Surabhi Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6417 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                           ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2022

                     WRIT PETITION No. 5521 of 2022

        Between:-
        SURABHI JAIN D/O SHRI MAHESH KUMAR , AGED
        ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O
        VILLAGE AND POST BAMHORI TEHISIL BAXWAHA
        D I S T R I C T CHHATARPUR M.P.  (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                                   .....PETITIONER
        (BY MR. AKASH SINGHANI, ADVOCATE )

        AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
        PRINCIPAL      SECRETARY        GENERAL
        ADMINISTRATION   DEPARTMENT      VALLABH
        BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      PUBLIC  SERVICE    COMMISSION,   INDORE
        THROUGH ITS EXAMINATION CONTROLLER
        RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY MISS SWETA YADAV, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
        RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE )
        (BY MR. NIKHIL BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2/PSC)

      T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of correctness of answer to Question No.47 asked in Set "D" of the examination conducted by M.P. Public Service Commission, which reads as under:-

"47. Chambal Canal Irrigation Project is related with:- (A) Sindh Basin (B) Ganga Basin (C) Yamuna Basin (D) Tapti Basin"

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said question, the petitioner has opted option "(B) Ganga Basin".

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the correct answer of aforesaid question is option "(C) Yamuna Basin". He has also submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2022 passed in W.P. No.5396 of 2022 has dealt with the similar issue and

observed as under:-

"Further taking into consideration the law laid down in case of Nitin Pathak Vs. State of M.P. & others (supra) and Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court having reference to the judgment of Hon'™ble Supreme Court in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 so also judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences), (2004) 3 Kant LJ 218, it is evident that Hon'™ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Thakur(supra) has held that Court cannot take upon itself task of examiner or selection board and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof.

And even in the narration it is clearly mentioned that Chambal is the part of the Drainage System of Jamuna. I have no hesitation to hold that report of the expert committee cannot be faulted with on the basis o f certain flawed or incorrect publications and report of the Expert Committee is to be accepted in the light of law laid down above, no indulgence is required. Petitioner will be free to sue them for damages in appropriate proceedings. Petition fails and is dismissed."

The order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.5396 of 2022 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case also.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no substance in the petition. Accordingly, the petition being sans merit, is hereby dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish

DEVASHISH MISHRA 2022.04.29 10:34:42 +05'30'