IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1501 of 2007
Bhartendra Bhushan Tripathi
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1 State of Chhattisgar
2 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission
...Respondents
! Shri Rewa Shankar Patel Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri Vinay Pandey Panel Lawyer for the State respondents
HONBLE MR SATISH K AGNIHOTRI J
Dated: 14/03/2007
: Order
ORDER
(Passed on 14th March, 2007)
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks for a writ in
the nature of mandamus/direction to the respondents to scale
the answer sheets of the petitioner and declare the result
thereafter. It is further sought that the respondents be
directed to comply with the provisions of Clause 38 of the
circular issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission (Annexure P/5) wherein, it is provided that in
the State Service Preliminary Examination, 2005 and Main
Examination 2005, valuation of optional subjects scaling
system would be made applicable and the marks would be
awarded on scale.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner,
alongwith others, applied for appointment in State Services.
The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination
conducted by Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, (for
short, C.G.P.S.C.) held on 6.11.2005 and on the basis of
result of the preliminary examination, the petitioner
appeared in the main examination held from 15.06.2006 to
27.7.2006 and 30.06.2006. The result was declared on
31.01.2007. The petitioner was unsuccessful in the main
examination. The petitioner has filed this petition
challenging the result of the main examination declared on
25.01.2007 on the ground that scaling system has not been
done, as according to the newspaper report, the scaling was
not possible within a period of two days. The Chairman,
C.G.P.S.C., in his interview, has declared that the result
was declared after applying scaling system. Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that on 25.01.2007, it
was reported in the news paper that the result could not be
declared on account of non-completion of scaling work and
thereafter, the result was declared on 31.01.2007 after
scaling. According to him, this is practically impossible to
complete scaling within such a short period as there were
9736 answer sheets. The interview is to be held in the month
of March 2007.
3. It appears that the entire petition is based on certain
news paper reports which have no basis to support the
contention of the petitioner that the scaling of the answer
sheets was not possible within such a short period. Learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner has not pointed out
asto how many experts in scaling works were involved, how
many answer sheets were scaled in one hour and how much work
they have performed. In absence of the above materials, it
is not possible to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus as
sought for by this petition in this sketchy petition without
having relevant and sufficient materials.
4. The petitioner has obtained the marksheet of the main
examination under the provisions of Right to Information
Act. The marksheet itself indicates that the scaling was
done and the marks were allotted on scale. It is well
settled that a candidate on finding himself as unsuccessful
in the examination, cannot raise the dispute with regard to
the procedure adopted in the examination.
5. In the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Others Vs.
Shakuntala Shukla & Others, (2002) 6 S.C.C. 127, the Supreme
Court held as under:-
“32…It is a remedy which stands barred and it is
in this perspective in Om Prakash Shukla v.
Akhilesh Kumar Shukla a three-Judge Bench of this
Court laid down in no uncertain terms that when a
candidate appears at the examination without
protest and subsequently found to be not
successful in the examination, question of
entertaining a petition challenging the said
examination would not arise.”
“33. Subsequently, the decision in Om Prakash
stands followed by a later decision of this Court
in Madan Lal v. State of J&K wherein this Court
stated as below: (SCC p. 493, paras 9-10)“9. Before dealing with this contention, we must
keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners
as well as the contesting successful candidates
being respondents concerned herein, were all found
eligible in the light of marks obtained in the
written test, to be eligible to be called for oral
interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute
between the parties. The petitioner also appeared
at the oral interview conducted by the members
concerned of the Commission who interviewed the
petitioners as well as the contesting respondents
concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to
get themselves selected at the said oral
interview. Only because they did not find
themselves to have emerged successful as a result
of their combined performance both at written test
and oral interview, they have filed this petition.
It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a
calculated chance and appears at the interview,
then, only because the result of the interview is
not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and
subsequently contend that the process of interview
was unfair or the Selection Committee was not
properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been
clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned
Judges of this Court that when the petitioner
appeared at the examination without protest and
when he found that he would not succeed in
examination he filed a petition challenging the
said examination, the High Court should not have
granted any relief to such a petitioner.”
6. In view of the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court,
this petition is not entertainable as the petitioner has
appeared in the examination and he having failed in the main
examination, questions the non-application of scaling system
which is evident from the fact that declaration of result
was delayed as admitted by the Chairman, C.G.P.S.C. on
account of time consumed in the process of scaling of the
answer-sheets. The marksheet obtained by the petitioner
under the Right to Information Act clearly indicates
application of scaling system.
7. In view of foregoing and for the reasons stated
hereinabove this petition is dismissed, summarily. No order
as to costs.
JUDGE