Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Neena Khare vs Madhya Pradesh Public Service ... on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22139
1 WP-21593-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21593 of 2019
DR. NEENA KHARE
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naval Kumar Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri YPS Rathore -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for respondent No.1/M.P. Public
Service Commission.
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, has been filed by the petitioner, claiming the following relief:
"i) That, respondent may kindly be directed to correct the final
answer key issued by them and accordingly they may be directed
to revise the result and also be directed to prepare fresh select
list.
ii) That, respondent may be directed to cancel or omit questions
from the final answer key on account of multiple answers and
also be directed to revise the result accordingly.
iii) That, the result declared by the respondent for the post of
Assistant Professor (Drawing and Painting) may kindly be set
aside and the respondent further be directed to revise the result
by allocating the seat to general category candidate.
iv) Any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court deems
fit in the fact and circumstances of the case may kindly be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22139
2 WP-21593-2019
passed."
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was a candidate for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Drawing
and Panting), conducted by the respondent No.1 in the year 2017. The
petitioner duly participated in the selection process; however, he could not
succeed in the selection process as answers to certain questions in the
examination conducted by the respondent No.1 as contained in the model
answer key were incorrect and the answers attempted by the petitioner to the
said questions were correctly answered but on the strength of the model
answer key, the answers attempted by the petitioner were marked as
incorrect by the respondent No.1. He further submits that the respondent
No.2, who was a candidate in the recruitment process under the OBC
Category, has been illegally placed in the select list of the Unreserved
Category candidate on the basis of merit. He further submits that once
respondent No.2 has opted for consideration as a Reserved Category
candidate, he could not have been permitted migration to the Unreserved
Category, thereby taking the seat of an Unreserved Category.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1 submits that both the issues argued by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner have already been considered and decided by this
Court. The petition filed by the petitioner, being bereft of merits, deserved to
be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Insofar as the correction or judicial review of the validity of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22139
3 WP-21593-2019
model answer key issued by Madhya Public Service Commission is
concerned, the said issue has been authoritatively dealt with by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak Vs. State of M.P. and Others,
W.A.No.581/2017, decided on 04.09.2017, wherein in paragraph 26, the Full
Bench has 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 write a
finding that 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
finalising the answer key itself."
2 8 . The scope of interference in academic matters has been
examined by the Supreme Court in many cases. In Basavaiah
(Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh , (2010) 8 SCC 372 : (2010) 2 SCC
(L&S) 640, the Court held as under:-
"38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate
and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters,
the courts have a very limited role particularly when no
mala fides have been alleged against the experts
constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be
prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the
decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of
principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit
in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must
realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in
academic matters.
29. Supreme Court in another judgment reported as University
Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde, (2013) 10 SCC 519 ,
held that in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of
statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the
courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the
domain of the experts the Court. The Court held as under:
"31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22139
4 WP-21593-2019
there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the
regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep
their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of
the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D.
Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491; Tariq Islam v. Aligarh
Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546; and, Rajbir Singh
Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284,
has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in
appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic
bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to
leave the decision of the academic experts who are more
familiar with the problem they face, than the courts
generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted
with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the
determination and maintenance of standards of teaching,
examination and research in the university. For attaining
the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any
"qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the
object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards
of teaching, examination and research. The candidates
declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for
appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and
colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a
direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education
to be imparted to the students of the universities and
colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the
experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which
cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory
or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
6. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble
Full Bench, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in Clause 7 (i) & (ii) are
hereby rejected.
7 . The other issue raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner as regards the placement of respondent No.2 belonging to the
Reserved Category, under the Unreserved Category on the basis of merit is
concerned, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- No.1 Madhya
Pradesh Public Service Commission by referring to paragraph 9 of the return
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22139
5 WP-21593-2019
filed on behalf of the M.P.PSC, submits that the respondent No. 2 not only
secured more marks than the petitioner, but also did not avail any relaxation
available to the Reserved Category candidates. Therefore, in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi
and Others Vs. Pinky Asati and Others , Civil Appeal No.7781/2021 (arising
out of SLP (Civil) No.7811 of 2020, even that ground of challenge is also not
available to the petitioner as it has been held that a Reserved category
candidate, who had not availed any benefit of relaxation and at the stage of
the submission of application form, in the absence of any contrary provisions
under the Rules, is entitled for being selected under the Unreserved category
on the basis of merit.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-MPPSC further relies on the
recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
and Others. vs. Sajib Roy, reported in 2025 INSC 1084. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pinky Asati (Supra), at paragraph 11.1 has held
as under:
"11.1 Some of the relevant paragraphs from the leading judgment
in Saurav Yadav & Others (supra) are as under:
"26. The principle that candidates belonging to any of the
vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in
"Open or General Category" is well settled. It is also well
accepted that if such candidates belonging to reserved
categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their
own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the
quota reserved for the categories for vertical reservation
that they belong. Apart from the extracts from the decisions
of this Court in Indra Sawhney2 and R.K. Sabharwal3 the
observations by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
V.V. Giri v. D. Susi Dora, though in the context of election
law, are quite noteworthy."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22139
6 WP-21593-2019
9 . In view of the above, even this ground of challenge made by the
petitioner in the instant writ petition does not warrant any consideration.
1 0 . Accordingly, finding no cause for interference, the instant writ
petition is hereby dismissed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
