Anil Kumar Singh Kushwah vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

This Appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order

dated 17/02/2017 passed in Writ Petition No.7488/2015.

The Appellant with the allegations as to arbitrary, unfair, unjust and highly negligent action of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission in

setting wrong model answers to some questions; as a result whereof, though right option attempted by the Appellant, yet could not qualify for the post

of Assistant Director Kisan Kalyan Evam Krishi Vikas (Kshetra Vistar), filed the Writ Petition seeking following directions:

“1) Direct to constitute a committee of independent experts to examine the modal answers properly and correctly of the question Nos.12, 15, 30,

32, 40, 45, 54, 59, & 84 in Table A and 5, 86 & 98 in Table B of Set D in the light of the reference mentioned in the tables.

2) Direct the respondents to cancel the question Nos.5, 86 & 98 of set D.

3) Furthermore, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue corrected modal answer-sheet and result and only thereafter to proceed further in the

exam process. 4) That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances may also kindly be granted.â€​

The Writ Court declined to cause indulgence in the light of the judgment rendered in W.P.20253/2014 (S.K. Gautam vs. State of M.P.) decided on

29/10/2015 and the decision in W.P. No.952/2015 (Arun Chandravanshi vs. State of M.P.) decided on 12/01/2016.

Though, it is contended that the Writ Court committed gross error in directing to cause indulgence. However, in view of the decision by the Full Bench

of this Court in Writ Appeal No.581/2017 (Nitin Pathak vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) decided on 04/09/2017; wherein it is held:

“In exercise of power of Judicial Review, the Court should not refer the matter to court appointed expert as the courts have a very limited role

particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituted to finalize answer key. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and

safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts.

Secondly, this Court does not and should not act as Court of Appeal in the matter of opinion of experts in academic matters as the power of judicial

review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision making process. The Court should not under the guise of preventing the abuse of

power be itself guilty of usurping power.â€​

The appellant relies on the decision in Civil Appeal Nos.355, 354, 356-357,358 and 366 of 2017 (Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.)

decided on 11/12/2017; wherein, it is observed by Their Lordships:

“18. A complete hands-off or nointereference approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur nor has it been suggested in any other decision

of this Court the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to

a very limited extent.â€​

The appellant in our considered opinion is not benefitted by these observations. As it is further held in Raj Vijay Singh (supra):

“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule

or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the

authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or

scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly,

without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been

committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate it has no expertise in the matter and academic

matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the

event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.â€​

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 â€" 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.â€​

Present is not a case which can be termed to be an exceptional one as would warrant an indulgence at such a distant date.

In view whereof, since no relief can be granted, Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.