Manipur High Court
Md. Sher Khan vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 9 October, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
[1]
Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM SHOUGRAKPAM DEVANANDA
DEVANANDA SINGH SINGH
Date: 2025.10.09 10:55:52 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024
1. Md. Sher Khan, S/o Md. Zahiruddin, aged about 32 years, R/o
Lilong Heinou Makhong, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, District: Thoubal,
Manipur, Pin Code - 795130.
2. Maxwin Wangkheimayum, S/o W. John Singh, aged about 26
years, R/o Wangkhei Amu Leirak Opposite Meihoubam Lampak,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Pin Code - 795005, Manipur.
3. Herojeet Singh Shougrakpam, S/o Shougrakpam Kunjakishwar
Singh, aged about 37 years, R/o Santhong Sabal Leikai, Ward
No. 7, Kwakta Gram Panchayat, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Pin Code
- 795133, Manipur.
4. Ningthoujam Roshnikumar Singh, S/o Ningthoujam Mangi Singh,
aged about 36 years, R/o Bishnupur Makha Leikai, Ward No. 6,
Near Vishnu Temple, P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur Police, Pin Code -
795126, Manipur.
5. Moirangthem Gautam Singh, S/o (Late) Moirangthem Joykumar
Singh, aged about 43 years, R/o Uripok Gopalji Leirak, Imphal
West, Pin Code - 795011, Manipur.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner /
Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC),
represented through its Secretary, Office at MPSC, North
AOC, DM Road, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
[2]
WP(C) No. 546 of 2024
Yumlembam Sanathoi, S/o Yumlembam Jitkumar Singh, aged
about 39 years, R/o Keishamthong Maning Longjam Leikai,
Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC),
represented through its Secretary, Office at MPSC, North
AOC, DM Road, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 607 of 2024
Miss Bidyaluxmi Huidrom, aged about 26 years, D/o Binod
Huidrom of Khagempali Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC),
represented through its Secretary, Office at MPSC, North
AOC, DM Road, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
[3]
WP(C) No. 618 of 2024
Robert Salam, S/o Salam Dhiren Meitei, aged about 34 years,
R/o Singjamei Chinga Mathak Yumnam Leikai, Imphal West,
Manipur - 795001.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC),
represented through its Secretary, Office at MPSC, North
AOC, DM Road, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 636 of 2024
1. Monika Chingakham, D/o Ch. Merajao Singh, aged about 31, R/o
Nambol Khajiri Mamang Leikai, Nambol Municipal Council,
Imphal West, Manipur - 795134.
2. Hidangmayum Ronendra Sharma, S/o Hidangmayum
Sanamacha Sharma, aged about 31 years, R/o Naoremthong
Khumanthem Leikai, Imphal West, Manipur -795001.
3. Nongthombam Sanju Singh, S/o Nongthombam Motihar Singh,
aged about 29 years, R/o Kongba Nandeibam Leikai, Imphal
East, Manipur - 795008.
4. Moirangthem Chinglenkhomba Singh, S/o Moirangthem
Gunendra Singh, aged about 32 years, R/o Kongba
Nongthombam Leikai, Imphal East, Manipur - 795008.
5. Akham Chinglemba Meitei, S/o Akham Iboyaima Khuman, aged
about 24 years, R/o Wangkhei Ningthem Pukhri Mapal Awang
Leirak, Imphal Municipal Council, Manipur - 795005.
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
[4]
6. Wairakpam Momocha Singh, C/o Wairakpam Tolpishak Singh,
aged about 27 years, R/o Ningthoukhong Awang Khunou, Near
Community Hall, Ward No. 1, Bishnupur District, Manipur -
795126.
7. Longjam Suraj Singh, S/o Longjam Liken Singh, aged about 26
years, R/o Bishnupur Ward No. 9, Bishnupur District, Manipur -
795126.
8. Chongtham Ronilkumar Singh, S/o Chongtham Priyokumar
Singh, aged about 27, R/o Uripok Polem Leikai, Imphal West,
Manipur - 795001.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC),
represented through its Secretary, Office at MPSC, North
AOC, DM Road, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 681 of 2024
Angom Amarjit Singh, S/o Late Angom Saratchandra Singh,
aged about 43 years, R/o Ningthoukhong Awang Khunou, Ward
No. 1, Bishnupur Sub-Division, Bishnupur, Manipur - 795126.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
[5]
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC),
represented through its Secretary, Office at MPSC, North
AOC, DM Road, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 710 of 2024
Sanabam Micheal Singh, aged about 34 years, S/o Sanabam
Manglemjao Singh of Keishamthong Top Leirak, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin No. 795001.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC),
represented through its Secretary, Office at MPSC, North
AOC, DM Road, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 802 of 2024
Ringo Pebam, aged about 45 years, S/o Pebam Sunarchand,
R/o Kwakeithel Moirangpurel Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
[6]
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC),
represented through its Secretary, Office at MPSC, North
AOC, DM Road, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioners :: Mr. T. Momo, Sr. Advocate asstd. by
Ms. Diana, Advocate;
Mr. T. Rajendra, Sr. Advocate asstd. by
Mr. Bikash Sharma, Advocate;
Mr. S. Biswajit, Sr. Advocate asstd. by Mr.
Sanatomba, Advocate &
Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. M. Rarry, Sr. Advocate asstd. by
Ms. Rosy, Advocate &
Mr. R.K. Deepak, Sr. Advocate asstd. by
Mr. L. Rajesh, Advocate
Date of hearing :: 26-09-2025
Date of judgment :: 09-10-2025
J U D G M E N T
[1] All the above eight writ petitions relates to challenging the
correctness of some answer keys published by the Manipur Public Service
Commission in connection with Manipur Civil Services Combined
Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2022. As common question of facts
and law arises in these batch of writ petitions, all the writ petitions were
heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
[2] Heard Mr. T. Momo, learned senior counsel assisted by
Ms. Diana, learned counsel appealing for the petitioners in WP(C) No 497
of 2024, WP(C) No. 546 of 2024, WP(C) No. 618 of 2024 and WP(C) No.
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
681 of 2024, Mr. T Rajendra, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Bikash
Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 607 of
2024, Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sanatomba,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 636 of 2024 and
WP(C) No. 802 of 2024 and Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 710 of 2024. Heard also, Mr. M. Rarry,
learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Rosy, learned counsel appearing
for the State of Manipur and Mr. R. K. Deepak, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. L. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the MPSC.
[3] The facts of the present cases, in a nutshell, are that the Manipur
Public Service Commission (hereinafter "MPSC", for short) issued an
Advertisement dated 07-12-2022 inviting applications from intending
candidates for the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive
(Preliminary) Examination, 2022 (hereinafter "Preliminary Examination,
2022", for short) for selecting of candidates for appearing in the
Main Examination for recruitment to the post of Manipur Civil Services,
Grade-II, Manipur Police Services, Grade-II, Manipur Finance Services
Grade-II, Sub-Deputy Collector and Manipur Secretariat Services
Grade-VI.
[4] After following due process for conduct of the said examination
as provided under the rules, the Preliminary Examination, 2022 was
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
conducted on 30-04-2023. The said Preliminary Examination consists
of only two papers i.e. General Studies (Paper-I), General Studies (Paper-
II) having a maximum of 200 marks each. General Studies (Paper-I)
consists of 100 questions and General Studies (Paper-II) consists of 80
questions. There are four series of Question Booklet, i.e., Series A, B, C
and D. All the four question series of General Studies Paper-I and Paper-II
consists of the same questions but having different question numbers.
