Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sakshi Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3141 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ANAND YADAV S/O SHRI HARVEER SINGH YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO S1 SWADESH
APARTMENT PLOT NO 12 TRILANGA HUZUR DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT R/O VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLI SERVICE
COMMISSION RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (M.P.)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5075 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. DEEPIKA SHARMA D/O SUDARSHAN PRASAD
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT 651/9B SAKET NAGAR NEAR SHIV
MANDIR HUZUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AKASH SINGHAI S/O SHRI ABHAY KUMAR
SINGHAI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
2
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O EWS 25, SHANTIU
NAGAR, RAJEEV GANDHI WARD, DAMOHNAKA,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AKASH SHIVANKAR S/O SHRI NATTHU
SHIVANKAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT 676, MAIN ROAD, PREM NAGAR, GRAM
KHEDISAWALIGADH, KHEDI SAWLIGARH,
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. AKASH KHARE S/O SHRI SANJAY KHARE, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 366,
GRAM TADA, TEHSIL KESLI, POST TADA,
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PAWAN KUMAR KUSHWAHA S/O SHRI SAHADEV
SINGH KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O
PALIWAL COLONY STATION ROAD SIHORA,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENRAL
AD M IN IS TR ATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION , RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 )
WRIT PETITION No. 5144 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAVIKANT SHARMA S/O SHRI SOMKANT SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CDPO O/O
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT UNCHARA
DISTRICT SATNA HOUSE NO 43 GRAM NADAN SHIVA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
3
PRASAD POST NADAN SHIVA PRASAD MAIHAR TAHSIL
DISTRICT SATAN (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION , RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 )
WRIT PETITION No. 5196 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. ADITYA PATHAK S/O RAJDHAR PATHAK, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
GAURIHAR CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RUDRAKSHI JAIN D/O MAHENDR JAINAGED,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
R/O 25 SETHJI KA BAJAR, RATLAM A LOT,
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. HARSHVARDHAN NARWARIYA S/O JANKI
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT R/O 38 PIPRA, DISTRICT DATIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. NIVESH PRATAP SINGH GURJAR S/O INDER
SINGH GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O 280 AB MODEL
TOWN CITY CENTRE GWALIOR DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(NONE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
4
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECREATRY GENRAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION , RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EXAMINATION CONTROLLER, PUBLIC SERVICE
C O M M I S S I O N RESIDENCY AREA INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5332 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. NEETU RAGHUWANSHI D/O SHRI SHIVRAJ SINGH
RAGHUWANSHI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT H NO 14301 SOUMYA
PARKLAND AWADHPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RISHABH SINGH BAGHEL S/O SHRI V.K.S.
BAGHEL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT RESIDING AT 66 ORACLE BUILDING
BEHIND SAGAR LIFESTYLE MISROD DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. YAMAN KHAN S/O SHRI ISTIYAK KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
RESIDING AT WARD NO. 15 NEAR KAJIBAGHIYA
SAMAN BAANDH HUZUR DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SHUBHAM TIWARI D/O SHRI KRISHNA GOPAL
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE SAKHI POST
BEOHARI DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RISHE KUMAR GAUTAM S/O SHRI NARESH
KUMAR GAUTAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GOVT. JOB RESIDING AT VILLAGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
5
AND POST MADHAVGARH DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. CHETAN SINGH MASRAM S/O SHRI PHOOL BHAN
SINGH MASRAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT RESIDING AT H.NO. 308
DR. RADHA KRISHNA WARD NO.17 DISTRICT
MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. NISHI KUSHWAHA D/O SHRI NARAYAN SINGH
KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT RESIDING AT NEAR
MAHENDRA MILL TILAK GANJ WARD DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. ABUBHAV SINGH S/O SHRI PREM KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
RESIDING AT 66 ORACLE BUILDING BEHIND
SAGAR LIFESTYLE DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. PRATIK BAUDDHA S/O SHRI DILIP KUMAR
BAUDDHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT RESIDING AT COMPOUNDER TOLA
BAIHAR WARD NO. DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECTARY GENRAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (M.P.)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5338 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
6
BETWEEN:-
1. VAIBHAV NEMA S/O SHRI RADHA RAMA NEMA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
H 882 GUPTA COLONY GARHA FATAK (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ANIL KUMAR BARMAN S/O SHRI KUNDAN LAL
BARMAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O H.NO. 882, GUPTA
COLONY, GARHA FATAK, DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KRATI JAIN D/O SHRI KAMLESH JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O AT UDAYPURA, GORAKHPUR,
DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. NAMRITA KUSHWAHA D/O SHRI TILAK RAJ
KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O AT
WARD NO.12, DADHIYA, KUSHWAR, DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PRABHANSHU PAWAR S/O SHRI RATIRAM
PAWAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O NEAR PURANA BUS
STAND BAJRANG WARD, GARHAKOTA DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PRIYA PARASHAR D/O SHRI JAGDISH PARASHAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O KATRA WARD BEHIND JAIN
MANDIR, BINA DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. RAMJI GANGELE S/O SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR
GANGELE, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O WARD NO.16,
VEERPURA, NOWGONG, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. VIKRANT KUMAR PATEL S/O SHRI
DHARMENDRA KUMAR PATEL, AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O
140/1, WARD NO. 09 CHAURAN TOLA, SANAUSI
KHADDA, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. ABHILASH KUMAR SONI S/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR
SONI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
7
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O AT GRAM POST
RAIGAON, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. SHRUTI ASATI D/O SHRI DINESH ASATI, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O H.NO. 223, GRAM TEWARI WARD
NO.6 TIHARI SHIVAM MEDICAL STORE,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA S/O SHRI SANDEEP
KUMAR MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O H.NO.
