Ankita Jaiswal vs Madhya Pradesh Public Service ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 17097 MP

                                                                  1
                          IN     THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                                   JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                              ON THE 13 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 10062 of 2019

                    BETWEEN:-
                    ANKITA JAISWAL D/O SHRI ADARSH JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 27
                    YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O HOLYDAY HOMES, WARD
                    NO. 14, AMARKANTAK, DISTT. ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                    (BY SHRI YOGESH SINGH BAGHEL - ADVOCATE)

                    AND
                    MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THR. ITS
                    EXAMINATION CONTROLLER (MPSET-2018) STATE ELIGIBILITY
                    TEST CELL, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE (MP)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                    (BY SHRI NIKHIL BHATT - ADVOCATE)

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

With the consent finally heard.

2. In this petition filed under Section226 of the Constitution of India has prayed

for following relief :-

(i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to provide 4 marks to the petitioner for select correct and right answer of question No.8 and question No.75 considering (Annexure P/3 and P/4).

(ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to provide the result of the petitioner providing her total marks 172 in place of 168 (Annexure P/2) considering her objection (Annexure P/5).

(iii) To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper in Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

10/13/2023 4:59:08 PM

the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Shri Yogesh Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that although petitioner in his relief clause has prayed relief in relation to question Nos. 8 & 75, petitioner is confining his relief only in relation to question No.75.

4. The singular argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that model answer sheet of question No.75 gives a wrong option as correct answer i.e. option No.'A' whereas petitioner tried option No.'D'. The similar question was asked by University Grant Commission (UGC) in the year 2012 as question No.20 and option 'D' which is similar to the option 'D' in the present case was held to be correct answer as per the model answer sheet of UGC (page 28). Thus, model answer sheet in the instant case

is bad in law. If petitioner's option is treated as correct, she will get two more marks as a OBC candidates which comes to 170 marks which are as per the cut off marks prescribed in the advertisement (Annexure 2).

5. In support of his submissions, Shri Baghel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. (2018) 2 SCC 357, which was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10070 of 2021 (Ankit Tiwari and others vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & another) and other connected matters decided on 14/07/2021. In the light of legal principles laid down in the aforesaid cases, if it is demonstrated clearly without any inferential process of reasoning, this Court can accept the contention of the petitioner and no expert committees decision will come in the way of this Court.

6. Shri Nikhil Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and urged that as per procedure prevailing, the model answer sheet is displayed on the Website of MPPSC on 19/01/2019 (Annexure R-1-1). The model answer sheet was published in the Website and objections were invited within seven days. Petitioner did not prefer any objection within stipulated time. Although certain objections of similar nature Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

10/13/2023 4:59:08 PM

were filed, the same were considered by an expert committee which came to hold that answer 'A' is correct and objections are devoid of substance. By placing reliance on a Gwalior Bench order in W.P.No.4550 of 2022 (Vivek Singh Bhadoria vs. The State of M.P. & another), it is submitted that if objection is not filed within time, the whole recruitment process cannot be put to jeopardy at the behest of the petitioner, who was sleeping over her right.

7. In addition, learned counsel for the other side placed reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak vs. State of M.P. & others, (W.P.No.581 of 2017) wherein the question was framed regarding scope of judicial review in a case of this nature and as per the answer of said reference, it is no more open for this Court to enter into the arena of the experts, Thus, petitioner has no case.

8. Learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated herein above.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

10. On a specific query from the Bench, Shri Yogesh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that petitioner preferred the objection against the model answer sheet only on 23.4.2019.

11. A plain reading of the website publication of Public Service Commission dated 19.1.2019 shows that model answer sheet was published and objections were

invited within a period of seven days. The petitioner belatedly filed the objection. This point was considered by the Gwalior Bench in the case of Vivek Singh Bhadoria (supra). The relevant para reads as under :-

"9. Perusal of said provision further reveals that within seven days he had to make complaint which he could not. Therefore, at belated stage in a case where recruitment is at the stake, interference cannot be made. petitioner who is civil services Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

10/13/2023 4:59:08 PM

aspirant has to be cautious about his response/disposition towards any anomaly crept into the selection process."

12. This petition, in my opinion, must fail solely on the ground of delay and inaction of the petitioner in not preferring objection when such an opportunity was given by notice dated 19.1.2019 (Annexure R/1/1) within stipulated time. The recruitment process cannot be interfered with at any point of time at the behest of a litigant who is not vigilant about her rights. Apart from the aforesaid, in view of the law laid down in the case of Nitin Pathak (supra), the scope of interference by this Court is very limited. The expert body has already applied its mind and came to hold that the option in the model answer is correct.

13. In the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, I find no reason to interfere in this petition because petitioner did not prefer objection within stipulated time. Pertinently, the Gwalior Bench in Vivek Singh Bhadoria (supra) opined that the candidates who approached the authorities within time are on a different footing and same cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner who did not prefer objection within time. No case is made out for interference in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

14. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE manju

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

10/13/2023 4:59:08 PM