GARIMA vs CHHATTISGARH YAVSAYIK PARIKSHA MANDAL, RAIPUR (VYAPAM)

1

CGHC010352602022 2026:CGHC:46375

AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4650 of 2022
Judgment Reserved On :23.09.2026.
Judgment Delivered On : 03.11.2026.
Garima D/o Rakesh Pandey Aged About 23 Years Occupation Student, R/o Village
Semarsal, P.S. Jarhagaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh Yavsayik Pariksha Mandal, Raipur (Vyapam) Through The
Secretary, Vyapam Bhawan North Block Sector -19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattigarh.
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary General Administrative
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court in its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to treat
the marks secured by the petitioner i.e. 89.907 marks in the Teacher
Eligibility Test {TET}, 2022 as 90 marks on the strength of the rule of
rounding off is which is based on logic and common sense as if a fractional
part is one half or more, its value shall increased to one and if a fractional

2
part is less than half then its value shall be ignored. Further, the petitioner
also seeks to challenge the options of multiple choice question No.145 and
prays for the following reliefs:-
“ 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
for the entire records relating to this case.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow
the petition direct the Vyapam to treat the option 'C' as
correct answer in respect of question no. 145, in the interest
of justice.
10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Vyapam issued an advertisement inviting
applications from eligible candidates for appearing in the TET-2022
Examination, which was scheduled to be held on 18.09.2022. The petitioner
was pursuing M.Sc. (Final Year – Mathematics) and, being eligible for the
aforesaid examination, submitted her application for appearing in the TET-
2022 Examination. The petitioner duly appeared in the aforesaid examination
and participated in the examination in accordance with the prescribed
procedure. The petitioner’s OMR answer sheet bears No. 921886. The
question paper relating to Mathematics/Science, Part-IV-A, containing the
relevant question is filed as Annexure P/4. After conducting the examination,
the Vyapam published the model answer key and invited objections from the
candidates in respect of the answers contained therein. The candidates were
accordingly granted an opportunity to raise objections to the model answer
key. After considering the objections received from the candidates, the
Vyapam published the final answer key (Annexure P/6). Thereafter, the

3
Vyapam declared the final result of the examination, wherein the petitioner
secured 89.907 marks (Annexure P/7). As per the instructions/guidelines
issued by the Vyapam, a candidate belonging to the Unreserved Category
was required to secure a minimum of 60% marks for qualifying in the
examination. Since the examination carried a total of 150 marks, the
petitioner was required to secure at least 90 marks. Upon carefully examining
her answers vis-à-vis the answer key, the petitioner found that in respect of
Question No. 145, she had selected Option ‘C’ – UNIVAC. The said question
contained the following four options:
Which one of the following computers is the world's first
commercial Computer?
(A)MANIAC (B)ENIAC
(C)UNIVAC (D) EDSAC
3. In the initial model answer key published by the Vyapam, the correct answer
to Question No. 145 was indicated as Option ‘C’ – UNIVAC. However, in the
final answer key, the answer was subsequently changed and Option ‘B’ –
ENIAC was declared to be the correct answer. Consequently, the answer ‘C’
marked by the petitioner was treated as incorrect and the corresponding
mark was denied to her. It is respectfully submitted that the answer ‘C’ –
UNIVAC selected by the petitioner is supported by several authoritative and
educational sources, which recognize UNIVAC as the first commercially
successful/commercial computer. The Computer Science textbook for Class
XI published by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) describes
UNIVAC-I as the first electronic computer of its generation and records its

4
use for business applications (Annexure P/9). The study material published
by IGNOU, available online, also describes UNIVAC as the first commercially
successful computer. The competitive examination magazine Pariksha
Manthan, 2021 edition, also recognizes UNIVAC as the first commercial
computer. In view of the aforesaid material and authoritative sources, the
answer ‘C’ – UNIVAC, as selected by the petitioner, cannot be treated as an
incorrect answer. The subsequent alteration of the answer in the final answer
key from ‘C’ to ‘B’ has resulted in the petitioner being deprived of one mark.
Consequently, the petitioner secured 89.907 marks instead of the requisite
90 marks, thereby being deprived of the benefit of qualifying in the
examination. The action of the respondents in treating the petitioner’s answer
to Question No. 145 as incorrect and consequently deducting one mark is
arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the available authoritative material, and
has caused serious prejudice and injustice to the petitioner.
4.
Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner duly appeared in the TET-2022 Examination and secured 89.907
marks, whereas 90 marks were required for qualifying in the Unreserved
Category. In Question No. 145, the petitioner had selected Option ‘C’ –
UNIVAC, which was also declared as the correct answer in the initial model
answer key issued by the respondents. However, in the final answer key, the
respondents changed the answer from ‘C’ – UNIVAC to ‘B’ – ENIAC, thereby
treating the petitioner’s answer as incorrect and depriving her of one mark.
The answer UNIVAC is supported by recognized educational sources,
including material published by , which describe UNIVAC as the first
commercial/commercially successful computer. The denial of the said one