103/2, GAHILWAR, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. KAMLESH KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI SHARDA
PRASAD PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O GRAM
KAROUH, POST JONHA, DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
13. ASHUTOSH TIWARI S/O SHRI K.K. TIWARI, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O 119K, TEMPLE, PANIGAWAN,
PATPARA, SAGAR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
14. NEHA SHARMA D/O SHRI RAJENDRA SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O COLLEGE ROAD, RAJENDRA
WARD 29, GANJ IN FRONT OF HDFC BANK,
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. AANCHAL BISEN D/O SHRI DHANRAJ SINGH
BISEN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O BUDHENA KALAN,
DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
16. VAIBHAV JATAV S/O SHRI MAHESH KUMAR
JATAV, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O WARD NO.4, BHAILAL
COLONY, NASRULLAGANJ DISTRICT SEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
17. YOGITA DEVI PATEL D/O SHRI KAMLESH PRASAD
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O WARD NO. 11/70,
GRAM MALA, POST DEWAS, SIRMOUR DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
18. AKLESHWAR SINGH S/O SHRI INDOR SINGH,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
8
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O GRAM POST MOHI, DISTRICT
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
19. ANKUR BHARGAVA S/O SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR
BHARGAVA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O MAA
NARMADA NAGAR, BILHERI DURGA MANDIR,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
20. MUDASSAR KHAN S/O SHRI VILAYAT KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O RAZA NAGAR, NEAR RAZA
MASJID, GANDHI WARD DISTRICT SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
21. ANKUR GUPTA S/O SHRI ASHOK GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O DK 1/41, DANISH KUNJ IN FRONT
OF KOLAR POST OFFICE, DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
22. YASHPAL SINGH BUNDELA S/O SHRI ARUN PAL
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY WARD NO. 12, GRAM
DEVRI TEHSIL AMANGANJ, DISTRICT PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
23. LAVKESH KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI UMAKANT
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O CHANDWAHI, TEHSIL
SIHAWAL DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
24. SANDHYA MISHRA D/O SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O H.NO. 139, BEHIND
SHARDA LODGE, WAIDHAN DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
25. ADITYA TIWARI S/O SHRI VISHWANATH TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O 297, PHOOTA TAL DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
26. RAHUL PANDEY S/O SHRI RAJESH PANDEY, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O GRAM AMRAIHA, POST SARAY
SARAIN, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
27. RAKESH KAPASIYA S/O SHRI BABULAL
KAPASIYA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O ICHAWAR, SAMAPURA,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
9
DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
28. NIDHI PANDEY D/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O IN FRONT OF
IRRIGATION COLONY, CHACK ROAD, DISTRICT
MAUGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)
29. RAVI MOHAN MISHRA S/O SHRI VIDYUT
BHUSHAN MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O OLD
BUS STAND, KOTHA DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
30. SHRUTI DWIVEDI D/O SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR
DWIVEDI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O 05 WARD NO.11
HOUSING BOARD COLONY DISTRICT UMARIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
31. SHAILJA PANDEY D/O SHRI RAMYATAN PANDEY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O 70 NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL DIHIYA
PADAN JUDMANIYA DEOTALAB, DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
32. VANSHIKA MISHRA D/O SHRI DINESH MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. JOB
PRESENTLY R/O RAVI SHANKAR NEAR DR.
MONIKA JAIN, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
33. BHUPENDRA AHIRWAR D/O SHRI KISHORI LAL
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O 1233, JP NAGAR
ADHARTAL POLICE NO. J 37 DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COM M IS S ION , RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
10
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5344 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SAKSHI GUPTA D/O SHRI DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
E5 BALAK HILL VEIW COLONY SHIVAJI NAGAR
WARD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ISHIKA BANSAL D/O SHRI MAHESH BANSAL,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O 51 YEADAV COLONY, LABOUR
CHOWK, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ANIRUDHYA SAHU D/O SHRI DWARKA PRASAD
SAHU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O F-124/14, SHIVAJI
NAGAR, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHIVAM PATEL S/O SHRI R.S. PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O FLAT NO.9 SOUTH CIVIL LINES,
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. NARENDRA SINGH SISODIYA S/O SHRI KAMAL
SINGH SISODIYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O SOUTH
KARONDIYA DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. RAJAT GOUR S/O SHRI MADHUSOODAN GOUR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O GRAM
RAIPUR, DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. JAY ENDRA PAL S/O SHRI LAXMAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O H.NO. 60, SHIV NAGAR, GARHA,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
11
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION , RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5407 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NISHA DEHARIYA D/O SHRI SANDEEP, AGED ABOUT 27
YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O AT
WARD NO. 17M NEAR DURGA CHOWK, BAHNDARIYA
PURANI BASTI PARASIA DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COM M ISSION RESIDENCY AREA INDORE(M.P.)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5411 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
12
BETWEEN:-
1. MUNISH BHAGAT S/O SHRI DURGESH BHAGAT,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
R/O 16/4/3, PGBT COLLEGE COLONY, NEAR
NARMADA HOSTEL DISTRICT KHANDWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AKANKSHA NAMDEV D/O SHRI SANTOSH
NAMDEV, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O JEEVAN JYOTI
COLONY, SATAI ROAD, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SURAKSHA RAGHUWANSHI D/O SHRI RAJKUMAR
SINGH RAGHUWANSHI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O 140,
KARAMVEER NAGAR NEAR DR. ANIL BATRAS
CLINIC, INDRAPURI, DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SATYAM LODHI S/O SHRI RAMAL LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O WARD NO.15 NEAR BIJARI JOO
MANDIR, GRAM PANCHAYAT KARIYA,
SIMARIYA, DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION , RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5714 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
13
BETWEEN:-
1. AMIT KUMAR SHUKLA S/O SHRI VINOD KUMAR
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O 55,
VILLAGE SAKOLA, DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SANJAY AGNIHOTRI S/O SHRI VISHNU PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O WARD NO.17, GRAM POST
KARRAPUR, KERBANA, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION , RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5715 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHRADHA TIWARI D/O SHRI DINESH KUMAR TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O SAGAR
ESTATE COLONY, BADTUMA MAKRONIYA DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
14
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (M.P.)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5884 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. GAJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI BHAGIRATH SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. JOB
PRESENTLY R/O DRL LINE, PRATAP WARD,
GANDHI NAGAR, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. VARSHA GANDHAWLIYA D/O SHRI DAYARAM
GANDHAWLIYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT RESIDING AT WARD
NO.7 MAHATMA GANDHI WARD
VIJAYRAGHAVGARH DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ADARSH MISHRA S/O SHRI AJAY MISHRA, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
RESIDING AT WARD NO.9 PURANI BASTI
KHAJURAHO DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SWEETY CHOUHAN D/O SHRI HIMANCHAL
CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GOVT.EMPLOYEE RESIDENT OF
H.NO.3 ARYAN WINGS COLONY HOSHANGABAD
ROAD DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ASHUTOSH DWIVEDI S/O SHRI RAM PRAKASH
DWIVEDI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT RESIDING AT JAWAHAR NAGAR GALI
NO.10 WARD NO.31 DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
15
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (M.P.)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5887 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
AAKANCHHA D/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29
YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O MIG-
1/5, SHIVAJI COMPLEX, SHIVAJI NAGAR, DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
AD M IN IS TR ATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
C O M M I S S I O N THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5890 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
Signature Not Verified
ADITYA PRATAP S/O SHRI RAJESH PRATAP, AGED
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
16
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O H.NO.
