NARAYAN DATT vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1



CGHC010048142021 2026:CGHC:45188
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Reserved for Judgment on : 13.07.2026
ALFIZA
BAIG
Judgment Delivered on : 26.10.2026
Digitally signed
by ALFIZA BAIG
Date: 2026.10.26
19:08:35 +0530
Judgment Uploaded on : 26.10.2026
WPC No. 1114 of 2021
Narayan Datt S/o Nemi Sharan Aged About 27 Years R/o Rajeev
Vihar, V. I. P. City Near Gate No. 02, Lingiadih, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
Pincode 495006
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary,general
Administration Department, Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattigarh Public Service Commission Through Secretary,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Examiner Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through
Examiner, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, Advocate
For State : Mrs. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocate
For Respondent No.2&3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate

2
SINGLE BENCH:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
CAV Order
1. Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.10.2018
(Annexure P-2) published by respondent no. 2 had submitted
his application Form for appointment on the post of Civil
Services. After due scrutiny of application and finding the
application to be in order has issued an admit card for
preliminary examination to be held on 17.02.2019 (Annexure P-
3). Petitioner became successful in preliminary examination and
thereafter, he participated in the mains examination to be held
on four consecutive dates i.e. on 23.06.2019, 24.07.2019,
25.07.2019 and 26.07.2019 of Papers I-VII. After publication of
the result of mains examination, name of petitioner did not find
its place. Petitioner, thereafter submitted an application under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Public Information
Officer for supply of copy of his answer sheets. After receipt of
the application, Public Information Officer, wrote a letter dated
22.02.2020 (Annexure P-7) regarding deposit of requisite fees
to which petitioner paid. Petitioner was provided with a copy of
the answer sheet of mains examination and after perusal of the
same, petitioner got shocked as certain pages of the answer
sheets of petitioner pertaining to the subject namely General
Studies- V (PAPER-VII) PART–II INTERNATIONAL &
NATIONAL SPORTS EVENTS & ORGANIZATION – SUBJECT
CODE-7) were missing. Pages from serial no. 17 to 20 were
found to be missing. Pages which are missing contains

3
question no. 9, 10, 11 and 12 of which the total maximum marks
were 30 ( Thirty ). Petitioner thereafter, made an oral complaint
to concerned authorities, however, representation was made on
05.02.2021 (Annexure P-9) which remained un-replied,
therefore, petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, seeking following relief:-
“10.1 It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of
mandamus directing to respondent authorities to bring
the relevant official records along with the original
answer script of the present petitioner before this
Hon’ble Court.
10.2 It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records concerning the
present selection, and the comparative results, for its
kind perusal.
10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
an appropriate writ conducting an independent Court
monitored enquiry into the entire matter.
10.4 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to
grant a compensation to the amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs in
favour of the petitioner.
10.5 Any other relief/relief’s which this Hon’ble Court
may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

4
of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased
to be granted to the petitioners.”
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the action on the
part of respondents is highly arbitrary. Respondent no. 2 and 3
at the time of evaluation of the answer sheet came to know that
the pages from the answer sheets of particular number were
missing but neither any action has been taken nor the petitioner
was informed about the said irregularity. She submits that
respondent no. 2 being State Public Service Commission and
dealing with the recruitment proceedings of the post of Public
Services, therefore, it has to act maintaining the high standards
while completing the requirement proceedings in pursuance to
the advertisement issued, fairly, reasonably and protecting the
interest of the aspirants. She also submits that the act on the
part of respondent- Commission is negligent and from the facts
and circumstances of the case it appears to be an attempt of
deliberate suppression of entire mishap which has taken place.
She further submits that had been all the pages of the answer
sheets of petitioner if available for evaluation, then he would
have an opportunity to participate in further selection procedure
i.e. the interview and may would have chance to get selected
and appointed on any of the post as advertised. But due to the
act of respondent-Commission petitioner suffered serious
hardship and mental harassment.
3. At last she submits that if it is not possible for respondent
Commission to produce the entire answer sheet which he

