Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564
1 WP-9108-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9108 of 2017
ABHISHEK DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Dixit-Senior Advocate assisted with
Shri Anshul Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Aditya Pachori appeared for respondent/MPPSC.
ORDER
This petition has been filed while praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) To call for the records from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) To command the respondents to revalue the response/answer sheets of paper I and Paper II of the petitioner by issuance of an appropriate writ and/or direction.
(iii) 220, To command the respondents to grant marks to the petitioner for his answers to question nos.29 and 88 of the Ist paper and question nos.128 and 132 of the 2nd paper i.e. 8 more marks total 548 marks and to include him in the select list at the proper place by issuance of an appropriate writ and/or direction.
(iv) To command the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of ADPPO with all consequential benefits by issuance of an appropriate writ and/ or direction.
(v) Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted in favour of the petitioner along with cost of this petition."Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564 2 WP-9108-2017
2. The facts as elaborated in the body of the petition reflect that the petitioner is holder of B.A.LL.B. (Honors) degree and practicing as an advocate. An advertisement was issued by respondent No.1 for appointment of Assistant District Prosecution Officers. Pursuant to the advertisement, petitioner along the other candidates submitted their applications. The petitioner qualified the written examination and accordingly was called for the interview, however, the petitioner despite having been called for interview, was not selected and therefore, this petition has been filed by the petitioner while disputing various questions of the written examination which are detailed in paragraph 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 of the writ petition. Thus, it is prayed by the petitioner for revaluation of the answer sheet as well as award of marks to the petitioner in respect of questions which are detailed in the aforesaid paragraphs.
3. Senior Counsel contends that the petition deserves to be allowed inasmuch as, the petitioner herein once found eligible for being called for interview, on account of incorrect answer key of the question paper, could not have been deprived of the benefit. It is contended by the counsel that the answers in the answer key in respect of question Nos. 29 of 1st Paper, 20, 128, 132 of 2nd Paper, are incorrect and not proper and therefore, the petitioner is disputing the same. It is further contended by the counsel that the petitioner herein even had submitted objection regarding as many as 8 questions and out of those 8 questions, 2 questions were cancelled by the respondents themselves. For 5 questions, marks were alloted to the present petitioner but in regard to question No.85 (132) the objection of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564 3 WP-9108-2017 petitioner was turned down. It is contended by the Senior Counsel that question No.85 or 132, answer of which was Section 357 of Cr.P.C., the answer key contained an incorrect answer i.e. Section 360 Cr.P.C. However, the objection has been turned down by the respondents in a purely mechanical manner, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is contended by the counsel that after commencement of the process on 12/06/2016, provisional answer key was issued and objections were to be submitted within 7 days. The present petitioner submitted objection and the said objection after award of marks in respect of 5 questions and deletion of 2 questions, was only with regard to question No.85 or 132 which was to the effect as to which provision of Cr.P.C. is akin to or in pari materia with Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The said objection was dealt with by the expert committee and the expert committee concluded that the petitioner had marked option "B" i.e., Section 357 of Cr.P.C. whereas the correct answer was 360 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner was not awarded mark for the said question. Hence, it is contended that as no objection has been taken by the petitioner in regard to any other questions which are detailed in the body of the petition, the petitioner is precluded from questioning the answer key.
5. In support of his submissions, Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.28184/2024 (Reska Sahu and Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. and Ors.) and it is contended by the counsel that if the objections are not submitted within the stipulated period, Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564 4 WP-9108-2017 subsequently, they cannot be entertained. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh and Anr. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357, before the Full Bench of this Court in WA No.581/2017 (Nitin Pathak VS. State of M.P. and Ors.) and before this Court in WP No.10062/2019 (Ankita Jaiswal Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission). It is contended by the counsel that once there exists an expert opinion regarding the answer key, the same is not required to be interfered with by judicial intervention in absence of any material. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner having not made any objection, apart from question No.85 or 132 which is at page No.136 of the petition, he is precluded from questioning the answer key in respect of other questions, hence the petition is liable to the dismissed.
6. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
7. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perusal of the record reflect that the applications were invited vide advertisement which is contained in Annexure P/1. The relevant clause which has direct nexus with the controversy, finds mention in Clause आठ (8) and the same provided as under :
आठ (8) *** " प म कसी भी कार क ु ट के संदभ म अ यथ पर ा ितिथ के 07 दवस के अंदर ऑनलाइन अ यावेदन तुत कर सकगे। उ अविध के बाद ा अ यावेदन पर कोई कायवाह नह ं क जायेगी।"
8. Simultaneously, the identical provisions were also incorporated in Clause No.29 which is at page No.27 of the petition and the same is Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564 5 WP-9108-2017 reproduced as under:
"29. पर ा प ात पर ाथ प से संबंिधत अपने Objections 7 दवस क अविध म अपना नाम, रोल नंबर, एवं ज म ितिथ डालकर ऑन लाईन भेज सकगे।"
9. The aforesaid two clauses make it abundantly clear that the candidates had opportunity to submit objections within seven days from the date of examination. According to the petitioner objections were submitted with regard to 8 questions. So far as 7 questions are concerned, which are mentioned in the objection, the petitioner has no grievance, however, the petitioner is raising grievance regarding "question No.85 (132)" and also in regard to the questions which are mentioned in memorandum of petition. Apart from question No.85 (132), the petitioner regarding other questions, did not make any objection in the case in hand. The only objection was with regard to question No.85 (132).