93, WARD NO. 40, BAJRAHA TOLA, ARIHAN MOHALLA,
NEAR DULHABABA TEMPLE, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (M.P.)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 5956 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SUMIT KUMAR BAGHEL S/O LATE SHRI
SHANKAR LAL BAGHEL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/O AT SADAR POLICE LINE,
QUARTER NO.3, SADAR BAZAR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ASHISH GAUTAM S/O SHRI RAMSWAROOP
GAUTAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT RESIDING AT WARD NO.13 RAMPUR
BAGHELAN DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ANURAG RAJPUT S/O SHRI ROOP SINGH RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
RESIDENT OF MARDANPUR DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. GUNJAN BHDORIYA D/O SHRI AJAY SINGH
BHADORIYA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT RESIDENT OF 992 NEW
COLONY CHERITAL NEAR PARIJAT BHAVAN
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
17
DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SHIVAM KUMAR GAUTAM S/O SHRI ANIL
KUMAR GAUTAM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT RESIDING AT WARD
NO.7 MQ/1020 KAPIL DHARA COLONY NEAR
R.K.V.V.A. SCHOOL BIJURI BAHERA BANDH
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. CHHAYA DEVI YADAV D/O SHRI NANDRAM
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT RESIDENT OF KENWARA AJNAUR
KHAS DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (M.P.)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 6074 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. AMAN NAYAK S/O SHRI BRIJENDRA KUMAR
NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT R/O PRESENTLY AT RENJ MOHALLA,
DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NEERAJ MEENA S/O SHRI GYARSIRAM MEENA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
RESIDING AT MOHANPUR BADOD DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VEER SINGH PATEL S/O SHRI PURANLAL PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
18
RESIDING AT H.NO.23 UMARIYA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. BHAGWAN SINGH S/O SHRI GANGARAM, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
RESIDING AT JAMOTI JAMANIYA DISTRICT
SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ASHISH KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI RAM VILAS
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT RESIDING AT RENJ MOHALLA
DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. AKASH MAHOR S/O SHRI NAWAL KISHOR
MAHOR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT RESIDING AT SAGAR ESTATE COLONY
BADTUMA MAKRONIYA DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. SANDEEP SINGH S/O SHRI YOGENDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.83 BADTUMA UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SAURABH CHOPDE S/O SHRI SHIVJI CHOPDE,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
RESIDING AT NEAR RAM MANDIR BICHHUA
DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (M.P.)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 6096 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
19
BETWEEN:-
1. PANKAJ CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI SANTOSH
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O AT
SINGRAMPUR, DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAJUL JAIN D/O SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O SALEHA DISTRICT PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEEPAK S/O SHRI BHOOP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O
199 SAMANVAY NAGAR DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRATIKSHA SHUKLA D/O SHRI RAMBHILASH
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVT. EMPLOYEE R/O PIPRA BAHARI KHUTELI
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ANIL CHOUHAN S/O SHRI KANSINGH, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O
VILLAGE CHIKHLIYA POST BORI BUJURAG
TEHSIL NEPANAGAR DISTRICT BURHANPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BHUPENDRA MURKUTE S/O SHRI RAMESH
MURKUTE, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O WARD NO. 3 IN
FRONT OF PANCHAYAT GHOTI PATHARGAON
DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. VAIBHAV JATAV S/O SHRI MAHESH KUMAR
JATAV, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT R/O WARD NO. 4 BHAILAL COLONY
NASRULLAGANJ DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. PRATIGYA DUBEY D/O SHRI BHARAT KUMAR
DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT R/O H. NO. 68 ACHARAN ECHOCITY
KANERADEV DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. MANVI SINGH D/O SHRI VIJAY SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O H.
NO. 405 JATKHEDI BAGMUGALIYA HUZUR
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
20
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
C O M M I S S I O N THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 6144 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SHRADDHA SONI S/O LATE JAGDISH PRASAD
SONI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O
RAJ MAHAL ROAD, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHIVRAJ SINGH PATEL S/O SHRI KEERAT SINGH
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O PATEL COLONY,
PIPARIYA ROAD, DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BALIKRAN GURJAR S/O SHRI RAGHUVEER
SINGH GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O AT
H.NO. 62, BEHLNA GADHI, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
21
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSIONER, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 6163 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ARVIND SINGH LODHI S/O LAKSHMAN SINGH LODHI
R/O PERMANENTLY RESIDING GRAM DHABOLI POST
MAJLA TEHSIL BANDA DISTRICT SAGAR M.P.
PRESNTLY RESIDING BUNDELKHAND MEDICAL
COLLEGE SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY RAM TAMRAKAR ADVOCATE AND SHRI ANKIT
CHOPRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THORUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
C O M M I S S I O N THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 6188 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ANKUR SONWANI S/O V.K. SONWANI, AGED ABOUT 35
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O H NO A- 135
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
22
SIDDHARTH LAKE CITY RAISEN ROAD BHOPAL HUZUR
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUGHOSH BHAMORE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION RESIDENCY AREA INDORE (M.P.)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 6296 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SANTOSH KUSHWAHA S/O SHRI BHAGIRATH
KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT H NO 192/ 3 WARD NO 12 OLD GAS
AGENCY MARG DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HIMANSHU CHATURVEDI S/O SHRI P.D.
CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT PRESENTLY R/O AT
H.NO. 186 GRAM KHONP MAIN ROAD, TALAB KE
PAAS, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MAHENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI INDRABHAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
PRESENTLY R/O AT EWS 202, MUKHTYAR GANJ
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
23
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
C O M M I S S I O N RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( B Y SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 8944 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. JITENDRA PRASAD TIWARI S/O SHRI
CHANDRIKA PRASAD TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 33
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: GOVT. JOB 163 TIKURI
MANGAWAN HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ROHIT PARMAR S/O SHRI SURESH PARMAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
R/O KPRESENTLY RESIDNG AT CHAINURA
JAMONIYA FATEHPUR DISTRICT SEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, INDORE R/O AREA INDORE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
24
WRIT PETITION No. 10652 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. LOKNATH SHARMA S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O INDRA
COLONY, AZAD WARD, GADARWARA DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KRISHNA KANT PACHOURI S/O SHRI DEVI
PRASAD PACHOURI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT RESIDENT OF UMARIYA
SEMRA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RINKY AHIRWAL D/O SHRI NARESH KUMAR
AHIRWAL, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT RESIDENT OF BAZARIYA WARD NO. 5
DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHANDRA SHEKHAR AHIRWAR S/O SHRI PARAM
LAL AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT RESIDENT OF TORIYA
TEHSIL PALERA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DIVYA THAGELE D/O SHRI RAJU THAGELE, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
RESIDENT OF NEAR MAHAKALI MANDIR
PANCHSHIL NAGAR SOUTH T.T DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. CHETAN PAWAR S/O SHRI SALIGRAM PAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
RESIDENT OF POST BILLOD TEHSIL HARSUR
DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY RESIDENCY AREA INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:20:51
25
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
These bunch of petitions are filed by the various candidates, who had undertaken examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the M.P. PSC for short), in the year 2023, to select candidates for State Civil Services and also to recruit candidates for State Forest Services.
