Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Public Service Commission ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 9 August, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
4173.24wp etc
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
903 WRIT PETITION NO. 4173 OF 2024
MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
....
Mr Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr M. M. Nerlikar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr A. S. Deshpande, Advocate a/w Mr R. J. Nirmal, Advocate for
Respondent No.3
Mr V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4191 OF 2024
BABAR SURAJ SAHEBRAO AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
....
Mr V. D. Salunke, Advocate h/f Mr M. V. Salunke, Advocate for
Petitioners
Mr M. M. Nerlikar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Mr R. J. Nirmal, Advocate for Respondent No.4
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 9th August, 2024
4173.24wp etc
PER COURT:
1. These matters were heard for quite some time on
08/08/2024. Due to paucity of time, they were posted today for
passing interim orders.
2. Having heard the submissions of the learned
Advocates for the respective sides, the issue is, as to whether the
right answer to Question No.40, in Question Set No. 'C', is a
solitary correct answer amongst the four options set out in the
question paper, or whether there are two correct answers, leading
to confusion amongst the students. As a natural consequence, the
further issue would be that, if the Examinee opts for one correct
answer, distinct from the one accepted by the experts to be the
correct one as per the answer key, would such examinee be
awarded marks? Or whether, according to the experts, as his
answer is different from the one approved by them, he would be
deprived of the marks, treating the answer as being a wrong
answer ? Because of the negative marking system, the said
Examinee would suffer deduction of half mark, as well.
4173.24wp etc
3. For clarity, we are reproducing Question No.40 along
with the 4 options/answers, hereunder :-
"40. खालीलपैकी कोणते वि/kku असत्य आहे?
(1) संविधानाच्या भाग - ४ मध्ये मूलभूत कर्तव्ये दिलेली आहेत.
(2) ४२ व्या घटनादरु
ु स्ती नंतर मूलभूत कर्तव्ये भारताच्या राज्यघटनेत
समाविष्ट केली गेली.
(3) २००२ मध्ये ८२ व्या घटना दरु
ु स्ती कायद्यानंतर, आणखी एक मूलभूत
कर्तव्य जोडले गेले.
(4) लोकप्रतिनिधीत्व कायदा सन १९५१ मध्ये अधिनियमित करण्यात
आला.
Which of the following statement is false?
(1) Fundamental Duties are given in Part IV of the
Constitution.
(2) After the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Fundamental
Duties have been added to the Constitution of India.
(3) In 2002, after the 82nd Constitution Amendment Act,
another Fundamental Duty was added.
(4) The Representation of People Act was enacted in the
year 1951."
4. Part IV of the Constitution of India pertains to Articles
36 to 51. Part IV-A carries the title "Fundamental Duties".
Article 51A was introduced with the introduction of Part IV-A,
vide the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India w.e.f.
4173.24wp etc
03/01/1977. Apparently, Answer No.1, suggesting "Fundamental
Duties are given in Part IV of the Constitution" is also a correct
answer, in view of the peculiar nature of the Question. Since
Option 1 is a false statement, the answer to the Question No.40
would be correct. Same is the case with Option No.3. The
Petitioner/Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC)
suggested Option 3 to be the correct answer to Question No.40,
losing sight of Option No.1, which could also be a correct answer
to Question No.40.
5. The case of the MPSC before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Tribunal),
as well as before us is that, it is only Option No.3, which is the
correct answer to Question No.40. The learned Advocates
appearing before us, who have perused Chapter IV-A of the
Constitution of India, submit as Officers of the Court that, Option
No.1 as well as Option No.3, would be the correct answer to
Question No.40. The learned Advocates for the Original
Applicants submit that, no Examinee could be divested of half
mark for a correct answer and consequentially, deduction of a half
4173.24wp etc
mark by holding that Option No.1 is a wrong answer, has caused
grave prejudice to the examinees.
6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner/MPSC
submits that the State Government, relying upon the official result
of the examination and recommendations, has appointed the
candidates in order of merit, on 15/03/2024. Naturally, all these
Appointees are under training/probation in the above facts and
circumstances of this case.
7. We are of the view that, both these matters need to be
heard finally at admission stage in the light of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357. So
also, considering the judgment of the learned Tribunal and our
prima facie view, we need to balance equities, in the sense that,
those who are already appointed, cannot be dislodged at this
stage, inasmuch as, no rights or equities should be crystallized in
their favour, considering the judgment of the Tribunal and the
pending Petitions before us.
4173.24wp etc
8. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner/MPSC
submits that the State Government has made 77 appointments to
the post of Sub-Registrar and Stamp Inspector, Group (B), out of
78 posts. The learned Advocate Shri. Salunke representing the
Appointed candidates, and who are the Petitioners before us in
Writ Petition No.4191/2024, submits that, two Petitioners have
already joined employment.
9. In view of the above and to balance the equities, we
direct that, status as existing today, shall be maintained. No rights
would be crystallized in favour of the appointed candidates and
none of them would be granted permanency or regularization
upon completion of the probation period during the pendency of
these Writ Petitions, without the leave of the Court.
10. We call upon the Petitioner/MPSC, to consider the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay (supra)
and address us on the next date, as to whether the Commission
can come out with a via-media. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in Paragraph No.31 of the judgment in Ran Vijay Singh
(supra), as under :-
4173.24wp etc
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does
not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-
evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the
examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers.
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 an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer
equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped
since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court
has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or
offending question."
11. By consent of the parties, list these matters in the
'fresh admissions' category, on 26/08/2024.
(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