[5] On the same day of conducting the said Preliminary Examination,
the MPSC issued a Notification dated 30-04-2023 informing all the
candidates, who appeared in the said examination to submit claims and
objections to the answer keys as notified under the said notification during
the period from 05-05-2023 till 5:00 p.m. of 10-05-2023 on online mode.
The MPSC again issued another Notification dated 09-05-2023 informing
all the candidates, who appeared in the preliminary examination that the
time given for submitting claims and objections to the answer keys
published by the MPSC shall be extended and new dates shall be notified
once the ongoing curfew was lifted and mobile internet/ broadband services
are restored. Subsequently, the MPSC issued another Notification
dated 25-09-2023 informing to all the candidates, who appeared in the
Preliminary Examination, 2022 to submit claims and objections to the
answer keys during the period from 05:00 p.m. of 26-09-2023 till 5:00 p.m.
of 01-10-2023 through online mode. By another Notification dated
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
27-09-2023 issued by the MPSC, it was notified to all the candidates
that as the government has banned all mobile internet services, the time
given earlier for submitting claims and objections to the answer keys
shall be extended and the new dates shall be notified once the mobile
internet services are restored by the government.
[6] When the mobile internet and broadband services were restored
in the State of Manipur, the MPSC issued another Notification dated
13-02-2024 notifying the period from 10:00 a.m. of 14-02-2024
till 11:59 p.m. of 18-02-2024 for submitting claims and objections to
the answer keys published earlier by it by issuing a Notification dated
13-02-2024. Lastly, the MPSC issued another Notification dated
05-03 2024 informing all the candidates, who appeared in the said
Preliminary Examination, 2022 to submit claims and objections to the
answer keys during 10:00 a.m. of 06-03-2024 till 11:59 p.m. of 08-03-2024
through online mode as a final opportunity to the candidates who could not
filed claims/ objections earlier due to disruption of internet services. In the
said notification, it was also made clear that no more claims or objections
will be accepted thereafter.
[7] According to the MPSC, many candidates including some of the
present petitioners submitted their claims and objections and all
such claims and objections were referred to subject experts and after
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
receiving the advice and recommendations of the subject experts, the
MPSC published the Final Answer Keys on 16-5-2024. On the basis of the
advice and recommendations made by the subject experts, the MPSC
revised one answer key in respect of one question of General Studies
(Paper-I) and dropped six questions of General Studies (Paper-I) and
one question of General Studies (Paper-II) and grace marks were awarded
for those questions to all the candidates irrespective of whether the
candidates attempted those questions or not by issuing a Notification dated
28-05-2024. Thereafter, the result of the said Preliminary Examination,
2022 was declared and the list of candidates who have qualified for
admission to Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Main)
Examination, 2022 was notified by issuing a Notification dated 28-05-2024.
None of the present petitioners were declared as successful candidates.
[8] After about two months from the date of declaration of
the result of the Preliminary Examination, 2022, five unsuccessful
candidates approached this court by filing a writ petition registered
as WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 with the prayer, inter alia, for directing the
MPSC to constitute a committee consisting of experts to re-examine the
correctness of the answer key of Question No. 31 of General Studies
(Paper-II) and to re-assess their marks on the basis of the
recommendations made by the experts and in case, if any of the petitioners
are found to be successful, to allow them to appear in the main examination.
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
In the said writ petition, this court passed an interim order on 29-07-2024
permitting the five petitioners to update their details in the website of MPSC
for appearing in the main examination. Subsequent thereto, seven other
writ petitions were filed one after another by unsuccessful candidates
seeking for the same relief.
[9] In these batch of eight writ petitions, the petitioners challenged
the correctness of the Final Answer Keys published by the MPSC in respect
of three questions of General Studies (Paper-II), i.e., Question Nos. 31, 51,
and 61 of Question Booklet Series A and in respect of five questions of
General Studies (Paper-I) of Question Booklet Series A, i.e., Question Nos.
9, 25, 50, 67, and 89. For ready reference, all the questions, the options
given by the candidates and the final answer keys are reproduced
hereunder:-
Sl. Case Details Challenged Questions Claimed Final
No. Options Ans. Key
1. WP(C) No. Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
497 of 2024 Q. 31 of GS - II
Md. Sher
Direction (Q. Nos. 29 to 32): (B) (C)
Khan & 4 ors.
In each of the following
questions a pair of capitalised
words is followed by four pairs
of words. You are required to
mark as the answer the pair of
words with a relationship
between them that is closest to
the relationship between the
capitalised pair:
Q. 31. ACTION: REACTION
(A) Introvert : Extrovert
(B) Assail : Defend
(C) Disease : Treatment
(D) Death : Rebirth
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
Sl. Case Details Challenged Questions Claimed Final
No. Options Ans. Key
2. WP(C) No. 546 Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
of 2024 Q.51 of G.S. - II
Y. Sanathoi
Q.51. Which of the following is (B) (D)
not an interpersonal skill? Or, no
option is
(A) Communication
correct
(B) Empathy
(C) Negotiation
(D) Assertiveness
3. WP(C) No. 607 Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
of 2024 Q.61 and Q. 51 of GS-II
Bidyaluxmi
Q.61. "The sum of behaviour is Incorrect (A)
Huidrom
to retain a man's dignity question
without intruding upon the (Must
liberty of others", stated Sir allot
Francis Bacon. If this is the grace
marks)
case, then not intruding upon
another's liberty is
impossible.
The conclusion wrongly implied
by the author from out of Sir
Francis Bacon's statement is:
(A) Retaining one's dignity is
impossible without intruding
upon other's liability.
(B) Dignity and liberty can
co-exist.
(C) There is always the
possibility of a 'dignified
intrusion'.
(D) Retaining dignity never
involves intrusion into
others' liberty.
Q.51. of GS-II (B) (D)
4. WP(C) No. 618 Correctness of answer key
of 2024 w.r.t. Q. 31 of GS - II
Robert Salam
Q.31 of GS - II (B) (C)
5. WP(C) No. 636 Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
of 2024 Q.31, Q. 51 and Q. 61 of GS - II
Monika Ch. &
Q.31. of GS - II (B) (C)
7 ors.
Q.51. of GS - II All the (D)
above
options
Q.61. of GS - II B), (C), (A)
(D)
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
Sl. Case Details Challenged Questions Claimed Final
No. Options Ans. Key
6. WP(C) No. 681 Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
of 2024 Q.67 of GS-I and Q. 31 of GS-II
Angom
Q.67 of GS-1
Amarjit
Which of the following are key Revised (D)
indicators of poverty in India? option
from (C)
a) High infant mortality rate
to (D) is
b) Low life expectancy
incorrect
c) High Inflation rate
d) Low literacy rate
(A) (a), (b) and (c) only
(B) (a), (b) and (d) only
(C) (b), (c) and (d) only
(D) (a) and (d)
Q.31 of GS - II (B) (C)
7. WP(C) No. Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
710 of 2024
Q.31, 51 and 61 of GS - II
Sanabam
Micheal Q.51. of GS - II (B) (D)
Q.61. of GS - II ... (A)
Q.31. of GS - II ...
No reason given for alleged
wrong/ incorrect answer.
8. WP(C) No. Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
802 of 2024 Q.9, 25, 50, 67, 89 of GS-I
Q.9: In the light of the recent No (C)
report released by the correct
Official Language option,
Committee headed by hence
Union Home Minister, invalid
Government of India,
consider the following
statements:
a) Divide the States into two
categories ----Region A and
B States, for the use of Hindi
language.
b) Prioritize regional languages
over English in all the
States.
c) Designate Hindi as one of
the official languages of the
United Nations.
