Page 1 of 15
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 7779 of 2023
Order Reserved On : 20.03.2024
Order Pronounced On : 31.05.2024
Srishti Sharma D/o Narendra Sharma, Aged About 30 Years R/o
Near Atmanand English Medium School, Chakarbhata Camp,
Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Women and Child
Development Department, Indravati Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Director, Directorate of Women and Child Development
Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur, Through
Its Secretary, Pension Bada Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
----Respondents
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Ms. Srishti Sharma in person
For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Adv.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate.
________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV ORDER
1. The respondent No. 2 has issued an advertisement on
05.07.2023 for appointment of 440 posts of Supervisor in
Women and Child Development Department which is Class-III
Executive Post in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 (Grade Pay
Rs. 2400). As per advertisement 220 posts were for direct
recruitment which consists of 92 posts for unreserved
candidates, 71 posts for Scheduled Tribes, 26 posts for
Page 2 of 15
Scheduled Castes and 31 posts for Other Backward Class. The
advertisement further provides 220 posts through limited direct
recruitment. As per the advertisement, the examination has to be
conducted by the respondent No. 3/Chhattisgarh Professional
Examination Board (CGVYAPAM). The petitioner applied for
appointment which is reserved for direct recruitment in
unreserved candidates. The examinations were held on
27.08.2023 and the respondent No. 2 issued model answer on
12.09.2023 and also called objection on the model answer. The
time period provided in the publication was 15.09.2023. The
direction further provides that at the time of recording their
objection, the candidate should login their profile and in the
profile, the objection tab will be shown and after clicking it, it will
be registered. The direction further provides that the candidate is
required to prepare the documents which have to be uploaded,
registration number and after putting signature in it, the soft copy
should be prepared for uploading. The direction further provides
that the objection sent by post or in person will not be accepted
and the decision taken by the expert will be final. Thereafter, final
result of combined merit list was declared on 20.09.2023 by
respondent No. 3.
2. The petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the
answer of question No. 85 in Set-B in the examination for
recruitment conducted by respondent No. 3 for the post of
Supervisor and also prayed for re-valuation of question No. 85
and re-determination of merit list.
Page 3 of 15
3. According to the petitioner, question No. 85 of Set-B has wrongly
been evaluated, therefore, it is required to be corrected. It is also
the case of the petitioner that she belongs to Unreserved
Category and has secured 73.969 marks, if answer No. 85 in
Set-B, is correctly valued and .25 negative marks could have not
been deducted in view of minus marking system, the petitioner
could have secured 75.258 marks, thus her ranking in the list
would have been upgraded and she would be selected in the
examination.
4. The petitioner in person would submit that respondent No. 2 after
holding examination, published model answer and uploaded in
the website. On going through the model answer, it is revealed
that answers taken by respondent No. 2 with respect to
aforementioned questions are wrongly taken, therefore, the
action taken on the part of respondent No. 2 is highly arbitrary.
She would further submit that as per the material available with
her, the answers suggested by the respondent No. 3, are illegal.
She would further submit that the respondents are under
obligation to notify what are the sources on the basis of which
the answer was modified or changed.
5. Apart from oral submission, the petitioner in person has
submitted written submission wherein she has reiterated the
stand taken by her in the writ petition. She has also stated that
the she has received the information under Right to Information
Act on 17.10.2023 wherein it has been informed that the final
answer has been published after deciding the objection by the
Page 4 of 15
expert of the subject and would submit that respondent No. 3
has committed illegality and would pray for allowing the writ
petition. To substantiate her submission, she has relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in case of S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 10622/2014 titled Ramdhan Kumawat
Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. dated 18.11.2014 & Hari
Singh & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12621/2009 and Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Richal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission [(2018) 8 SCC 81].
6. Learned counsel for the Professional Board/Respondent No. 3
has submitted written synopsis mainly contending that the
petitioner applied for the post of Supervisor in the Open Direct
Recruitment (MBS23), thereafter the admit card was issued to
the petitioner in which Roll No. 13061322 was provided to her.
The written examination for the aforesaid examination was held
on 27.08.2023 and on 12.09.2023 the respondent No. 3 issued
the Model Answers. It is submitted that after issuance of model
answers the respondent No. 3 invited claims/objections from the
candidates and after resolving all the objections final results
were published on 20.09.2023. It is submitted that the dispute in
this present petition is with regard to Question No. 85 of
SET-"B". For ready reference Question No.85 is mentioned
below:-
Q.85 The possible passive voice of the given statement is/are :-
Who starts the pump?
Page 5 of 15
A) By whom was the pump started?
B) By who was the pump started?
C) By whom is the pump started?
D) By who is the pump started?
The petitioner has marked Option C.
7. It is most humbly submitted that the model answer for the
particular examination was published on 12.09.2023 and as per
the model answer the answer for the above-mentioned question
No. 85 was option "C”, after publishing the model answers and
as per the procedure the answering respondent called for the
objections from the candidates. It has also been submitted that
the respondent has placed the question before the expert
committee for proper valuation and the expert committee
examined the question and answer and opined that right answer
of the question No. 85 will be option A, therefore final answer
key of the question was published by the respondent on
20.09.2023. The respondents have also annexed the decision
taken by the expert of the subject along with the written
submission.
8. He would further submit that the experts of the subject have
evaluated the answer thereafter they have issued the model
answer and accordingly the answer-sheet has been examined.
He would further submit that the procedure adopted by them is
fair, transparent and applicable to all the candidates uniformly.
He would further submit that this Court’s power to interfere in the
academic matter is very limited, in view of law laid down by
Page 6 of 15
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in various judgments. Thus, he
would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. To substantiate his
submission, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 would
refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 357,
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Rahul
Singh & Anr. (2018) 7 SCC 254 and Umang Gauraha vs.
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors decided on 10.12.2020 in Writ
Appeal No. 165 of 2020 and has also placed reliance upon the
decision passed by this Court in case Tarun Kumar Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh [WPS No. 5365/2023, decided on 28.11.2023]
and Kajal Banjare Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [WPS No.
4317/2020, decided on 02.01.2023].
9. Learned counsel for the State would submit that Hon'ble the
Supreme Court time and again has held that the Courts cannot
take upon themselves the task of verifying answers in an
examination under the exercise of Judicial Review. It is most
humbly submitted that the petitioner cannot call upon this
Hon'ble Court to take upon the role of experts in the field of
expert of the subject, conduct an inquiry by exercising the
powers of Judicial Review and would pray for dismissal of the
writ petition.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.
11. It is not in dispute that the Professional Board has constituted the
expert committee which has analyzed each and every answer
Page 7 of 15
and thereafter they have assessed the question and issued
model answer and only thereafter the marks were allotted. It is
also not in dispute that the similar treatment has been given to
all the candidates. Thus, considering the well settled principle of
law that scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in matters concerning evaluation of
candidates, particularly for the purpose of recruitment to public
service is narrow and also considering that in absence of any
provisions for revaluation of answer-sheets judicial review
should be exercised only under exceptional circumstances. The
petitioner is unable to point out that it is an exceptional case
where this Court can exercise power of review. Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in case of Bihar Staff Selection Commission
and others Vs. Arun Kumar & others reported in (2020) 6
SCC 362, wherein it has been held at paragraph 23 to 25 as
under:-
“23. This court reiterates that the scope of judicial review under
Article 226 in matters concerning evaluation of candidates-
particularly, for purpose of recruitment to public services is
narrow. The previous decisions of the court 3; Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
and Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors (1984) 4
SCC 27; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public
Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714; Board
of Secondary Education v. Pravas have constantly underscored
that in the absence of any provision for re- evaluation of
answer sheets, judicial review should be rarely exercised -
preferably under exceptional circumstances. A three judge
Bench of this court, in Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) held
as follows:
"7…...Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no
provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-
evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny
only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of
checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have
been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the
totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly
Page 8 of 15
on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute
that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded
to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence
of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the
relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any
right whatsoever to claim or ask for re- evaluation of his
marks."
