No right to know exam pattern in advance: Chhattisgarh High Court junks challenge to 2023 judicial exam

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the results declared by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination, 2023 [Shreya Ormaila Versus State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.]..In doing so, Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey rejected an argument that the candidates were not informed sufficiently in advance about the need to answer questions in a particular serial order for the main exam. The candidates before the Court argued that this lapse had led to confusion during the exam and that their answer sheets were eventually not evaluated because they did not follow the serial order. The Court, however, did not view this as sufficient basis to set aside the exam results, observing that exam candidates were only entitled to be informed of the exam's syllabus, not the examination pattern.“In the opinion of this Court, there was no need to notify the pattern of examination and they had the right to know the syllabus 'only.' The pattern of the Main examination and the questions to be asked in that examination are within the exclusive domain of the examination conducting body. The instructions were laid down in the Question-Answer Booklet and the petitioners should have read them over carefully before proceeding to write answers,” the Court held..The case concerned the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination 2023 conducted by the CGPSC last year to fill 49 posts in the State Judiciary.The controversy began after the CGPSC declared the Main Examination results in October 2024, shortlisting 151 candidates for the Viva-Voce. Several candidates, including the petitioners, discovered that their answer sheets were excluded from evaluation. The CGPSC cited the failure to comply with an instruction requiring answers to be written sequentially in designated spaces as the reason for this exclusion.Aggrieved by the exclusion of their answer sheets and the lack of clarity regarding the new examination pattern, the petitioners approached the High Court.They contended that the CGPSC's actions were arbitrary and contrary to established principles of transparency and fairness in the recruitment process.They further argued that the sudden imposition of a serial order for answering questions was arbitrary and amounted to a "change in the rules of the game" midway through the recruitment process..Eligibility criteria for government jobs cannot be changed midway during recruitment: Supreme Court.The State authorities rebutted these claims, contending that candidates were provided detailed instructions in the Question-cum-Answer Booklet. It argued that there was no deviation from established rules, as the examination process was conducted in accordance with prescribed norms. .After considering the rival contentions, the Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the rules of recruitment were altered midway. The Court held that the pattern of evaluation was within the discretion of the CGPSC and aligned with the original advertisement. “The ultimate object of the selection process is to secure the most suitable candidates and CGPSC succeeded in it. The candidates, who could not answer the questions in proper space, cannot be treated as suitable persons for the post of Civil Judge,” the Court added..The Court further observed that the instructions to answer in a serial order were explicitly provided in the Question-cum-Answer Booklet. The candidates had an obligation to read and follow these instructions and cannot shift blame to the authorities, the Court said. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions and held that the CGPSC’s actions were lawful and in line with established procedures..Advocates Nupoor Sonkar, Harsh Dave, Anand Dadariya, Siddhant Das and Ishan Verma appeared for various petitioners. Government Advocate Dilman Rati Minj represented the State. Advocates Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Ashish Tiwari, Prasoon Kumar Bhaduri, Manoj Paranjpe, and Shashwat Mishra represented the High Court (administrative side).Advocate Dr. Sudeep Agrawal appeared for the CGPSC..[Read order]