Vikram Singh vs M.P. Public Service
2021 Latest Caselaw 903 MP

                                       1          W.P.Nos.20818/2020 & 1225/2021

        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
                      Writ Petition No.20818 of 2020
                     (Vikram Singh Vs. M.P. Public Service)
                       Writ Petition No.1225 of 2021
       (Ajay Kumar Mishra and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)


Jabalpur, Dated : 19.03.2021
      Shri Nitya Nand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
      Shri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent/PSC.

In these two petitions, the same issue is raised.

In Writ Petition No.20818/2020, the petitioner is Vikram Singh. He appeared in the preliminary examination for the State Service and Forest Service Examination of the year 2019.

The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1225/2021 are Ajay Kumar Mishra, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sachin Upadhyay and Prakash Narayan Tripathi.

Learned counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw Writ Petition No.1225/2021 so far as it relates to Arvind Kumar Sharma and Sachin Upadhyay (petitioners Nos.2 and 3) with liberty to file before the appropriate Bench.

Similarly, petitioner No.1 - Ajay Kumar Mishra and petitioner No.4 - Prakash Narayan Tripathi in Writ Petition No.1225/2021 appeared in the same examination on 12.01.2020 along with petitioner - Vikram Singh in Writ Petition No.20818/2020.

The petitioner - Vikram Singh in Writ Petition No.20818/2020 has inter-alia, prayed for a mandamus to award him 2 marks for answer given to Question No.57 (Multiple Choice Objective type), which has been marked as wrong. It is undisputed that each of these questions carry 2 marks. The petitioner - Vikram Singh is from the EWS category as is stated in para 5.3 of the writ petition which is also not disputed by the respondents, secured 140 marks while the cut off is 142 marks. Under the circumstances,

petitioner - Vikram Singh requires only 2 marks more to qualify to sit for the Main Examination. He contends that his answer to Question No.57 is correct and for that he should be awarded 2 marks. As required by the Rules, the petitioner - Vikram Singh states in paragrah 5.8 of the petition that he submitted an objection online and paid the fees of Rs.100/- on 20.01.2020 and has filed the relevant extract of the Bank Pass-book annexed to the petition as Annexure P-6. The question for which the petitioner says that he was wrongly denied 2 marks is at page No.43. It would appropriate to reproduce the question (in English).

Q.57. From the options given below which National Highway does not pass through Madhya Pradesh?

(a) NH - 3

(b) NH -12

(c) NH - 7

(d) NH - 8 The petitioner - Vikram Singh had ticked on option (a) NH-3, as the Highway that does not pass through Madhya Pradesh. Likewise, petitioner Ajay Kumar Mishra who is in the Unreserved category, the cut off marks required was 146 and he was short by 2 marks at 144. The petitioner -

Prakash Narayan Tripathi has secured 140 marks and was short by 2 marks as he was from the EWS category. Their grievance is also identical as that of petitioner Vikram Singh in Writ Petition No.20818/2020 i.e. response given by them to Question No.57 has been marked as incorrect by the respondents. Petitioner No.1 - Ajay Kumar Mishra, has ticked option (b) NH-12 as the correct answer and the petitioner No.4 - Prakash Narayan Tripathi has ticked option (c) NH-7 as the correct answer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the three answers given by the petitioners herein are correct. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the Examination Programme annexed to the petition as Annexure P-1 from page 19 onwards.

On page 21, paragraph 5 clause (2) sub-clause (3) provides that where a question gives more than one correct choice, each of the choices would be considered as correct.

In Writ Petition No.1225/2021, the petitioner No.1 - Ajay Kumar Mishra has raised his objection before the Public Service Commission and the same is at page No.56 of the petition. However, the petitioner No.4 never raised any objection which is mandatory, before approaching this Court.

Under the circumstances, as per the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has accepted the result as correct in view of the absence of any objection and, therefore, he cannot raise any objection before this Court for the first time. There is much force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that if the petitioner No.4 has never raised this issue before the Public Service Commission and sought redressal therefrom, as required under the Examination Scheme, he cannot be permitted to raise this plea before this Court for the first time.