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
Sl. Case Details Challenged Questions Claimed Final
No. Options Ans. Key
Which of the above statements
are the recommendations of the
Committee?
(A) Only (a)
(B) Only (a) and (b)
(C) Only (b) and (c)
(D) (a), (b) and (c)
Q. 25. Consider the following No (B)
statements: correct
a) Iltutmish introduced the option,
Sajdah and Paibos. hence
b) Qutubuddin Aibak was the invalid
founder of the Ilbary
dynasty.
c) Aibak died while playing
Chaugan.
d) Itutmish constructed the
Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque at
Delhi.
Which statements given above
are correct?
(A) (a) and (b) only
(B) (b) and (c) only
(C) (a), (b) and (d) only
(D) None of the above
Q.50: The process of producing No (A)
Atom bomb and Hydrogen correct
bomb involves option,
fission and fusion hence
respectively invalid
A) fusion and fission
respectively
B) fusion in both cases
C) fission in both cases
Q.67 Which of the following are (C) (D)
key indicators of poverty in
India.
(a) High Infant Mortality Rate
(b) Low Life Expectancy
(c) High Inflation Rate
(d) Low Literacy Rate
A) (a), (b) and (c) only
B) (a), (b) and (d) only
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
Sl. Case Details Challenged Questions Claimed Final
No. Options Ans. Key
C) (b), (c) and (d) only
D) (a) and (d)
Q.89. Which of the following No (B)
matters are required to be correct
passed by simple majority option,
votes? hence
invalid
a) Removal of the Speaker and
the Deputy Speaker of the
House.
b) Removal of the Chief
Election Commissioner and
the other Election
Commissioners.
c) Removal of the Chairman of
the Raijya Sabha
d) Removal of the Deputy
Chairman of the Raijya
Sabha.
Select the correct answer by
using the codes given below
Codes:
(A) (a), (b), (c), (d)
(B) (a), (c), (d) only
(C) (c) only
(D) (a), (b), (c) only
[10] The claims and objections raised by the petitioners in respect of
the aforesaid three questions of General Studies (Paper-II), i.e., Question
Nos. 31, 51 and 61, are more or less the same which are as under:-
a) In respect of Question No. 31:
(i) The final answer key given by the MPSC for the said Question
No. 31 is option "(C) Disease : Treatment", which is not closest
to relationship between capitalized pair, i.e., "ACTION :
REACTION". It has been submitted that the correct answer to
the said question is option "(B) Assail : Defend", which is
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
closest to relationship between the capitalized pair, i.e.,
"ACTION : REACTION".
(ii) The said correct answer "(B) Assail : Defend" to the said
question is the same as the question which was asked in the
CAT, 1996 and CLAT, 2013 question papers. The explanation
given for the answer (B) in CAT, 1996 and CLAT, 2013 are:-
Questions Correct Answer Explanation
given in "Hints &
Solutions/
Explanation"
Question No. 344 CAT, 1996 (B) Assail : Defend Second word is
a follow-up of
ACTION : REACTION
first one.
(A) Introvert : Extrovert Reaction comes
(B) Assail : Defend after action and
(C) Diseased : Treatment Assail (attack) is
(D) Death : Rebirth followed by
Defence.
Question No. 1 CLAT, 2013 (B) Assail : Defend Second is the
result of first
ACTION : REACTION
(A) Introvert : Extrovert
(B) Assail : Defend
(C) Diseased : Treatment
(D) Death : Rebirth
(iii) Similar question is found in the online portal
"interviewmania.com" and the correct answer to the said
question is also option 'B' as extracted above.
b) In respect of Question No. 51:
(i) The answer key given by the MPSC is option (D), however, all
the options are interpersonal skills. Hence, none of the options
are correct. If any one option which is least closest to
interpersonal skill is Empathy or option (B) reason
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
being Empathy is more associated with feeling which is
intrapersonal in approach even if there is some interpersonal
expression. While Assertiveness is more about communicating
in a positive and more confident way, which is more interpersonal
in approach. Hence, the more appropriate option is "Empathy"
or option (B) or none of the options are correct. In support of such
claims/ objections, the petitioners relied upon the definition and
explanation of the word "Assertiveness" as published in the
"International Journal of Advanced Psychiatric Nursing,
2021" and "Think India" (Quarterly Journal).
(ii) The petitioners also relied on the "Curriculum and Guidelines
for Life Skills (Jeevan Kaushal) 2.0", published by University
Grants Commission, August 2023 wherein it is stated that life
skills are considered into three categories with complement,
supplement and reinforce each other:
Social or Interpersonal Skills (Communication,
Assertiveness, Cooperation and Empathy).
The petitioners also relied on "Exploring the Interplay
of Assertiveness, Social Anxiety and Communication
Competence Among College Students in Lunglei, Mizoram"
published by the International Journal of Indian Psychology,
Volume 12, Issue 2, April-June 2024 wherein it is stated that
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
"Assertiveness is an important component of personal and
interpersonal interaction". The petitioner also relied upon the
extract from "Social Processes and Behavioural Issues -
Interpersonal Skill and Group Processes" published by
IGNOU School of Management Studies, January 2018 in support
of their contentions. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that all the options given to the said Question No. 51
are of interpersonal skills and therefore, the question is
demonstrably wrong
c) In respect of Question No. 61:
It has been stated by the petitioners that the option presented by
the MPSC as answer for Question No. 61 will be wrong since the
second para of the question is asking for negative answer of the
statement which will be options (b), (c), and (d) instead of the
MPSC option (a). It has also been stated that the said question is
almost the same with Question No. 49 of XAT, 2010 except for
the word "strongly" is replaced by the word "wrongly". This
substantive change completely alter the meaning of the question
and that the term "strongly" implies a forceful or assertive
expression, which is not inherently negative whereas the word
"wrongly" denotes an incorrect or inappropriate action, which
carries a clearly negative connotation and as such, the answer
key does not reflect the question.
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
[11] The claims and objections raised by the lone petitioner in WP(C)
No. 802 of 2024 in respect of the aforesaid five questions of General
Studies (Paper-I), i.e., Question Nos. 9, 25, 50, 67, and 89, are as under:-
(a) In respect of Question No. 9:
By the time the petitioner's preliminary examination was
conducted on 30-04-2023, there were information about the
United Nation's official languages and India's effort to promote
Hindi but there wasn't much information about the Official
Languages Committee to designate Hindi as an official language
of the United Nations. The petitioner found no right option and
the question was invalid.
(b) In respect of Question No. 25:
The answer key given by the MPSC for this question is option
(D), however, according to the petitioner, the statement at (D) of
the said question which says "Iltutmish constructed the Kuwwat-
Ul-Islam mosque at Delhi" is also correct, which is proven by the
caption of the Figure-2, Page No. 36 of Chapter 3 of the NCERT
Class-VII textbook which clearly says that Kuwwat al Islam
mosque was enlarged by Iltutmish, therefore, leaving no possible
option to select from as there is no right option. Hence, the said
question is invalid.
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
(c) In respect of Question No. 50:
Hydrogen bomb involves both fission and fusion but Hydrogen
bomb utilizes both atomic fission and nuclear fusion to create an
explosion. The combination of these two processes results in
Hydrogen bomb, which is also proven by Page No. 252 of the
Chapter 14 of the NCERT Class-X Science textbook.
Accordingly, the final answer given by the NPSC is wrong and
controversial and there is no right answer in the given options.
Hence, the said question should be considered invalid.
