HC orders state govt to form committe & re-examine the disputed question

Raipur: A controversy has arisen over the model answer for Question No. 85 in Set B of the Supervisor recruitment examination for the Women and Child Development Department in Chhattisgarh. Following arguments in the petition presented on this matter, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput directed the state government to form a new committee of experts to re-examine the model answer for the disputed question.
The question in dispute: The possible passive voice of the given statement is/are "Who starts the pump?" The options given are: Option A: By whom was the pump started? Option B: By who was the pump started? Option C: By whom is the pump started? Option D: By who is the pump started?
The petitioner, who argued the case in person, picked Option C as the answer to the question. However, the subject experts, who evaluated the model answer, marked the petitioner's answer incorrect. The counsel representing the state government stated that the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CGPEB) had placed the question before the expert committee for proper evaluation. The expert committee opined that the correct answer to Question No. 85 was Option A. Therefore, the final answer key for the question was published by the respondent on September 20, 2023.
The Women and Child Development Department issued an advertisement on July 5, 2023, for the recruitment of 440 vacant Supervisor positions, with 220 positions allocated for direct recruitment. This included 92 posts for the unreserved category, 71 for ST, 26 for SC, and 31 for OBC. The examination was conducted by the CGPEB on August 27, 2023, and the model answers were released on September 12, 2023, inviting online objections. The results were announced on September 20, 2023.
Petitioner Srishti Sharma, a resident of Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, objected to the model answer for Question No. 85 in Set B and filed a petition in the High Court against this. The petition stated that she had given the correct answer, but the experts marked it incorrect and deducted marks, reducing her overall score. If marks were awarded for this question, her score would be 75.258, qualifying her under the unreserved category. The petition demanded a re-evaluation and the issuance of a new merit list. After her petition was dismissed by the Single Bench of the High Court through an order pronounced on May 31, 2024, she appealed to the Division Bench.
The Division Bench, after hearing the case, ordered the government to form a new expert committee to re-examine the disputed question, excluding the existing members of the committee.
The petitioner argued personally and presented the precedent set by the Rajasthan High Court. After hearing the arguments from both the government and the petitioner, the court deliberated deeply and asked the government to provide the basis for claiming their answer was correct. The bench ordered the government to form a new expert committee to re-examine the disputed question.