2. In these bunch of petitions, there is an unanimity in regard to difference of opinion and objection in regard to four questions, which will be dealt with herein. For the purpose of convenience, Writ Petition No.3141/2024, is taken as a lead case for the purposes of first three issues/questions and Writ Petition No.5075/2024, for the purpose of last question in dispute.
3. Petitioners' contention is that in set 'D' of the question paper, Question No.28, was "Green Muffler is related to Pollution of ?
(A) Soil (B) Air (C) Noise (D) Water
4. It is submitted that in the model answer key which was issued by the MP PSC, option (C) Noise, was shown as the correct answer, as is apparent from Annx.P/7. But, later on, in the final answer key the MP PSC added option (B) also to be correct option, causing prejudice to the interest of the petitioners. In support of this contention, attention is drawn to various material to demonstrate Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 26 that the Green Muffler is a row of trees planted to curb noise pollution.
5. Second question which is the bone of contention is again from set (D), Question No.63, which reads as under :-
"Where is the headquarters of Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI), located ?
(A) Bhopal (B) Gwalior (C) Jaipur (D) Delhi.
6. It is submitted that the correct option was 'Jaipur' and that was filled by the candidates and that was also the correct option shown in the provisional model answer key, but subsequently it was amended to 'Delhi' in the final answer key, causing prejudice to the interest of the petitioners.
7. In support of this contention, it is submitted that headquarters of the Association are at Jaipur, in regad to which a letter has been issued by the Indian Olympic Association, filed along with Annx.P/7, in which the Indian Olympic Association, General Secretary, Shri Rajeev Mehta, has mentioned that "this is to certify that the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India with its headquarter at Akanchha II, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, presently headed by Dr. Mridul Bhaduria, as its President and Shri Dinesh Patel, as its General Secretary, is affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association. Thus, it is submitted that the correct answer of 'Jaipur' has been tampered with by the respondents and has been changed to 'Delhi'.
8. Third objection is in regad to Question No.7 of set 'D', which reads as under :-
"In which of the following year, was the Freedom of Press given by Lord Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 27 William Bentinck ?
(A) 1832 A.D. (B) 1833 A.D. (C) 1834 A.D. (D) 1835 A.D.
9. It is submitted that freedom of press was not given by Lord William Bentinck, but by Sir Charles Metcalfe and it is pointed out that the Press Act was passed by Sir Charles Metcalfe on 15th September, 1835 and the tenure of Sir Charles Metcalfe, as acting Governor General of India started from March 1835 to March 1836, and therefore, the framing of the question is itself wrong. Lord William Bentinck had relinquished the office of Governor General in March 1835, when he was succeeded by Sir Charles Metcalfe, therefore, the framing of question being wrong, this question should have been cancelled.
10. Referring to another petition i.e. Writ Petition No.5075/2024, it is submitted that in 'C' set along with Annx.P/7, they have enclosed Question No.50, which reads as under :-
"On whom did Balkrishn Sharma 'Naveen' wrote two Kavyas - 'Pranarpan' and 'Atmosarga' ?"
(A) Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi (B) Jai Shankar Prasad (C) Prabhakar Machwe (D) Makhanlal Chaturvedi
11. It is submitted that petitioner is placing reliance on Annx.P/8, which is an extract from book titled 'Rashtriya Chetna Ke Vikas Mein Madhya Pradesh' and referring to page 239 of said book, it is submtted that the name of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 28 second Kavya has been wrongly mentioned in the question and in place of 'Atmotsarga', it is wrongly mentioned as 'Atmosarga' and therefore, this question too needs to be cancelled.
12. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Petition No.10070/2021 (Ankit Tiwari and others Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others and other connected matters), decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 14.07.2021, where about 68 petitioners had challenged the list of selected candidates, declared for the purpose of appearing in the main written examination conducted by the High Court for recruiting Civil Judge, Class-II (Entry Level-Direct Recruitment).
13. Rferring to paras 9, 10 & 12, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench held that "it is settled that publication of key answer is done to achiev transparency and objections to the key answers are to be examined by experts and thereafter, corrective measures are to be taken and that the revision on the basis of the correct answer should not be limited only to those candidates who had approached Court, but should be extended to all candidates since the fault does not lie with them but with the examining body".
14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Richal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others [(2018) 8 SCC 81], has reiterated the above position and upheld the redistribution of marks with regard to the deleted questions by holding that the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational because Commission had adopted uniform method of dealing with all candidates and all candidates were benefited thereby. In the matter of Richal (supra), it has been held that :-
''17. To the same effect, this Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg, (2005) 13 SCC 749, had directed Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 29 the University to revaluate the answers of 8 questions with reference to key answers provided by CBSE. This Court also disapproved the course adopted by the University which has given the marks to all the students who had participated in the entrance test irrespective of whether someone had answered questions or not.
18. Another judgment which is referred to is Rajesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690, where this Court had occasion to consider the case pertaining to erroneous evaluation using the wrong answer key. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission invited applications against the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil). Selection process comprised of a written objective type examination. Unsuccessful candidates assailed the selection. The Single Judge of the High Court referred Ajay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2007 SCC OnLine Pat 1067, the ''model answer key'' to experts. Based on the report of the experts, the Single Judge held that 41 model answers out of 100 are wrong. The Single Judge held that the entire examination was liable to be cancelled and so also the appointments so made on the basis thereof. The letters patent appeal was filed by certain candidates which was partly allowed [Ajay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 918] by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench modified the order passed by the Single Judge and declared that the entire examination need not be cancelled. The order of the Division Bench was challenged wherein this Court in para 19 has held:
''19. The submissions made by Mr Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 30 reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court [Ajay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 918 :
(2008) 2 PLJR 310] . Suffice it to say that the re-
evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case.''
19. The key answers prepared by the paper-setter or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations. To err is human. There are various factors which may lead to framing of the incorrect key answers. The publication of key answers is a step to achieve transparency and to give an opportunity to candidates to assess the correctness of their answers. An opportunity to file objections against the key answers uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairness and perfection in the process. The objections to the key answers are to be examined by the experts and thereafter corrective measures, if any, should be taken by the examining body. In the present case, we have noted that after considering the objections final key answers were published by the Commission thereafter several writ petitions were filed challenging the correctness of the key answers adopted by the Commission. The High Court repelled the challenge accepting the views of the experts. The candidates still unsatisfied, have come up in this Court by filing these appeals.'' It has further been held that ''25. One of the submissions raised by the appellants is that marks of deleted questions ought not to have been redistributed in other questions. It is submitted that either all the candidates should have been given equal marks for all the deleted questions or marks ought to have been given only to those candidates who attempted those questions.
26. The questions having been deleted from the answers, the Signature Not Verified question paper has to be treated as containing the question less Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 31 the deleted questions. Redistribution of marks with regard to deleted questions cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission has adopted a uniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to the number of the candidates. We are of the view that all the candidates have been benefited by the redistribution of marks in accordance with the number of correct answers which have been given by them. We, thus, do not find any fault with redistribution of marks of the deleted marks (sic questions). The High Court has rightly approved the said methodology.''
15. Reliance is also placed on the judgment Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2018) 2 SCC 357], and drawing attention of this Court to para 30.2, it is submitted that under certain circumstances enumerated by the Supreme Court, court can re- evaluate or scrutinize the validity of the questions and the answers given to them.
16. Referring to para 12 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench, it is pointed out that the Division Bench has held that publication of key answers along with the result of the test is desirable in the interest of fairness and that correctness of key answers should be ascertained from the standard and prescribed text book and not merely on the basis of inferences.
17. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Shrutikatiyar Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court [2024 SCC OnLine Del 1258], wherein, in para 16, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under :-
"16. As indicated above, although it is not in dispute that the petitioner had not preferred objection concerning the question in issue i.e. question no.54 in 'Booklet A', there were other candidates who had lodged an objection qua the same with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 32 respondent. Therefore, in our view, the preliminary objection taken by Dr. George loses its efficacy as a relief given to any candidate would inure ordinarily in favour of all the candidates. The objections in a sense, attain universality, once taken by any candidate. The purpose of affording candidates the opportunity to lodge objections is salutary as it allows the respondent to take corective measures in the larger interest of candidates and move away from a possible unfair result."
18. It is submittd that this order of Delhi High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).5366 of 2024, Registrar General, Delhi High Court Vs. Shrutikatiyar and the SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 07.03.2024.
19. Thus, placing reliance on these judgments, it is submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the answer key and ascertain whether the questions are correct or not and the model answer key to them is correctly applied.
20. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the M.P. PSC, assisted by Shri Aditya Pachori, Advocate, in his turn, submits that registered office of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India, as per the memorandum of association and constitution of the said Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India, provides that "2. the registered office of the federation will be situated at the place of General Secretary or President of the Federation whenever elected." Thus, it is submitted that at present, one Shri Justice (Rtd.) S.P. Garg, is functioning as Administrator/President of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India with his office at E-386-B(Basement) GK-1, New Delhi - 110048, and therefore, in terms of the memorandum of Association and Constitution of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India, its headquarters will Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 33 be deemed to be the place wherefrom Shri Garg is working as an Administrator/President.
21. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Mahipal Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others [W.P.(C) 4601/2013 & CM No.14525/2017], that the elected body was superseded by the High Court which pronounced its judgment on 03.08.2018, and since then Administrator is functioning, therefore, the headquarters of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India will be deemed to be at Delhi. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that New Delhi where the Administrator is sitting is the correct answer as has been corrected in the final answer key.
22. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior counsel further submits that issue of 'Green Muffler' is concerned, that question has two correct answers, namely, 'Air Pollution' and 'Noise Pollution' and in support, places reliance finding of the expert Committee is based on Trueman's Elementary Biology (a complete Text Book), Vol.II, for Class-XII of 10 2 and NEET, published from Trueman Book Company, Adda Hosiyarpur, Jalandhar and authored by Shri K.N. Bhatia, M.Sc. M.Phil. former Head of the Botany Department, A.S. College Khanna (PB) and M.P. Tyagi, M.Sc. Ph.D. former Head of the Zoology Department, Arya College, Ludhiyana (PB), to point out that in this book at page 155, it is mentioned that:-
"9. 'Green Muffler' or 'Green Belt Vegetation'. Green muffler or green belt vegetation is rows of trees and shrubs grown and maintained to serve as noise absorbers. It also reduces air pollution because the trees and shrubs absorb pollution gases and cause settling of suspended particulate matter."
23. Thus, it is submitted that there cannot be any dispute in regard to final Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 34 answer to Question No.28 of set 'D', where both the options 'Air' and 'Noise' are correct as per the final answer sheet.
24. In regard to third question 'Freedom of Press' by Lord William Bentinck, it is submitted that no adverse inference can be drawn in regard to correctness of this question, because the option in regard to 'Freedom of Press' are given and that was admittedly given in 1835, and therefore, as per one of the experts own calling it is mentioned that Sir Charles Metcalfe be read into the question and the question be treated to be as if, the Sir Charles Metcalfe had given Freedom of Press. It is submitted that the High Court canot sit in judgment over the report of experts for which he has referred to various pronouncement which will be dealt with subsequently.
25. Thus, Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior Advocate, submits that crux of the matter is that Freedom of Press was given in 1835, and merely name of Lord William Bentinck is mentioned, that is not sufficient to declare the question to be invalid. It is also submitted that the same expert who had commented about Sir Charles Metcalfe, has also admitted correct option to be 1835.
26. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior Advocate, also places reliance on a book, namely, 'Adhunik Bharat Ka Itihas' -1707 till today (Modern Indian History) from 1707 to the present day, by Vidhyadhar Mahajan, M.A. (Honours), Ph.D. 11th Edition (Amended and updated) 1999, S. Chand and Company Limited, Ramnagar, New Delhi - 110055, to submit that internal page 9 of I.A.No.6918 encloses extract of this book, it is mentioned as under :-
"(6) izsl dh Lora=rk & fofy;e cSafVd izsl dh Lora=rk dk leFkZd rFkk i{kikrh Fkk A mlus ,d ckj dgk Fkk fd esjh lEefr esa dksb Hkh fo"k; ,slk ugha gS ftl ij izsl fopkj foe'kZ ugh dj ldrk gS A fofy;e cSafVd us lu 1835 bZ0 esa izsl ls iw.Zk fu;a=.k Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 35 gVk fy;k rFk izsl dks Lora= dj fn;k A"
Thus, it is submitted that 1835, being the correct answer, no indulgence is required from the side of the High Court.