(d) In respect of Question No. 67:
It has been submitted that some of the facts in relation with the
question are that before Independence, Dada Bhai Naoroji came
up with the concept of Poverty Line to measure poverty. Post-
independent India, in 1962, the Planning Commission formed a
study group. In 1979, another body called the "Task Force on
Projections of Minimum Needs and Effective Consumption
Demand" was formed. In 1989 and 2005, "Experts Groups"
were constituted. It was also submitted that besides the Planning
Commission, many renowned economists have also attempted
to develop such a mechanism. Due to various limitations in the
official estimation of poverty, scholars have attempted to find
alternative methods. For instance, Amartya Sen, a noted Nobel
laureate, has developed an index known as Sen Index. There are
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
other tools, such as "Poverty Gap Index" and "Squared
Poverty Gap". There was also Tendulkar Committee (2009) and
Rangarajan Committee (2014) for poverty estimation. The
National Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index by NITI Aayog uses
Alkire Foster methodology. Since the methodologies are different
for different reports and Committees/ Commissions and since the
question did not satisfy them, the petitioner requested for
consideration of statement at clause "(d) Low life expectancy
rate" or the question be declared invalid.
(e) In respect of Question No. 89:
The answer key given by the MPSC is wrong since the removal
of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House does not need
a special majority. To remove the Speaker and Deputy Speaker
of the House, a majority of the then members of the House is
required. This is proven by Article 94 of the Constitution of India.
A special majority is a majority of two-thirds of members present
and voting or a majority of two-thirds of members present and
voting along with 50% of the total strength of the House. For
removal of Chairman of Rajya Sabha, there is no need for a
special majority. It is proven by Article 67 of the Indian
Constitution which provides that Vice-President (Chairman of
Rajya Sabha) may be removed from his office by a resolution of
the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
members of the Council and agreed to by the House of the
People. Accordingly, the answer key of the MPSC is absolutely
wrong and there is no correct option, hence the said question is
invalid.
[12] It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that by relying
on various research papers of many experts as well as relevant questions
and answer keys of earlier competitive examinations conducted by other
authorities, the petitioners have demonstrated that the aforesaid eight
questions/ answer keys given by the MPSC are wrong. It has also been
submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the MPSC's claimed that it had
consulted with each of subject experts regarding the said questions and on
the advice/ recommendation of the said subject experts, the final answer
keys have been published. However, the MPSC failed to disclose the
particulars of the so-called experts for reason known only to them and that
disclosing the particulars of the said experts in a transparent manner
will definitely remove the doubt in the minds of the general public as the
expertise and integrity of the said subject experts is very much necessary
in the present context. It has further been submitted that the objections
raised against the aforesaid questions/ answer keys and referring the same
to the so-called experts constituted by the MPSC without disclosing their
names is like an appeal from Caesar to Caesar's wife.
[13] It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since
the preliminary examination conducted by the MPSC is a prestigious one
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
for the recruitment of the highest civil services posts, the questions and
answers of the same exam is going to be referred to in future in subsequent
competitive exams and if such wrong and invalid questions/ answer keys
are allowed to remain without rectifying the mistakes, it will perpetuate the
illegalities forever and future aspirants will be misled.
[14] It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that as this
court is not well-equipped to decide the issues of wrong questions or invalid
answer keys, it will be most appropriate to constitute a neutral expert
committee consisting of subject experts and take fresh neutral opinion to
decide the issues involved in these writ petitions in the interest of justice
and to avoid causing any injustice to the innocent candidates.
[15] The following case laws have been cited on behalf of the
petitioners.
(1) (2005) 13 SCC 749 "Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Saumil
Garg & ors." wherein it has been held as under:-
"9. Insofar as the aforesaid eight questions are concerned, namely,
Questions 36, 49, 109, 110, 128, 165, 167 and 168, there can be no
doubt that the key answers provided by the appellant University
are demonstrably erroneous. Insofar as key answers to Questions
41 and 152 are concerned, benefit of doubt, as per law well settled
by this Court, has to go in favour of the examining body."
"10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular, the stage of the admissions and the fact that the
medical courses are supposed to commence on 1st August every
year and the last date of admissions for stray seats under all
circumstances is 30th September, we do not think appropriate
that all the 200 questions deserve to be referred for determining
as to what are the correct key answers. At this stage, it would also
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
not be appropriate to refer to the opinions given by other
professors in these matters as to correctness of key answers."
"11. What is paramount is the interest of the student community. Merit
should not be a casualty. We feel that the interests of the students
would be adequately safeguarded if we direct the appellant
University to revaluate the answers of the aforesaid eight
questions with reference to the key answers provided by CBSE
and the University of Delhi which are same and not with reference
to the key answers provided by the appellant University."
(2) (2012) 6 GLR 387 "Sapam Jiten Singh & ors. Vs. Manipur
Public Service Commission & anr." wherein it has been held
as under:-
"49. This court is of the opinion that anybody who is aware of the
"Socialist Pattern" would find both "mixed economy" and "public
economy" to be correct inasmuch as "Socialist Pattern" is to be
found both in the "mixed economy" as well as in the "public
economy". Thus, this court is of the opinion that even if the
answers to the aforesaid 4(four) questions are treated to be a
disputed question of fact as claimed by the MPSC, anybody with
reasonably sound knowledge on the aforesaid subjects would
find that the answers projected by the petitioners are also correct.
On this aspect, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners
have been able to make out a prima facie case that the answers
given in the key-answer in respect of the aforesaid 4(four)
questions are not correct. Thus, this contention of the petitioners
find force and if all the answers claimed by the petitioners are
found to be true, of which there is high probability, in that event,
if any of the petitioners have not been given marks for giving the
right answer, such of the petitioners would be deprived of the
additional marks."
"62. However, by way of moulding the relief, the following directions
are issued to the respondent No.2, the Manipur Public Service
Commission:
(i) The MPSC would immediately constitute a Committee
consisting of experts relating to the aforesaid four questions
and re-determine the correct answer by reviewing the earlier
answers in respect of the aforesaid 4(four) questions.
(ii) Upon re-determination of the correct answers in respect of the
four questions, if any of the key answers is corrected/
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
changed, the MPSC would re-evaluate the answers scripts of
the present 11 (eleven) writ petitioners only so as to ascertain
if any of the petitioners had given correct answers to the
aforesaid four questions in the light of the review answer key
and re-assess the marks of the petitioners.
(iii) If any of the petitioners, upon such re-assessment, obtains
marks within the cut-off marks in their respective categories,
he/ they shall be deemed to have been qualified for appearing
in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains)
Examination, 2010.
(iv) The MPSC is to publish the result of the aforesaid exercise in
respect of the 11 (eleven) petitioners at the earliest
(v) The aforesaid exercise indicated above under directions (i) to
(iii) are to be completed as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of 3(three) weeks but definitely
before the declaration of the results of the Manipur Civil
Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2010.
(vi) In order that the claims of the petitioners can be considered
as directed above, they are to be provisionally allowed to
appear in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive
(Mains) Examination, 2010 scheduled to be held on 10.1.2012
or any such date that may be fixed by the Manipur Public
Service Commission. However, their results in the Mains
Examination will be declared only after it is ascertained that
they or any one of them have/ has qualified to appear in the
Mains Examination as indicated above. If any of the
petitioners is not found to be qualified after the re-assessment
in the terms of the directions (i) to (iii) above, their results in
the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains)
Examination, 2010 would not be declared or acted upon.
(vii) It is also clarified again here that the aforesaid exercise
contemplated under directions (i) to (iv) will be confined only
to the present 11(eleven) petitioners and will not be extended
to any other person for the reasons given in this judgment."