5
submitted at the time of writing examination, then petitioner be
suitably compensated in terms of money for an amount of Rs .
50,00,000/- (Fifty Lakhs Rupees ).
4. Learned counsel for respondent- Commission would oppose the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and
would submit that petitioner participated in the recruitment
proceedings pursuant to advertisement no.
07/2018/Exam/Dated 01/10/2018 on 10.10.2018 as unreserved
category candidate. The examination pattern of respondent
Commission for Public Services pursuant to advertisement
consisted of three modes i.e. Preliminary Examination followed
by Mains and, thereafter, Interview. Petitioner though became
successful in preliminary examination and appeared in main
examination, however, he did not cleared mains examination
and therefore, he was not called for the interview. He submits
that in the main examination aspirants were provided with
Question Answer Booklet (QAB) for writing their answers and
according to procedure secrecy of candidates is maintained. It
is thereafter, the QAB’s which are given to evaluator for
evaluation. He submits that the cut off score for unreserved
candidate and the marks obtained by unreserved candidate
was from 860.5 to 737.5. Petitioner secured only 695.5 marks
to qualify for interview. He submits that appropriate and
concrete steps have been taken from first date of starting of
proceedings till writing of the examination, collecting and
properly handling the QAB’s of all the candidates participated in
the examination. He submits that according to procedure

6
followed for conducting the mains examination, circular bearing
Circular No. 1048/13/Exam/2019 (Annexure R2&3/1) was
issued on 12.07.2019 to concerned Collector’s of Sarguja
(Ambikapur), Bilaspur, Durg, Bastar (Jagdalpur) and Raipur
(regional centers of main examination). The date of collection of
QAB’s is also specified as 18.07.2019 which was further
extended to 19.07.2019 by letter dated 15.07.2019. Nodal
Officers were also appointed for smooth completion of
examination in each regional examination centers. He also
submits that petitioner appeared in the examination from
examination center bearing Examination Center Code No. 202
i.e. Govt. Bilasa Girls Post Graduate College Link Road,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Each QAB’s of the subject consisted by
36 pages apart from three OMR Sheets. Each OMR sheet
consisted two detachable counterparts, one is to be filled by the
candidate whereas another is to be filed by Deputy Head Valuer
and Head Valuer. He submits that during evaluation of the
answer sheets a report of valuer was submitted before
Examination Controller for Page no. 27-30 bearing Question no.
2 to 6 are not available in Answer Booklet of sticker no. 131354
i.e. for Part- III ( Chhattisgarh Language) of Question Paper -I
(Language). As on 07.09.2019 one of the evaluator submitted
report stating that page no. 17, 18, 23 and 24 bearing question
no. 1, 2 7 and 8 are not available in Answer Booklet of sticker
no. 123026 for Part-II (General Studies) of Question Paper – I
(Language) and in sticker no. 123027 page no. 19, 20,21 and
22 bearing Question No. 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 and 07 are also not

7
available. And on 27.09.2019 during course of evaluation of
answer booklet evaluator found and reported to Head Valuer
that page no. 17-20 of question no. 9-12 are not available in the
answer booklet no. 722038 of General Studies -V (Paper VII
Part-II- International & National Sports Events and
Organizations). He also submits that in other sticker no. tear
marks was not found but for in the question answer book of
sticker no. 722038 tear marks were present and also observed
that it was not reported by any of the exam center about any
complaint made by candidates at the time of distribution of the
question answer book in which such pages were missing.
Results of the main examination was published through memo
830/3/2019, however, petitioner has approached to the
authorities with inordinate delay. Pursuant to the application
submitted, petitioner was permitted to peruse the QAB’s of his
answer book and it is Public Information Officer who informed
petitioner about found pages i.e. page no. 17-20 of General
Studies -V (Paper VII) Part- II International and National Sports
Events and Organizations). After perusal, petitioner has
submitted the certificate about his satisfaction along with Adhar
Card and no objection was raised. He submits that the
complaint dated 05.02.2021 submitted is still pending
consideration and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for
compensation or any relief as prayed for.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and
also perused the documents placed on record along with this
writ petition as also the reply and rejoinder.

