In a recent judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected a writ appeal filed by a candidate challenging the evaluation of his skill test for the post of Stenographer. The Court held that the deduction of one mark for typing a word that was not dictated was legally justified.
The case arose when Shubham Sinha, the appellant, filed a writ appeal (WA No. 217 of 2025) against the dismissal of his earlier writ petition (WPS No. 506 of 2024). He had secured 86 marks in the stenographer skill test, while the last selected candidates had scored 87. He argued that only 13 mistakes were committed, but due to an error in evaluation, he was wrongly penalized for 14 mistakes.
Read also: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses PIL Over Malhar Mahotsav Funding, Cites Private Agenda
The appellant also claimed that in another candidate’s evaluation, one mark was deducted for a similar mistake, while two marks were deducted in his case for the same type of error. He alleged this differential treatment violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Constitution.
Further, he referred to Rule 12(2) of the C.G. High Court Service Rules, 2017, which gives preference to the older candidate in case of a tie. He claimed that had his marks been correctly calculated, he would’ve outranked the younger candidates who were finally selected.
Read also: Last Seen Theory Needs Corroboration: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Rape-Murder Case
However, the Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, observed:
“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... the allotment of marks is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court.”
The Court further emphasized:
“No discrimination has been done and a uniform system of marking was adopted. Evaluation of answer sheets is the subject matter of experts, and unless a cogent reason is shown, the Court does not interfere.”
Thus, finding no illegality or procedural flaw in the evaluation or the Single Judge’s decision, the division bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the original judgment.
The High Court concluded that the candidate’s evaluation was fair and as per the set guidelines. Hence, the writ appeal lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed with no costs.
Case Title: Shubham Sinha v. The Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh
