Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Public Service ... vs Janakraj Mohan Gund And Ors on 4 October, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, Kamal Khata
Digitally signed by
SUMEDH SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date: 2022.10.07
18:44:25 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8832 OF 2022
Maharashtra Public Service
Commission .. Petitioner
v/s.
Janakraj Mohan Gund and Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18695 OF 2022
Pranav Mothabhau Bhamare .. Applicant
v/s.
The Secretary, Maharashtra Public
Service Commission and Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16857 OF 2022
Sandesh Jayant More and Ors. .. Applicants
v/s.
The Secretary, Maharashtra Public
Service Commission and Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Sarthak Diwan, for the petitioner -
MPSC.
Mr. Asim Sarode a/w. Mr. Ajnkya M. Udane, Mr. Trunal Tonape, for the
applicant in IA/18695/22.
Mr. Gunartan Sadawarte a/w. Ms. Jayashree Patil, for the applicant in
IA/16857/22.
Mr. Sandeep Dere, for respondent No.2 .
1/9
906.wp.8832.22.doc
sns
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. By these interim applications, the applicants seek their
impleadment in the writ petition. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel
for the petitioner has no objection if these applications made by
the applicants for impleadment are allowed. Statement is
accepted.
2. Interim Application No.16857 of 2022 is accordingly allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a).
3. Insofar as interim application No. 18695 of 2022 is concerned,
learned counsel for the applicants states that though his clients
are supporting the petition his clients to be impleaded as
respondents and not the co-petitioner. Statement is accepted.
4. Interim application No.18695 of 2022 is accordingly allowed in
the aforesaid terms. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re-
verification is dispensed with. No order as to costs.
5. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. Rule is
returnable forthwith. By this petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for a writ of
906.wp.8832.22.doc
sns
certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment
and order dated 1st April, 2022 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.245 of 2022.
6. The present dispute pertains to the post of the Assistant Motor
Vehicles Inspector (AMVI) Main Examination-2020 (Group C).
On 17th January 2020, in pursuance of the requisition received
from the State Government, the petitioner issued an advertisement
for a total 240 posts in issue. On 15 th March 2020 preliminary
examination was conducted by the petitioner. The result of the
preliminary examination was declared by the petitioner on 24 th
August, 2021. On 2nd September, 2021 the petitioner published
an advertisement for the main examination. The main
examination was held on 20th November, 2021.
7. On 29th November 2021, the petitioner prepared and published
the first answer key on its website. The petitioner thereafter
received certain objections from various candidates of the answer
keys. All the objections received from the candidates alongwith
the references cited by them were referred to the subject experts
for their opinion. After receipt of the opinion from the subject
experts, the same was submitted for the approval of the
appropriate authority.
906.wp.8832.22.doc
sns
8. On 22nd February 2022, on the basis of the opinions received from
the experts, the final answer key of the examination was
published by the petitioners.
9. Being aggrieved by the said decision on the part of the petitioner,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an original application before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. On 11 th April, 2022
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed the said original
application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Being aggrieved by
the said judgment, the petitioner filed this petition.
10. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our
attention to the impugned judgment rendered by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, more particularly in paragraph Nos.7,
10 to 12. He submitted that in view of the objections received
from some of candidates alleging the incorrectness of the first
answer key published by the petitioner, the issue was referred to
the experts. After considering the objections raised by some of the
students, the experts corrected the answer key in respect of the six
questions. He submitted that the Tribunal though recorded the
findings that no objections were raised by the respondent Nos.1
and 2 herein about the transparency in the procedure conducted
by the petitioner, contrary to such finding petitioner had referred
906.wp.8832.22.doc
sns
those answer keys with the Tribunal held that experts on the
panel of the petitioner contrary to the principles laid down by
Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others Versus State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others1. He vehemently relied upon
paragraph Nos.14, 15, 30, 31, 32 and 37 of the said judgment. He
submitted that the power of the Tribunal to interfere with the
decision taken by the experts is limited and could not have been
exercised by the Tribunal by questioning the decision taken by the
experts and by directing the petitioner to appoint another experts
with a direction to refer those key answers for re-examination of
the correctness of the key answers by appointing other experts.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 (one of the original
applicant) before the Tribunal vehemently relied upon paragraph
No.13.2 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court and submitted
that the tribunal in this case has rightly passed the order directing
the petitioner to appoint another expert to examine the
correctness of this answer key in respect of six questions without
any preferential process of reasoning, having found respondent
No.2 made out a case for appointment of fresh expert with the
direction to re-assess the correctness of the key answers to the six
questions. He submitted that this Court thus shall not interfere
1 (2018) Supreme Court Cases 357
906.wp.8832.22.doc
sns
with the powers exercised by the Tribunal in view of the
principles laid down in paragraph No.30.2 of the judgment
referred in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra).
12. Learned counsel for the applicants in the interim
application that have been allowed by this Court today supported
the case of the petitioner and submitted that the experts had
rightly considered the objections raised by some of the students on
the correctness of the answer key of six questions and having
changed those answer keys, the Tribunal could not have called
upon the petitioner to appoint another expert. They submitted
that the view taken by the tribunal is ex-facie contrary to the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ran
Vijay Singh (supra).
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made.
14. It is not in dispute that there were objections received by the
petitioner in respect of the six answer keys prepared by the earlier
experts. In view of such objections received by the petitioner, the
issue was referred to the same experts for reconsideration. After
re-considering the objections raised by the students, the experts
corrected the answer keys in respect of those six questions. Out of
906.wp.8832.22.doc
sns
the large number of students who had appeared in the
examination, only two of them filed an application before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for interference with the
publication of the results by the petitioner.
15. A perusal of the order passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal indicates that though the Tribunal had
rendered a finding that the procedure followed by the MPSC was
as per the rules and also on the basis of the standing order and
though held that no objections were raised by the original
applicants in respect of the transparency in the procedure
conducted by the MPSC, the tribunal had taken a task upon itself
and came to a conclusion that the same experts who had
suggested the answer keys in respect of those six questions could
not have sat in the appeal against their own decisions. The
Tribunal only considered the fact that the experts who had earlier
suggested the answer keys to the six questions could not have
taken a different view in the matter while directing the petitioner
to appoint another expert on the panel of the petitioner who had
not renewed these questions earlier.
16. In our view, we have perused the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others (supra) . It is
906.wp.8832.22.doc
sns
clearly held by the Supreme Court that the Court cannot at all re-
evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheet of a candidate. It has no
expertise in the matter and such academic matters are best left to
the academic experts. The Court should presume the correctness
of the answer keys and proceed on that assumption. In the event
of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority
rather than to the candidate. The Supreme Court further held in
the judgment that, while there is no doubt that the candidates put
in tremendous effort in preparing for the examination, it must not
be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equal
efforts to successfully conduct the examination. 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
by some erroneous answers. All candidates suffer equally, though
some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since
mathematical precision is not always possible.
17. In our view, principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others (supra) clearly apply to the
facts of this case though, the Tribunal has recorded various
findings in favour of the petitioner and has chosen to doubt the
906.wp.8832.22.doc
sns
correctness of the answer keys given by the experts and has
interfered with the decisions taken by the experts by directing the
petitioner to appoint another expert who has earlier not seen
those questions with the direction to give the correct answers of
the said six questions. In our view, the Tribunal could not have
gone into the correctness of the answer keys suggested by the
experts in their field.
18. In our view, since the view taken by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal is contrary to the principles laid down by
Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others (supra), the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
19. We have accordingly pass the following order:
ORDER
(a) Writ petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to
costs.
(b) The petitioner is directed to take all the consequential steps
expeditiously.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (R.D.DHANUKA, J.)
906.wp.8832.22.doc
sns