24. In Khushboo Shrivastava (supra) too, a similar view was
echoed:
"9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod
Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna and Ors. (supra) has clearly held relying
on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth and Ors. (supra) that in the absence of any provision for
the re-evaluation of answers books in the relevant rules, no
candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for
re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission,
Patna and Ors. (supra) was followed by another three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas
Ranjan Panda and Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383 in which the
direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answers books
of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was held to
be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the Board
of Secondary Education, Orissa, which Ranjan Panda (2004)
13 SCC 383; Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v.
Mukesh Thakur & Anr (2010) 6 SCC 759; Gangadhara Palo v.
Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602; Central
Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India
Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination & Ors. v.
Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors (2014) 14 SCC 523 and Ran
Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2018) 2
SCC 357 conducted the examination, did not make any
provision for re- evaluation of answers books in the rules.
10. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-
Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by
the CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of
answers sheets. Hence, the Appellants could not have allowed
such re- examination or re-evaluation on the representation of
the Respondent No. 1 and accordingly rejected the
representation of the Respondent No. 1 for re-examination/re-
evaluation of her answer sheets. The Respondent No. 1,
however, approached the High Court and the learned Single
Judge of the High Court directed production of answer sheets
on the Respondent No. 1 depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and
when the answer sheets were produced, the learned Single
Judge himself compared the answers of the Respondent No. 1
with the model answers produced by the CBSE and awarded
two marks for answers given by the Respondent No. 1 in the
Chemistry and Botany, but declined to grant any relief to the
Respondent No. 1. When Respondent No. 1 filed the LPA
before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Division
Bench also examined the two answers of the Respondent No.
1 in Chemistry and Botany and agreed with the findings of the
Page 9 of 15
learned Single Judge that the Respondent No. 1 deserved two
additional marks for the two answers.
11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge
nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have
substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and
awarded two additional marks to the Respondent No. 1 for the
two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic
matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (supra) has observed:
29... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the
Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views
as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic
matters in preference to those formulated by professional men
possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual
day-to-day working of educational institutions and the
departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the
Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the
problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and
grass root problems involved in the working of the system and
unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a
purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to
be propounded.
12. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. There shall be
no order as to costs. We are informed that the first Respondent
was admitted to the MBBS Course subsequently. If so, her
admission in the MBBS Course will not be affected."
25. The decision in Ran Vijay Singh (supra f.n.2), after a review
of all previous decisions, held as follows:
"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. The Court should presume the correctness of the key
answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event
of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority
rather than to the candidate.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
Page 10 of 15
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. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
University, Agra Vs. Devarsh Nath Gupta and Others
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 970, has held at paragraph
16 to 19 as under:-
“16. As regards the question of re-evaluation, the
principles enunciated by this Court could be usefully
recapitulated as follows:
17. In the case of Mukesh Thakur (supra) this Court
observed and held as under:—
“24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more
res integra. This issue was considered at length by this
Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543], wherein
this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of
the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect
can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that
even the policy decision incorporated in the
Page 11 of 15
Rules/Regulations not providing for
rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged
unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is
in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held
as under : (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16)
“14. … It is exclusively within the province of the
legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of
policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be
implemented and what measures, substantive as well
as procedural would have to be incorporated in the
rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of
the objects and purposes of the Act. …
16. … The Court cannot sit in judgment over the
wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the
subordinate regulation- making body. It may be a wise
policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the
enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and
hence calling for revision and improvement. But any
drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or
regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court
cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it
is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one,
and that it will not really serve to effectuate the
purposes of the Act.”
25. This view has been approved and relied upon and
reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v.
Bihar Public Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714 :
2004 SCC (L&S) 883 : AIR 2004 SC 4116] observing as
under : (SCC pp. 717-18, para 7)
“7. … Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there
is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to
ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a
provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books
are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the
answers given by a candidate have been examined and
whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of
marks of each question and noting them correctly on
the first cover page of the answer book. There is no
dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the
marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science
paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of
answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an
examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or
ask for revaluation of his marks.”
