Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 108 (MP)

Jitendra Rajput v. State of M. P.

2025-02-13

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2025
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:- “7.1. That, this Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to give the appropriate orders to the State/respondents in context of the exam titled “PCRT Recruitment 2020 iqfyl eq[;ky;] x`g ¼iqfyl½ foÒkx eè; çns'k 'kklu d¢ vkj{kd laoxZ dh ÒFkÊ gsrq p;u ijh{kk 2020^^ so that the petitioner herein be awarded marks for question No. 82 (having ID no. 2435511) and question No. 96 (having ID No.243381) be cancelled altogether from the question paper of the PCRT Recruitment2020; 7.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may issue a writ in the from of Mandamus directing the concerned respondents to prepare and declare a fresh merit list adjusting the consequences of the above-mentioned prayer; 7.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may order the concerned respondent to declare the petitioner as qualified in the PCRT Recruitment-2020; 7.4 Any other relief or writ or direction or order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper looking the facts and circumstance of the case is awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the litigation.” 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who had appeared in Police Constable Recruitment Test (PCRT) in the year 2020. The provisional result of the which was declared on 24.3.2022, and the final result was declared on 12.11.2022. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had obtained 72.50 marks and the two questions, mainly, if the questions No.82 and 96 are decided correctly by the respondents, he would get at least one mark. It is submitted that so far as the options given in question No.96 is concerned, all the options are wrong, hence, the aforesaid question is required to be deleted. Whereas, in question No.82, the right answer is option (B), which the petitioner has rightly given, however, the respondents have not awarded any marks to the petitioner. 4. Shri Vibhor Khanelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in the reply filed by the respondent No.4, the respondent has enclosed the answer sheets of some other student, who had also raised similar objections, and the solutions given by the said students are correct. In such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been awarded at least one mark for the question No. 82 and the question No.96 ought to have been deleted. In such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been awarded at least one mark for the question No. 82 and the question No.96 ought to have been deleted. 5. A detailed reply has been filed by the respondent No.4. 6. Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 has submitted that no case for interference is made out, as the respondents had invited the objections of the students and an expert Committee was also constituted to decide those objections, which has given its report stating that the answer to question No.82 is (C) and not B, and thus, no change can be made to the same. 7. It is also submitted that otherwise also no case for interference is made out, in a case challenging the model answer sheet. In support of his submissions, Shri Maheshwari has relied upon the decisions rendered by Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in the case of Manuj Krishna Mishra and others v. The High Court Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (Writ Petition No.16211 of 2022 decided on 22.08.2022); Ku. Surabhi Baghel v. High Court Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (Writ Petition No.26346/2018 decided on 16.11.2018) and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another reported as (2020) 6 SCC 759; Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported as (2018) 2 SCC 357 ; and the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Pathak v. State of M.P. and others reported as 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1179. 8. Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 9. On 4.12.2024, this Court had also passed an order directing the respondents to form a fresh committee of two experts on the subject, who shall give their opinion on the disputed questions and submit a report before this Court. Pursuant to which, a report has been filed by the respondents on 20.12.2024, in which it has been found that the correct answer to question No.96 is 51.32, 25.67 which is not in an option to the said question, and thus, the aforesaid question has been cancelled. 10. Pursuant to which, a report has been filed by the respondents on 20.12.2024, in which it has been found that the correct answer to question No.96 is 51.32, 25.67 which is not in an option to the said question, and thus, the aforesaid question has been cancelled. 10. Whereas, so far as the question No.82 is concerned, it has been found that the correct option is, “only conclusion I follows”, which has also been answered by the petitioner to be correct, and as per the report of the respondents, the answer to the aforesaid question has been changed from “both conclusions I & II follows” to “only conclusion I follows”. 11. Pursuant to the aforesaid report, counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that the benefit of the aforesaid change in the answer sheet must be given to all the candidates alike and not only to the present petitioner who has come before this Court. 12. Whereas, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that such an option be not exercised otherwise it would frustrate the filing of this petition itself. It is submitted that the question No.96 is concerned, it may be cancelled. But, so far as the question No.82 is concerned, of which, correct answer had been given by the petitioner in the answer sheet, its benefit may be extended to only those candidates, who had filed the objections before the respondents. 13. Shri Maheswari, counsel for the respondent No.4 has relied upon the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mayank Bharadwaj v. State of M.P. and another reported as 2012 SCC OnLine MP 1979. Relevant paras 11, 12 & 14 reads as under :- “11. On the basis of these judgments, following principles can be culled out: - (1) the key answer is correct unless proved to be wrong. (2) judicial review cannot be on the basis of inferential process or process of rationalization (3) key answer must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong (4) answer must be such as no reasonable body of men wellversed in the particular subject would regard as correct. (2) judicial review cannot be on the basis of inferential process or process of rationalization (3) key answer must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong (4) answer must be such as no reasonable body of men wellversed in the particular subject would regard as correct. (5) the Court should not lightly interfere with the opinion expressed by the academic experts, (6) when there is no discrimination in awarding the marks and effective of alleged wrong answer is equally on all the candidates, no interference is warranted, (7) writ Court cannot sit in judgment over those findings and examine the material on record to arrive at its own conclusion as a Court of appeal. 12. Law is clear that if there is a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for the petitioners only, thus, no interference is required. Now on the basis of these principles, the case of the petitioners need to be examined. 14. In the light of aforesaid analysis, I have no hesitation to hold that no fault can be found in the action of PSC. The effect of alleged defect is same for all the candidates and it is not confined to the petitioners only. For this reason also, no interference is warranted.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. And so far as the decision relied upon by Shri Maheshwari in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commissioner (supra), is concerned, the relevant para of the same reads as under:- “20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the challenge procedure as prescribed by the respondent is by way of filing objection with the respondents within the prescribed period of time. It has been provided only to ensure that the candidates who have objected to the questions or the answers, should get the fair treatment and in case of any discrepancy, the same can be rectified before publishing the final select list. However, it is observed more often than not the objections raised by the candidates are dealt with in a most cavalier and clumsy manner by the expert committee, as if only with a view to get rid of the objections. 16. The present case is yet another personification of the apathy of the respondents towards the candidates who burn the midnight oil and put in all their efforts to succeed in the exam but, all their hard work and efforts are defeated by the reckless behaviour of the respondents. 17. In such circumstances, this Court agrees with the expert committee’s decision in its subsequent report dated 20.12.2024, that so far as the question No. 96 is concerned, the same should be cancelled. 18. So far as the correct answer of the question No.82 is concerned, the Expert Committee’s decision that the option is changed from,“both conclusions I & II follows” to “only conclusion I follows” is also hereby accepted. 19. However, this Court is also of the considered opinion that all those candidates who had submitted their objections to the Board within the time prescribed for filing the same, should be given the benefit of the said change in the option. 20. Resultantly, the petition stands partly allowed and it is directed to the respondent No.4 that the benefit of the said question No.82 (Question ID 2435511) be extended to all the candidates who had filed their objections to the said question, and the select list may be modified accordingly. 21. Let this exercise be completed within a further period of 45 days from today. 22. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.