Under the circumstances, Writ Petition No.1225/2021 stands dismissed as against petitioner No.4 - Prakash Narayan Tripathi.

Heard on the question of interim relief.

The petitioners herein seek permission of this Court to appear for the Main Examination which is to commence from 21.03.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, on their behalf has given an undertaking to this Court that the liberty given by this Court shall not be deemed to be an adjudication of the case finally in their favour and have also stated that they will accept the dismissal of this case on merits, if it so warrants, without demur.

Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer for interim relief to be granted to the petitioners.

First of all, he has stated that an interim relief which is equal to final relief cannot be granted by this Court as it is settled proposition of law by various judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court. Secondly, he has

referred to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.20715/2019 (Dinesh Kumar Patel Vs. The State of M.P. and others) dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The other judgment that has been referred and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is passed in Writ Petition No.10750/2018 (Uday Raj Pandey Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Commission) dated 17.07.2018, whereby bunch of petitions were dismissed by this Court involving a similar question. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 07.12.2020 passed by three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3649- 3650/2020 (Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others) and also the Full Bench judgment of this Court dated 04.09.2017 rendered in Writ Appeal No.581/2017 (Nitin Pathak Vs. State of M.P. and others).

As regards the first three judgments, the issue involved is one and the same, with regard to the competence of the Court to refer the matter to the Commission, for the re-evaluation or scrutiny of the answer sheets. All three judgments have referred and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357. There the Supreme Court examined the question of revaluation and correctness of the answer-sheets in judicial review.

Law laid down may be summarised as follows. Whereas the statute rules and regulations does not permit revaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets then the Court may permit revaluation 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.

Undisputedly, this Court does not intend to question the responses where expertise in a subject is required and it is not competent for it to do so. However, the Supreme Court does carve out an exception to permit

revaluation as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, this Court examined whether the answer given by the petitioners without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation can come to a conclusion that there has been a material error and whether the same falls under the category of an exceptional case.

Both the petitioners herein, in these cases, have missed the bus to sit for the Main Examination only by 2 marks. The option that was given as correct by the petitioner - Vikram Singh was option (a), which is NH-3. At page 48, the description of National Highways given by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways as on 31.03.2019, reflects that NH-3 passes only through the State of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, a strong prima facie inference, that the option (a) to question No.57 selected by Vikram Singh, is correct. As regards petitioner - Ajay Kumar Mishra, he has selected the option (b) which is NH-12. The Gazette Notification on Page - 60 annexed along with the petition shows that the Highway runs entirely through the State of West Bengal and so this option is also prima facie correct.

Both the options ticked by the petitioners appear to be correct and when seen in the backdrop of paragraph-5 clause (2) sub-clause (3) which provides that all options to a question for which more than one option is correct, the answer shall be deemed to be correct.

The other judgments which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents shall be assessed at the time of final hearing of this case. As this Court is aware that the interim relief granted is in the nature of the final relief, it is of the opinion that in exceptional circumstances like the present case, it may be allowed, where an irreparable loss could be caused to the applicant by rendering his petition itself infructuous, if such an order is not passed.

The Main Examination commences from day after tomorrow. Under the circumstances, the petitioner - Vikram Singh in Writ Petition

No.20818/2020 and the petitioner No.1 - Ajay Kumar Mishra in Writ Petition No.1225/2021 shall be permitted to sit for the Main Examination.

Writ Petition No.1225/2021 shall stand dismissed as withdrawn as regards the petitioner No.2 - Arvind Kumar Sharma and petitioner No.3 - Sachin Upadhyay with liberty to file afresh before the appropriate Bench. As held hereinabove earlier, Writ Petition No.1225/2021 stands dismissed as against the petitioner No.4 - Prakash Narayan Tripathi.

List these cases for final disposal at motion hearing stage on "Top of the List" on 26.04.2021.

The respondents shall make arrangements to enable the petitioners to appear in the Main Examination. This particular order is restricted only to the petitioners in whose favour the said order has been passed.

The interim order would be subject to the outcome of these cases. Certified copy today.

(Atul Sreedharan) Judge

AM.

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.03.19 17:56:38 +05'30'