Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sourabh Haldkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5879
1 WP-28463-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28463 of 2022
SOURABH HALDKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.S. Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Shri R.K. Choudhary -
Advocate for petitioner
Ms. Ankita Khare - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Shri Rahul Diwaker - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i)- To call for the relevant record pertaining to the subject
matter for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) To Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents
to produce the answer sheet of Constable Recruitment Test 2020 for
rechecking this answer sheet from the expert concerned before this
Hon'ble Court on cost of petitioner by issuing an appropriate writ order
and direction.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper may also be passed together cost of the petition."
2. By way of an amendment another relief is added which is as under:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondents to extend the marking question No.12, 41 and 89 as per the answer
sheet for minimum qualified marks required, in the interest of justice. Therefore the
Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased' to allow the amendment application in the interest
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5879
2 WP-28463-2022
of justice."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the post of
Constable by appearing in Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2020. The
examination was conducted by respondent No.2 on various dates. Petitioners
appeared in the selection process and in the written examination. The
petitioner was not selected. It is his case that some of the questions i.e.
question No.12, 41 and 89 were wrongly cancelled by the examination
authorities despite of the fact that the petitioner has given correct answers for
those questions. Had the correct answers given by the petitioner were
considered by the authorities, the petitioner would have qualified in
the Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2020.
4. It is argued that the less meritorious candidates to the petitioner have
been selected as the petitioner has rightly given answers to those three
questions which are wrongly been cancelled. It is contended that question
No.12 is 'Nanda Devi Peak is a part ofwhich Himalaya ?' The petitioner has
marked as answer 'A' - Garhwal is a part of Himalayas, which is the correct
answer but the said question was cancelled. Similarly question No.41 for
which the petitioner has marked the right answer as 'D' but the said question
is again cancelled by the authorities and similar is the situation with question
No.89 for which the petitioner has marked the right answer as 'A'.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there should be some
reason assigned by the authorities for cancellation of the correct questions.
The same cannot be cancelled unilaterally without assigning any reason for
which he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5879
3 WP-28463-2022
Court in the case of Richal and others v. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission and others: (2018) 8 SCC 81 as well as in the case of Kanpur
University through Vice Chancellor and others v. Sameer Gupta and others :
(1983) 4 SCC 309 with reference to paragraph 16, therefore this petition has
been filed.
6. Counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the
petitioner's averments and has contended that the scope of interference in
such matters is very limited. It is argued that the relief claimed by the
petitioner is that he wants a re-checking of his answer sheet to be done by an
expert body and the next relief is to extend additional marks to the petitioner.
However, in absence of any provision for re-checking no relief can be
extended to the petitioner. As far as claim of the petitioner regarding
cancellation of the questions by the examining body is concerned, he has
placed heavy reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.P. No.8556/2019 ( Saurabh Dubey v. M.P. Professional
Examination Board, Bhopal) decided on 12.07.2021 as well as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 2 SCC
7. It is argued by the counsel for the respondent that the opinion given by
the expert body cannot be put to judicial scrutiny by this Court. It is further
contended that the Court's have gone to the extent that in case there is a
conflict between the opinion of experts as well the answers of which the
candidates are placing reliance, then the opinion of the experts has to be
given weightage. It is further contended that in terms of the Rule Book
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5879
4 WP-28463-2022
issued by the answering respondent which is approved by the State
Government after the examinations are over a model answer key is issued on
the basis of which the answer sheets are evaluated and the said answer key is
prepared by the body of experts. Candidates may have objections from the
model answers. The are required there answers through online mode on
official website of the Employees Selection Board for which the link is
opened for three days after examination. The objections are required to be
considered by the expert committee and thereafter the final model answer
keys are prepared. Once the final model answer keys are prepared, then the
candidate has no authority to challenge the model answer key before any
forum. As the same has been prepared after considering the objections taken
by the candidates, the same cannot be put to judicial scrutiny by this Court.
He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The sole question which comes up for consideration before this Court
is whether in absence of any provision for re-checking of the answer sheet
can the same be directed by this Court as well as that whether the
cancellation of answer within the domain of the examination body can be put
to judicial scrutiny, in the event when the model answer key is prepared by
the body of experts.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra)
has held as under:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we
only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If
a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5879
5 WP-28463-2022
evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter
of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
(ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not
permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from
prohibiting it) then the Court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only
if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of
reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or
exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The
Court should not at all reevaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a
candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are
best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness
of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the
event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority
rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does
not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing
reevaluation 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5879
6 WP-28463-2022
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 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 judgment passed in the case of Ran Vijay Singh was considered
by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak v. State of M.P.
and others : 2017(4) MPLJ 353 and it was held as under:-
"26. Therefore, while exercising the power of judicial review, this Court is not to
take upon itself the revaluation of Model Answer Key either itself or through Court
appointed Expert, who is none else but a delegate of the Court. The Court in
exercise of power of judicial review, if sufficient material exists to return a finding
that Model Answer Key is palpably incorrect that no reasonable person would find
the same to be acceptable, than the Court could direct the examining body to re-
examine the answer key but cannot take over the function of the Commission in
finalizing the answer key itself.
...
31. In view of the discussion above, we hold that in exercise of power of Judicial
Review, the Court should not refer the matter to court appointed expert
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5879
7 WP-28463-2022
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.
32. In respect of the second question, this Court does not and should not act as Court
of Appeal in the matter of opinion of experts in academic matters as the power of
judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making
process. The Court should not under the guise of preventing the abuse of power be
itself guilty of usurping power."
12. The Division Bench in Saurabh Dubey (supra) has considered the
similar aspect and has held as under:-
"2. The learned counsel for the respondent at the outset, submitted that the
present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, dated 23-4-2019, whereby a similar writ petition forming the subject-
matter of W.P. No.7393/2019 [Rajendra Prasad Namedo vs. The State of M.P. and
another] has already been dismissed. He submitted that an advertisement was issued
by the respondent/ M.P. Professional Examination Board, for recruitment on the
post of Nayab Tehsildar through the Nayab Tehsildar Departmental Recruitment
Test-2018 and pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner had submitted his
application form. Thereafter, admit card was issued to the petitioner and he appeared
in the said Examination in the year 2018.
3. It is strenuously urged by the petitioner that some questions and answers in
the answer key were incorrect, vague and defective. Accordingly the petitioner
submitted objection regarding the defective questions.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that all the questions which
were defective or incorrect, were cancelled in accordance with the Instructions for
conduction of the Examination. It is further submitted by him that after
cancellation of the said questions, marks have been awarded to the candidates as per
formula mentioned in Clause 2.11 of the Instructions and, therefore, the contention
of the petitioner cannot be accepted that any prejudice is caused to him because of
the said questions. That apart, by this time the appointments have been made."
13. The Supreme Court again in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5879
8 WP-28463-2022
Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another : (2010) 6 SCC 759-
"Para 20- In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to
examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the
Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a
discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all
the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a
matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to
Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are
unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the
High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not
permissible to the High Court."
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UPPSC and another v.
Rahul Singh and another : Civil Appeal No.5838/2018 has gone to the extent
that when there are conflicting view then the court must accept the opinion
of experts. It is held as under -
"In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of
reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is
also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the
court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot
be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should
not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts."
15. The Pramod Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public
Service Commission, Patna and others : (2004) 6 SCC 714 has held that -
"In absence of any provision for revaluation of answer book in the relevant rules
no candidate in an examination had got any right whatsoever to claim or
ask for revaluation of his marks".
16. If the aforesaid settled legal proposition of law is applied to the facts
and circumstances of the present case then it is seen that the three answers
which have been cancelled by the examination body has been uniformly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5879
9 WP-28463-2022
applied to all the candidates. It cannot be seen that the prejudice has been
caused to the petitioner. The decision to cancel the three questions is based
upon the decision based upon the decision taken by the expert body.
17. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
Even otherwise, as the petitioner's counsel has failed to point out any
provision for re-checking the answer sheets no relief as claimed for re-
checking can be extended to the petitioner. Once this Court has already
arrived at a conclusion that the arguments advanced by the petitioner's
counsel could not be considered for the purpose of re-checking or for grant
of additional marks to him, the relief claim by way of amendment for
granting additional marks towards question Nos.12, 41 and 89 cannot be
extended to the petitioner.
18. Under these circumstances, petition sans merit and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
