Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the payment of ₹50,000 in compensation to a candidate who discovered that four pages were missing from his answer sheet in the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) State Service Main Examination. Justice P.P. Sahu, sitting singly, ordered the concerned examiner and official to pay the compensation within three months, taking note of the Commission’s failure to inform the candidate promptly and complete the inquiry into the incident.
The case concerns Narayan Dutt, a resident of Bilaspur, who applied for the State Service Examination pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2018. After clearing the preliminary examination, he appeared for the main examination but was not selected. Subsequently, he obtained a copy of his answer sheet under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and discovered that pages 17 to 20 of the General Studies-V paper were missing. These four pages contained his answers to Questions 9 to 12, carrying a total of 30 marks.
During the hearing, the High Court noted that the missing pages had come to the Commission’s attention during the evaluation process itself. The answer sheet reportedly bore signs indicating that the pages had been torn out. Despite this, the candidate was not informed in a timely manner, and the inquiry to identify the person responsible remained incomplete.
The petitioner argued that the Commission’s negligence had caused him mental distress and forced him to pursue legal proceedings to seek justice. He had sought compensation of ₹50 lakh for the hardship and expenses incurred in pursuing the matter.
The CGPSC opposed the claim, submitting that the last selected candidate in the unreserved category had secured 737.5 marks, whereas Narayan Dutt had obtained 695.5 marks. According to the Commission, even if the candidate had received the maximum 30 marks for the missing pages, his total would still have remained below the marks secured by the last selected candidate. The Commission also argued that the candidate had signed a satisfaction certificate after inspecting the answer sheet and had not raised an objection at that stage.
The High Court accepted that even the addition of the maximum 30 marks would not have enabled the petitioner to reach the selection threshold. Accordingly, it found no basis for directing that he be allowed to participate in the interview process.
However, the Court considered the Commission’s failure to take effective and timely action despite discovering the missing pages. Taking into account the inconvenience caused to the candidate, along with the expenses incurred in obtaining the answer sheet and pursuing litigation, the Court directed the concerned examiner and official to pay a total compensation of ₹50,000 within three months.
The High Court subsequently disposed of the petition. The decision highlights the importance of accountability, transparency in examination procedures, proper preservation of answer sheets, and timely action by public recruitment agencies when irregularities are detected.
