Page 1 of 15

2026:CGHC:82

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Reserved on : 29.10.2025

Delivered on : 02.01.2026

WPS No. 10365 of 2025

Ashish Tiwari S/o Late Yogendra Tiwari Aged About 37 Years R/o Harihar

Niwas, Tiwari Building Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G.

--- Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural

Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan New Raipur C.G.

2 - Additional Development Commissiosner, Development Commissioner

Office, Vikas Bhavan, Fourth Floor Sector 19 North Block New Raipur Atal

Nagar Raipur C.G.

3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through

Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block Sector 19 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar

District Raipur C.G.

--- Respondents

WPS No. 11459 of 2025

1 - Gajendra Tiwari S/o Shri Lokeshwar Tiwari Aged About 34 Years R/o

Ward No. 6, Baniya Para, Ratanpur (Np) District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

2 - Om Prakash S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward

No. 8, Vtc Beldar Seoni Post Beldar Seoni Tilda District - Raipur (C.G.)

---Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural

Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur

District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Development Commissioner Panchayat And Rural Development

Department Vikas Bhawan, Fourth Floor, Sector- 19, North Block Atal Nagar,

Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur Through Its

Secretary, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava

Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

--- Respondents

WPS No. 11358 of 2025

Priyanshu Dani S/o Ganesh Dani Aged About 25 Years R/o

Kewatpara,kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)

---Petitioner

Page 2 of 15

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural

Development, Department Mantaralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur

(C.G.)

2 - Additional Development Commissioner Development Commissioner

Office Vikas Bhavan, Fourth Floor Sector 19 North Block New Raipur Atal

Nagar Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through,

Secretary Vyapam Bhavan, North Block- Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar

District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

WPS No. 11143 of 2025

Prakash Kumar Yadu S/o Shri Chinta Ram Yadu Aged About 33 Years R/o-

Ram Sagar Ward Bhatapara, District- Baloda-Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

---Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural

Development Department, Mantralaya Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Naya

Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Controller Of

Examination, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Section-19, Naya Raipur, Atal

Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)

--- Respondents

WPS No. 11090 of 2025

Saurabh S/o Malechchh Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o 40, Gautiyamahulla,

Temar Post- Temar, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural

Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal

Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Commissioner Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Raipur,

District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (C.G.V.Y.A.P.A.M.) Through

Secretary Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19 Atal Nagar New Raipur,

District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4 - Examination Of Controller Through Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha

Mandal (C.G.V.Y.A.P.A.M.) Through Secretary Vyapam Bhawan, North Block,

Sector- 19 Atal Nagar New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

and

WPS No. 10579 of 2025

1 - Kirti Vishvakarma D/o Ram Avtar Vishvakarma Aged About 31 Years R/o

Phase 2 Sainath Colony, Kota, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Pallavi Nayak D/o Labour Nayak Aged About 27 Years R/o Kishanpur,

Pithora, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

3 - Satyam Kumar S/o Jeewan Lal Aged About 33 Years R/o Siddhivinayak

Colony, Boriya Khurd, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Page 3 of 15

4 - Sudhir Kumar Sahu S/o Vijay Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village

Bodla, Post - Bodla, Tehsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

5 - Nitish Kashyap S/o Ramchandra Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o

Village Pand, Post, Saida, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

6 - Deepak Panda S/o Vishwajeet Panda Aged About 32 Years R/o Village

Bhuiyapani, Post Katakliya, Tehsil Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural

Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal

Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Commissioner Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Joint Controller,

Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, District

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

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.

Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

CAV ORDER

1.Since an identical issue and common question of facts are involved in

all the writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being decided

by this common order.

2.In pursuance of direction given by this Court, Dr. Himanshu Agrawal,

Controller and Mr. Kedar Nath Patel, Joint Director, CG VYAPAM

alongwith team of experts of subjects constituted by the Chhattisgarh

Professional Examination Board have appeared in person before this

Court to assist this Court for analyzing the controversy raised

regarding correctness of answers.

3.The petitioners have preferred these bunch of writ petitions

Page 4 of 15

challenging the selection list dated 15.06.2025 published in pursuance

of the advertisement dated 02.04.2025 issued by the Chhattisgarh

Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (for short “CGVYAPAM”) for appointment

on the post of Assistant Development Extension Officer (for short

“ADEO”) in the Panchayat Department.

