Madhya Pradesh High Court
Somyata Sharma vs Madhya Pradesh State Public ... on 12 October, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 12 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 25284 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SOMYATA SHARMA D/O MR. ASHOK SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT WARD NO.
12 HANUMAN COLONY BADARWAS SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI BHAVNA RAIKWAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
MADHYA PRADESH STATE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION SECRETARY RESIDENCY AREA, DALY
COLLEGE ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI VINDHYAVASHINI PRASAD KHARE- ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
being aggrieved by the action of the respondent for deleting two questions from
the question papers in preliminary examination of MP State Civil Services
Examination, 2022 (hereinafter referred as Examination 2022).
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement
on 30.12.2022 for conducting preliminary examination. In pursuant to the said
advertisement, the petitioner filed online application on 23.01.2023. Admit card
was issued to the petitioner. The preliminary examination was held on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-10-2023
17:52:26
21.05.2023. The petitioner has appeared and was provided "Set B" question
paper of General Studies alongwith OMR answersheet.
3. After conducting the preliminary examination, the respondent has
published provisional answer key for the General Studies question paper on
24.05.2023 and has invited objections with respect to the said provisional
answer key.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the provisional
answer sheet, the question no.46 and 59, the correct answer was mentioned
"B". However, in the final model answer the respondents have deleted the
aforesaid answers and the petitioner has not been awarded marks for the same.
It is argued that as per the provisional model answer sheet, the petitioner had
answered question correctly and if the petitioner would have been awarded two
marks for the said question, the petitioner would have qualified for the final
examination in open female category as cut off marks was 152.
5. It is argued that the respondents have arbitrarily deleted the aforesaid
answer in the final answer sheet. The petitioner has placed reliance on the
interim order passed in WP No.18687/2023, in which the candidate was allowed
to fill up the form and to participate in the main examination. In the present
case, the reply has already been filed and the matter is heard finally. Interim
relief is not on merits and therefore, is not binding on this court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the provisional
answer key was published on 24.05.2023 by the respondents. The objections
were invited in pursuant to the provisional answer key within the period of seven
days, which was to be scrutinized by the committee of the respondents. The
petitioner did not submit any objection from 24.05.2023 till the declaration of
the result i.e. 22.07.2023. It is also submitted that the final answer key was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-10-2023
17:52:26
published on 12.07.2023 but even after publication of the final answer key, the
petitioner did not submit any objection till 22.07.2023 on which result of
preliminary examination was declared.
7. It is submitted that 2667 candidates have submitted objections about
37 questions including the question no.46 and 59 of Set B of question paper of
the first paper General Studies. The committee of 11 members of the senior
subject experts was constituted to examine the objection and thereafter the
decision was taken to delete the answer nos.46 and 59 in the final answer. It is
argued that in the notification for preliminary objection, it was specifically
mentioned that after calling of the objection in respect of question paper, the
constituting committee of senior subject experts shall consider the objections of
the candidates and on the basis of opinion/suggestions, the question may be
deleted or amended as per the terms mentioned in the advertisement in sub
clause 2 of clause 5 of the examination scheme.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in view of the
settled law by the Apex Court and by the full bench of this court in the case of
Nitin Pathak Vs. State of MP and Ors reported in 2017 SCC Online MP
1824, the power of judicial review is very limited in public service examinations.
Model answer key is provided by the committee of experts in absence of any
allegation regarding malafide against the experts, the court should not refer
matter to court appointed experts. The power of judicial review is not with the
decision but with the decision making process. The Court should not under the
guise of preventing abuse of power be itself guilty of usurping power.
9. Apart from that, similar petition in respect of same examination and
same questions has already been dismissed by the co-ordinate bench at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-10-2023
17:52:26
Jabalpur in WP No.24483/2023.
10. In a judgment reported as (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Ran Vijay Singh vs.
State of U.P.) the Supreme Court examined the question of correctness of the
answer key and scope of judicial review in the academic matters and in paras 31
and 32 ruled thus :
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion
does not play any role in the matter of directing or not
directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is
committed by the examination authority, the complete body
of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does
not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having
been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous
answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might
suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical
precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one
way out of an impasse-exclude the suspect or offending
question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of
this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is
interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This
places the examination authorities in an unenviable position
where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates.
Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination
exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is
no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in
preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that
even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to
successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task
might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must
consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the
examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put
in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the
examination and the examination authorities. The present
appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such
interference where there is no finality to the result of the
examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the
examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering
about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the
examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their
result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether
they will get admission in a college or University or not; and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-10-2023
17:52:26
whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory
situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a
state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse
confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that
public interest suffers."
11. The Apex Court in the case of UPSC Vs. Rahul reported in AIR
2018 SC 2861 held that the High Court disagreeing with the view of
commission based on expert report and accepting the petitioner's plea that
answer given in the key was incorrect. The said order was set aside.
12. In the light of law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Nitin
(supra) and the judgments of the Apex Court, no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-10-2023
17:52:26
