'Expert Committee Did Not Consider Authentic Data': MP High Court Grants Relief To Candidates Challenging Answer Key In MPPSC Exam

The Court further held that since the question was related to forest, which was a subject on the concurrent list as per Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, data put forth by the Union of India would be held superior to that of the State Government.

Hearing a batch of writ petitions, moved by the candidates of the examination, Justice Vivek Agarwal observed-

It is true that the opinion of the Expert Committee is to be given precedence over anything else but it is also true that the future of a candidate cannot be jeopardized merely because the Experts failed to take into consideration the authentic data of the Government of India without disclosing the reasons for not accepting that data.

Facts of the case were that the MPPSC held the Preliminary Examination for State Services and Forest Services Exams, 2020. One of the questions asked in exam was-

What percentage of total forest area of Madhya Pradesh Teak Trees are found? (A) About 15% (B) About 20% (C) About 25% (D) About 30%.

According to the Petitioners, they had filled Option (D) i.e., About 30% whereas the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission had accepted Option (B) i.e., About 20%. Referring to the data released by the Union of India in Forest Survey of India, 2019, the Petitioners argued that Option of 30 percent, that they chose, was correct and that they should have been awarded a mark for that. They further placed reliance on the scheme of the examination and submitted that if there were more than one correct Option to a question then all Options will be treated to be correct. Thus, the Petitioners prayed that if grant of a mark to the said question qualified either of them to appear in the Main Examination, they be permitted to do so.

Per contra, the State relied on the decision of a Full Bench of the Court in Nitin Pathak v. State of M.P. & Ors to submit that in case of recruitment examination, the Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, should not refer the matter to a Court Appointed Expert. It was further submitted that Courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the Experts constituted to finalize the model answer key. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts.

Considering the submissions of parties and documents on records, the Court opined that both the Options being correct, the State, as per the scheme of the examination, should award marks for the same, irrespective of the opinion of the Experts-

The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission cannot be allowed to deprive of their genuine & legitimate right for the failure of their so called Experts in not referring to the material produced by the similarly situated persons while dealing with a subject in the concurrent list.

Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. and U.P.P.S.C & Anr. v. Rahul Singh the Court held that the petition had merit and ought to be allowed-

In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration a fact that in relation to a subject in the concurrent list, the data of Union of India will have supremacy over the data of State, these writ petitions deserve to and are allowed. It is directed that the petitioners and all other similarly situated persons, who have filled Option (D) Above 30% as the Answer to Question No.81 (As Per Set-A) and similar option in identical Question in different sets that what percentage of total forest area of Madhya Pradesh, Teak Trees are found, will have to be awarded marks and if after award of marks, the petitioners qualify for the Main Examination then they be permitted to participate in the Main Examination either by issuing them the roll number or entry pass or by holding the separate examination as the case may be inasmuch as it will not be out of place to mention that hearing of these writ petitions was delayed on the request of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, which sought time when the matters were listed before this Court on 12.4.2022.

With the aforesaid observations, the petitions were allowed and accordingly disposed of.

Representations: Mr. Nityanand Mishra and Mr. D.S. Dubey for Petitioners; Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Anvesh Shrivastava for MPPSC; Mr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava for State