(3) (2013) 4 SCC 690 "Rajesh Kumar & ors. Vs. State of Bihar &
ors." wherein it has been held as under:-
"5. In the writ petition filed by the aggrieved candidates, a Single
Judge of the High Court referred the "model answer key" to
experts. The model answers were examined by two experts, Dr
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
(Prof.) C.N. Sinha, and Prof. K.S.P. Singh, associated with NIT,
Patna, who found several such answers to be wrong. In addition,
two questions were also found to be wrong while two others were
found to have been repeated. Question 100 was also found to be
defective as the choices in the answer key were printed but only
partially."
"6. Based on the report of the said two experts, a Single Judge of
the High Court held that 41 model answers out of 100 were wrong.
It was also held that two questions were wrong while two
others were repeated. The Single Judge on that basis held
[Ajay Kumar v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 885 of 2007, order dated
18-12-2007 (Pat)] that the entire examination was liable to be
cancelled and so also the appointments made on the basis
thereof. Certain further and consequential directions were also
issued by the Single Judge asking the Commission to identify and
proceed against persons responsible for the errors in the
question paper and the "model answer key"."
"15. There is, in our view, no merit in that contention of Mr Rao. The
reasons are not far to seek. It is true that the writ petitioners had
not impleaded the selected candidates as party-respondents to
the case. But it is wholly incorrect to say that the relief prayed for
by the petitioners could not be granted to them simply because
there was no prayer for the same. The writ petitioners, it is evident,
on a plain reading of the writ petition questioned not only the
process of evaluation of the answer scripts by the Commission
but specifically averred that the "model answer key" which
formed the basis for such evaluation was erroneous. One of the
questions that, therefore, fell for consideration by the High Court
directly was whether the "model answer key" was correct. The
High Court had aptly referred that question to experts in the field
who, as already noticed above, found the "model answer key" to
be erroneous in regard to as many as 45 questions out of a total
of 100 questions contained in 'A' series question paper. Other
errors were also found to which we have referred earlier. If the key
which was used for evaluating the answer sheets was itself
defective the result prepared on the basis of the same could be no
different. The Division Bench of the High Court was, therefore,
perfectly justified in holding that the result of the examination
insofar as the same pertained to 'A' series question paper was
vitiated. This was bound to affect the result of the entire
examination qua every candidate whether or not he was a party to
the proceedings. It also goes without saying that if the result was
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
vitiated by the application of a wrong key, any appointment made
on the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable. The
High Court was, in that view, entitled to mould the relief prayed for
in the writ petition and issue directions considered necessary not
only to maintain the purity of the selection process but also to
ensure that no candidate earned an undeserved advantage over
others by application of an erroneous key."
(4) (2013) 14 SCC 494 "Vikas Pratap Singh & ors. Vs. State of
Chattisgarh & ors." wherein it has been held as under:-
"4. In the meanwhile, the Inspector General of Police and the
respondent Board received complaints in respect of
defects/mistakes in several questions of the main examination
papers. The respondent Board constituted an Expert Committee
to inquire into the complaints. Upon examination of the two
papers, two sets of defects were noticed: (a) eight questions in
Paper II itself were incorrect; and (b) model answers for evaluation
of answer scripts to another eight questions of Paper II were
incorrect. The respondent Board directed for deletion of the first
set of eight questions in Paper II and preparation of correct model
answers key for objective questions in Papers I and II and
accordingly carried out re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the
candidates. On 27-6-2009 a new revised merit list was published
wherein the names of twenty-six appellants did not figure at all
and accordingly, the appointment of the appellants were
cancelled by the respondent State."
"8. The Division Bench has observed that since all the questions so
re-evaluated were objective type carrying fixed marks for only one
correct answer, the possibility of difference in marking scheme or
prejudice during re-evaluation does not arise and therefore has
concluded that no irregularity or illegality could be said to have
crept in the manner and method of re-evaluation carried out by the
respondent Board and that the said decision of re-evaluation was
justified, balanced and harmonious and has not caused any
injustice to the candidates and therefore cannot be interfered with
unless found arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide which is not the
case at hand. In consequence of the aforesaid conclusion, the
Division Bench has thought it fit to uphold the cancellation of
appointments of the appellants qua the first list and accordingly
dismissed the writ petitions."
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
"14. In these appeals what falls for our consideration is whether the
decision of the respondent Board in directing re-evaluation of the
answer scripts has caused any prejudice to the appellants
appointed qua the first merit list, dated 8-4-2008?"
"16. It is not in dispute nor it can be disputed that for the purposes of
re-evaluation, the eight questions found incorrect were deleted
and their marks were rightly allotted on a pro rata basis in
accordance with Clause 14 of the Rules which reads as under:
"14. Wrong (Defective) objective type question, its cancellation
and marks to be allotted in lieu of it.
After the exams, the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination
Board (VYAPAM) gets each question examined by the subject
expert. If, upon examination by the subject experts, the
questions are found defective/wrong, it is rejected.
Questions may be rejected on the following reasons:
(i) if the structure of the question is wrong;
(ii) out of the options given as answers, if more than one
options are correct;
(iii) if no option is correct;
(iv) if there is difference in Hindi and English translation of
any question because of which different meaning is
drawn from both and one correct answer could not be
ascertained;
(v) if any other printing mistake is there because of which
correct answer is not ascertainable or more than one
option is correct.
On such rejection of question upon the recommendation of
Subject Expert Committee, on such questions the marks
would be awarded by the Chhattisgarh Professional
Examination Board (VYAPAM) to the candidates in proportion
to their marks obtained in the particular question paper.
Whether the rejected question has been or not been
attempted. The question papers in which the questions have
been rejected, their evaluation procedure would be as
follows, if in any question papers out of 100 questions 2
questions are rejected and after evaluation candidate
secures 81 marks out of 98 questions then in such case
calculation of marks would be done as (81 × 100)/100 − 2 =
82.65. On which basis merit would be determined."
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
The other eight questions whose answers were found
incorrect in the earlier model answers key were re-evaluated
on the basis of revised model answers key. In Paper I, only
the objective type questions were re-evaluated with the aid
of model answers key prepared and provided to the
examiners for the first time after the inquiry by the
respondent Board.
"19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that in
the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of re-
evaluation by the respondent Board was a valid decision which
could not be said to have caused any prejudice, whatsoever,
either to the appellants or to the candidates selected in the revised
merit list and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the
judgment and order passed by the High Court to the aforesaid
extent."
(5) (2018) 2 SCC 357 "Ran Vijay Singh & ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & ors." wherein it has been 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:
30.1. 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 the authority conducting
the examination may permit it;
30.2. 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 re-
evaluation 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.
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer
sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and
academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers
and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidate."
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
(6) (2018) 8 SCC 81 "Rishal & ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission & ors." wherein it has been held as under:-
"6. In pursuance of our directions dated 16-1-2018, an Expert
Committee was appointed to re-examine the grievances of the
appellant-writ petitioners. An affidavit dated 14-4-2018 sworn by
Ramdev Siroya has been filed by the Commission. It is stated in
the affidavit that on the basis of reports of experts, overall 22
answers in all the nine subjects, for which these experts were
appointed, have been re-examined and the answers were revised.
It shall be useful to extract Paras 5 and 6 of the affidavit, which is
to the following effect:
"5. On the basis of reports of experts, overall 22 answers in all
the nine subjects for which these experts were appointed to
re-examine claims of petitioners, were reported to be revised.
