Shri Nikhil Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3921 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3921 MP
Judgement Date : 22 March, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri Nikhil Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2022

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                     1                                       WP No.5565/2022




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                              BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                         ON THE 22nd OF MARCH, 2022

                     WRIT PETITION No. 5565 of 2022

         Between:-
         SHRI NIKHIL AHIRWAR S/O SHRI RAJARAM
         AHIRWAR,   AGED   ABOUT     28    YEARS,
         OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O HIG-124 SANJEEV
         NAGAR, KAROND BYPASS ROAD, BHOPAL
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI PALASH UPADHYAY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
         PETITIONER)

         AND

1.       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
         PRINCIPAL     SECRETARY,    GENERAL
         ADMINISTRATIIVE DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
         BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
         (BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER
         FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE AND SHRI PARAG TIWARI,
         LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:
                                     ORDER

By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the illegality and irregularity in the State Service Preliminary Examination, 2020 in which

grave error has been committed in assessment of objective type question (Question No.35, Set 'C') namely:-

"35. Who founded the Adi Bramhasamaj ?

(A) Devendranath Tagore

(B) Keshav Chandra Sen

(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 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 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.