News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 4
Bilaspur, 02.01.2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has refused to interfere with the final answer key and selection list prepared by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board for the recruitment of Assistant Development Extension Officers (ADEO), bringing clarity to a dispute that had delayed appointments in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department.
A batch of writ petitions was dismissed by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, who held that courts should exercise extreme restraint in academic matters and cannot re-evaluate answer keys unless a clear case of mala fides, arbitrariness, or patent illegality is established. The petitions arose from the ADEO examination conducted on June 15, 2025, pursuant to an advertisement issued in April 2025 for 200 posts.
The petitioners had challenged the final answer key released in August 2025, alleging that several questions were wrongly deleted, some incorrect answers were retained, and bonus marks were improperly awarded to all candidates, including those who had not attempted the disputed questions. According to them, these steps distorted the merit list and adversely affected their chances of selection.
The Court examined the process followed by Vyapam and noted that a model answer key was first published, objections were invited through an online portal, and as many as 2,921 objections were considered by subject experts. After reviewing expert reports supported by official materials such as government surveys, statutory provisions, and authoritative publications, the final answer key was prepared. The Court also interacted with the experts during the hearing to understand the methodology adopted.
Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the High Court reiterated that judges cannot assume the role of academic experts. It emphasised that where expert committees have examined objections and arrived at reasoned conclusions, judicial interference is unwarranted merely because candidates disagree with the outcome. The burden, the Court observed, lies heavily on candidates to demonstrate a glaring and obvious error, which was not done in the present case.
The judgment also addressed the grievance relating to bonus marks, holding that uniform application of marks for deleted questions, in accordance with examination instructions, did not by itself establish prejudice or discrimination. In the absence of concrete material showing unequal treatment, the challenge to the merit list could not be sustained.
With these findings, the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions and upheld the ADEO selection process in its entirety, clearing the way for appointments to proceed after months of uncertainty.
Case Reference : WPS No. 10365 of 2025 (Ashish Tiwari vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others) with WPS No. 11459 of 2025 (Gajendra Tiwari and Another vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others), WPS No. 11358 of 2025 (Priyanshu Dani vs State of Chhattisgarh and Othres), WPS No. 11143 of 2025 (Prakash Kumar Yadu vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another), WPS No. 11090 of 2025 (Saurabh vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others) and WPS No. 10579 of 2025 (Kirti Vishvakarma and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others)
Counsels : For Respective Petitioners : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Mr. Anup Majumdar, Mr. Basant Dewangan, Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap along with Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Advocates. For State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional Advocate General. For C.G. VYAPAM : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande and Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocates.