KALYAN BHATPRAHARI vs CHHATTISGARH PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD,

1

CGHC010377532026 2026:CGHC:45508-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 1030 of 2026
Kalyan Bhatprahari S/o Dileep Bhatprahari Aged About 33 Years R/o
Junwani, P.O. Gidhpuri, Balodabazar, District Bhatapara-Balodabazar,
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through Its Chairman,
Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
Chhattisgarh – 492001.
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Public Information Officer Chhattisgarh Professional Examination
Board, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava
Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492001.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1
and 3/VYAPAM
: Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate
For Respondent No.
2/State
: Mr. Amit Buxy, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice and
Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma , Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra , C.J.
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN

2
28/10/2026
1. I.A. No. 01 of 2026.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the
writ appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents do not have any serious
objection to the prayer for condonation of delay.
4. Hence, taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and the averments made in the I.A., the delay in filing the
writ appeal is condoned.
5. I.A. No. 01 of 2026 is disposed of accordingly.
6. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Appeal is
taken up for adjudication on merit.
7. The order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WPS No. 8137 of 2022 (Annexure A-1) is under challenge in this
intra-court appeal. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the
impugned order dismissing the writ petition, has filed this writ
appeal.
8. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that an
advertisement was issued by the State Government for
appointment to the post of Food Inspector. Pursuant to the said
advertisement, the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board
(For brevity ‘the Board’) conducted the written examination on
04.01.2022. The written examination was conducted in offline mode,
wherein the candidates were provided with 200 questions to be
answered on OMR sheet. The appellant, along with other
candidates, participated in the written examination. After

3
submission of the original OMR sheet, the appellant was also
provided with a carbon copy of his OMR answer sheet by the Board
on the same day at the examination centre.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant,
that, as per the impression made in the slots against the questions
replied on the carbon copy of the OMR sheet, the appellant was
expecting to secure 157 marks. However, he was awarded only
13.128 marks out of 200. Thus, the appellant applied for a copy of
the OMR sheet under the provisions of the Right to Information Act,
2005, which was also supplied to him. On verification of the OMR
sheet provided to the appellant under the RTI Act, he noticed a
substantial mismatch and raised a doubt about the authenticity of
the OMR sheet provided to him.
10. It is alleged by the appellant that the OMR sheet on which he had
marked the answers to the questions might have been tampered
with or manipulated. As such, he approached this Court by filing
WPS No. 8137 of 2022.
11. During adjudication of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge
also called for the original OMR sheet of the appellant, which was
produced before the Court by the Board in a sealed cover.
12. It is submitted that, in view of the discrepancy and mismatch
between the original OMR sheet and the carbon copy thereof, the
matter should have been examined by an expert committee.
However, the learned Single Judge, without referring the matter to
an expert committee, examined the original OMR sheet produced
by the Board and the copy produced by the appellant. Upon

4
examination, the learned Single Judge erroneously came to the
conclusion that there was no manipulation in the OMR sheet of the
appellant produced by the Board and accordingly dismissed the writ
petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed
this intra-court appeal.
13. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, further submits that
when a doubt was raised by the appellant with regard to the
genuineness of the OMR sheet produced by the Board, the same
should have been sent to an expert committee for verification.
Without resorting to the same, the learned Single Judge proceeded
to adjudicate the matter on merit. He, therefore, prays for setting
aside the impugned order and for sending both the copies of the
OMR sheet, one provided by the Board and the other produced by
the appellant before the Court, to an expert committee for
verification.
14. Dr. Pande, learned counsel for the Board, submits that the appellant
had approached the Court with the specific case that the OMR
sheet produced by the Board had been manipulated. Neither the
serial number of the OMR sheet nor the signatures of the appellant
and that of the invigilator appearing on the OMR sheet was
disputed by either of the parties. The stamp of the examination
centre was also not disputed by either of the parties to the writ
petition. The slots against each of the questions answered by the
appellant were filled in with a blue ballpoint pen, which could not
have been tampered with. He, therefore, submits that the question
of tampering with the OMR sheet of the appellant does not arise at

5
all. Moreover, many candidates had appeared in the said
examination, and there was no reason as to why the OMR sheet of
the appellant alone would be tampered with or manipulated. He,
therefore, submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order
(Annexure A-1) and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties. During the course of hearing
of the writ appeal, learned counsel for the parties produced before
us the respective OMR sheets in their possession.
16. On examination and scrutiny of the OMR sheet produced by Dr.
Pande, learned counsel for the Board, it appears that the serial
number mentioned therein matches with the serial number of the
carbon copy produced by the appellant before this Court.
17. The signatures of the appellant as well as invigilator on carbon copy
of the OMR sheet produced by the appellant, are faint and not
clearly visible. The stamp of the examination centre is also not
visible on the carbon copy produced by the appellant. On the other
hand, the original OMR sheet of the appellant produced by Dr.
Pande, learned counsel for the Board, bears the serial number and
the signatures of the candidate (appellant) as well as the invigilator,
together with the seal of the examination centre.
18. On close examination of the OMR sheet, this Court finds no sign of
tampering or manipulation in the OMR sheet of the appellant. Mr.
Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, also does not dispute the
signatures of the appellant as well as the invigilator on the OMR
sheet produced by the Board. The roll number of the appellant
reflected in the OMR sheet produced by the Board is also not

6
disputed.
19. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he had
filed an application for sending both the documents to an expert
committee for examination on the date of hearing, i.e., 29.07.2026.
He submits that both the documents should have been sent to an
expert committee for a final and concrete decision.
20. However, on a bare perusal of the record, it appears that the
appellant approached this Court with the specific case that the
OMR sheet produced by the Board had been tampered with or
manipulated, but he could not specify the details of tampering
therein. Only a bald allegation of manipulation on his OMR sheet
has been made by the appellant, which has no basis.
21. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that there was no necessity to send both the copies to an
expert committee for examination and verification.
22. On a cumulative assessment of the facts and circumstances of the
case and the discussions made hereinabove, we are of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has committed no
error in arriving at the impugned conclusion. Hence, we are not
inclined to interfere with the same.
23. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of any merit, stands
dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
Judge Chief Justice
Rahul Dewangan