27. Referring to connected matter i.e. W.P.No.5075/2024, in which set 'C', as referred to by the petitioner, as annexed along with Annx.P/7, to point out about Question No.50, being incorrect, it is submitted that there is material to support that 'Ganesh Shankar Vidhyarti' is the correct answer and that has been enclosed by the petitioner himself and therefore, some error of use of a hypen will not render the question to be invalid.
28. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and reading para 30 in an exhaustive manner, it is pointed out that if a statute, rule or regulation governing an examination does not permit revaluation of the answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet, then that cannot be allowed as a matter of right. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior cousnel, submits that there is no provision for revaluation or retotalling in the examination conducted by the M.P. PSC and, therefore, all these petitions need to be dismissed.
29. It is also submitted that those persons can raise a grievance before the High Court who had filed objections to the provisional answer key and not by others.
30. It is also submitted that the Supreme Court has held "that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 36 disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneos answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more, but that cannot be helped since mathamatical precision is not always possible." Thus, it is submitted that petitioners have no locus to seek indulgence of this Court.
31. It is also pointed out that in para 30.3, 30.4 & 30.5, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as under :-
''30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.''
32. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Bihar and others [(2017) 4 SCC 357] and reading para 13, it is submitted that "Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs. Shakuntala Shukla [(2002) 6 SCC 127], has 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. Thus, it is submitted that principles of estoppel will apply and petitioners after having participated in the selection process are not entitled to raise any issue in regard to the correctness of the answer key.
33. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in University Grants Commission and another Vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) [(2013) 10 SCC 519]. Reading para 31 of the said judgment, it is pointed out that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 37 Supreme Court has held that "the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision to the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are."
34. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board Vs. Saluvadi Sumalatha and another, decided on 05.03.2024, in a Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16134-16135 of 2022. Reading para 14, it is submitted that Supreme Court has held that :-
"14. Courts will have to be cautious and therefore slow in dealing with recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. A lot of thought process has gone into applying the rules and regulations. Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on the said recruitment of respondent No.2, but also to numerous others as well. In such view of the matter, courts are duty bound to take into consideration the relevant orders, rules and enactments before finally deciding the case."
35. Shri Prashant Singh places reliance on the larger Bench decision of this High Court in Nitin Pathak (supra) . Reading para 31 of the said judgment, it is pointed out 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 malafides have been alleged against the expert constituted to finalise answer key. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts."
36. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior cousnel also places reliance on a Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 38 Division Bench decision of this High Court in Mayank Dwivedi Vs. M.P. Public Service Commission and others in Writ Appeal No.1728 of 2023, decided on 25.10.2023, and reading para 3, submits that since the final answer keys are being prepared by the body of experts, the same can neither be challenged nor to be interfered with in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452; Systopic Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Dr. Prein Gupta, 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 160; Akhil Bhartiya Gosewa Sangh vs. State of A.P., 2006(4) SCC 162 and Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. State of M.P. reported in (2019) 1 MPLJ 689 as well as the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak vs. State of M.P. and others (W.A.No.581 of 2017) decided on 04.09.2017 wherein the Full Bench of this Court 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.''
37. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of Coordinate Bench in Ankita Jaiswal Vs. M.P. Public Service Commission, Writ Petition No.10062/2019, decided on 13.10.2023, and reading para 13, it is submitted that in the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court, there is no reason to interfere in the petition, because petitioner had not preferred objection within stipulated time.
38. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Writ Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 39 Petition No.10750/2018 and other connected matters, decided on 17.07.2018, to submit that this judgment has persuasive value and the ratio of the law is that such petitions should be dismissed because the Supreme Court has consistently in the matters of examination has held that no interference is required in the matter of examination.
39. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior counsel, also places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh and another [(2018) 7 SCC 254]. It is pointed out that the Supreme Court has held as under :-
"14. In the present case, we find tht all the three questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain textbooks. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts."
40. Shri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel, also places reliance on the very same judgment in paras 12 & 13, which reads as under :-
''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. In Kanpur University case [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] , the Court recommended a system of: (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.
13. As far as the present case is concerned, even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 40 answers moderated by two Expert Committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26-member Committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is better or more correct.''
41. Shri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, also places reliance on the judgment of Larger Bench in Nitin Pathak Vs. State of M.P. (Writ Appeal No.581 of 2017), and relying on para 26, submits that though it is true that while exercising the power of Judicial Review, this Court is not to take upon itself the revaluation of model answer key either itself or through court appointed expert, who is none else but a delegate of the court. The court in exercise of power of judicial review, if sufficient material exists to write a finding that model answer key is palpably incorrect that no reasonable person would find the same to be acceptable, then the court could direct the examining body to re-examine the answer key, but cannot take over the function of the Commission in finalising the answer key itself.
42. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, certain things are crystal clear, as submitted by Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior counsel, duly supported with material available on record, it is evident that the textbook of biology for Class-XII, as has been enclosed along with the preliminary submission, Truemans' Elementary Biology Vol-II, it is evident that Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 41 the standard text book for Class-XII, points out that the 'Green Muffler' or 'Green Belt Vegetation' is used to curb both noise and air pollution.
43. In view of such facts, which could not be disputed by producing any equivalent textbook though Shri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner, pointed out that the same question was asked in Union Public Service Commission and the answer to said question was only 'noise pollution', and not air pollution, but taking this fact into consideration that there is standard text book produced by the Public Service Commission and that could not be rebutted by production of any counter standard material, objection to question No.28 of set 'D' or equivalent questions in other sets, namely, Green Muffler is related to Pollution of, cannot be faulted, with two correct options 'Air' and 'Noise' and, therefore, all the candidates who attempted 'Air' and 'Noise' as the right option, are required to be given marks which according to Shri Pachori, have already been granted to the candidates. Thus, objection in regard to this question dealing with 'Green Muffler', is overruled.
44. As far as issue of Question No.50 of 'C' set, namely, on whom did Balkrishn Sharma 'Naveen', wrote two Kavyas 'Pranarpan' and 'Atmosarga', petitioner had admittedly ticked Makhan Lal Chaturvedi, which according to his own showing is a wild guess. Some typographical error will not give edge to the petitioner, when petitioner himself has produced material in the form of 'Rashtriya Chetna Ke Vikas Mein Madhya Pradesh', to show that Balkrishn Sharma 'Naveen', when was lodged at Central Jail, Varanasi, Lucknow, Kanpur, Gazipur, Faizabad, Aligarh, Naini, Unnav, Bareli, then he was an ardent follower of martyred Ganesh Shankar 'Vidhyarthi' and had worked as an editor of 'Pratap Patrika' and he had written two poetries on 'Ganesh Shankar Vidhyarthi'. Some clerical error will not render the question to be inaccurate Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 42 and, therefore, that objection too is overruled.
