ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased directed to the respondents R/2 & R/3 the C.G.P.S.C. [state services] Exam 2011, to produce entire record related to the petitioner's petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased directed R/2 & R/3 to correctly valuate on the basis of the Authentic Books/Answers for the BOTANY 1st and 2nd Question paper, Annexure P/3 and P/4 of the P.S.C. Mains Examination Year 2011. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased directed R/2 & R/3 to correctly valuate on the basis of the Authentic Books/Answers for the BOTANY 1st and 2nd Question paper, Annexure P/3 and P/4 of the P.S.C. Mains Examination Year 2011 arid on this basis recalculate the total marks of the petitioner, than allotted the Actual Rank in the final merit List/selection list for the post of Deputy Collector. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased directed R/2 & R/3, for correct valuation send the record to expert of the Botany Subject and they decide, on the basis of authentic Books/Answers for the BOTANY 1st and 2nd Question paper Annexure P/3 and P/4 of the P.S.C. Mains Examination Year 2011. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased directed R/1 to passed the suitable, appointment order as per the petitioner's actual Rank in the final merit List/selection List [after due consideration] for the post of Deputy Collector. 10.6 Any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioner's, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case. 10.7 Cost of the petition may also be imposed on the respondents.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent No.2 on 28.12.2011 for the post of Deputy Collector. 10.7 Cost of the petition may also be imposed on the respondents.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent No.2 on 28.12.2011 for the post of Deputy Collector. The petitioner applied for the same and successfully cleared Pre and Mains Examinations, but the objections were raised by the petitioner and other candidates regarding Set-B Botany Paper and there being some irregularities found, amended model answers were published and the petitioner was called for interview and thereafter final merit list was published, wherein the petitioner has not been selected for the aforesaid post, upon which he filed representation before the respondent authorities agitating his grievance that answer sheets have not been evaluated correctly, but when nothing was done, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and against Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of the Respondent Authority is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same also violates the State Service Exam Rules, 2008. The petitioner and candidates had also raised the objection before the respondent-PSC but nothing has been done, whereas the respondent-PSC itself corrected some answers and questions by admitting its fault but the same has not been done in the petitioner’s case. It is further submitted that the respondent-PSC has not considered many oral and written objections and it ought to have considered the case of the petitioner and should have awarded extra 8 marks to the petitioner for total 4 right questions/answers, as such the petitioner would have got 1072.66 marks and would find place at 28th rank in the merit list. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the case of the petitioner be directed to be considered by the Respondent Authorities. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by this Court in the matter of Shivendra Bahadur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., passed in WPS No.751 of 2021 and other connected matters, decided on 01.02.2023 and in the matter of Dr. Suman Singh and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in WPS No.1761 of 2013, order dated 18.07.2023. 4. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by this Court in the matter of Shivendra Bahadur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., passed in WPS No.751 of 2021 and other connected matters, decided on 01.02.2023 and in the matter of Dr. Suman Singh and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in WPS No.1761 of 2013, order dated 18.07.2023. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 strongly opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that before evaluation and preparation of model answers, the respondent-PSC invited objections from the candidates and the model answers were amended by examining the objections raised by the candidates by the subject experts appointed by the respondent-PSC and the amended model answers were prepared only on the basis of the opinion of the subject experts and then only valuation of the answers was made. The process of inviting objections and consideration of the said objections by the subject experts is only to maintain transparency and fairness in the recruitment process. After issuance of model answers, the subject experts considered the objections and issued amended model answers. The petitioner was qualified and was called for interview and he participated in the interview but he did not challenge the correctness of the model answers, but after participation when he was filed in the interview and was not selected as Deputy Collector then only he filed the present writ petition challenging the correctness of the model answers, hence, after participation in the selection process without any objection to the model answers the present writ petition has been filed but the same is not maintainable on the sole ground that the model answers were not challenged earlier and the same attain finality. It is further submitted that the model answers were published on 17.05.2013, objections were invited from 25.05.2013 to 05.06.2013 and after evaluation of the said objections and model questions and answers, the amended model answers were published on 17.09.2013, but the present writ petition has been filed on 04.09.2014 