it is quite vivid that the petitioners have demonstrably failed to make out a ground for quashment of examination which had taken place long back and there is no evident reason for interfering with the examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh PSC, as the examination has been conducted in fair and transparent manner except some challenge mounted by the petitioners which has been considered and rejected by this Court in the earlier paragraphs.
_____________________________________
1. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short ‘the Chhattisgarh PSC’), the respondent herein, advertised the post of Assistant Director (Public Instructions) in advertisement dated 11-6-2014 and the posts of Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar in advertisement dated 25-6-2014 inviting applications for the said posts in the Department of Public Instructions and the Department of Higher Education, respectively, prescribing syllabus for the same. Written examination was conducted jointly for all the posts on 12-10-2014. The Chhattisgarh PSC published model answers of both the papers i.e. General Studies and Aptitude Test inviting objections vide notification dated 25-10-2014 and last date for submission of objections was 20-11-2014. The petitioners submitted their objections relating to question Nos.116 to 130 stating that such questions are outside the syllabus and are not included in the Aptitude Test prescribed in the syllabus and, therefore, appropriate action be taken for deletion and award of bonus marks. The Chhattisgarh PSC immediately constituted an expert committee consisting of three members for consideration of those objections raised by the petitioners including other candidates and by the said committee of subject experts, the questions were held to be within the syllabus prescribed. Accordingly, the Chhattisgarh PSC turned down their objections and published notification on 19-2-2015. Thereafter, result of the examination was declared on 7-4-2015. The writ petitions were filed on or after 15-4-2015 challenging the result of examination and seeking bonus marks for disputed questions, for conducting fresh examinations and setting aside the examination already held. In the meanwhile, interview for the post of Assistant Director was concluded.
2. In this batch of writ petitions, it has been stated that within the meaning of Aptitude Test second paper, question Nos.116 to 130 asked were out of syllabus as they are relating to English language / grammar. The petitioners’ case is that knowledge of English language is not prescribed in the syllabus as mentioned in Schedule-II appended to the advertisement, therefore, above-stated fifteen questions could not have been asked under the said language and as such, appropriate reliefs be granted, granting bonus marking or directing the Chhattisgarh PSC to hold fresh examinations for the said posts cancelling the examination held for those posts.
3. The Chhattisgarh PSC has filed its return stating inter alia that the said questions are well within the four corners of syllabus prescribed since these questions fall within the purview of “Interpersonal skills including communication skills” which is prescribed in serial No.1 of the syllabus prescribed for Aptitude Test. It has further been averred that objections regarding questions being out of syllabus were placed before the expert committee duly constituted for that purpose. The expert committee of subject concluded that aforementioned questions are as per the prescribed syllabus and as such, those are within the syllabus prescribed for Aptitude Test. The Chhattisgarh PSC has also placed the syllabus of different Universities to substantiate the fact that in the syllabus prescribed by various Universities also the question paper of “Communication Skill” consists the questions in English language. Therefore, it has been submitted that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed, as such objections by unsuccessful candidates are based on afterthought.
4. Rejoinders have been filed opposing the returns.
5. Opening the arguments in this batch of writ petitions, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in W.P.(S)No.1329/2015 (Prem Prakash Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and W.P.(S) No.2242/2015 (Rajesh Kumar Shukla v. State of Chhattigarh and others), would submit that question Nos.116 to 130 were out and out from the syllabus prescribed for Aptitude Test. Interpersonal skills means the way to communicate one’s expression to others and complicated questions were asked in shape of question Nos.116 to 130 which cannot be said to be included within the prescribed syllabus of “Interpersonal skills and Communication skills”. He would further submit that the petitioners were very well prepared for the matters prescribed in the syllabus under the head “Aptitude Test”. Since in the prescribed syllabus, intensive knowledge of English language was not prescribed, therefore, they were not well prepared for the questions relating to English language / English grammar and, therefore, the Chhattisgarh PSC is absolutely unjustified in holding that the questions were not out of syllabus and as such, the petitioners are entitled for bonus marks against question Nos.116 to 130 or in alternative, fresh examinations be directed to be held for above-stated posts.
6. Mr. U.R. Koshaley and Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in W.P.(S) No. 2042/2015 (Praveen Kumar Lata v. State of Chhattisgarh and another) and W.P.(S)No.1494/2015 (Rajesh Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh and another), would also vehemently submit that questions Nos.116 to 130 were out of syllabus and were never included in the syllabus, therefore, their petitioners were also not prepared to answer those questions as such, that has seriously prejudiced their result in the examination and, therefore, the examination held for the said posts be set aside and fresh examination be directed to be held for the said posts, and the writ petitions be allowed.
7. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh and Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in W.P.(S) No. 1733/2015 (Deepak Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh and another), would submit that model answers of question Nos. 81, 108 & 119 were wrong model answers, though objections were raised, but same were rejected without any basis which is per se illegal and bad in law and, therefore, result of the examination already declared be set aside and fresh examination be directed to be held for the said posts, and the writ petition be allowed.
8. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the interveners, who are selected candidates, in W.P.(S) Nos. 1494/2015 and 2042/2015, would submit that the expert committee has already held question Nos.116 to 130 to be within the prescribed syllabus, but no writ has been sought seeking quashment of the report of the expert committee and decision of the Chhattisgarh PSC accepting report of the expert committee and turning down their objections as such, the writ petitions framed and filed without seeking quashment of the decision of the Chhattisgarh PSC accepting the report of the expert committee, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Elaborating his submission, he would further submit that the petitioners after having appeared in the examination and having been declared unsuccessful, by way of writ petitions are challenging the vagueness in the syllabus stating that English language and grammar are not included in the syllabus as the syllabus is absolutely vague. He would also submit that vagueness in the syllabus, if any, cannot be challenged by the petitioners after having appeared in the examination and having been declared unsuccessful in the said examination. He would also submit that the syllabus is absolutely clear, unambiguous and specific and the syllabus of examination prescribed cannot be read like a statute and it has to be construed liberally. He would lastly submit that the interveners are selected candidates and have already appeared in the interview, and such challenge suffers from delay and laches, the interveners have also not been imp-leaded as party respondents and they are bound to suffer by the outcome of writ petitions, and therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
9. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, would also oppose the writ petitions and would submit that the questions asked particularly, question Nos. 116 to 130 clearly relate to syllabus within the meaning of “Interpersonal skills and Communication skills” and clearly include the knowledge of General English. He would further submit that in competitive test, there are bound to be some difficult questions to test the merit of candidates, but it was faced by all the candidates, it cannot be held that such questions could not have been asked, as the posts advertised were of the Director, Public Instructions and Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar of a University, which are key posts under the Department of Higher Education of the State Government. Mr. Wankhede would also submit that by virtue of Section 16 of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, the Registrar shall be a whole time salaried officer of the University and shall discharge his duties under the Act and he shall act as the Secretary of the Court, of the Executive Council, of the Academic Council and of the Academic Planning and Evaluation Board. Therefore, looking to the key post which a Registrar is supposed to occupy important position in a University, the knowledge of English is a must and it cannot be held that the questions were out of the syllabus. In the circumstances, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed with cost.
10. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh PSC, would submit that the objections received pursuant to the notification of the model answers were placed for consideration before the expert committee of the subject, duly constituted by the Chhattisgarh PSC for consideration of objections and the expert committee after due examination has submitted its report which has been filed as Annexure R- 2/1 which would show that all the questions No.116 to 130, as per the expert committee report, were found as within the prescribed syllabus. He would further submit that in respect of question No.146 (set one), it was found incorrect and that question was deleted and marks of that question was equally distributed among other questions which is apparent from Annexure R-2/2. Question Nos.116 to 130 come within the syllabus of Aptitude Test Class-I i.e. interpersonal skills including communication skills. Elaborating his submissions, he would also submit that the advertised posts of Assistant Director (Public Instructions), Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar are gazetted posts and it is expected from the candidates claiming aforesaid posts to have good communication skills and interpersonal skills. He would also submit that in the syllabus prescribed by Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Communication Skills has been prescribed as one of the Course Titles divided in two Chapters, wherein Chapter-2 provides for Applied Grammar which includes Basic Sentence Pattern, Infinitives, Narration, Common Errors, Modifiers and Paragraph Writing. He would also submit that Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has also prescribed one year course in which Communication Skills is taught there and in which Written Communication – Unit III includes Applied Grammar. Similarly, R.T.M. Nagpur University, Nagpur has also prescribed knowledge of Applied Grammar in Communication Skill. Mr. Sharma referring to the definition of Communication Skills given by Chip Rose (Annexure R-2/4, page 114), supports that questions No. 116 to 130 were within the prescribed syllabus. He would also submit that the scope of interference in the decision of experts who have already held the questions to be within the prescribed syllabus duly accepted by the Chhattisgarh PSC, has not been challenged in this batch of writ petitions and, therefore, that has become final and same cannot be quashed in absence of challenge to it and writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
11. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(S)No.1733/2015, in rejoinder would submit that model answers to questions No.81, 108 & 119 are incorrect to which Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the Chhattisgarh PSC, would submit that they were referred to the expert committee of the subject and they found the model answers to be correct answers.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given anxious consideration to the submissions raised therein and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.
13. In order to resolve the controversy involved herein, following factual matrix in nutshell is required to be noticed herein:-
14.The Chhattisgarh PSC issued two advertisements dated 11-6- 2014 and 25-6-2014 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Director (Public Instructions) in the Department of Public Instructions and Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar in the Department of Higher Education, respectively. Number of posts advertised / notified are as under: –