10. Question No.85 which is same as question No.132 mentioned at page No.156, reproduced herein:
अपराधी प रवी ा अिधिनयम The provision of section 5 of the Q.No. क धारा 5 के ावधान probation of offenders Act is similar to 132 सम प है दं ड या the provision of सं हता क A Section 360 of Cr.P.C. धारा 360 के B Section 357 of Cr.P.C. धारा 357 के C Section 355 of Cr.P.C. धारा 355 के D Section 361 of Cr.P.C. धारा 361 के
11. A perusal of the aforesaid reflects that the question was as to what provision of Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act is Akin to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and options were given as : (A) Section 360 of Cr.P.C., (B) Section 357 of Cr.P.C. (C) Section 355 of Cr.P.C. and (D) Section 361 of Cr.P.C. According to petitioner, the answer to the aforesaid question is Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564 6 WP-9108-2017 Section 357 of Cr.P.C. as Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and Section 357 of Cr.P.C. contain provision for grant of compensation. As both the Sections contain provision for grant of compensation, both the Sections were identical and were perimatria with each other, whereas, according to respondents the correct answer was Section 360 of Cr.P.C.
12. To deal with the rival contentions of the parties, it is apposite to consider both the provisions, therefore, Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 357 and Section 360 of Cr.P.C are reproduced herein:
"Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act :- Power of Court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs -
(1) The Court directing the release of an offender under section 3 or section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay(a)such compensation as the Court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and(b)such costs of the proceedings as the Court thinks reasonable.
(2). The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section (1) may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of sections 386 and 387 of the Code. (3). A Civil Court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid or recovered as compensation under sub-section (1) in awarding damages."
Section 357 of Cr.P.C. : When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied-
(a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;
(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564 7 WP-9108-2017 any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court;
(c) when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855) , entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death;
(d) when any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto.
(2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented. before the decision of the appeal.
(3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced.
(4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. (5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.
Section 360 of Cr.P.C. : Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition.
(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564 8 WP-9108-2017 woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour :Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub-section (2).
(2). Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate of the first class as provided by sub-section (1), such Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make such order as he might have passed or made if the case had originally been heard by him, and, if he thinks further inquiry or additional evidence on any point to be necessary, he may make such inquiry or take such evidence himself or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken.
(3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564 9 WP-9108-2017 instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.
(4) An order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. (5) When an order has been made under this section in respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law :Provided that the High Court or Court of Session shall not under this sub-section inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was convicted.
(6) The provisions of Sections 121, 124 and 373 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered in pursuance of the provisions of this section. (7) The Court, before directing the release of an offender under sub-section (1), shall be satisfied that an offender or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place for which the Courts acts or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions. (8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognisance, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension.
(9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant, shall be brought forthwith before the Court issuing the warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody until the case is heard or admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and such Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence.
(10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958) or the Children Act, 1960 (60 or 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564 10 WP-9108-2017
13. A perusal of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that the said provision does not refer to power of the Court to release an offender on probation. Section 357 of Cr.P.C. only contains provision for grant of compensation to the victim. Entire Section 357 of Cr.P.C. does not deal about release of the offender on probation. On the contrary, Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, as well as Section 360 of Cr.P.C. contains provision for release of an offender on probation. The substantive provisions of both the Sections deal with the power of the Court to release the offender on probation. Section 357 of Cr.P.C. since only confines to the payment of compensation and does not deal with the power of the Court to release of an offender on probation, undisputedly, Section 357 of Cr.P.C. was an incorrect answer which was put forth by the petitioner.
14. The expert opinion also was given taking into consideration the aforesaid statutory provisions and the objection of the petitioner was turned down, the aforesaid decision by the expert committee, does not require any interference. The law pertaining to challenging the terms and conditions of an examination process is well settled by a slew of decisions of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2017) 4 SCC 357 has observed as under:
"13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17564 11 WP-9108-2017 around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable."
15. Furthermore, the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Chairman & Anr. vs. Rahul Singh & Anr, 2018 7 SCC 254 has pointed out that:
"12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers."
16. Moreover, as the petitioner within the stipulated period of seven days from the examination, did not raise any objection regarding other questions which are mentioned in the body of the petition, apart from question No.85 (132), the petitioner is precluded from questioning the same, once the process was over.
17. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 05-03-2026 11:06:06