'May Lead To Drastic Results': MP High Court Stays Single Bench Order Giving Weightage To Centre's Data Over State Govt In MPPSC Exam

Concurring with the contentions raised by the Appellant/State, the division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice P.K. Kaurav observed-

However, on considering the reasons, we are of the view that the issues raised by the learned counsels require to be considered at the stage of final hearing. At this stage, it is suffice to notice that the learned Single Judge has proceeded as an appellate authority over the view expressed by the expert committee. Secondly, the reasoning assigned for interference is that the data provided by the Union of India shall prevail over the data provided by the State. We do not find any judicial pronouncement to the said effect that the data of Union of India is superior to the data of the State. However, these are all matters to be considered at the stage of final hearing.

Assailing the decision of the Writ Court, the State argued that there was no nexus between concurrent list and the examination held by the MPPSC. It was further contended that the Apex Court, in a catena of its judgments, has laid down the law that if an expert body opines on a particular subject, the courts should not interfere with its opinion, except in rare occasions. The case in hand, the State asserted, was not one of those rare matters.

Per contra, the Respondents/Petitioners placed reliance on the decision of a division bench of the Court in Ankit Tiwari & Ors. v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. to submit that even if the rules do not permit revaluation, the Court may permit the same only if it is demonstrated very clearly and without any inferential process of reasoning or by process of rationalization in rare and exceptional cases where material error has been committed. Therefore, it was pleaded that the Writ Court was justified in passing the impugned order.

Considering the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court opined that the contentions raised would have to be considered at the stage of final hearing. With the said observations, the Court admitted the appeal and granted stay against the impugned order.

Case Title: M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs ABHIJEET CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS

Representations

Mr. Prashant Singh (Sr. Advocate)- Advocate General, with Mr. Anvesh Shrivastava for the MPPSC

Mr. Nityanand Mishra for the Respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Order