5
mark has resulted in the petitioner securing 89.907 marks instead of the
required 90 marks, thereby causing direct and substantial prejudice to her
and the action of the respondents in changing the answer and denying the
petitioner the said mark, despite the initial answer key and authoritative
material supporting her answer, is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust, and
has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore,
respectfully prays that the respondents be directed to award one mark for
Question No. 145, re-calculate her result, and grant her all consequential
benefits.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the order dated
04.08.2026 passed by this Court in Vidhata Gupta (Minor) vs. The State of
Chhattisgarh and Others, WPC No. 4054 of 2026, wherein, in somewhat
similar circumstances, the petitioner therein, a minor student seeking
admission to Class IX in Prayas Residential School, Ambikapur, had been
denied admission on the ground that he had secured 59.7% marks in Class
VIII against the prescribed requirement of 60% marks. The said petitioner
had, however, qualified in the entrance examination by securing 82 marks
out of 100 and had fulfilled all other eligibility conditions. This Court, taking
note of the marginal shortfall of 0.3%, the fact that the petitioner's application
had initially been entertained and he was permitted to participate in the
entrance examination, and the fact that the matter concerned admission of a
minor child to a State-run residential school, held that the principle of
rounding off could be applied and directed the authorities to treat 59.7% as
60% for the purpose of admission.

6
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is
similarly situated and that the factual circumstances of the present case are
substantially comparable to those considered by this Court in Vidhata Gupta
(Minor). It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner is entitled to the same
treatment and benefit on the principle of parity. Accordingly, learned counsel
prays that, following the aforesaid order, appropriate relief may also be
granted to the petitioner herein.
7. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the
reliefs as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted as on the basis of
Option B- ENIAC many candidates have successfully passed the TET
examination. He submits that the persons who specialize in that field are
chosen to decide the most appropriate correct answers for examination
questions and only for the reason that petitioner deems Option C-UNIVAC as
the most chooseable nearabout answer for the Question No.145, the same
cannot be accepted. Further, so far as petitioner’s prayer for making his
marks as 90 by rounding of his secured marks of 89.907 is concerned, it is
submitted that the competition exams nowadays are all about cut-throat
competition and even a fraction of a mark may determine the relative position
of a candidate in the merit list and may ultimately decide his selection or non-
selection. The marks obtained by each candidate are, therefore, required to
be assessed strictly as actually secured, without extending any benefit of
rounding off unless the governing rules or the examination scheme
specifically provide for the same. It is submitted that permitting rounding off in
such competitive examinations may result in altering the inter se merit of the
candidates. A candidate securing 89.907 marks, if treated as having secured

7
90 marks, would be placed on an equal footing with a candidate who has
actually secured 90 marks, thereby creating an artificial equivalence between
candidates who have obtained different marks.
8.
Learned counsel for the State would support the submission put forth by
counsel for Respondent No.1.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed
with the petition carefully.
10. The first issue which arises for consideration is whether this Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
should interfere with the answer declared to be correct by the examination
authority in respect of Question No.145.
11.It is by now well settled that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to
academic examinations, particularly in respect of correctness of answers to
objective-type questions, is extremely limited. The Court does not possess
the expertise to sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the subject
experts engaged by the examination authority.
12. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after considering the earlier decisions on the subject, has
laid down the governing principles. The Court, inter alia, held that where the
rules do not provide for re-evaluation, interference can be made only in rare
or exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated clearly and
without resort to an inferential process of reasoning or rationalisation. The
Court further held that the correctness of the key answers ought ordinarily to
be presumed and that, in case of doubt, the benefit should go to the