***** ***** *****
Page 12 of 15
26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect
that in the absence of any provision under the statute or
statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not
generally direct revaluation.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. Further, in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), this
Court has observed and held 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
scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate—it has no
expertise in the matter and academic matters are best
left to academics;
30.4. 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. Recently, in the case of Dr. NTR University of Health
Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1520, this Court has, after referring to the previous
decisions, including that in the case of Ran Vijay Singh
(supra), thoroughly disapproved the process of the
Court calling for answer sheets for satisfying as to
whether there was a need for re-evaluation or not and
thereafter, issuing directions for re-evaluation. This
Court has observed and held as under:—
“9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts and circumstances of
the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High
Court was not at all justified in calling the record of the
Page 13 of 15
answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a
need for re-evaluation or not. As reported, the High
Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for
satisfying whether there is a need for re-evaluation or
not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is
wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for
answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-
evaluation and that too in absence of any specific
provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that
too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is disapproved.”
13. Recently the Division Bench of this Court has examined in the
case of Sarita Sangam Vs. Chancellor & Ors. in WA No. 105
of 2024 reported in (2024) SCC Online CHH 1326 wherein it
has been observed in para 12 which reads as under:-
“The appellant/writ petitioner cannot be a judge of her
own case, whereas the subject expert had valued the
answer-sheet of the appellant/writ petitioner and the
subject expert had not awarded the minimum passing
marks to the appellant/writ petitioner, therefore, the
allegation made by the appellant/writ petitioner
regarding wrong valuation of the answer-sheet is
baseless, as there is no provision of revaluation in the
Ph.D. examination still the answer-sheet of the
appellant/writ petitioner has been re-examined wherein
result remain unchanged, this Court cannot at all
reevaluate or scrutinize the answer-sheet of a
candidate, as it has no expertise in the matter and
academic matters are best left to the academics.”
14. Reliance was placed by petitioner in person on Richal & Ors.
Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [(2018) 8 SCC 81]
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
answered by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant
for adjudication of dispute in this case.
Page 14 of 15
15. It is apparent that respondent No. 3 immediately after conducting
examination has published model answer called claims and
objections from the participating candidates on the model
answer and thereafter the final answer was published based on
the opinion of the experts and thereafter results were declared.
The procedure adopted by the respondent No.3 was transparent
and therefore, it cannot be said that action of the respondent No.
3 is malafide or unreasonable in any manner. The Committee
constituted by respondent No. 3 has published the model
answer invited objections and the model answer and objections
were placed before the panel of experts and the panel of experts
after considering the issue relying upon the material available
with them submitted their opinion which cannot be held to be
illegal, in view of limited power available with this Court with
regard to interference in the field of experts.
16. The petitioner has nowhere pleaded in the writ petition that she
has ever raised objection after publication of notice for calling
claim/objection on 12.09.2023 and even the petitioner has
nowhere pleaded that she has complied with the conditions
enumerated in directions issued by the respondent No. 3 for
calling claim/objection on 12.09.2023 wherein it has been
specifically mentioned that the candidate has to raise
objection/claim through their profiled maintained by the
Profession Board and no objection/claim should be sent through
post or in person. From perusal of Annexure P10 and from the
postal receipt attached with the claim/objection, it is quite vivid
Page 15 of 15
that it has been sent through speed post and also after the cut
off date given in the direction. As such also the petition is liable
to be dismissed on the count that she has neither raised the
objection within stipulated time period nor has complied with the
direction dated 12.09.2023 in its letter and spirit.
17. Considering the submissions made by the parties and also
considering the restriction imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in interference by the Courts with regard to field of expert,
particularly when the answers have been evaluated by the
experts of the subjects and it has been uniformly applied to
every candidate and even petitioner is unable to point-out that
she is subjected to discrimination while evaluating the answer-
sheet by the respondent, this Court does not find any irregularity
or illegality in the decision taken by the expert. As such, the writ
petition sans merit and deserves to be and accordingly it is
dismissed.
Sd/-Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Bhumika