45. Now, coming to Question No.63 of set 'D' i.e. where is the headquarter of Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI), located ? The material, which has been produced by Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior counsel, is interesting. He has produced copy of judgment of Delhi High Court in Mahipal Singh and others (supra), whereby, the elected representatives of the federation were superseded and an administrator was appointed by the Delhi High Court. The words used in para 79 of the said order dated 03.08.2018, as given by Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior Advocate, are in the following terms :-
"79. Additionally, in view of the apparent anarchy, prevailing in the affairs of the AKFI, owing to the machinations of Respondents No.4 and 5, we are of the opinion that it would be necessary, to preserve the very existence of the AKFI, to entrust its control and affairs to an impartial Administrator. We, therefore, issue additionally, the following directions :-
(i) We appoint Shri Sanat Kaul, IAS (Retd.) as Administrator, who would, till further orders, take over control of the AKFI, and administrator all its affairs. He shall stand substituted in place of the President of the AKFI, and shall be entitled to exercise all powers which existed, therefore, in thie President of the AKFI."
Thus, it is evident that High Court had appointed an administrator to discharge all the functions of the President of the AKFI.
46. High Court could not have and has not appointed the President because that is an elected post.
47. Thus, when memorandum of Association and Constitution of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI), as produced by Shri Prashant Singh, is read then para 2 of the said document reads as under :-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 43"2. The registered office of the Federation will be situated at the place of General Secretary or President of the Federation, whenever elected."
48. Thus, it is evident that the expert of M.P. PSC was not paying heed to the importance of each and every word and that could have been legally advised by the counsel for the M.P. PSC that the registered office of the Federation will change only in case of an elected President or General Secretary of the Federation is there and he is residing at a particular places not otherwise.
49. Even, the letter of justice (Retd.) S.P. Garg, showing himself to be the President is ex facie illegal. Shri Garg is not entitled to represent himself as the President of the Federation. He was appointed as the administrator to discharge the function of President and not as a President which is an elected post. Therefore, conduct or letter of (Retd.) Justice S.P. Garg, will not give any benefit to the M.P. PSC and it cannot be said that their material is an uncontroverted expert material.
50. Thus, the argument made by Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. Advocate, is contradictory to the documents produced by himself. That means that the change of answer to this question from model answer key which had given option 'C' for set 'D' as 'Jaipur' and analogous answer to be 'Jaipur' for this question in other sets is the correct answer and any change to this answer is not supported by the material available on record and that meets the requirement of the judgment of Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), where in para 30.2, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it), then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 44 only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed, will apply to the fact situation of this case and, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the correct answer to Question 63 of said 'D' is 'Jaipur' and not 'Delhi' and all those who attempted this option of 'Jaipur' are to be given marks and all those who gave option of 'Delhi' or any other option are not to be given any marks. This process requires only a plain reading of the memorandum of association and no inference to be drawn.
51. Now, coming to question No.7 of said 'D', that is in which of the following year was the Freedom of Press given by Lord William Bentinck, M.P. PSC has placed reliance on the book titled 'Modern Indian History' from 1707, to the present day by one Vidhyadhar Mahajan, referred to above. On page 291, of this book of 11th Edition which has been produced by the M.P. PSC, it is mentioned as under :-
"lj pkyZ~l esVd‚Qs] ƒŠ...‡&...ˆ] ykMZ fofy;e csafVd ds i'pkr lj pkyZ~l esVd‚Qs us 'kklu Hkkj laHkkyk og vaxzsth bZLV bafM;k daiuh ds ;ksX;re lsodksa esa ls ,d Fkk- mlus gh ƒŠå‹ esa j.kthr flag ds lkFk ve`rlj dh laf/k ds lEcU/k esa ckr dh Fkh - og mÙkj if'peh çkUr ds ysf¶VusaV xouZj ds :i esa dk;Z dj pwdk Fkk- mlds le; dh ,d ek=k egRoiw.kZ ?kVuk Hkkjrh; lekpkj i=ksa ij yxh gqbZ ikca/kh dks nwj djuk Fkk- baXySM dh vxzst ljdkj xoZuj tujy ds bl dk;Z ij bruh dzq } gqbZ fd mlus mls okil cqykus dk fu'p; dj fy;k A mldk dk;Zdky dqN gh ekl jgk A"
52. Thus, it is evident that experts have blindfolded themselves to the complete reference and are reading the reference out of context. The page of the reference as has been enclosed by the M.P. PSC, is not clear, but the fact Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 45 of the matter is that on page 291 of the reference produced by the experts of the M.P. PSC itself, answer is given that it was Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had given freedom of press and not Lord William Bentinck. Therefore, year of freedom becomes secondary when the framing of the question itself is incorrect. An incorrect question cannot be allowed to stand and, therefore, that needs to be cancelled.
53. Moreover, what Shri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel, has submitted and as is evident from the record, that in fact the Press Act was passed on 15.09.1835 and Sir Charles Metcalfe was serving as acting Governor General from March 1835 to March 1836, therefore, it is evident that framing of the question when tested on the touchstone of para 30.2 of judgment of Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), cannot be given a seal of approval. This view gets support from para 26 of Larger Bench decision in Nitin Pathak (supra), where it is held that the court in exercise of power of judicial review, if sufficient material exists to write a finding that model answer key is palpably incorrect that no reasonable person would find the same to be acceptable, then can show indulgence.
54. As far as judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts are concerned, in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), para 30.2, as reproduced above, carves out an exception under which circumstance, a court can show indulgence in the matter of answer key or the question. Therefore, the judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in Mayank Dwivedi (supra), having failed to take into consideration the judgment of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), which was available to it and which is prior in time when the said judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench was passed on 25.10.2023, will have no persuasive value or cannot be treated as a binding precedent, because judgment of Supreme Court will take precedence over the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 4655. Similarly, in case of Ankita Jaiswal (supra), Coordinate Bench of this High Court has though taken note of the judgment of Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and also the judgment of Division Bench in Writ Petition No.10070/2021, but has not referred to para 30.2, wherein, the ratio of law is crystal clear as mentioned above and, therefore, I am afraid that even this judgment will not be a binding precedent for this Bench.
56. Similarly, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in case of Writ Petition No.10750/2018, has though referred to Ran Vijay Singh's (supra) judgment, but has not noted the ratio of law laid down in para 30.2 and that being the crux of the matter, which will be a guiding factor besides the directives of the Supreme Court that Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets and the court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption, it is also true that in para 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), itself has shown one way out to exclude the suspect or offending question and when that way is adopted, then the question in regard to the year in which freedom of press was given by Lord William Bentinck, is to be excluded. Thus, the judgment of Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.10750/2018, on which lot of emphasis is placed by Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. Advocate, is of no assistance to this Court.