"6. In the subjects of General Knowledge (Paper I) answers to five
questions were required to be revised; in Paper II (subject) in
Commerce answers of three questions were required to be
revised; three questions in subject Geography, two questions
in subject Hindi (Teaching method); in subject History one
question; in subject Political Science four questions; and in
subject Rajasthani three questions were reported to be
revised. A chart showing question numbers subject, answer
in final key and new Expert Report is being filed herewith and
marked as Annexure A-1 (p. 5) True and correct copies of
reports of experts in nine subjects is being filed herewith and
marked as Annexure A-2 (pp. 6-46). It is stated that identity of
experts is not being disclosed. That on the basis of reports of
the experts the result of candidates who have not been
appointed was revised by the Rajasthan Public Service
Commission."
"15. The issue pertaining to scope of judicial review of correctness of
key answer had been considered by this Court time and again.
This Court had entertained such challenges on very limited
ground and has always given due weight to the opinions of
subject experts. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Kanpur
University v. Samir Gupta, had occasion to consider a case where
challenge was made to the key answers supplied by the paper-
setter with regard to multiple choice of the objective type test for
admission in medical courses through combined pre-medical test.
The High Court while considering the challenge of the candidates
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
to various key answers accepted the challenge to different
questions. With regard to some of the questions the High Court
held that the key answer is not the correct answer. This Court
repelling the challenge made the following observations in paras
15 and 16: (SCC pp. 315-16)
"15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of great
importance to the student community. Normally, one would
be inclined to the view, especially if one has been a paper-
setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished by the
paper-setter and accepted by the University as correct,
should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of
achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the
University had not published the key answer along with the
result of the Test, no controversy would have arisen in this
case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these matters
which involve the future of hundreds of students who are
aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the key
answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy would have
been worse than the disease because, so many students
would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The
publication of the key answer has unravelled an unhappy
state of affairs to which the University and the State
Government must find a solution. Their sense of fairness in
publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity to
have a closer look at the system of examinations which they
conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the human
system.
16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University,
contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to
the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is
wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to
be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should
not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning
or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as
no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular
subject would regard as correct. The contention of the
University is falsified in this case by a large number of
acknowledged textbooks, which are commonly read by
students in U.P. Those textbooks leave no room for doubt that
the answer given by the students is correct and the key
answer is incorrect."
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
"28. In view of the foregoing discussions, we dispose of these appeals
with the following directions:
28.1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to revise
the result of all the candidates including all the appellants on the
basis of the report of the Expert Committee constituted in
pursuance of our order dated 16-1-2018 and publish the revised
result.
28.2. While carrying the above exercise, the Commission need not
revise the result of all those candidates whose names were
included in the Select List earlier published. We having already
pointed out that the appointments shall not be affected by this
exercise, there is no necessity to revise their result. Thus, this
exercise shall be undertaken excluding all the candidates who are
included in the Select List.
28.3. The Commission shall also publish the cut-off marks of the last
selected candidates in the respective categories who were
included in the Select List on the basis of which appointments
have been made by the Commission.
28.4. On the basis of the revised result, those candidates who achieve
equal or more marks in their respective categories shall be offered
appointments against 1045 vacancies as has been mentioned by
the Commission in Para 7 of the affidavit, noted above.
28.5. The entire exercise of revising the result and making
recommendations for appointments shall be completed by the
Commission within a period of three months from today. The State
shall take necessary consequential steps thereafter."
[16] The case of the MPSC is that the Preliminary Examination, 2022
was held on 30-04-2023 and on the same day, a notification was issued
notifying the Provisional Answer Keys and calling for submitting claims
and objections to the said provisional answer keys within the period
from 05-05-2023 till 05:00 p.m. of 10-05-2023. Subsequently, another
notification dated 25-09-2023 was issued for submitting claims and
objections to the provisional answer keys during the period from 5.00 p.m.
of 26-09-2023 till 5.00 p.m. of 01-10-2023 Thereafter, by another
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
notification dated 13-02-2024, the period for submitting claims and
objections against the said provisional answer keys was extended from
10.00 a.m. of 14-02-2024 till 11.59 p.m. of 18.02.2024. Lastly, by another
notification dated 05-03-2024, the period for submitting claims and
objections against the provisional answer keys was further extended from
10.00 a.m. of 06-03-2024 till 11.59 p.m. of 08-03-2024. According to the
MPSC, sufficient time was given to the candidates for submitting their
claims and objections to the said provisional answer keys and a large
number of claims and objections were submitted by the candidates,
including some of the petitioners. All the claims and objections received by
the MPSC were referred to subject experts on 16-03-2024 for their
consideration and for their advice and recommendation.
[17] After receiving the advice and recommendations from the subject
experts, the MPSC published the Final Answer Keys on 16-05-2024.
Thereafter, on the basis of the advice and recommendation of the subject
experts, the MPSC issued a notification dated 28-05-2024 notifying that
one answer key to one question in respect of General Studies (Paper-I)
had been revised and six questions in respect of General Studies (Paper-I)
and one question in respect of General Studies (Paper-II) had been
dropped. It was also notified that two marks each in respect of six dropped
questions of General Studies (Paper-I) and 2.5 (2 ) mark in respect of
the one dropped question of General Studies (Paper-II) will be awarded to
all the candidates irrespective of whether the candidates attempted the said
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
questions or not. On the same day, i.e., 28-05-2024, the result of the
Preliminary Examination, 2022 was declared and none of the petitioners
were found to be successful.
[18] After about two months from the date of declaring the result of
the preliminary examination, WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 was filed by five
unsuccessful candidates and they obtained an interim order on 29-07-2024
permitting them to update their details in the website of MPSC for appearing
in the main examination, however, it was made clear that the candidature
of the said five petitioners will be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
Subsequent thereto, the remaining seven other writ petitions were filed one
after another claiming for the same relief.
[19] It has been submitted on behalf of the MPSC that all the claims
and objections in respect of three questions of General Studies (Paper-II),
i.e., Question Nos. 31, 51, and 61 and three questions, i.e. Question Nos.
25, 50, and 67 of General Studies (Paper-I) were examined and considered
by the subject experts and the subject experts have rejected the claims and
objections in respect of the said questions by giving reasons. In respect of
two questions, i.e., Question Nos. 9 and 89 of General Studies (Paper-I),
no objection has been filed by any candidates including the petitioners and
as such, the same were not considered or examined by the subject experts.
According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the MPSC, the
subject experts have given adequate reason for rejecting the claims and
objections submitted by the petitioners and as the petitioners have failed to
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
prove that either the questions or the answer keys are demonstratively
wrong, no question arises for reconsidering the correctness of either the
questions or the final key answer by another set of subject experts.
It has also been submitted on behalf of the MPSC that the
petitioners cannot claim for re-evaluation/ re-assessment as a matter of
right especially when there is no such provisions for re-evaluation/
re-assessment under the scheme/ rules of the examination and that if there
is no such provision, court may permit re-assessment/ re-evaluation only If
it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning
or by a process of rationalization of any wrong or error or only in rare or
exceptional cases of commission of material error and not otherwise. It has
further been submitted on behalf of the MPSC that except for a few
petitioners, all the other petitioners did not submit any claim or objection to
the answer keys within the permitted time and have also approached this
court very belatedly and most of the petitioners are fence sitters and as
such, they are not entitled to get any sympathy from this court. It has been
submitted on behalf of the MPSC that court cannot sit as an appellate
authority to examine the recommendation or correctness of the expert
opinion or of the selection committees and court may examine only in cases
of mala fide or serious violation of statutory rules. It has also been submitted
that as there is no allegation of mala fide or serious violation of statutory
rules in these writ petitions, court may refrain from entertaining the claims
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
and objections raised belatedly and to dismiss all the writ petitions as being
devoid of merit.
