MPPSC: High Court Refuses To Interfere With Final Answer Key Of State And Forest Service Preliminary Exam 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the final answer key for the 2024 Madhya Pradesh State Service and Forest Service Preliminary Examination. It reiterated that the expertise of academic bodies in competitive examinations should be respected, limiting the court's scope for interference“The law on the subject is quite clear. The court should not...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the final answer key for the 2024 Madhya Pradesh State Service and Forest Service Preliminary Examination. It reiterated that the expertise of academic bodies in competitive examinations should be respected, limiting the court's scope for interference
“The law on the subject is quite clear. The court should not interfere with the expert body's conclusions unless there is compelling evidence of material error or bias. Courts should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption,” single bench of Justice Vishal Mishra observed.
The petitioners sought judicial intervention stating that the model answers to six questions in the exam were wrong, thus effecting their qualification for the main exam. The Court entertained the petition on the grounds that there is no provision for revaluation and so it will have to see if judicial review is required and to what extent.
Upon perusing the records, Court noted that the expert committee, which prepared the answer keys, had based its decisions on credible sources and academic authority, thus not requiring any judicial intervention. It concluded that except for minor discrepancies, such as in one particular question (Question 11), the expert committee's final answer key was consistent with established academic standards.
“In cases dealing with academic matters, opinion of experts based on some authority should be given weightage. It may be a case where some conflicts may be noted in the model answers, however, the fact remains that even there is some conflicts in the model answers, the weightage should be given to the institution or the examination body rather than the candidates.”
The petitioners contended that questions such as the one about the prevalence of Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles of State Policy (Question 11) had multiple correct answers, and hence, they deserved marks for all valid options.
The court however noted that Question 11 could be clarified but it shall not overturn the expert body's decisions. It cited precedents such as Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh where it was held that Courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinise academic replies unless there mala fide on part of the authorities is established.
It therefore found no reason to interfere in the matter and dismissed the plea.
Case title: Shivam Tripathi And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 25791 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 265