Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kumar Saurav vs Northern Coalfields Ltd. on 14 August, 2025
1
WP No.12700 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12700 of 2023
KUMAR SAURAV
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to stay the further process of the Whole Selection Procedure conducted by the respondents.
(ii)To direct the respondents to issue Revised Final Provisional Merit List issued on 02.06.2023 by correcting the answers of the questions and increasing 3 more marks to the petitioner further be pleased to modified the answer in question No. 65 ID No. 630680149376 of the Revised Final Answer Key issued on 31.05.2023.
(iii) To direct the respondents to pay appropriate compensation amount against mental, physical and financial harassment due to non-action of the respondents and looking to the future of the petitioner.
(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for selection process conducted by the respondents No.1 to 3 through, the agency which Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:12:23 PM 2 WP No.12700 of 2023 is respondent No.4 and the examination process was carried out by the respondent No.4 for the respondents No. 1 to 3.
3. The petitioner challenges the final answer key and revised final provisional merit list issued on the basis of the final answer key for the examination conducted for appointment to the post of Mining Sirdar T & S Grade-C. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had participated in computer based test held on 19.01.2023 which was conducted for the respondents No.1 to 3 and initially an answer key was issued on 22.01.2023 and thereafter revised final answer key has been issued on 31.05.2023 by which for certain questions, options which are otherwise correct have been shown as incorrect. The petitioner is aggrieved by final answer key in respect of questions No. 16, 64, 65 and 86.
4. The counsel for the respondents has vehemently objected to impugning questions No. 16 and 64 in the present petition because the objections submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P-8 were only in respect of questions No.65 & 86 and not in respect of other questions.
5. The petitioner has not pleaded any malice in the examining agency or in the appointing authority in framing the questions or in framing the answer key and revised final answer key. The only contention of the petitioner is that as per his wisdom and the material and literature relied by him, the answer key should be modified to his advantage so that the petitioner who is short of two marks for being selected, would attain the remaining two marks and would be able to get selected.
6. However, sympathy cannot be made a ground for interference in the final answer key and scope of interference in the final answer key is very limited and cannot be made at the drop of hat only on the asking of the petitioner. It is settled that the Courts have very limited role particularly Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:12:23 PM 3 WP No.12700 of 2023 when no malafides have been alleged against the expert committee and it is normally prudent and safe for the Court to leave the decision to the academicians and experts.
7. However, this Court proceeds to consider whether prima facie the answers to the questions are utterly perverse and erroneous, so as to cause interference in exercise of judicial review.
8. This Court first deals with the questions No.65 and 86 for which the petitioner had submitted objections to the respondents.
9. The response of respondent No.4 which is examining/test conducting agency submitted to the respondents No. 1 to 3 at the time of dealing with objections to answer key are on record with additional return of respondents No.1 to 3. Though no separate reply has been filed by the respondent No.4, but this Court has gone through the comments of respondent No.4 tendered to the respondents, containing the stand of the respondent No.4.
10. In question No. 65 the issue was that after taking over the transit slip the attendant submits the same to Safety Officer or Manager or Assistant Manager or Sirdar. Initially the answer was Manager but later on the committee found that the correct answer is Manager as well as Assistant Manager. The committee referred to the regulations framed by Director General of Mines Safety as per which the Manager or Assistant Manager, both are competent.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on some literature annexed at page 128 and 129 of the writ petition and contended that Manager is the actual competent person. However, in the same literature as per Clause-12, as available at page 129 of the writ petition, Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:12:23 PM 4 WP No.12700 of 2023 Manager and Assistant Manager both are competent. Therefore, it is clear that there was confusion in the question and respondents have not erred in treating both the options of Manager and Assistant Manager as correct option.
12. The other question was question No.86 which is related to a question of non-verbal reasoning and learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently made rival contentions that the question was wrong and initial answer of option-3 which was changed to option-4 could not have been done by the respondents and infact the petitioner was entitled to bonus marks. However, the question is of non- verbal reasoning and reasons have been assigned by the recruiting agency as available at page 33 of the additional return. This Court is unable to find any fault with the question of non-verbal reasoning because this Court is not an expert of non-verbal reasoning and the authority has duly assigned the reasons for arriving at a particular conclusion for which no malice has been attached. Therefore, this Court is unable to find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the examining authority.
13. So far as question No.16 is concerned, the petitioner not having submitted any objection to the said question, cannot challenge the final answer key as to the aforesaid question. However, as there was a change in model answer to this question at instance of other candidates who had submitted objections to the model answers of these questions, this Court proceeds to deal with this question. The committee has found that the initial answer key mentioning 25 cm is the size of letters is incorrect and the actual size of letters is 15 cm as per some circular of Director General of Mining Safety. The petitioner has relied on some other material. Even if there are contradictory materials on record, even then if one set of material is accepted by examining body, no error can be found in that because the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:12:23 PM 5 WP No.12700 of 2023 conclusion of the examining authority is based on some valid material and that too, circular of Director General of Mines Safety.
14. So far as question No. 64 is concerned, the petitioner had never raised any objection in regard to that question and even the said answer was not changed from the initial answer key in the final answer key. So far as question No. 16 was concerned, though the petitioner had not raised any objection but since it was changed by the examining authority therefore, this Court has taken into consideration the said question. However, as far as question No. 64 is concerned, the petitioner never objected to the initial answer key and even there was no change in the said answer. Therefore, the petitioner cannot agitate anything as to question No. 64. It is settled that the scope of interference in model answer key framed by academic experts is very limited. The law is well settled that the Courts have very limited role particularly when no malafides have been alleged against the expert committee and it is normally prudent and safe for the Court to leave the decision to the academicians and experts. See-
(i) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759.
(ii) Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das and Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 242.
(iii) Thahira Vs. Administrator, U.T. of Lakshadweep reported in (2019) 1 MPLJ 265.
(iv) The Secretary, All India Pre-Medical / Pre-Dental Examination, CBSE and Ors. Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava and Ors. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 523.Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:12:23 PM 6 WP No.12700 of 2023
15. The Full Bench of this Court in case of Nitin Pathak Vs. State of M.P., 2017(4) M.P.L.J. 353 has held as under:-
"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 experts."
16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is unable to cause any indulgence in favour of the petitioner in the revised final answer key. No grounds are made out to interfere in the matter. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/19/2025
6:12:23 PM