4.The brief facts as reflected from records are that the respondent/

CGVYAPAM has issued an advertisement on 02.04.2025 for

appointment of 200 posts of Assistant Development Extension Officer

(for short “the ADEO”) for the Panchayat Department. The petitioners

being qualified as having requisite qualification have applied for the

said post and appeared in the examination held on 15.06.2025. The

respondent/ CGVYAPAM published model answer key on 25.06.2025

and called objections on model answers from the candidates through

online portal only. According to the petitioners, they raised objection

regarding various questions which were not rectified and final answer

key was released by the respondent/ CGVYAPAM on 14.08.2025. The

grievances of the petitioners are that the respondent/ CGVYAPAM

while releasing the final answer key has neglected the correct method

of deleting the question whereby several questions which ought not to

have been deleted, have been deleted and left some questions which

ought to have been deleted. It is also case of the petitioners that the

respondent authorities have given wrong answers to few questions

which have caused prejudice to the petitioners as their marks and

ranking have been down graded depriving them from selection on the

post for which advertisement has been issued. Hence, these petitions

have been filed by the petitioners challenging the correctness of the

questions in each cases. The details of questions wherein the

Page 5 of 15

petitioners have raised objection regarding correctness of the answers

and also prayed for deleting the question and for granting bonus

marks in the writ petitions are given in tabulation form as under:-

S.No. Case No. Question No.

1WPS No. 10365/2025(Set- C) 31, 33, 37, 62, 79, 86

2WPS No. 11358/2025(Set- C) 32, 37, 43, 48, 55, 58, 62

3WPS No. 10579/2025(Set- A) 7, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 41, 42,

43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 54, 62, 63, 64, 65,

67, 69, 77, 82, 83, 87, 89

4WPS No. 11090/2025(Set- D)16, 45, 49, 57, 84

5WPS No. 11143/2025(Set- D) 33, 45, 73, 76, 84

6WPS No. 11459/2025(Set- B) 23, 45, 66, 85

(Set- C) 31, 43, 55, 75

5.Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents

have committed illegality in deleting several correct questions and not

allotting 1 bonus mark to all the candidates for these illegal and

incorrect deletion. It has also been contended that the

respondent/CGVYAPAM has committed illegality in not deleting

several incorrect questions which should have been deleted by them

and for that they should have granted one bonus mark for each

questions as per the exam instructions clause 12 given in the exams

rules and advertisement. It has also been contended that all the

candidates have been given bonus marks whether they have

attempted the question or not which has adversely affected the merit

position of the candidates, as such the mode of granting bonus marks

to all the candidates irrespective their attempts are illegal, as such the

entire merit list is required to be re-arranged after deleting the bonus

marks to the candidates who have not attempted the questions. It has

Page 6 of 15

also been contended that answers to some of the questions have

been modified while releasing the final answer key, which is incorrect

procedure followed by the respondent/ CGVYAPAM, therefore, the

respondent has incorrectly and illegally released the combined merit

list based on evaluation done by adopting wrong method of

evaluations of question and answers. They would further submit that

Hon’ble the Division Bench of this Court in case of Srishti Sharma Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh & Others [WA No. 394/2024 (decided on

27.06.2024)] has directed to constitute an expert committee

comprising the expert members of the subject other than ones who

were members in the earlier expert committee and thus they would

pray for allowing the instant writ petitions and would also pray for

constituting again body of expert, reassessing the objection raised by

the petitioners and also reconstitution of combined selection list.

6.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ CGVYAPAM

opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners

would submit that after conducting the examination, they published

model answers and called for objections in their online portal and they

placed the objection raised by the candidates regarding questions

before the team of expert and final answer keys were published. He

would further submit that the instant petitions are not maintainable and

are liable to be dismissed out-rightly as they have followed the

Examination Directions meticulously at every stage of examination i.e.

at the time of applying online application, corrections, negative

marking, objections, results etc. and they have conducted the

examination as per the guideline namely Pariksha Nirdesh issued for

the examination which are step-by-step guidelines for conducting the

Page 7 of 15

examination. It has also been conducted that the respondent has

ensured that all such directions of Pariksha Nirdesh will be complied

strictly, as such, there is no illegality on their part. It has also been

contended that the Pariksha Nirdesh is binding upon the candidates as

well as the respondent/ CGVYAPAM which has been followed by them

strictly. He would further submit that the marks have been allotted for

deleted question strictly in accordance with the calculation mentioned

in the Pariksha Nirdesh and no pre-judice has been caused to any

candidate.

7.He would further submit that examination was conducted on

15.06.2025 and the model answers were published on 25.06.2025 and

the candidates were at liberty to file their objections till 30.06.2025 to

the model answers along with their supportive documents. He would

further submit that each objection filed by candidates in the online

portal of respondent assailing the model answers were placed before

the team of subject expert for their opinion and after receiving reports

from the experts, the final answer keys were published on 12.08.2025

and as per reports of subject experts, some questions were omitted,

answers of some questions were changed and some objections were

rejected. He would further submit that the marks distribution for

questions omitted or changed answers were uniformly applied for

every candidates and no prejudice has been caused to any candidate.

He would further submit that they have not considered any objection

received after the last date of 30.06.2025 after 3.00 PM or any

objection which was not in online portal and they have considered

2921 objections raised by the candidates. It has also been contended

that they have filed the opinion of the expert alongwith supported

Page 8 of 15

documents in the return filed by them which clearly demonstrates that

they have adopted fair and transparent manner to conduct the

examination, as such it cannot be alleged that it is arbitrary, mala-fide

or unreasonable in any manner.

8.He would further submit that the petitioners have assailed the

questions only because the opinion of the experts does not suit the

petitioners and the result and final answer keys were published on

12.08.2025 only after each and every objection of the candidates

regarding model answers were considered by the subject expert,

including objections of the petitioners and no objection on final Answer

keys were considered as the same was not permissible in the

Pariksha Nirdesh and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. To

substantiate his submission he has referred to the judgments passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [(2018) 2 SCC 357], Uttar Pradesh

Public Service Commission through its Chairman & Another Vs.

Rahul Singh & Another [(2018) 7 SCC 254] as well as judgments of

Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Chhattisgarh Professional

Examination Board through its Controller Vs. Vikram Singh Rana

[2020 SCC Online Chh 2185] & Umang Gouraha & Ors. Vs. State

of Chhattisgarh & Ors [Writ Appeal 165/2020 (decided on

10.12.2021)].

9.I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

10.On above factual foundation and legal submissions made by the

respective counsel for the petitioners and respondents, following Point

Page 9 of 15

emerged for determination of this Court is :-

“Whether this Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India can interfere with the answer key and the

report submitted by the committee of the experts on the subject

or can revaluate the answer” ?

11.This Court has called upon the experts of the subject also at the time

hearing and the respondent/ CGVYAPAM has also placed on record

the report given by the experts on all the questions in which the

objections were raised. This Court has briefly gone through the report

given by the expert in few questions though the respondents in their

return has annexed the report and the documents/study material to

substantiate their opinion with regard to all the questions which either

deleted or answer of the question issued them to be correct, rejecting

the objections of the candidates. However, this Court is extracting the

opinion of the expert with regard to few of the questions.

12.For example- the expert while deleting question No. 31 (SET-C) which

is in Sr. No. 20, 35 & 16 in SET-A, B & C respectively has given the

reason that in Hindi, the answer D was found to be correct and in

English, answer C & D were found correct accordingly, it has been

recommended to delete this question and to substantiate, they have

referred to the report of Economical Survey 2024-25 issued by the

Economic and Statical Directorate, Government of Chhattisgarh.

13.So far as rejecting the objection of the candidates in Question No. 55

in SET- C which is in Sr. No. 46, 45 & 48 in SET- A, B & D respectively,

the experts have taken into consideration the report dated 08.12.2022

of National Agriculture Rural Development Bank published in Regional

Page 10 of 15

Disparities in Institutional Credit to Agriculture in India,

accordingly, they have recorded their opinion that the model answer C

is correct issued by the respondent/ CGVYAPAM. The respondents

have also annexed report of Regional Disparities in Institutional Credit

to Agriculture in India. This cannot be disputed by the petitioners

without any cogent material placed on record.

14.The experts while deleting question No. 70 (SET-C) which is at Sr. 69,

59 & 58 in SET- A, B & D have given the reason for deleting the same

that option A & D both are correct in SET-C. For deciding the said

question, they have taken into consideration Section 17, 29, 25 & 32 of

the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Similarly for

deciding question No. 81 (SET-C) which is at Sr. No. 82, 86 & 75 in

SET-A, B & D respectively which has been deleted while taking into

consideration the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. Thus,

it is quite vivid that the experts have taken into consideration material

and report of the experts, after deliberation on it, they have either

deleted answer or rejected the objection raised by the petitioners. As

such, it is quite vivid that the experts have given their opinion based

upon the relevant material having foundation which cannot be diluted

or ignored by this Court so lightly unless cogent material is placed on

record to rebut the same by the petitioners. The documents annexed

by the respondent/ CGVYAPAM would reveal that they have

considered 2921 objections, thus, the objections raised by the

candidates have been decided by them. Even otherwise, it is well

settled position of law that the Court should not interfere on the opinion

or report of the expert unless suffers from acute malafide,

arbitrariness, illegality which is not available in the present case. Even

Page 11 of 15

the candidates have not been able to substantiate that how their

position has been down-graded by allotting bonus marks to all

candidates uniformly irrespective of the fact that the candidate has

attempted the question or not as no better particulars of any

candidates who have been placed above the petitioners on the count

of bonus marks granted by the respondent/ CGVYAPAM.

15.Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service

Commission through its Chairman & another Vs. Rahul Singh &

another [(2018) 7 SCC 254] has examined the scope of judicial

review with regard to the answers and also held that the burden lies

upon the candidates to dislodge the opinion of the experts and has

held in paragraphs 12 to 16 as under:-

“12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to

not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also

that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no

inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key

answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great

restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a

plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur

University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of -

(1) moderation;

(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;

(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions

and no marks be assigned to such questions.

13. As far as the present case is concerned even before

publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got

the key answers moderated by two expert committees.

Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee

was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise

the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in

2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that

these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for

which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the

role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate

demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the

Page 12 of 15

face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh

the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and

then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better

or more correct.

14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a

long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed

that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain

text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court

must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not

and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must

exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction

to upset the opinion of the experts.

15. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view

that the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the

directions which amounted to setting aside the decision of

experts in the field. As far as the objection of the appellant -

Rahul Singh is concerned, after going through the question on

which he raised an objection, we ourselves are of the prima

facie view that the answer given by the Commission is correct.

16. In view of the above discussion we allow the appeal filed by

the U.P. Public Service Commission and set aside the judgment

of the Allahabad High Court. The appeals filed by Rahul Singh

and Jay Bux Singh and Others are dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.”

16.Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta &

another Vs. State of Rajasthan & others [(2021) 2 SCC 309] has

examined the scope of judicial review with regard to the correction of

final key answer uploaded by the State Public Service Commission

and has held in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 as under:-

“15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-

evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh &

Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.3 held that court should not

re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it

has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are

best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further

held as follows:

“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

Page 13 of 15

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.”

16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not

open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of

the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion

different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated

12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal &

Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. 4 In the

said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process

only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did

not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by

itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for

Page 14 of 15

adjudication of the dispute in this case.

17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that

courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in

academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by

the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible.

The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is

mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections

pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect

of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed

on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other

consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public

posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to

lack of sufficient personnel.”

17.Considering the facts of the case and also considering that the

respondent/ CGVYAPAM before issuance of final answer sheet has

called upon the objections which are in 2921 and thereafter an expert

committee was constituted which has given its finding as evident from

the documents annexed with the return. The record of the case would

further demonstrate that the petitioners are unable to dilute the

recommendation given by the expert by placing strong permissible

material though the burden lies upon them only. Thus, the final

selection list based upon the model answer which has been prepared

on the opinion of the expert of the subject and the petitioners are also

unable to demonstrate that the similar treatment has not been granted

to all the candidates strictly as per the Pariksha Nirdesh and also

considering the legal position that the High Court’s interference in the

fields of expert, is very limited, this Court is of the view that no case for

interference is made out. So far as the judgment referred by the

petitioners in case of Srishti Sharma (supra) is concerned, the same

is not applicable to the present facts of the case as the petitioners are

unable to raise any question with regard to credential of the experts so

appointed by the respondents and even the petitioners are unable to

Page 15 of 15

dislodge the opinion of the expert though the burden heavily lies upon

them. Thus, the Point determined by this Court in answered against

the petitioners.

18.Accordingly, the bunch of writ petitions being devoid of merit are liable

to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge

Bhumika / Arun