[20] On behalf of the respondents, the following case laws have
been cited:-
(1) (2008) 2 SCC 119 "M V. Thimmaiah & ors. Vs. Union Public
Service Commission & ors." wherein it has been held as
under:-
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the
candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection
Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides
or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an
Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection
Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to
the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of
appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business
of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion."
(2) (2018) 2 SCC 357 "Ran Vijay Singh & ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & ors." wherein it has been held as under:-
"19. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, this Court took the view that:
(SCC p. 316, para 16)
"16. ... the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is
proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong
by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that
is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-
versed in the particular subject would regard as correct."
In other words, 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, this Court
recommended a 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
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
caused by translation; and (iii) prompt decision be taken to exclude
the suspect question and no marks be assigned to it."
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose
to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. 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 the authority conducting
the examination may permit it;
30.2. 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 re-
evaluation 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;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer
sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and
academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers
and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. 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 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.
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
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."
(3) (2018) 7 SCC 254 "Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
&anr. Vs Rahul Singh & anr." wherein it has been held as
under:
"12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only
demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a
glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process
or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The
constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters
and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the
correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case, the Court
recommended a system of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and
no marks be assigned to such questions."
"13. As far as the present case is concerned, even before publishing the
first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers
moderated by two Expert Committees. Thereafter, objections were
invited and a 26-member Committee was constituted to verify the
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that
5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed.
It can be presumed that these Committees consisted of experts in
various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot
take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate
demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of
it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and
cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the
conclusion as to which of the answers is better or more correct."
"14. In the present case, we find that all the three 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 textbooks.
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. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that the
High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions which
amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field. As far
as the objection of the appellant Rahul Singh is concerned, after
going through the question on which he raised an objection, we
ourselves are of the prima facie view that the answer given by the
Commission is correct."
(4) (2019) 18 SCC 39 "West Bengal Central School Service
Commission & ors. Vs. Abdul Halim & ors." wherein it has
been held as under:-
"30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether
the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test
to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the
face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of
the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to
establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of
reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it
cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by
this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale. If the provision of a statutory rule is
reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one
construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to
interference by the writ court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof,
or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law,
which can be corrected by the writ court by issuance of writ of
certiorari."
"31. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash
unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable
to be struck down by a writ court. If the decision cannot rationally be
supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as
perverse."
"32. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an
order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the
sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the
merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The
test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but
a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could
have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ court does
not interfere, because a decision is not perfect."
"33. In entertaining and allowing the writ petition, the High Court has lost
sight of the limits of its extraordinary power of judicial review and has
in fact sat in appeal over the decision of Respondent 2."
(5) (2021) 2 SCC 309 "Vikesh Kumar Gupta & anr. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & ors." wherein it has been held as under:-
"13. The point that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the
revised select list dated 21-5-2019 ought to have been prepared on
the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The appellants contend that the wait
list also should be prepared on the basis of the 3rd Answer Key and
not on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The 2nd Answer Key was
released by RPSC on the basis of the recommendations made by the
expert committee constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the
High Court. Not being satisfied with the revised select list which
included only a few candidates, certain unsuccessful candidates
filed appeals before the Division Bench which were disposed of on
12-3-2019. When the Division Bench was informed that the selections
have been finalised on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key, it refused to
interfere with the select list prepared on 17-9-2018. However, the
Division Bench examined the correctness of the questions and the
answer keys pointed by the appellants therein and arrived at a
conclusion that the answer key to 5 questions was erroneous. On the
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
basis of the said findings, the Division Bench directed RPSC to
prepare the revised select list and apply it only to the appellants
before it."
"14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has
deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions
by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not
permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and
answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed
the inter se merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission
v. Mukesh Thakur). Courts have to show deference and consideration
to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the
expertise to evaluate and make recommendations (see Basavalah v.
H.L. Ramesh)."
"15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation
of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. held
that the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets
of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic
matters are best left to academics."
"16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to
the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the
questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from
that of the expert committee in its judgment dated 12-3-2019. Reliance
was placed by the appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the
selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert
committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and
answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for
adjudication of the dispute in this case."
"17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts
should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic
matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself
to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in
finalisation of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to
pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a
long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is
the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their
claims for regularisation. The other consequence resulting from
delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused
to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel."
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
[21] I have heard at length the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully examined all the
materials available on record. In these batch of writ petitions, there is no
allegation or even a whisper that the process of assessment or verification
of the correctness of the provisional answer keys and publication of the final
answer keys and subsequent declaration of the result of the Preliminary
Examination, 2022 is vitiated either on grounds of bias, mala fides or
arbitrariness or that there is serious violation of statutory rules. The
petitioners are only challenging the correctness of the final answer keys in
respect of three questions of General Studies (Paper-II), i.e., Question
Nos. 31, 51 and 61 and five questions of General Studies (Paper-I), i.e.,
Question Nos. 9, 25, 50, 67 and 89 on the grounds raised by them in these
writ petitions, which have been extracted herein above at para. 10 and 11
of this judgment. Therefore, in my considered view, this court is only to
examine whether the petitioners have been able to show demonstrably
without any inferential process or reasoning that the final answer key is not
only wrong but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent.
[22] Before proceeding further, this court would like to highlight
some of the relevant and well settled principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard.
(a) In the case of "Ran Vijay Singh & ors." (supra), it has been
held that -
"19. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [Kanpur University v. Samir
Gupta, this Court took the view that: (SCC p. 316, para 16)
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
"16. ... the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is
proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong
by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that
is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-
versed in the particular subject would regard as correct."
In other words, 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, this Court
recommended a 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."
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose
to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. 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 the authority conducting
the examination may permit it;
30.2. 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 re-
evaluation 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;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer
sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and
academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers
and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. 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 re-evaluation of an
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
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."
(b) In the case of "Rahul Singh & anr." (supra), it has been held
that -
"12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only
demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a
glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The
constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters
and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the
correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case, the Court
recommended a system of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and
no marks be assigned to such questions."
"14. In the present case, we find that all the three 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 textbooks.
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."
(c) In the case of "West Bengal Central School Service
Commission & ors." (supra), it has been held that -
"30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether
the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test
to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the
face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of
the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to
establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of
reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it
cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by
this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale. If the provision of a statutory rule is
reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one
construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to
interference by the writ court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation
of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof,
or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law,
which can be corrected by the writ court by issuance of writ of
certiorari."
"31. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash
unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable
to be struck down by a writ court. If the decision cannot rationally be
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as
perverse."
"32. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an
order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the
sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the
merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The
test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but
a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could
have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ court does
not interfere, because a decision is not perfect."
(d) In the case of "Vikesh Kumar Gupta & anr." (supra), it has
been held that -
"14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has
deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions
by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not
permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and
answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed
the inter se merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission
v. Mukesh Thakur). Courts have to show deference and consideration
to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the
expertise to evaluate and make recommendations (see Basavalah v.
H.L. Ramesh)."
"17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts
should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic
matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself
to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in
finalisation of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to
pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a
long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is
the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their
claims for regularisation. The other consequence resulting from
delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused
to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel."
[23] In the light of the above well settled principles of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this court will proceed to consider the objections
raised by the petitioners in connection with the above noted questions. This
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
court has also the opportunity to examine the opinions/ advices given by
the subject experts, which have been placed before this court by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the MPSC under a sealed cover
envelope.
a) In respect of claims and objections raised by some of the
petitioners in connection with Question No. 31 of General Studies
(Paper-II), the opinion given by the subject expert is as under:-
"Expert Opinion
Q31. Option (C) is the most appropriate.
