Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Singh Bhadoria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 W.P.No.4550/2022
Vivek Singh Bhadoria Vs. The State of M.P. & Anr.
Gwalior Bench Dated; 26.02.2022
Shri RBS Tomar and Shri Sourav Singh Tomar, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for
respondent No.1/State.
Shri R.D. Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri Sangam Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
With consent heard finally.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"(i) That, the respondents may be directed to declare the petitioner as qualified for the M.P.P.S.C. Preliminary examination -2020.
(ii) That, the respondent may be directed to award two marks for the question No.90 of set "B" of M.P.P.S.C. Preliminary Examination
-2020.
(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted."
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in response to the advertisement issued by M.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "MPPSC"), petitioner appeared in the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 W.P.No.4550/2022 Civil Service Examination. After conduct of examination, result was declared by MPPSC on 15-01-2022. Total 100 questions were asked in paper No.1 in which each question carried 2 marks, out of which petitioner attempted 65 questions and therefore, scored 130 marks in total. Pertinently preliminary examination of MPPSC consists of two question papers in which paper No.1 is of General Study and paper No.2 is of General Aptitude Test. Question Paper No.2 is of qualifying nature in which petitioner duly qualified, however cut off marks are decided on the basis of question paper No.1 -General Study and since petitioner is a candidate of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and therefore cut off marks for EOW is 132 marks whereas petitioner obtained 130 marks, therefore, two marks are decider in his career for appearance in main examination.
3. Question No.70 of Set "A", question No.90 of set "B", question No.35 of set "C" and question No.20 of set "D" were one and the same question figured at different serial numbers of different set of question papers. Petitioner marked option "B" as the correct answer of question No.90 of set "B" of Preliminary Examination. Later on, result was declared and answer sheet was published by respondent No.2 on 19-08-2021 and as per answer sheet issued by respondent No.2 they have considered HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 W.P.No.4550/2022 option "A" as the correct answer instead of option "B" due to which petitioner has been deprived of his right to appear in main examination of MPPSC.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, option "B" in set "B" of question No.90 is correct answer as per various other authentic books, therefore, MPPSC erred in concluding about the correct answer as option "A". He seeks direction to MPPSC to correct their answer as option "B" and award two marks for the said question No.90 to the petitioner.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for MPPSC opposed the submissions and referred advertisement and the terms of appointment as referred in advertisement dated 10-02-2021 (Annexure P/2) in which it has been mentioned that those questions which have two options as right answer, then all answers shall be considered as accepted. Here, no such confusion exists and option "A" was the correct answer, therefore, no such indulgence can be shown. Learned senior counsel further referred clause 5 in schedule 3 regarding complaints and submitted that if petitioner was at all aggrieved then he should have approached the authority within seven days. Since he did not approach the authority within stipulated period, no indulgence can be shown. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 W.P.No.4550/2022
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
7. It is a case where petitioner is seeking option "B" to be treated as correct answer whereas MPPSC has found in its wisdom option "A" to be correct answer. Now scope constricts here only because MPPSC being an expert body for recruitment for the different posts of Class -II Gazetted Officers in State of Madhya Pradesh, cannot be put to doubt about the choice of answer by the Court through its subjective satisfaction. Beside that, petitioner has nowhere referred any authentic official publication like Gazetteer of India of Publication Division, New Delhi or by any Book of National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT)/ National Book Trust (NBT) to support arguments.
8. Beside that, MPPSC has definite clause in clause 5 of schedule 3 which his reproduced as under:
"ikap& iz'u laca/kh f'kdk;r iz'u ls lacaf/kr fdlh izdkj dh f'kdk;r gksus ij ijh{kkFkhZ ijh{kk ds izkof/kd mRrj dqath izdk'ku ds 07 fnol ds vanj fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd ¼ 100 :Ik;s izfr iz'u rFkk :i;s 40 izfr =qfV lq/kkj l= iksVZy pktZ ½ tek dj vkWuykbu i)fr ls vkifRr ntZ djk;s A ijh{kk ds izkof/kd mRrj dqath izdk'ku ds 07 fnol ds vanj vkWuykbu i)fr ls ntZ f'kdk;rksa ij gh fopkj fd;k tk;sxk A blds i'pkr ,oa vU; fdlh i)fr ls izLrqr vkosnuksa dsk uLrhc) fd;k tk,xk A ftu iz'uksa ij vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk izLrqr vkifRr] fo"k; fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk lgh HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 W.P.No.4550/2022 ik;h tk,xh ml iz'u gsrq fn;k x;k vkifRr 'kqYd vkifRrdrkZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkWuykbZu i)fr ls okil fd;k tk,xk A bl gsrq vkifRrdrkZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dsk vkifRr ekWM;qy esa mlds cSad [kkrs dh tkudkjh izfo"V djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA**
9. Perusal of said provision further reveals that within seven days he had to make complaint which he could not. Therefore, at belated stage in a case where recruitment is at the stake, interference cannot be made. Petitioner who is civil services aspirant has to be cautious about his response/disposition towards any anomaly crept into the selection process.
10. So far as other candidates are concerned, since they approached the authority within time, therefore, said equity is not available to the petitioner. Once he responded lately, no case for interference is made out.
11. In cumulative analysis, case of petitioner fails. No manifest illegality, procedural impropriety or palpable perversity is reflected in the impugned order. Petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Pathak)
Anil* Judge
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2022.03.11
09:07:29
-08'00'