Introduction:

In a landmark judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates challenging the exam pattern of the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Main Examination, 2023. The petitioners, led by Shreya Ormaila in WPS No. 6172 of 2024, contended that the instructions mandating answers to be written in a specific sequence were neither notified in advance nor included in the examination rules or advertisement. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, however, ruled that while candidates are entitled to know the syllabus of the examination, the exam pattern and sequence of questions fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the examination conducting authority, in this case, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC).

Arguments by the Petitioners:

The petitioners argued that the CGPSC altered the “rules of the game” without prior notification, as the instructions about answering in a specific serial order were not mentioned in the advertisement or communicated during the examination. They claimed to have answered questions based on their preparation and knowledge but later realized they had not followed the required sequence. This resulted in their answer scripts being rejected. The petitioners maintained that this procedural change was arbitrary and violated the principles of transparency and fairness. They contended that the lack of prior notification about this requirement rendered the evaluation process flawed, causing them undue harm.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The respondents, represented by the State Public Service Commission, countered that the instructions for answering in a specific serial order were clearly stated in the Question-Answer Booklet provided during the examination. They emphasized that these instructions were mandatory and were designed to ensure uniformity and procedural clarity. The CGPSC argued that the examination process was conducted strictly by the rules and the advertised pattern, which included a Preliminary Examination, Main Examination, and Interview. They dismissed claims of procedural deviation, asserting that the petitioners’ inability to follow instructions indicated a lack of suitability for the post of Civil Judge. Furthermore, they argued that 542 candidates had successfully followed the instructions, demonstrating that the process was fair and transparent.

Court’s Judgment:

The Chhattisgarh High Court, after examining the arguments and evidence, upheld the CGPSC’s discretion in determining the exam pattern. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey observed that the syllabus was the only component of the examination process that candidates were entitled to know in advance. The Court clarified that the exam pattern, including the sequence of questions, lies within the exclusive domain of the exam conducting authority.

The Court further noted that the instructions in the Question-Answer Booklet were clear and explicit. It remarked that any sensible candidate would have understood the requirement to answer questions in the designated spaces following each question. The petitioners’ failure to adhere to these instructions demonstrated a lack of diligence, which, according to the Court, made them unsuitable for the position of Civil Judge.

Addressing the petitioners’ claim that the CGPSC had changed the “rules of the game,” the Court dismissed it as misconceived. The Court found no evidence to support the assertion that the process deviated from established rules or the advertised pattern. Justice Pandey emphasized that the ultimate goal of the selection process was to identify the most suitable candidates, which the CGPSC successfully achieved.

The Court highlighted that 542 candidates had participated in the Main Examination and adhered to the instructions, indicating the fairness of the process. It ruled that the petitioners’ inability to follow the prescribed instructions was their failing and could not be attributed to any procedural lapse by the CGPSC.

In conclusion, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the CGPSC’s authority and the integrity of the examination process.