Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tarun Bairagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 15th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 5909 of 2022
Between:-
TARUN BAIRAGI S/O SHRI NANDRAM BAIRAGI ,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
SHRIKRISHNA COLONY DUPADA ROAD
SHAJAPUR DIST. SHAJAPUR MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COM M IS S ION THROUGH ITS EXAMINATION
CONTROLLER RESIDENCY AREA INDORE M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, PANEL LAWYER)
(BY SHRI PARAG TIWARI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This petition has come up for hearing on admission on this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioner through this writ petition is seeking direction to respondent No.2 i.e.
M.P. Public Service Commission to award marks to the petitioners relating to
Question No.35 of Set-’C’, Question No.90 of Set-’B’, Question
No.70 of Set- ‘A’ and Question No.20 of Set- ‘D’ namely who
founded the Adi Brahmasamaj ?
2. It is submitted that there are four options namely :-
(A) Devendranath Tagore
(B) Keshav Chandra Sen
Signature Not
SAN
Verified (C) Raja Ram Mohan Roy
Digitally signed by
TULSA SINGH (D) Ravindranath Tagore
Date: 2022.03.16
10:44:08 IST
3. It is submitted that petitioners marked Option-’Keshav Chandra
Sen’ whereas respondent No.2 has awarded marks for Option-
‘Devendranath Tagore’.
4. It is submitted that if petitioners’ Option -’Keshav Chandra
Sen’ which is mentioned in NCERT book namely ‘Aadhunik Bharat’
for Class-12th first edition (issued in March, 2003) which is placed on record, is
believed to be correct so also on a book by name ‘Aadhunik Bharat’
written by S.K. Pandey, Director, Prayag Academy, Allahabad published by
Prayag Publications and Distributors, so also in 36th edition of ‘Aadhunik
Bharat Ka Itihasâ € ™ published by B.L. Grover, Alka Mehta and Yashpal, so
also book published by Madhya Pradesh Hindi Granth Academy by Dr. Suresh
Mishra namely ‘Bharat Ka Itihas’ (1740-1857), so also book published by
Drishti publication titling ‘Bharatiya Itihas Avam Rashtriya Aandolan’ 3rd
edition, according to all these books and reference/guides, Option- ‘Keshav
Chandra Sen’ is right option, therefore, respondent No.2 be directed to assign
appropriate marks for this question treating Option- ‘Keshav Chandra Sen’
to be correct and permit the petitioners to appear in Main Examination, 2022 which
are going to be held between 24/04/2022 to 29/04/2022.
5. Shri Parag Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri Amit
Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1, in their turn, submit that issue
raised by learned counsel for petitioners is already examined by an expert
committee which has in unequivocal term dealt with the issue raised by the
petitioners.
6. It is submitted that about 164 objections were raised by various candidates
submitting that to the aforesaid question, option- ‘Keshav Chandra Sen’ be
also treated to be correct option along with option - ‘Devendranath Tagore’.
Expert committee has observed that certain candidates have also submitted
representations that Option- ‘Raja Ram Mohan Roy’ be also treated to be
correct option. It is submitted that in fact correct option is ‘Devendranath
Tagore’ who had taken ahead work of Brahma Samaj in the name of ‘Adi
Brahma Samaj. In 1866 Keshav Chandra Sen on account of difference of opinion
established Brahmo Samaj of India. After Keshav Chandra Sen had separated,
then Devendra Nath Tagore had given nomenclature of Adi Brahmo Samaj to the
usually known entity Brahma Samaj.
7. Expert Committee of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission has
placed reliance on book ‘Aadhunik Bharat- Jan Jeevan Aur Sanskriti by B.N.
Luniya page No.63 published by Kamal Publication, Indore, website of Brahma
Samaj namely www.thebrahmosamaj.net, the Gazetteer of India (Volume Two)
Itihas Avam Sanskriti and also to Keshav Chandra Sen Ka Jeevan Parichay. It is
submitted that Keshav Chandra Sen had established Brahmo Samaj of India on
11th November, 1866. Therefore, there is no justification to accept option -
‘Keshav Chandra Sen’ to be correct option as per committee of expert and
the opinion of the committee is supreme which does not call for any interference.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance on Full Bench
judgment of this High Court in the case of Nitin Pathak Vs. State of M.P. &
others, ILR 2017 MP 2314 : 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1824 . In this case
Hon’ble Full Bench has held that in case of recruitment examination, in
exercise of power of judicial review, Court should not refer the matter to Court
appointed expert as the Courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala
fides have been alleged against the experts constituted to finalize answer key. It
would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the Courts to leave the
decisions to the academicians and experts.
9. 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 S a m a j 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