8
examination authority rather than to the candidate. Paragraph 30 to 32 of the
said judgment reads as under:-
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we
only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They
are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or
scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the
authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an
answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court
may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated
very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or
by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or
exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the
answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the
matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key
answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the
examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion
does not play any role in the matter of directing or not
directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is
committed by the examination authority, the complete body
of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does
not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates
are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice
having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an
erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though
some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since
mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court
has shown one way out of an impasse — exclude the
suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of
this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there
is interference by the courts in the result of examinations.
This places the examination authorities in an unenviable
position where they are under scrutiny and not the

9
candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes
prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of
uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a
tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must
not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in
equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination.
The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later
stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and
balances put in place by the examination authorities before
interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have
successfully participated in the examination and the
examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic
example of the consequence of such interference where
there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after
a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities
even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or
otherwise of the result of the examination — whether they
have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or
disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in
a college or university or not; and whether they will get
recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work
to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty
results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall
and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”
13.
Also, the aforesaid principle has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Chief General Manager, BSNL & Others v. M.J. Paul &
Others, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 414. In the said case, the Supreme
Court disapproved the course adopted by the High Court in undertaking an
independent factual and evaluative exercise in relation to the answer sheet and
held that such matters ought ordinarily to be left to the competent examination
authorities. The relevant observations in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the said
judgment emphasise that the High Court should not substitute its own
assessment for that of the competent authority, particularly when re-evaluation

10
is not contemplated under the applicable rules. Relevant paragraph Nos.6 to 12
of the M.J. Paul (supra) reads as under:-
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has attempted his
best to support the order impugned and has contended that
the High Court has indeed examined the answer-sheet and
found want of evaluation of a part of the answers. As
regards awarding of marks, learned counsel would submit
that it had not been in dispute before the High Court that if
those two omitted entries were evaluated, the appellant
would have cleared the examination.
7 . Learned counsel has also referred to an order dated
04.11.2011 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.14191 of
2010 and has submitted that in the said case too, the
similarly circumstanced employee was granted relief by the
Tribunal but the order so passed in favour of the said
employee was not challenged by the appellants.
8. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and having examined the record, we are
constrained to interfere with the order impugned and we are
clearly of the view that neither interference in the order
passed by the Tribunal in the present matter was justified
nor the final directions and reliefs as granted by the High
Court were justified.
9. We are not entering into the aspect as to whether the
said answers at page 27 and 29 were evaluated or not but,
prima facie, with reference to the photo-replica placed
before us, it cannot be said that the answer as a whole had
not been evaluated by the examiner. In fact, we do not wish
to make any further comment beyond this for, we are clearly
of the view, that if at all anything of such a nature was to be
examined with reference to the instructions said to have
been issued by the Government, the only appropriate
course for the High Court was to leave it for the authorities
concerned to examine, as was the course adopted by the
Tribunal in the said order dated 04.11.2011.
10. In the present case, the High Court has proceeded not
only to record a finding on non- evaluation but thereafter,
has proceeded to record rather assumptive findings as if
those pages, when evaluated, were likely to result only in
positive marks in favour of the respondent.

11
11. In fact, adopting of such a course and process has not
been countenanced by this Court and it has repeatedly
been observed that all such steps ought to be left to the
authority concerned and in fact, re-evaluation is not to be
resorted to when not provided for in the Rules.
12. Yet another aspect of the matter had been that the High
Court was considering a writ petition arising from the order
of the Tribunal. In such a writ petition, adopting the course
of factual analysis and rendering the finding on facts was
not warranted. The course as adopted by the High Court
and the directions as finally issued cannot be
countenanced.
14. The Patna High Court, in Pawani Prabha v. Union of India through its
Secretary, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12297 of 2026, while dealing with
disputes concerning the evaluation of competitive examinations, has also
emphasised the necessity of maintaining fairness, transparency and procedural
regularity in the examination process. At the same time, the Court has
reiterated that judicial interference with the evaluation undertaken by an expert
body must remain within the permissible limits of judicial review. The
observations made therein also underline that mere apprehension or
dissatisfaction on the part of an individual candidate cannot justify interference
with the examination result in the absence of convincing material demonstrating
illegality or procedural irregularity. Relevant paragraphs Nos.37, 39, 46 and 55
reads as under:-
37. The dispute in such cases may not necessarily be
whether the candidates actually scored higher marks as
claimed or otherwise, but whether the examination authority
is able to satisfy the Court by producing a credible,
continuous and verifiable evidentiary trail connecting the
candidates who entered the examination hall, the OMR
sheets allegedly filled by them, the digital images generated
therefrom, the marks calculated on the basis thereof, and

12
the scores ultimately published. The NTA is duty-bound and
obliged to demonstrate its bona fides through proper
documentation and a technically verifiable explanation. At
the same time, the Court, in such circumstances, has a
constitutional obligation to ensure that public examination
processes remain fair, transparent and non- arbitrary, while
also maintaining judicial restraint in academic matters.
39. Coming to a case where a candidate calls in question
the legality, correctness and propriety of the action of the
respondent NTA in publishing an incorrect and inconsistent
scanned OMR answer sheet in respect of her NEET UG
2026 examination, involving an erroneous evaluation of her
performance and award of only 159 marks, in the case of
Pihu Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors, W.P.(C) No. 3848 of
2026, the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh
at Bilaspur has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though wide,
is required to be exercised with restraint in matters
concerning academic and Patna High Court CWJC
No.12297 of 2026 dt.05-10-2026 competitive examinations,
unless the decision-making process is shown to be
arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, mala fide or
demonstrably contrary to the prescribed procedures. The
Court ought not to interfere with the evaluation undertaken
by an expert examining body. The Court further pointed out
that the claim of the candidate that she had attempted all
180 questions could not be accepted in preference to the
responses actually recorded in the original OMR answer
sheet, particularly when the said original document had
been produced before the Court and shown to the petitioner
herself. The award of 159 marks based upon 46 correct and
25 incorrect responses out of 71 attempted questions,
therefore, called for no interference.
46. Now, coming to the facts of the present cases, it is true
that the petitioners are aspiring to pursue MBBS courses
and that the result of NEET-UG 2026 is of considerable
importance to their academic careers. This Court is also
conscious that even small differences in marks may have a
substantial bearing upon the prospects of a candidate in a
highly competitive examination. At the same time, however,
mere sympathy or possible academic consequences of the
result cannot constitute a ground for directing alteration of

13
an examination record which has been produced in original
and found to contain the responses on the basis of which
the petitioners have been evaluated. This Court is also
conscious of the judicial restraint required to balance the
individual grievance of a candidate with the larger
requirement of maintaining the sanctity, uniformity and
finality of the competitive examination process.
55. The National Testing Agency conducts the NEET- UG
Examination on a national scale through a standardized
process. Judicial interference with the evaluation process
based solely upon an individual's apprehension,
unsupported by convincing evidence, would adversely affect
the certainty, sanctity and finality of the examination system.
Merely because, by an interim order, a candidate may have
been permitted to participate in counselling, subject to the
final enquiry or outcome of the case on the peculiar facts
and circumstances of that case, such an order does not
constitute a binding precedent. Moreover, in the present
cases, the petitioners have failed to establish any
arbitrariness, illegality, mala fides or procedural irregularity
on the part of the respondent authorities in the evaluation of
their answer sheets. This Court has also perused Patna
High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2026 dt.05-10-2026 the
original OMR sheets of all the candidates and compared the
signatures of the petitioners with the signatures appearing
on the attendance sheets, Vakalatnamas and affidavits and
found some variation. However, as this Court has rightly
observed in the foregoing paragraphs, the signatures of any
candidate or person are subject to inherent variations, and
such variation in signatures appearing on some documents,
by itself, cannot constitute a ground to contend that the
OMR sheets had been tampered with or swapped, as
sought to be contended by the learned Advocates for the
petitioners. If the petitioners still dispute the genuineness of
the OMR sheets duly produced before this Court, in such
circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the disputed
questions of fact are required to be adjudicated upon by a
competent Civil Court, requiring elaborate examination of
witnesses and documentary evidence to establish the
respective claims.

14
15.The aforesaid principle assumes greater significance in a case involving a
multiple-choice question where more than one answer may, depending upon
the source or context, appear to be plausible. The Court is not required to
determine which answer is more acceptable merely on the basis of competing
academic material placed by an individual candidate.
16.In the present case, the petitioner has relied upon certain educational and
reference materials to contend that UNIVAC is described as the first
commercial or commercially successful computer. However, the final answer
key has been prepared by the examination authority after considering the
objections and with the assistance of persons having requisite subject
expertise. The fact that certain reference materials may describe UNIVAC as
the first commercially successful computer does not, by itself, establish that the
answer determined by the expert body, namely Option ‘B’—ENIAC, is so
manifestly and demonstrably erroneous as to warrant interference under Article
226 of the Constitution.
17.It is also relevant that the petitioner seeks substitution of the answer
accepted by the expert body on the basis of an alternative interpretation of the
expression “first commercial computer”. Such an exercise would necessarily
require this Court to enter into an academic evaluation of the question and the
competing answers. The same is impermissible in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
18.The mere circumstance that Option ‘C’ was mentioned as the correct
answer in the provisional/model answer key does not confer an indefeasible
right upon the petitioner to have the same retained in the final answer key. The