8
6. Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner pursuant to
advertisement dated 10.10.2018 participated in the recruitment
proceedings initiated by Public Service Commission for Civil
Services Post. He became successful in preliminary
examination and thereafter participated in the mains
examination. It is also not in dispute that after publication of
result when the petitioner sought copies of the question answer
book he found that four pages i.e. page no. 17 to page no. 20
were missing. In the writ petition, petitioner has pleaded that
maximum marks of missing pages and the question paper
published therein were of 30 marks in para no. 8.7.
7. Fact pleaded by the respondent -Commission that petitioner
participated as unreserved candidate and cut off marks scored
by selected candidate of unreserved category was 860.5 to
737.5 whereas the marks scored by petitioner is only 695.5 and
this is not disputed by him in its rejoinder in specific terms.
From the relief as sought for, it is appearing that after becoming
aware of the cut off marks and marks obtained by him, he has
not prayed for the relief that by adding certain marks petitioner
may be interviewed and thereafter, to conclude the proceedings
with regard to the finalization of the recruitment proceedings of
petitioner, thereafter.
8. Maximum marks of page of question answer book which was
missing is 30 marks and by adding even marks 30 to the marks
secured by petitioner, then also petitioner would not get marks

9
more than the marks scored by last selected candidate i.e.
737.5.
9. From the facts as culled out from the pleadings of writ petition
as also from the reply is that, the respondent -Commission
became aware of the fact of missing of pages from QAB’s
including question answer book of petitioner about four pages
were missing. Pursuant to report submitted by evaluator the
Commission thereafter, has not taken any concrete steps to get
the responsible person caught and have neither thought it
proper to inform the candidate about the same. Case of
petitioner appears to be a different case than that of the other
candidates as in the question answer book of petitioner there
was a sign of pages missing, were tore out and removed but
even then this fact was not informed to petitioner and have kept
quite till petitioner submitted an application under the Right To
Information Act, 2005 to Public Information Officer. Even after
coming to the knowledge that the petitioner is curious and have
submitted an application for appropriate steps to be taken then
also except the formal direction conducting the inquiry, till date it
has not been finalized. Petitioner aggrieved with the arbitrary
and inaction on the part of the respondent-Commission and
Public Authority dealing with the recruitment proceedings of the
Public Service felt harassed and has filed this writ petition
before the High Court which remained pending for considerable
period of time. Petitioner has pursued this writ petition for last
about more than five years and therefore, in the facts of the

10
case, petitioner is entitled for the monetary compensation for
his mental, financial and physical sufferings or cost of petition.
10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
University, Agra Vs. Devarsh Nath Gupta and Ors. Reported
in 2023 (12) SCALE 45 has observed that even if an ancillary
relief or direction is considered appropriate, the same could be
granted or issued by Court only in direct co-relation with the
facts and circumstances of the case and not beyond. More over
for one particular fault of one individual in one particular matter,
all the concluded matters could not be ordered to be reopened.
11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where the petitioner
though approached with some delay but considering the fact
that respondent if after becoming aware of the fact that pages
from the petitioner’s book were missing, petitioner was not
informed nor any steps were taken which led the petitioner to
approach this Court by filing of the writ petition. Petitioner
suffered harassment due to the act of respondent and further
have spended money in the process of obtaining information,
question answer book and by filing the writ petition and
therefore, in the opinion of this Court, I find that petitioner be
paid an appropriate amount of compensation and this Court
assessed the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- ( fifty thousand
only ) to be paid to the petitioner by respondent no. 3 and 4.
Accordingly, respondent no. 3 and 4 are directed to pay Rs.
50,000/- to the petitioner within a period of three months.

11
12. With the aforesaid observation as also the direction, this writ
petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
alfiza