HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S NO 7451 OF 2009
Shiv Kumar Dewangan
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
...Respondents! Shri Vinod Deshmukh Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri P K Bhaduri Panel Lawyer for the State Shri Pankaj Agrawal Advocate for the respondent No2
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 08/03/2010
: Judgement
ORDER ORAL
Passed on this 8th day of March 2010
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to
the respondent authorities to conduct written examination
for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – II afresh for the
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied
for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – II. Admit card was
received by him to appear in the written examination on 6-
12-2009. On the date of examination, in the question
booklet the petitioner found some discrepancies and
immediately he informed the same to the authorities
concerned at the examination centre, but they have not
taken any action. The petitioner also submitted a
representation dated 11-12-2009, which is still pending
consideration. Shri Deshmukh further submits that the
action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary
and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submit that the candidate ought to have
reported the discrepancies in the question booklet within
15 minutes after receipt of the same to the invigilator
whereas in the instant case the petitioner has reported
about the discrepancies in the question booklet after
lapse of more than one and half hours. Even then also the
authorities of the examination centre looked into the
grievances of the petitioner and provided him another set
of question booklet. At the time of inspection made by
the flying squad also i.e. Tahsildar, Manendragarh, the
petitioner has not raised any objection. Thus, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended
thereto.
6. Admittedly, on the top of question booklet
instructions to candidates have been printed. In clause 4
it is clearly provided that “if any discrepancy is found,
please inform the invigilator and get the correct
booklet.” The petitioner was expected to comply with the
instructions promptly. If on perusal it was found that
the questions were not printed properly in the question
booklet, the petitioner ought to have brought into notice
of the invigilator before writing the answers.
7. By letter dated 6-12-2009 (Annexure – R/1), the
Center Superintendent of the examination centre informed
to the Controller, Professional Examination Board that the
petitioner has not raised the issue immediately, as the
examination commenced at 11.00 a.m. and he raised the
issue at about 1.00 p.m. after having answered the
substantial questions of the question booklet. It was
further informed by the invigilator vide letter dated 6-12-
2009 (Annexure – R/2) that the petitioner pointed out the
defects after about one and half hours. At the time of
inspection made by the Tahsildar also the petitioner has
not raised any objection, which is evident from inspection
note (Annexure – R/3).
8. It is well settled that the examination is not the
process of selection, but also the process of elimination
having regard to the large number of candidates appearing
for limited seats available. The petitioner ought to have
raised the issue immediately before writing answers to the
questions contained in the question booklet and, as such,
the petition is not sustainable.
9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ
petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. There will be no order asto costs.
J u d g e