15
very purpose of inviting objections to a model answer key is to enable the
examination authority to reconsider the answers before finalising the key. The
final answer key, having been issued after consideration of the objections,
cannot be interfered with merely because the change has adversely affected
the petitioner.
19.Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the final answer
key in respect of Question No.145.
20.The second issue relates to the petitioner's prayer for treating 89.907 marks
as 90 marks by applying the principle of rounding off.
21.There can be no quarrel with the general mathematical principle that a
fractional number may, in appropriate circumstances, be rounded off to the
nearest whole number. However, the question before this Court is not one of
mathematical computation but whether a candidate can claim a legal right to
rounding off marks for the purpose of satisfying a prescribed minimum
qualifying standard.
22.The qualifying criteria prescribed for the examination require a candidate
belonging to the Unreserved Category to secure 60% marks. Out of 150 marks,
the prescribed qualifying threshold is therefore 90 marks. The petitioner
admittedly secured 89.907 marks. Thus, she has not secured the prescribed
minimum qualifying marks.
23.In the absence of any rule, regulation, advertisement or examination
scheme providing for rounding off of marks for determining eligibility, this Court
cannot introduce such a mechanism by judicial fiat. The prescription of
minimum qualifying marks is a matter falling within the domain of the

16
examination authority. A candidate who has secured 89.907 marks cannot,
merely on the basis of mathematical approximation, be treated as having
actually secured 90 marks.
24. The reliance placed upon the order passed in Vidhata Gupta (Minor) v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Others does not advance the petitioner's case. The said
order was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case,
keeping in view, inter alia, the nature of the admission involved, the status of
the petitioner therein as a minor child, the marginal shortfall and the other
surrounding circumstances. The said order cannot be construed as laying down
an inflexible proposition that rounding off must invariably be applied whenever a
candidate falls marginally short of the prescribed qualifying marks.
25.Moreover, the present case concerns a competitive eligibility examination in
which the marks obtained by each candidate have a direct bearing upon
qualification and, in appropriate cases, upon subsequent selection and merit.
Extending the benefit of rounding off to one candidate, in the absence of any
enabling provision, may have consequences for the inter se position of
candidates who have secured marks strictly in accordance with the prescribed
evaluation scheme.
26.The Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner's shortfall is extremely
marginal. However, sympathy, equity or the smallness of the deficiency cannot
substitute the eligibility criteria prescribed by the competent authority. The Court
cannot dilute an expressly prescribed minimum qualifying standard merely
because the candidate has fallen short by a fraction of a mark.

17
27. The principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh
also cautions the constitutional courts against interfering with examination
results merely because a particular candidate perceives an injustice. The
examination process is required to attain finality and certainty, and the Court
must be slow to interfere with an evaluation process undertaken by the
competent examination authority.
28.In the present case, neither has the petitioner been able to demonstrate any
patent or manifest error in the final answer key nor has she been able to point
out any provision under which marks can be rounded off for the purpose of
determining qualification. Consequently, neither of the grounds raised by the
petitioner warrants interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court.
29.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner has failed to establish any illegality, perversity, arbitrariness or
violation of any statutory right warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
30. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
31.It is made clear that the dismissal of the present petition is confined to the
reliefs claimed herein and shall not preclude the petitioner from participating in
any future examination or selection process for which she may otherwise be
eligible in accordance with the applicable rules.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash

18
The date when the
The date when the
The date when the judgment is
judgment is reserved
judgment is
uploaded on the website
pronounced
Operative Full
23.09.2026 03.11.2026 ------ 03.11.2026

19
HEAD NOTE:-
(WPC No. 4650 of 2022)
While exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Court is required to examine whether the
action of the authorities suffers from any illegality, arbitrariness,
irrationality, mala fides or procedural irregularity. However, the
power of judicial review is required to be exercised within its
permissible limits, and the Court must refrain from substituting its
own assessment for that of the competent authority in matters
falling within its domain. Judicial interference is warranted only
when a demonstrable illegality or procedural impropriety is
established by cogent material.