Pooja Korkoo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3380 MP

                                                                      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. 5365 of 2022

                                          Between:-
                                          POOJA KORKOO D/O DILIP KORKOO , AGED
                                          ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT 19/2
                                          MANORMA GANJ INDORE MP (MADHYA
                                          PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                                          (BY SHRI AJAY SHANKAR RAIZADA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                                          PETITIONER)

                                          AND

                                  1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                          PRINCIPAL      SECRETARY     GENERAL
                                          ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN
                                          BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                          (BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO, LEARNED GOVERNMENT
                                          ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
                                          (BY SHRI DIVYAKRISHAN 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

B y the instant writ petition, the petitioner is 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 Signature Not Verified SAN

Court in W.P.No.4788/2022 and another connected matter wherein the Court has Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2022.03.11 11:06:15 IST 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 differences regarding creed, rituals and the Brahmos to the social problems of the day, had arisen between Dedendranath and Keshub men of radically different temperament 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

Signature Not Verified imagination, petitioner’s option can be considered to be correct in relation to SAN

the said question reproduced above, thus, in absence of any ambiguity, no indulgence is Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2022.03.11 11:06:15 IST 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 W.P.No.4788/2022 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this case with full force.

Parties to act accordingly.

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