Samyaktva Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3748 MP

                                                          1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2022

                                           WRIT PETITION No. 5203 of 2022

                              Between:-
                      1.      SAMYAKTVA JAIN S/O L.P. JAIN , AGED ABOUT 30
                              Y E A R S , OCCUPATION:  STUDENT     R/O   63
                              INDRAPURI TIKAMGAH DISTRICT TIKMGARH
                              MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.      SAURABH KUMAR JAIN S/O VIRENDRA KUMAR
                              JAIN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                              STUDENT R/O GRAM-AAHAR BALDEVGARH,
                              DISTRICT-TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.      SHAILESH JAIN S/O MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN ,
                              AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
                              R/O WARD NO-11, KILE KA MAIDAN, TIKAMGARH
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                              (BY SHRI SATYENDRA JAIN, ADVOCATE)

                              AND

                      1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                              PRINCIPAL      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 JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER FOR
                              RESPONDENT NO.1 & ADITYA PACHORI, ADVOCATE FOR
                              RESPONDENT NO.2)

                            This petition has come up for hearing on admission on this day, the court
                      passed the following:
                                                           ORDER

Petitioners through this writ petition are 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 ?

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by 2. It is submitted that there are four options namely :- TULSA SINGH Date: 2022.03.16 16:05:31 IST

(A) Devendranath Tagore

(B) Keshav Chandra Sen

(C) Raja Ram Mohan Roy

(D) Ravindranath Tagore

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 n a me ‘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 Itihas’ 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 Aditya Pachori, 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 11 th 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