Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kuldeep Singh Devda vs The State Of M.P. on 10 March, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 5123 of 2022
Between:-
1. KULDEEP SINGH DEVDA S/O SHRI NARAYAN
SINGH DEVDA , AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O VILLAGE
DEEPLAKHED, POST LASUDIY, TEHSIL ASHTA
DISTRICT SEHORE, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HARSHDEEP ASATI S/O SHRI SANTOSH ASATI ,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
R/O PACHOUR MOHALLA, WARD NO 8,
SHAHGARH, DISTRICT-SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DURGESH SINGH KORI S/O SHRI BHAIYA LAL
KORI , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT R/O SANJEEV NAGAR, POLICE COLONY,
NEAR NEW CENTRAL JAIL, DISTRICT-BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MOHNISH DHOLPURIYA S/O SHRI JAGDISH
PRASAD DHOLPURIYA , AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NIL R/O SANJEEV NAGAR, POLICE
COLONY, NEAR NEW CENTRAL JAIL, DISTRICT-
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BHANU KIRAR S/O SHRI KRISHNA GOPAL , AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O
SANJEEV NAGAR, POLICE COLONY, NEAR NEW
CENTRAL JAIL, DISTRICT-BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. GAURAV KUSHWAH S/O SHRI PARMANAND
KUSHWAHA , AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O SANJEEV NAGAR,
POLICE COLONY, NEAR NEW CENTRAL JAIL,
DISTRICT-BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. KAMLESH S/O SHRI BHUR SINGH MORI , AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O
SANJEEV NAGAR, POLICE COLONY, NEAR NEW
CENTRAL JAIL, DISTRICT-BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. SATYAM SHUKLA S/O SHRI ASHOK SHUKLA ,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
H.NO.-44, HARI SINDHI CAMPUS, KHUSHIPURA,
CHANDBAD ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. RANI D/O SHRI RADHESHYAM GOSWAMI , AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O
Signature Not Verified
SANJEEV NAGAR, POLICE COLONY, NEAR NEW
SAN
CENTRAL JAIL, DISTRICT-BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.03.11 11:06:15 IST
10. RAJ PARMAR S/O SHRI SUNDAR LAL PARMAR ,
2
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
R/O VILLAGE-BABULIYA, POST-BABULIYA, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT-SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEEP CHANDRA BAGRI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS)
AND
1. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OF
SECRETARY GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION THROUGH ITS EXAMINATION
C O N T R O L L E R RESIDENCY AREA INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO, LEARNED GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
(BY SHRI DIVYAKRISHNA BILAIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
This petition coming on for admission and I.R. this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
By the instant writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the illegality and
irregularity in the State Service Preliminary examination 2020 and have committed
grave error in assessment of objective type question namely:-
"20. Who founded the AdiBramhasamaj ?
(A) Devendranath Tagore
(B) Keshav Chandra Sen
(C) Raja Ram Mohan Rai
(D) Ravindranath Tagore
This issue came up for consideration before a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.4788/2022 and another connected matter wherein the Court has
passed the following order:-
"10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record,
it is evident that in the website of Brahmo Samaj, it is specifically mentioned that severe
Signature Not Verified
SAN differences regarding creed, rituals and the Brahmos to the social problems of the day,
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR had arisen between Dedendranath and Keshub men of radically different temperament
BURMAN
Date: 2022.03.11 11:06:15 IST
and the Samaj soon split up into two groups-old conservatives rallying round the cautious
Debendranath and the young reformists led by the dynamic Keshub. The division came to
the surface towards the close of 1866 with the emergence of two rival bodies, the
Calcutta or Adi Brahmo Samaj consisting of the old adherents of the faith and the new
order (inspired and led by Keshub) known as the Brahmos Samaj of India.
11. In the Gazetteer of India, Indian Union, Volume Two, History and Culture,
edited by Dr. P.N. Chopra, it is mentioned that Keshub Chandra Sen, having imbibed
more of western culture and Christian influence advocated a much more aggressive
programme. Debendranath Tagore, as a reformer, was for a slow and cautious move. In
1865, the progressives led by Keshub Chandra Sen withdrew from the parent body and
in the following year (November 11, 1866) the dissenters established the Brahmo Samaj
of India. The parent body henceforth came to be known as the Adi Brahmosamaj.
12. When tested in light of two most authentic publications; namely; Website of
the Brahmo Samaj and the Gazetteer of India issued by Department of Culture, Ministry
of Education and Social Welfare and taking into consideration the law laid down by
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.
13. Similarly, Full Bench of this Court has taken a view that judicial review should
not be taken up when no mala fides have been alleged against expert constituted to
finalize answer key. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for Courts to
leave the decision to the academicians and experts, this Court is of the opinion that when
the opinion of the expert is tested on the touch stone of the Gazetteer of India and the
Website Brahmo Samaj, it does not call for any interference or indulgence, therefore, it
can be safely held that there is no ambiguity in the question or by no stretch of
imagination, petitioner’s option can be considered to be correct in relation to
the said question reproduced above, thus, in absence of any ambiguity, no indulgence is
required in the matter calling for any interference in the decision of the experts.
14. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed."
In view of the aforesaid, order dated 03.03.2022 passed in
Signature Not Verified
SAN
W.P.No.4788/2022 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this case with full force.
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR Parties to act accordingly.
BURMAN
Date: 2022.03.11 11:06:15 IST
A copy of the order dated 03.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.4788/2022 be
placed in the record of the present petition.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
vinay*
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.03.11 11:06:15 IST