57. As far as law laid down in case of Ashok Kumar (supra) is concerned, that is in a different context. That judgment in para 13, which has been referred to by Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior Advocate, precludes a candidate to challenge the procedure of examination after atempting an examination i.e. after participating in the examination, a candidate is excluded from challenging the procedure of examination. But, that does not preclude him from challenging the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 47 change in the model answer key at the behest of experts or on any other grounds or from challenging the correctness of a question, because that can be challenged only after a candidate has undertaken an examination, otherwise he is supposed to be foreigner to the examination and is not supposed to know the question and/or is otherwise not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the question. Therefore, the judgment of Supreme court in Ashok Kumar (supra), has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
58. As far as judgment of Supreme Court in UP PSC Vs. Rahul Singh (supra) is concerned, in para 14, it is held that three questions involved in that case needed a long process of reasoning and that was noted by the High Court itself. Besides this, the stand of the PSC was supported with certain text books, but in the present case facts are different. The text books produced by the M.P. PSC, namely, 'Adhunik Bharat Ka Itihas' itself at page 291, makes a reference of the fact that it was Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had removed the ban on the Indian news papers. Therefore, that translates that he was an author of freedom of press in India and that being true supported with other circumstantial material, referred to above, the ratio of law laid down in UP PSC Vs. Rahul Singh (supra), will not be applicable on the basis of the material produced by the PSC in relation to these two questions, namely, the headquarter of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI) and in which of the following year was the freedom of press given by Lord William Bentinck.
59. As far as judgment of Larger Bench in case of Nitin Pathak (supra) is concerned, that judgment too in para 31, only says that in exercise of power of Judicial Review, the court should not refer the matter to court appointed expert as the courts have very limited role, particularly when no malafides have been attached. But, in para 26, it is noted that if wrong is so palpable that no Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 48 reasonable person will accept, then indulgence can be shown. Thus, it is evident that if without there being any inferential process of reasoning or without applying the process of rationalisation something is crystal clear, then that can be applied and that being the ratio of law by Larger Bench of this Court in Nitin Pathak (supra), will be of no assistance to the PSC.
60. Similarly, in case of University Grants Commission and another Vs. Neha Anil Bobde (supra), in para 31, Supreme Court has held that the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies should be taken into consideration, because normally it is wise and safe for the Court to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, but in the present case, the material produced by the experts and the expert examining body of the PSC speaks against them as has been discussed and pointed out above and, therefore, when their own material on face of it speaks against them, then still leaving the matter to the expert bodies, will cause injustice and prejudice to the thousands and thousands of the candidates who appeared in the examination and that cannot be the object of any law, because all citizens are equal in the eyes of law before a court of law. Therefore, that judgment too has little binding value on this High Court especially in view of the judgment of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), emphasis on para 30.2.
61. As far as law laid down in case of Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (supra) is concerned, law laid down in para 14, is that merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect. That being true, but it is equally true that nobody should suffer for the acts of other party and the other party has itself produced the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 49 relevant material to show that they were on wrong footing in regard to at least two questions i.e. in regard to the headquarter of the 'Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India' and that Lord William Bentinck was the author of the freedom of press, such convincing and direct material cannot be overlooked by the courts at the cost of doing injustice to the candidates, specially in this regard when petitioners have produced material in the form of a standard text book, issued by Madhya Pradesh Hindi Granth Akademy, Bhopal, which is a constituent of the State of Madhya Pradesh, namely, 'Gyan Sampada Madhya Pradesh Ke Sandarbh Mein', wherein in Ist Edition publishedion 2021, it is mentioned at page 164, that it was Sir Charles Metcalfe 1835-1836, who had passed the Press Act, 1835, removing the control over the Indian Newspapers, and that being issued by the instrumentality of the State, is an authentic material and it cannot be overlooked.
62. Even the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Ankit Tiwari (supra), categorically lays down that publication of key answer is done to achieve transparency and objections to the key answers are to be examined by experts and, thereafter corrective measures are to be taken and should have been on the basis of the correct answer, should not be limited only to those candidates who had approached court, but should be extended to all candidates since default does not lie, but with the examining body, and then reference to the judgment of Supreme Court in Richal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others (supra), PSC is relevant for the present case and, therefore, when this ratio is examined, then it is necessary to point out that as far as question in regard to Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India is concerned provisional answer key gave right answer as 'Jaipur'. Therefore, there was no occasion for the candidates to file objection to the model Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 50 provisional answer key and, therefore, the submission made by Shri Prashant Singh, that if no objection was raised, then it cannot be raised subsequently is not made out, because if the model provisional answer itself mentioned 'Jaipur' as the correct answer, then there was no occasion for those, who had attempted 'Jaipur' as the correct option to file objection before the PSC.
63. As far as next question is concerned, that question in regard to freedom of press as discussed above, is made out from record, that is an incorrect question and Delhi High Court in Shruti Katiyar (supra), has held that "The objections in a sense, attain universality, once taken by any candidate. The purpose of affording candidates the opportunity to lodge objections is salutary as it allows the respondent to take corective measures in the larger interest of candidates and move away from a possible unfair result." When examined from this angle and also in the light of the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), then this court has no hesitation to hold that the M.P. PSC is obliged to take option 'Jaipur' as correct answer for Question No.63 of set 'D' and award marks to all those who had attempted 'Jaipur' as the correct answer and exclude all those who had given any other answer, other than 'Jaipur' for this question.
64. Similarly, they are required to exclude Question No.7 of set 'D', from the array of evaluation, as has been held by Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and then prepare a merit list for computing the final results.
65. At this stage, Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior Advocate, submits that main examination for State civil Services is already over. Thus, in view of such submission, it is directed that treating Question No.7, of set 'D' in regard to freedom of press to be non est and treating 'Jaipur' to be the correct option for Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 51 headquarters of Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India, if petitioners are found eligible to be qualified for the mains examination, then their answer sheets be evaluated and if, they succeed, then they be allowed to participate in further process of interview etc.
66. Similarly, it is pointed out by Shri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel and others that main examination of Forest Recruitment is still pending on the basis of the same preliminary examination, therefore, it is directed that the M.P. PSC shall prepare a fresh merit list in terms of the judgment rendered today and publish a fresh merit list of candidates, who will be eligible to participate in the main examination for Forest Service. Let this be done before conducting the main examination for Forest Service.
67. In above terms, petitions are allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51