at a belated stage, as such the same is not maintainable. So far as question No. 62 is concerned, the said question was never objected by any candidate and the question Nos. 40, 85 and 109 of set-B were evaluated by the subject experts by considering the objections raised by the candidates. So far as question No. 62 is concerned, the said question was never objected by any candidate and the question Nos. 40, 85 and 109 of set-B were evaluated by the subject experts by considering the objections raised by the candidates. The amended model answers were prepared by the respondent-PSC after considering the objections raised by the candidates and on the basis of the amended model answers, the questions and answers have been evaluated. The answer sheets have also been evaluated on the basis of the amended model answers and on the basis of the opinion of the subject experts, as such there is no mala fide as alleged against the respondent-PSC. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State as well as Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 adopt the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 and jointly submit that since the petitioner has not been able to clear the examination and could not find his place in the merit list for the post of Deputy Collector, as such he has rightly been not considered for the said post. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder along with the documents pertaining to experts opinion of various educational institutions vide Annexures P/21, P/22 & P/23. 8. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner appeared in the PSC examination and he qualified the both Pre and Mains Examinations and thereafter was called for interview and he participated in the interview as well. 9. As per the petitioner, when he was not selected for the post of Deputy Collector, he filed application under RTI before the respondent-PSC and received documents pertaining to Mains and Interview Examinations and has filed the same vide Annexure-P/13, P/14 & P/15, which contain answer sheets of Botany First and Second Paper. 10. It is not disputed that the posts were advertised on 28.12.2011, the examination was conducted on 4th & 5th May, 2013, the model answers were published on 17.05.2013 and objections were invited from 25.05.2013 to 05.06.2013. The interview was conducted on 25.11.2013 and the final merit list was published on 27.11.2013. 10. It is not disputed that the posts were advertised on 28.12.2011, the examination was conducted on 4th & 5th May, 2013, the model answers were published on 17.05.2013 and objections were invited from 25.05.2013 to 05.06.2013. The interview was conducted on 25.11.2013 and the final merit list was published on 27.11.2013. The petitioner secured 40th rank and thereafter petitioner filed representation on 04.06.2014 (Annexure-P/18) before the respondent authorities and thereafter he has filed the present writ petition on 04.09.2014. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 , held in paras 30, 31 and 32 as under:- “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3 The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4 (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse – exclude the suspect or offending question. 32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination – whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.” 12. This Court in the matter of Shivendra Bahadur (supra) held in paras 17 & 18 as under:- “17. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.” 12. This Court in the matter of Shivendra Bahadur (supra) held in paras 17 & 18 as under:- “17. Considering the submission and considering the exercise carried out by the expert committee of the subject the well settled preposition of law that this court cannot at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheet of a candidate, as it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics and this court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumptions, even if there is a doubt the benefit should be given to the examination authority rather than to the candidates. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ranvijay Singh vs. State of U.P., at para 32 has held as under :- “32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination – whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.” 18. Similarly, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 165/2020 has reiterated the same principle, relevant paragraph thereof is extracted below:- “21. As mentioned already, there is no dispute with regard to the course and events insofar as after conducing the examination, the model answers were published by the Board inviting objections from the interested participants. The objections obtained were forwarded and subjected to scrutiny by the Expert Committee. Considering the objections, the Expert Committee found that some questions were liable to be deleted because of the defects either in the questions or the answers and in respect of some other questions, the model answers were noted as required to be corrected. It was on the basis of the said opinion of the Experts that the final answer key was published by the Board, followed by further steps. This clearly shows that the course pursued by the Respondent-Board was quite transparent in all respects and it cannot be held as arbitrary, malafide or unreasonable in any manner.” 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is unambiguous that the petitioner appeared in the examination, he participated in the selection process up to the last and when he could not be selected for the post of Deputy Collector, he filed this writ petition, thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the legal propositions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the selection process at a later stage and the grievance should have been raised at the threshold. 14. 14. The writ petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly.