merit and emphasized that:
– Exam Pattern vs. Syllabus: The candidates are entitled to know the syllabus but not the specific pattern of the examination in advance. The format and instructions are within the prerogative of the examination authority.
– Clear Instructions in the QAB: The court highlighted that the Question-Answer Booklet explicitly instructed candidates to answer questions sequentially and warned that answers written outside designated spaces would not be evaluated.
– Responsibility of the Candidates: Justice Pandey stated, “Candidates aspiring to become part of the justice delivery system must demonstrate diligence and attention to detail.”
The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemlathaa (2020), which held that instructions in examination materials have the force of law. Non-compliance with such instructions cannot be overlooked.
Rejection of “Rules of the Game” Argument
The court dismissed the contention that the examination process violated the “rules of the game” doctrine. It ruled that the CGPSC had adhered to the procedures outlined in its Rules of Procedure, which included screening, main examination, and viva voce. The format of the main examination was determined by CGPSC’s established practices and did not require prior disclosure.
Key Legal Precedents Referenced
– Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court: Affirmed that changes to eligibility criteria or evaluation standards during recruitment are impermissible. However, the court found this precedent inapplicable as no rules were altered in the present case.
– State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemlathaa: Reiterated the binding nature of examination instructions.
Key Participants
– Petitioners’ Advocates: Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Mr. Harsh Dave, Mr. Anand Dadariya, and Mr. Ishan Verma.
– Respondents’ Advocates: Mr. Dilman Rati Minj (for the State), Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava and others (for the High Court), and Dr. Sudeep Agrawal (for CGPSC).
– Bench: Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey.
