Candidates Not Entitled To Know Exam Pattern: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Pleas Challenging Evaluation Process Of 2023 Civil Judge Mains Exam

The Chhattisgarh High Court, while rejecting the batch of Writ Petitions challenging the exam pattern of the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Main Examination, 2023, stated that candidates are only entitled to know the 'syllabus' of the examination. The pattern of the exam and the sequence of the questions to be asked, however, fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Exam Conducting Authority.“As argued by learned Advocates for the petitioners, the pattern of conducting the Main examination was not notified either in the rules or in the advertisement but in the opinion of this Court, there was no need to notify the pattern of examination and they had the right to know the syllabus “only”. The pattern of the Main examination and the questions to be asked in that examination are within the exclusive domain of the examination conducting body.”, the Court said. The petitioners-candidates who appeared in the Examination challenged the evaluation process contending that their answer copies were not evaluated because they didn't follow the instructions mentioned on the Question-Answer Booklet that required the candidates to answer questions in a specific serial order. The petitioners averred that they started solving questions in the order that best suited their preparation and knowledge and later on, came to know that they solved the questions in the wrong sequence. According to the petitioner, the respondent-State Public Service Commission had changed the 'Rules of Game' without prior notification as the instructions about this change were neither provided in the advertisement nor communicated clearly during the examination. Opposing the petitioner's contention, the Respondents argued that the Mandatory instructions were provided in the Question-Answer Booklet, specifying that answers must be written in the designated spaces and in serial order and no deviation occurred from established rules or procedures during the examination process. They claimed that no 'Rules of Game' were changed during the recruitment process. The pattern of examination was Preliminary examination, Main examination, and Interview which was notified in the advertisement. Upon hearing parties at length, the bench comprising Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey dismissed the petitioner's argument that the pattern of conducting the Main examination was not notified either in the rules or in the advertisement. The Court said there was no need to notify the pattern of examination and they had the right to know the syllabus “only”. “The pattern of the Main examination and the questions to be asked in that examination are within the exclusive domain of the examination conducting body. The instructions were laid down in the Question-Answer Booklet and the petitioners should have read them over carefully before proceeding to write answers. Questions were quoted in bold letters followed by blank pages [20 pages each for Questions No. 1 and 2; 2 ½ pages each for Questions No. 3(i) and (ii)]. Any sensible person after going through the questions and blank pages placed immediately after them can understand that he / she has to write the answer pertaining to the specific question in the blank space given immediately after that question only.” The Court added that the petitioner's argument with regard to the change of rule of game is misconceived as the examination has been conducted strictly according to the Rules and advertisement. “The CGPSC conducted a screening test and thereafter qualified candidates were called for the Main examination. As informed, 542 candidates participated in the Main examination, meaning thereby they followed the instructions given in the Question cum Answer Booklet. The ultimate object of the selection process is to secure the most suitable candidates and CGPSC succeeded in it. The candidates, who could not answer the questions in proper space, cannot be treated as suitable persons for the post of Civil Judge.” Since no case was made out for the Court's interference, hence the Writ Petitions were dismissed. Case Title: Shreya Ormaila Versus State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPS No. 6172 of 2024 (and connected matters)LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 51Click here to read/download the judgment

Candidates Not Entitled To Know Exam Pattern: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Pleas Challenging Evaluation Process Of 2023 Civil Judge Mains Exam

Yash Mittal

Tags