It has ruled in an important decision that there was dismissal of the petitioner who was challenging the judgment relating to 2023 Judicial Services Examination challenging that it was conducted arbitrary as candidates do not have rights of per se right to know precisely in advance how will the exam be taken because no candidate has unconditional right of knowing in advanced how they will take that particular exam.They are aspirants for the 2023 Chhattisgarh Judicial Services Examination. The petitioners submitted that ignorance of the pattern and syllabus of the examination at the time of the petitioner's examination gave an undue and unfair advantage to the respondents. Any sudden change or vagueness about the format was violative of the fundamental principles of fairness and transparency, resulting in violation of the petitioners' rights. Observations of the High Court The bench dismissed the petition on the following critical observations: No Statutory or Constitutional Obligation for Pre-Disclosure: The court clarified that though transparency is essential, it is not a statutory and constitutional obligation of the examination-conducting authorities to disclose the pattern in advance. It held that the candidates are expected to prepare for variations in the process of examination. Design and holding of examinations is purely and squarely within the competence of the concerned authority. Court jurisdiction over such an affair has been approved only to deal with situations where there are already found instances of illegality or arbitrariness, which were held to be absent in the given case. Fairness and Preparedness: This court held that the general pattern of the examination is not altered drastically and gave adequate general guidelines to aspirants. It held the responsibility of preparation lies within the aspirants who would have to adapt to changes which are reasonable. Judgment The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the challenge and held that the candidates have no vested right to demand the disclosure of exam pattern before hand. In the view of the author, the discretion on part of the examination authority remains well founded to set as well as modify the pattern as long as there remains no violation of legal norms or creates undue hardship Implication of the Judgement Flexibility for Examination Authorities: The judgment finds the authorities to have discretionary authority to form and modify examination patterns without the rigorous processes of pre-disclosure procedures. Greater Burden to the Aspirants: It would be an integral mode of preparation by aspirants themselves rather than fixing on patterns. Reduced Scope for Litigation on Pattern Issues: The judgment forms precedence which is not to open the floodgates to litigations on pattern unless proof of arbitrariness and malpractice to exist. This decision cements the principle that while fairness and transparency are basic requirements in examinations, those are not extended as absolute rights for candidates to have every detail of the composition of the examination well known beforehand.