Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6254
1 WP-14889-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 14889 of 2018
DEEPAK YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shailendra Singh Kushwah - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Court may direct constitution of an independent body to reassess the answers of all the question and fresh model answer script to be released;
(ii) That the Hon'ble Court may pass prohibitory orders to stop release of the final result till reassessment is carried out;
(iii) That the Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents that Petitioners may be permitted to appear in the main examination(written) which shall be subject to the final outcome of this petition;
(iv) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded."
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process conducted for appointment to the post of State Administrative Service by the respondent No.2 in the year 2018. As per the contention of the petitioner the answers to certain questions attempted by the petitioners were correct, however, on the basis of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 19-Feb-26 6:51:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6254 2 WP-14889-2018 the model answer key prepared by the respondents, the same were treated as incorrect and therefore, the reliefs claimed in the petition be granted.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the issue whether, in a writ petition, the correctness of model answer key can be examined or a direction for evaluation of the answer sheets of the students by an independent valuer can be issued, has been considered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak vs. State of M.P., 2017 (4) MPLJ 353 (FB) , wherein it has been held that such relief is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the case of Nitin Pathak (supra), the following questions were referred for consideration by the Full Bench of this Court:-
(1) Whether this Court in exercise of power of judicial review can refer the matter to a Court chosen Expert? (2) Whether in exercise of power of judicial review, this Court can act as Court of appeal to take a different view than what has been finalized as the model answer key by the Examining Body?
(3) Any other question, which the Larger Bench may think it appropriate at the time of hearing on the basis of assistance of the learned counsel for the parties."
6. The same have been answered by the Full Bench in the following manner:-
"30. Thus, we are of the opinion that the judgment of this Court in Chanchal Modi's case (supra) does not lay down correct law.
31. In view of the discussion above, we hold that 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 19-Feb-26 6:51:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6254 3 WP-14889-2018 experts.
32. In respect of the second question, 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.
33. The third question does not arise as no other question was said to be arising in the present reference."
7. In Nitin Pathak (supra) case before the Full Bench, the model answer key prepared by the MPPSC for the recruitment process to the post of Taxation Assistant was under consideration and, in the said context, the reference has been answered as stated hereinabove.
8. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Full Bench of this Court, no case for indulgence is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Van Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 19-Feb-26 6:51:45 PM