One of the options given for this question is not the same as the
question in the documents cited as proof by the objectors. Option (C)
Disease: Treatment; has similar relationship to ACTION: REACTION;
treatment is a response to disease and it is also a Noun: Noun pair.
Regarding option (B) assail: defend; defend is a response to assail,
however, it is a Verb: Verb pair. Hence, option (C) is the closest in
relationship to the capitalised pair. Options (A) & (B) are ruled out as
'extrovert' is not a response and 'rebirth' is a belief only."
b) In respect of claims and objections raised by some of the
petitioners in connection with Question No. 51 of General Studies
(Paper-II), the opinion given by the subject expert is as under:-
"Expert Opinion
Q.51. Option (D) is correct,
Out of the four options given, option (D) Assertiveness, is the only
intrapersonal skill while the other three options - communication,
empathy and negotiation are interpersonal skills. Please refer IGNOU
publication https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/69793/1/Uni
t-5.pdf. The relevant portion is reproduced below:
"Intra-personal management or self-management refers to how do
you handle your emotions, what strategies you adopt so that you
become more effective in your interaction and dealings with other
people and in different situations. It consists of different skills such
as emotional self-control, assertiveness, self-regard and self-
actualization."
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
c) In respect of claims and objections raised by some of the
petitioners in connection with Question No. 61 of General Studies
(Paper-II), the opinion given by the subject expert is as under:-
"Expert Opinion
Q61. Option (A) is correct
In the question, a statement by Sir Francis Bacon is quoted and then
a conclusion is drawn based on the quoted statement. The
conclusion made based on the quoted statement by Sir F. Bacon is
that "not intruding upon another's liberty is impossible if one has to
retain dignity". However, this is a wrong conclusion as Sir F. Bacon's
quoted statement does not imply this. Hence, Option (A) is the correct
as the question is asking to point out the wrongly implied
conclusion."
d) In respect of claims and objections raised by some of the
candidates in connection with Question No. 25 of General Studies
(Paper-I), the opinion given by the subject expert is as under:-
"Q.25. Option (B) is correct. Qutubuddin Aibek was not an Ilbary Turk.
However, the dynasty he founded (Slave dynasty/Mamluk dynasty) is
referred to as libari dynasty by many historians as all the rulers
belonged to llbari tribe except Qutubuddin Albak. The question refers
to the name of the dynasty not Aibek's origin. Hence, the given key is
correct.
Ref: (i) Gaz of India Vol. 21964 Part 2 Medieval India unit 19.7 Delhi
Sultnate
(ii) https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/22078/1/Unit:19."
e) In respect of claims and objections raised by some of the
candidates in connection with Question No. 50 of General Studies
(Paper-I), the opinion given by the subject expert is as under:-
"Q50. Option (A) is correct. As Atomic bomb is based on the principle
of fission and Hydrogen bomb is based on the principle of fusion.
Hence in Q50 Correct answer (A). Master Key Answer Correct"
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
f) In respect of claims and objections raised by some of the
candidates in connection with Question No. 67 of General Studies
(Paper-I), the opinion given by the subject expert is as under:-
"Q67. Option (D) is the correct answer.
Components of MPI
Dimensions Indicator Deprived if living in the Weight
of Deprived household where
Poverty
Nutrition An adult under 70 years of age or a 1/6
Health child is undernourished.
Child Mortality Any child has died in the family in the 1/6
five-year period preceding the survey.
Years of No household member aged 10 years 1/6
schooling or older has completed six years of
schooling.
Education
School Any school-aged child is not attending 1/6
Attendance school up to the age at which he/ she
would complete class 8.
Cooking Fuel The household cooks with dung, 1/18
wood, charcoal or coal
Sanitation The household's sanitation facility is 1/18
not improved (according to SDG
guidelines) or it is improved but
shared with other households.
Drinking Water The household does not have access 1/18
to improved drinking water (according
to SDG guidelines) or safe drinking
water is at least a 30-minute walk from
home, round trip.
Standard of
Living Electricity The household has no electricity 1/18
Housing Housing materials for at least one of 1/18
roof, walls and floor are inadequate:
the floor is of natural materials and /or
the roof and/ or walls are of natural or
rudimentary materials
Assets The household does not own more 1/18
than one of these assets; radio, TV,
telephone, computer, animal cart,
bicycle, motorbike or refrigerator, and
does not own a car or truck
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
In the multidimensional poverty index (MPI) only child mortality and
literacy are included out of the given options in the question.
Hence, out of given choice in Q67 choice (D) would be the correct
answer. Therefore, Master key to be rectified to include D as correct
answer."
[24] On a plain reading of the eight questions, the final answer keys
to the said questions and the objections raised thereto along with the
expert opinions, this court cannot conclusively arrive at a finding that the
petitioners have been able to prove demonstrably without any inferential
process or reasoning or without a process of rationalization that the said
final answer keys are palpably wrong. Moreover, when two equally valiant
interpretations of an answer are possible, it cannot be said that the answer
key is demonstrably wrong. In view of the material facts available on
record, this court is of the considered view that in order to establish the
incorrectness and factual inaccuracy in the contested answer keys, a
prudent man having sufficient knowledge would need to take a deep dive
into the world of academia and research on the purported incorrectness.
Even then, in order to demonstrably show the inaccuracy and incorrectness
of the contested answer keys, reasonable debate would be necessary
before an informed decision can be made in adjudging the validity of the
challenged answer keys. Therefore, this court could not satisfactorily arrive
at a conclusion that the petitioners have been able to prove demonstrably
that the contested answer keys are wrong. This court, while examining the
challenged answer keys through the eyes of a prudent man, failed to find
out any error apparent on the face of the record compelling this court to
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
exercise the narrowly permissible judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
[25] In the present case, this court is of the considered view that the
writ petitioners have failed to demonstrate without any inferential process
or reasoning that the challenged answer key is not only wrong but there
is also a glaring mistake which is totally apparent on the face of it. Even
assuming for arguments sake that there are possibilities of two correct
answers, one as suggested by the petitioners and the other as suggested
by the subject experts, the same cannot be a ground for arriving at a
conclusion that the challenged answer keys are demonstrably wrong in
view of the well settled principles of law that the court should presume the
correctness of the answer keys and proceed on that assumption and that
in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority
rather than to the candidates.
[26] With regard to the challenge being made to the answer key to
Question Nos. 9 and 89 of the General Studies (Paper-I), the lone petitioner
did not think it necessary to raise any claim or objection in connection with
the correctness of the provisional answer key published by the MPSC
before the deadline given for raising such claim and objection, but sought
to object by way of filing a writ petition registered as WP(C) No. 802 of 2024
in this court only after the result of the preliminary examination were
announced and after discovering that he was not successful
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that the
petitioner cannot be heard to challenge the correctness of the said answer
key and that the petitioner is, therefore, estopped from raising a challenge
at this belated stage, since a challenge cannot be made against the
selection process only after the candidate has discovered his unsuccessful
performance in the process. Moreover, this court also did not find any
material on record to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner has been
able to prove demonstrably that the said answer key are palpably wrong
In the result, this court did not find any merit in these batch of writ
petitions for interfering with the selection process and declined to grant the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners. Accordingly, all the writ petitions along
with all the connected applications are hereby dismissed. Interim order
passed earlier stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to cost
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 & ors. Contd.../-
