The Chhattisgarh High Court recently rejected a series of petitions that contested the results announced by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination, 2023.

In doing so, Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey dismissed the argument that candidates were not adequately informed in advance about the requirement to answer questions in a specific serial order for the main exam.

The petitioners contended that this oversight caused confusion during the exam and resulted in their answer sheets not being evaluated as they failed to follow the prescribed serial order.

However, the Court disagreed, stating that this was not a valid reason to annul the exam results. It emphasized that candidates are only entitled to be informed about the exam syllabus, not the specific pattern of the examination.

“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 involved the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination 2023 conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) to fill 49 positions in the State Judiciary. The controversy arose after the CGPSC declared the results of the Main Examination in October 2024, shortlisting 151 candidates for the Viva-Voce. Several candidates, including the petitioners, found that their answer sheets were excluded from evaluation. The CGPSC cited non-compliance with an instruction requiring answers to be written in a sequential order in designated spaces as the reason for the exclusion.

Dissatisfied with the exclusion of their answer sheets and the lack of clarity surrounding the new examination pattern, the petitioners approached the High Court. They argued that the CGPSC's actions were arbitrary and violated established principles of transparency and fairness in the recruitment process. Additionally, they contended that the sudden imposition of a serial order for answering questions was unjustified and represented a "change in the rules of the game" midway through the recruitment process.

The State authorities countered these claims, asserting that candidates were provided with detailed instructions in the Question-cum-Answer Booklet. They maintained that there was no deviation from the established rules, as the examination process was carried out in accordance with the prescribed norms.

After reviewing the opposing arguments, the Court rejected the petitioners' claim that the rules of recruitment were changed midway. The Court ruled that the evaluation pattern was within the discretion of the CGPSC and was consistent with the original advertisement.