Marks Deducted For Typing Words Not Dictated: Chattisgarh HC Rejects Candidate's Plea Alleging Wrong Calculation In Stenographer's Test

A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held,

“From perusal of the answer sheet of the appellant, it is quite vivid that the appellant has typed the word which was not dictated by the examiner, therefore, one mark was deducted for this and 13 marks have been deducted for other 13 mistakes committed by the appellant, accordingly 14 marks have been deducted, as such he was given 86 marks and the same procedure has been followed for each and every candidate, therefore, no discrimination has been done and a uniform system of marking was adopted, moreover, the allotment of marks is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court, as such the appellant cannot claim that he was discriminated or a wrong procedure has been adopted to deprive the petitioner from being selected.”

Background

The Court was dealing with a writ appeal filed under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, against an order of a Single Judge (impugned order), dated 22.01.2025, dismissing a writ petition (WPS No. 506 of 2024) filed by the appellant challenging his non-selection for the post of Stenographer in the High Court.

The appellant had appeared for the selection process pursuant to the High Court of Chhattisgarh issuing an advertisement for appointment to the post of Stenographer. After qualifying Phase-I, the appellant appeared for the skill test and secured 86 marks. The marks of the last selected candidates (Respondents 3 and 4) were 87, and the appellant, aggrieved by his non selection, filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the Single Judge vide the impugned order. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ appeal.

It was the case of the appellant that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as the dictation test paper of the appellant would clearly show that only 13 mistakes were committed, however, the counting was made for 14 mistakes, which entitled the appellant to a total of 87 marks. Further, the appellant contended the impugned order failed to appreciate that in the dictation paper done by another candidate, the respondent authorities had deducted 1 mark for one mistake and for the same mistake 2 marks were deducted from the marks of the appellant, and the examiner who evaluated the answer sheet of the appellant and the other candidate was the same. This, the appellant contended, was in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Constitution. The appellant further urged that had her marks been correctly calculated, she would have been given preference over Respondents 3 and 4 who were younger than her as per Rule 12(2) of the C.G. High Court Service (Appointment, Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules of 2017, which provide that, in case of two or more members placed at the same position in the merit list, the person senior in age shall be given priority. Lastly, the appellant claimed that while appointment is not a right, fair consideration of candidature in the process of appointment was held to be a fundamental right by the Supreme Court and hence, the case warranted interference by the High Court.

Contrary to this, the respondents argued that as per scheme of evaluation, one mark was to be deducted for each mistake and also for insertion of unwanted word/s which were not dictated. The respondents contended that one mark was deducted extra as the appellant had typed a word which was not dictated by the examiner.

The Court held that no discrimination had occurred, nor any wrong procedure was adopted and the answer sheet of the appellant was rightly evaluated. The one mark was deducted on account of the appellant typing a word which was not dictated by the examiner. Even otherwise, the Court noted that evaluation of answer sheet is subject matter of experts wherein the interference by the Court is extremely limited, unless a cogent reason is assigned– which was not available in the present case.

Thus, the Court found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Shubham Sinha v. The Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh

Click Here To Read/Download Order