YOGIRAJ CHANDRAKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:26071
Digitally signed
by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3138 of 2026
1 - Yogiraj Chandrakar S/o Puranik Chandrakar Aged About 32 Years
R/o Village Rakhi Post Bhatagaon Tehsil Kurud District Dhamtari C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Higher Education
Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar
District Raipur C.G.
2 - Pandit Revishankar Shukla University Reipur District Raipur C.G.
3 - Registrar Pandit Revishankar Shukla University Raipur District
Raipur C.G.
4 - Controller Of Examinations Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University
Raipur District Raipur C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani,
Advocate.
For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.

2
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
25/06/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,
therebydeclaring the action and inaction of the
respondents in failing to properly examine, decide and
redress the petitioner's grievance relating to the
revaluation process and in failing to pass any reasoned
order thereon, despite repeated representations and
proceedings under the RTI Act, 2005, as arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India;
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby
holding that the respondents acted negligently and
arbitrarily in dealing with the petitioner's revaluation
grievance, thereby causing loss of one academic year,
educational opportunity, mental agony and prejudice to the
petitioner's future career prospects;
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby award
suitable compensation in favour of the petitioner and

3
against the respondents jointly and severally for the loss of
one academic year, loss of educational opportunity, mental
agony, harassment and continuing prejudice caused by the
arbitrary and negligent conduct of the respondents;
10.4 That, any other relief/order which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the
case, including the cost of the petition.”
2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was a bona fide
student of B.Sc. (Biology) under Pandit Ravishankar Shukla
University, Raipur, and after successfully passing the B.Sc. Part-I
Examination, appeared in the B.Sc. Part-II Examination, the result
whereof was declared on 22.07.2014. The petitioner was declared
unsuccessful in Botany Theory Paper-II and Chemistry Theory
Paper-I. Aggrieved by the marks awarded, he applied for
revaluation; however, no change was made in Chemistry Theory
Paper-I and only one mark was increased in Botany Theory
Paper-II. Thereafter, on the petitioner's repeated representations,
the respondent University undertook re-revaluation, pursuant to
which the petitioner's marks in Botany Theory Paper-II were
enhanced from 9 to 25 marks, thereby indicating that the original
evaluation suffered from serious discrepancies. However, in
respect of Chemistry Theory Paper-I, although the petitioner had
specifically sought re-evaluation of Part-I of the answer book, the
respondent authorities instead altered the marks of Part-III,
leaving the disputed portion completely unexamined. Left with no

4
other alternative, the petitioner appeared in the Super
Supplementary Examination but was again declared
unsuccessful. Thereafter, the petitioner continuously pursued his
grievance by submitting several representations before the
University authorities, filing an application under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, preferring the statutory First Appeal and
thereafter a Second Appeal before the Chhattisgarh State
Information Commission. The State Information Commission, by
order dated 09.10.2017, recorded a categorical finding that
incorrect and irrelevant information had been furnished to the
petitioner and directed the respondent University to provide
complete information regarding the action taken on his
representations. Despite the aforesaid directions, the respondent
authorities neither examined the petitioner's substantive grievance
regarding the evaluation of Chemistry Theory Paper-I nor passed
any reasoned order thereon. Even subsequently, Complaint Case
No. C/4963/2025/Dhamtari came to be registered before the
Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, which remains
pending, thereby demonstrating that the petitioner's grievance has
remained unresolved despite his continuous pursuit of the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents
have acted in a wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair manner
by failing to examine the petitioner's specific grievance relating to
the evaluation of Chemistry Theory Paper-I. It is submitted that
while the respondent University itself acknowledged serious errors

5
in the original evaluation by enhancing the petitioner's marks in
Botany Theory Paper-II from 9 to 25 upon re-revaluation, it failed
to consider the very portion of the Chemistry answer book that
had been specifically challenged by the petitioner and instead
altered the marks of an altogether different portion, thereby
defeating the very object of the revaluation process. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner has never acquiesced
in or abandoned his claim and has been diligently pursuing his
grievance since the year 2014 by filing repeated representations,
applications under the Right to Information Act, statutory appeals
and proceedings before the Chhattisgarh State Information
Commission. Despite repeated directions issued by the competent
authorities, including the State Information Commission, the
respondents have failed to pass any reasoned or speaking order
or to properly address the petitioner's grievance. It is, therefore,
contended that the respondents' continued inaction constitutes a
continuing wrong giving rise to a recurring cause of action and,
consequently, the present writ petition cannot be dismissed on the
ground of delay or laches. It is further submitted that the arbitrary
conduct of the respondents has resulted in the petitioner losing
one valuable academic year and has caused serious academic
prejudice, mental agony and adverse consequences to his future
educational and career prospects, thereby warranting interference
by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes
the same.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner
has been continuously pursuing his grievance before the
respondent University as well as the authorities constituted under
the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner preferred a Second Appeal under the provisions of the
Right to Information Act on 05.04.2016, which came to be allowed
by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission vide order
dated 09.10.2017. By the said order, the State Information
Commission specifically directed the respondent University to
furnish complete and proper information as sought by the
petitioner within a period of thirty (30) days. Admittedly, the
aforesaid order has neither been challenged nor set aside by any
competent forum and, therefore, the same has attained finality
and is binding upon the respondent University. Consequently, the
respondent University is under a statutory obligation to comply
with the directions issued by the State Information Commission.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the petitioner's grievance relating to the
evaluation or revaluation of his answer books, this writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondent University to ensure

7
due compliance with the order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the
Chhattisgarh State Information Commission by furnishing to the
petitioner complete and specific information as directed therein, if
the same has not already been furnished, within a period of thirty
(30) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. It is further observed that upon furnishing the information, if the
petitioner is still aggrieved and any cause of action survives in
accordance with law, it shall be open to him to avail such remedy
as may be available to him under the relevant statutory provisions.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the evaluation of his
answer books, and all questions in that regard are left open.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat