Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Upadhyaya vs Madhya Pradesh Public Service ... on 5 February, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
Writ Petition No.27816 of 2023
SUNIL KUMAR UPADHYAYA
Vs.
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
APPERANCE
Shri Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for
respondent/MPPSC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 21/01/2025
Delivered on : 5/2/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the act of the
respondents in not deleting the wrong question and correcting answers
of 10 questions of Madhya Pradesh Assistant Registrar Recruitment
Examination, 2022.
2. The petitioner was a candidate of M.P. Assistant Registrar
Recruitment Examination, 2022 and upon declaration of the answer key
by the respondent/MPPSC, certain objections were raised by the
candidates, upon which 06 questions were deleted and for remaining 10
questions, objections raised by the petitioner was not considered,
despite the answers provided by the respondent/MPPSC to the said
questions were contrary to books, Gazette Notification, publication and
other sources of information provided by the State of Madhya Pradesh
and Government of India.
3. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a student of
Agriculture and has completed his UG., P.G., and Ph.D. in the field of
Agriculture. On 25.08.2022, the respondent/MPPSC had issued an
advertisement for conducting examination for recruitment on the post of
Assistant Registrar. The petitioner had duly participated in the said
examination, as he was having all the requisite eligibility gave written
examination bearing Roll No.111065 and got 270 marks.
4. Due to some error in questions and answers, numerous candidates
including the petitioner had filed online objections within a period of
seven days after paying the requisite fees as per the advertisement, to
which the respondent/MPPSC had deleted 06 questions, but remaining
10 questions for which the dispute raised by the petitioner were not
considered, as neither the questions were deleted nor the answer options
were corrected.
5. The questions No.16, 19, 22, 41, 42, 52,55, 105, 108 and 126 as
per Set-D were the wrong questions wherein there was error in the
questions and answers when compared with the other books, Gazette
Notification, publication and other sources of information provided by
the State of Madhya Pradesh and Government of India.
6. On 26.07.2023 the respondent/MPPSC had published the list of
selected candidates but the petitioner could not be selected, as the
options for the questions mentioned above though were rightly
answered by him, due to wrong references of the literature by the
respondent, could not obtain the requisite marks. Being aggrieved by
the aforesaid act of the respondent, the present petition has been filed.
7. Vide proceedings dated, 19.02.2024, the controversy was boiled
down to questions No.19 and 55 of set 'D' provided to the petitioner and
corresponding questions No.29 and 76 as provided by
respondent/MPPSC. In the aforesaid regard, this Court had directed the
counsel for the respondent/MPPSC to file a short reply corresponding to
the aforesaid questions and in pursuance thereof, additional reply dated
03.07.2024 was filed wherefrom it is reflected that so far as question
No.55 which pertained to "whether in the direct recruitment to the M.P.
University Service, the combined upper ceiling of the reservation for
SC and ST in the total posts advertised can be" was marked by the
petitioner as option "[C]" i.e. as per population of these categories"
whereas as per literature referred by the MPPSC considering Rule 11 of
the M.P. State University Service Rules, 1983, but the correct option
was option "[B]" i.e. 45%, therefore, when the petitioner himself has
made a wrong choice, no marks could had been given to him.
8. So far as question No.19 was concerned, which dealt with "the
total reserve of manganese ore in Madhya Pradesh is", the petitioner
had ticked option "[A]" i.e. 64.23 million tonnes whereas as per the
literature, the correct answer was option "[C]" i.e. 23.64 million tones,
thus on the strength on the aforesaid reply, it was prayed that the present
petition be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the
literature appended alongwith the petition, namely, Madhya Pradesh: A
Geographical Study in memory of Dr. Parmila Kumar and Dr. Shrikamal
Sharma published in Madhya Pradesh Hindi Granth Academy, Bhopal,
had argued that in the said book, it has been written that according to
2011 consensus, there were 43 tribes in the State of Madhya Pradesh
and in the year 1961, their total population was 38.9 lakhs, which was
increased to 122.33 Lakhs in the year 2001 and 153.17 Lakhs in the
year 2011 and on the basis of the population, the State of M.P. is first as
far as the population of Scheduled Tribe is concerned; thus, the answer
would be as per their population.
10. Further, while referring to the amendment in Rule 11 of the M.P.
State University Service Rules, 1983 carried out vide Notification
dated 27.08.2015, which earlier contained a that "the total number of
vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (included the vacancies carried forward) shall not
at any time exceed 45% of the total vacancies advertised" was replaced
by another set of Rules in which the said Proviso was deleted and since
under Clause (3) of Rule 11, it was mentioned that where the posts
available are for direct recruitment then the same shall be reserved for
SC, ST and OBC in the ratio of 16:20:14 and since the ratio of SC/ST
candidates would be of 36% then the answer to question No.55 cannot
be 45% as has been held by the MPPSC.
11. So far as question No.19 was concerned, learned counsel for the
petitioner while placing reliance on a literature, namely, Madhya
Pradesh Economic Survey 2022-23 especially Table 11.8 of Clause
11.3.2 which depicts the Mineral Reserves of the State of Madhya
Pradesh wherein stock of Manganese Ore is shown to be 57.71 million
tonnes, had argued before this Court that the said option is not provided
under the four options given in the question paper and therefore, the
petitioner has marked option "[A]" which is the nearest option to the
exact figure of 57.71 million tonnes Manganese Ore in the State of
Madhya Pradesh thus should have been given marks. Also, if for the
sake of the arguments it is assumed that all the options were wrong then
also the question was required to be deleted and proportionate marks
were required to be given to the petitioner.
12. It was further argued that apart from the giving his marks to the
aforesaid questions, minus marking was done which has further reduced
the marks of the petitioner which are also required to be awarded and if
the said marks are awarded to him, he would qualify for the said
examination.
13. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/MPPSC has submitted that so far question No.19 is
concerned which pertains to the total reserve of manganese ore in
Madhya Pradesh, the literature which has been referred by the Expert of
MPPSC, shows that the total reserve of manganese ore in the State of
M.P. is 23.64 million tonnes.
14. It was further submitted that the literature which has been referred
to by the petitioner reflects that total stock of manganese for the period
2015-18 as 57.71 million tonnes, which cannot be said to be of a single
year or pertaining to the year 2022 in which the examination was
conducted though the reference was that of Economic Survey of 2022-
23, therefore, the said literature cannot be relied. It was thus submitted
that so far as question No.19 is concerned, the correct answer was of
option "[C]", therefore, rightly no marks had been awarded to the
petitioner so far as the said question is concerned.
15. With regard to question No.55 it was submitted that as per Rule
11 of the Rules of 1983, the proviso appended thereto provides that the
total number of vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall not at any time exceed
45% of the total vacancies advertised" thus, when the Rules of 1983
specifically prescribes about the maximum cap of 45%, the answer to
question No.55 was option "[B]", but the petitioner has chosen option
"[C]" as correct answer, which was not corrected, thus, both the answers
given by the petitioner since were wrong, no marks to the aforesaid
question were given to him and as he had committed mistake, minus
marking was also done.
16. Further, learned Govt. Advocate for the MPPSC has placed
reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh
and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2018) 2
SCC 357 and a Full Bench decision of this Court in matter of Nitin
Pathak vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2017(4) M.P.L.J. 353
wherein it has been held that the power of judicial review is not proper
to be exercised over the decision of the Expert Committee.
17. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, it was prayed that the
present being devoid of merits be dismissed.
18. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
19. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Nitin Pathak vs.
State of M.P. (supra) has held that in exercise of power of Judicial
Review, the 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, therefore, while
exercising the power of judicial review, the Court is not to take upon
itself the revaluation of Model Answer Key either itself or though the
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 the Model Answer Key is palpably incorrect
that no reasonable person would find the same to be acceptable, then 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.
20. While analysing the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the Full Bench in paras 31 and 32 had held as under:
"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 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 net act as Court of Appeal in the matter of
opinion of experts in academic matters an 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."
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh &
Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) has also held that if a
statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-
evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter
of right, then it must be permitted, if not, the Court may also permit re-
evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without
any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization
and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been
committed; it can be permitted and the onus is on the candidate to
clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without
any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is
therefore rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely
cautious in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key
answer. To prevent such challenges, the Hon'ble Apex Court had
recommended few steps to be taken by the examination authorities and
among them are: (i) Establishing a system of moderation; (ii) Avoid any
ambiguity in the questions, including those that might be caused by
translation; and (iii) Prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect
question and no marks be assigned to it, if a statute, Rule or Regulation
permits re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet
as a matter of right, then it must be permitted, if not, the Court may also
permit it only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization and only in rare
or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed, it can be
permitted and the onus is on candidate to demonstrate such clear and
material incorrectness of answer key and the Court should be extremely
reluctant to substitute its own views against views of experts and also
Court should never take upon itself task to re-evaluate the answer
sheets. Importantly, 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. In the aforesaid matter,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 31 to 33 has observed as under:
"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 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.
33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the
first instance the learned Single Judge took it upon
himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key
answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond
his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several
occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible.
Fortunately, the Division Bench did not repeat the error
but in a sense, endorsed the view of the learned Single
Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but
sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man
Expert Committee."
22. In light of the aforesaid enunciation, so far question No.19 is
concerned, the literature finds that the Experts had relied upon certain
literatures and has found that the reserve of manganese ore in State of
M.P. is 23.64 million tones and as the Experts are more familiar with the
Subject then this Court cannot sit in appeal over their opinion and
substitute its own opinion and as has been held by the Full Bench of this
Court in the matter of Nitin Pathak vs. State of M.P. (supra), the
power of judicial review is concerned not with the decision, but with the
decision-making process, it cannot be said that experts have referred to
a wrong literature and given a wrong answer to the question and it
cannot be said that the said decision making process is bad.
23. So far as question No.55 is concerned, the reliance has been
placed by respondent/MPPSC on un-amended Rules of 1983 which
provided that the maximum cap for SC/ST would be of 45% of the total
vacancies advertised. A notification dated 27.08.2015 has been placed
before this Court whereby amendment was carried out in Rule 11 of the
Rules of 1983 and the Proviso as earlier appended alongwith the Rules
was deleted, thus, this Court finds that the answer to the said question
needs to be reanalyzed by MPPSC and in that regard, this Court leave it
to the MPPSC to consider the option given with regard to question
No.55 and take appropriate decision if required, as it is well established
principle of law that this Court cannot substitute its finding over and
above the findings given by an Expert appointed by the MPPSC. The
net result therefore is that the petitioner don't succeed in upsetting the
result, therefore, the petition hereby fails and is accordingly dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
PAWAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
pwn*
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34
KUMAR
d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02d9d593f,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455
ED49EA436EA65E26164BEEED89153191C5
6E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2025.02.06 10:41:00 +05'30'
