A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal has dismissed a writ appeal (WA No. 217 of 2025) filed by Shubham Sinha challenging his non-selection in the recruitment process for the post of Stenographer at the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Shubham Sinha, had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Stenographer against 65 notified vacancies (25 for the unreserved category) following an advertisement by the High Court. After qualifying Phase-I, he appeared for the skill test, where he was awarded 86 marks. Candidates scoring 87 marks, including Respondents No. 3 and 4 (Mohd. Azhar and Shayna Kadri), were selected. Aggrieved by his non-selection, Sinha filed W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was dismissed on January 22, 2025, by the learned Single Judge. The present writ appeal was filed under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006.
Arguments by the Appellant
Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, argued that the evaluation process was flawed and discriminatory. She contended that:
- The appellant committed only 13 mistakes, not 14, and due to an inadvertent counting error, one extra mark was deducted.
- The evaluation of another candidate, Ms. Chanchal Sinha, showed that for the same mistake, only one mark was deducted, while in the appellant’s case, two marks were allegedly deducted.
- As per the recruitment advertisement, only one mark was to be deducted for each mistake, and hence, the deduction of 14 marks violated the selection rules.
- If properly evaluated, the appellant would have scored 87 marks and, being older than Respondents No. 3 and 4, would have been selected as per Rule 12(2) of the C.G. High Court Service Rules, 2017, which gives preference to the elder candidate in case of equal merit.
Submissions by the Respondents
Appearing for the High Court, Mr. Ashish Surana submitted that:
- The deduction of marks was carried out strictly in accordance with the evaluation scheme.
- The appellant typed an additional word not dictated by the examiner, which justified the deduction of one extra mark, making the total deduction 14 marks.
- The same evaluation standards were applied uniformly to all candidates, and there was no discrimination or arbitrariness.
Observations and Judgment
The Division Bench perused the record and found that:
“From perusal of the answer sheet of the appellant, it is quite vivid that the appellant has typed the word which was not dictated by the examiner, therefore, one mark was deducted for this and 13 marks have been deducted for other 13 mistakes committed by the appellant, accordingly 14 marks have been deducted.”
The Court noted that the same marking procedure was applied to all candidates, and therefore, there was no basis for alleging discrimination. It also reiterated the principle that:
“Evaluation of answer sheet is subject matter of expert wherein the interference by this Court is extremely limited unless so cogent reason is assigned which is not available in the present facts of the case.”
Holding that the learned Single Judge committed no illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench concluded:
“Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).”
Citation
Shubham Sinha v. The Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, WA No. 217 of 2025, decided on 01.04.2025.
