Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 22 September 2026 (reserved on 11 August 2026)

Case Overview

  • Applicants: Jitendra Kumar Malakar, Sukhdeo Prasad Deshmukh, Yogendra Prasad Sahu, Dinesh Kumar Chandra (individual petitioners) filed MCC Nos. 436, 414, 420, and 398 of 2026 respectively.
  • Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh (through Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur) and its subsidiaries – Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited and Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company – along with several junior engineers named in the notices.
  • Nature of proceedings: Applications for modification/clarification of the order dated 04‑02‑2025 passed in writ petitions (W.P.(S) Nos. 5021/2022, 5067/2022, 5064/2022, 5032/2022). The 2025 order directed the respondents to award “pro‑rata” marks for ten defective questions and, if the applicants attained the prescribed cut‑off, to consider them for appointment.
  • Counsel: Applicants were represented by Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe with Harshwardhan Agrawal and Arpan Verma; the State was represented by Anand Dadariya, Deputy Advocate General.
  • Legal references: The Court examined the Supreme Court judgment in Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494 and the decision in Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Hage Mamung (2023) 18 SCC 710, focusing on the interpretation of “pro‑rata marks”.
  • Observations: The Court noted that the respondent‑company’s practice awards one mark for each defective question; the Supreme Court cases support a literal, uniform allocation of one mark per rejected question rather than a different formula.

Final Outcome

  • The expression “pro‑rata marks” is clarified to mean one mark for each of the ten defective questions, specifically Question Nos. 81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 98 and 99.
  • All MCC applications are allowed and disposed of.
  • Respondents are directed to recompute the marks of each applicant in accordance with the clarified interpretation and, where the recomputed score meets the prescribed cut‑off, to consider the applicant’s case for appointment as per law.

Topics: Recruitment Examination, Judicial Clarification