WP 10070 2021 FinalOrder 14-Jul-2021

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Case No. WRIT PETITION NO.10070/2021

Parties Name ANKIT TIWARI AND OTHERS
vs.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH &
ANOTHER
WRIT PETITION NO.10186/2021

RAJESHWAR PAL
vs.
ANOTHER

ANKIT SONI AND OTHERS
vs.
ANOTHER

ANANT KHANDELWAL
vs.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

NIKHAT JAMAL
vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS

ISHAN PHOGAT
vs.
ANOTHER

PRAVESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS
vs.
ANOTHER

AMAN PARASHAR AND OTHERS
vs.

ANOTHER
W.P.10070 OF 2021 & CONNECTED MATTERS
2

DEVASHISH JOSHI
vs.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

ISHAN TIWARI
vs.
ANOTHER

DEVASHISH PANDEY
vs.
ANOTHER

KITABULLAH
vs.
ANOTHER

AYUSHMAN GUPTA
vs.
ANOTHER

KAUTILYA TRIPATHI AND ANOTHER
vs.
ANOTHER
DIVYA SHRIVASTAVA
vs.
ANOTHER

DIVYANSH THAKUR
vs.
ANOTHER

AMAN MEHTA
vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS
Date of Order 14/07/21

3
Bench Constituted Division Bench :

Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Justice Vishal Dhagat
Order passed by Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Whether approved for reporting Yes
Name of counsels for parties Shri Ayushman Gupta, Shri Ashok Kumar
Chourasia, Shri Deepak Tiwari, Shri Vikas
Rathi, Shri K.S. Jha, Shri Gaurav Mishra,
Shri Aayush Pandey, Shri Raghvendra Singh
Raghuvanshi, Ms. Aditi Sharma, Shri Ajeet
Kumar Rawat, Shri Somit Raizada, Shri
Shashikant, Shri Prashant Manchanda, Shri
Mohit Saroha, Shri Vishal Ishkari, Ms.
Varsha Parashar, Ms. Varsha Sharma, Shri
Shivam Hazari, Ms. R. Radha, Shri B.D.
Singh and Shri Rohan Harne, learned
counsel for the petitioners in the respective
petitions.
Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior counsel

with Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent/High Court of M.P.
Law laid down (i) 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 books and not merely on
the basis of inferences.
(ii) In a competitive examination

candidates cannot be made to suffer on
account of the errors committed by the
examining body and to avoid any such
gross injustice, re-evaluation can be
directed.
(iii) Such re-evaluation and revision on

the ground of incorrect model answer key
should not be limited only to those
candidates who had approached the court
but should be extended to all candidates
because the fault did not lie with the
candidate but with the examining body.
(iv) If for any justifiable reason some

questions are deleted and marks are re-
4
distributed uniformly giving benefit to all

the candidates, then the same cannot be
said to be arbitrary or irrational.
(v) Even if the rules do not permit re-

evaluation, the court may permit the same
only if it is demonstrated very clearly
without any inferential process of
reasoning or by process of rationalization,
in rare or exceptional cases when
material error has been committed.
Significant paragraph numbers 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12
ORDER
(14.07.2021)
Per : Prakash Shrivastava, J.
This order will govern the disposal of W.P. Nos.10070/2021,
10186/2021, 10221/2021, 10232/2021, 10445/2021, 10916/2021,
10971/2021, 11048/2021, 11049/2021, 11155/2021, 11196/2021,
11197/2021, 11266/2021, 11272/2021, 11391/2021, 11415/2021 and
11650/2021 as it is jointly submitted by counsel for all the parties that these
petitions involve same issue on identical fact situation.
2. For convenience facts are noted from W.P. No.10070/2021. In this
petition as many as 68 petitioners have challenged the list of selected
candidates dated 24.05.2021 declared for the purpose of appearing in the
main written examination. They have also prayed for a direction to
recompute the marks afresh based on the
corrections/amendments/restoration of wrongly deleted questions, in the test
for Civil Judges Class-2 (Entry Level – Direct Recruitment) online
preliminary examination.
5
3. The advertisement dated 05.09.2020 was issued by the respondent-
High Court inviting applications to fill up the post of Civil Judges Class-2
(Entry Level – Direct Recruitment). The advertisement was to fill up 252
posts which include 60 backlog posts from previous year. As per the scheme
disclosed in Part-B of the advertisement, the examination is to be held in
three phases, firstly, online preliminary examination; secondly, main
examination; and finally, interview. The preliminary examination was
conducted for the purpose of screening the candidates for main examination.
The marks obtained in the preliminary examination are not to be added in
the final examination. The syllabus of the preliminary examination was
disclosed and total marks assigned in the preliminary examination was 150.
As per the scheme, the examination was objective type and each objective
question had four options. There was no negative marking. For the purpose
of convenience of the candidates, a mock test was also made available in the
website. The candidate was expected to select the best possible option out of
the four options. The procedure for the purpose of valuation and result of
online preliminary examination was also disclosed in the advertisement by
mentioning that after the preliminary examination the proposed model
answers was to be made available in the M.P. High Court website
www.mphc.gov.in. The candidates had the opportunity to give their
option/suggestion, if any, in respect of the proposed model answer within
seven days from the date of publication of model answer in the website. The
objection/suggestion could be given in writing under his own signature by
post or through e-mail to the Principal Registrar (Exams) along with all the
6
material relating to the source/document on which the
objections/suggestions were based. No objection/suggestion was acceptable
after seven days. It was also made clear that if no objection was received in
respect of model answer key then it would be treated to be final. The
valuation of the online preliminary examination was computer based and as
per advertisement maximum 10 times (which could be less also) candidates
category-wise were to be declared qualified/eligible to appear in the main
examination with the further condition that the candidates obtaining equal
marks will be permitted even if for this reason the number of eligible
candidates may be slightly more than 10 times. The minimum marks
prescribed for general category and OBC candidates was 90 and for reserved
(scheduled tribe and scheduled caste) candidates as 82. The result of the
online examination was to be declared by uploading it in the High Court
website. The applications along with the self-attested documents were to be
called for the main examination from the candidates who qualify the
preliminary examination. The main examination is a written examination.
The advertisement also makes it clear that after the commencement of the
recruitment process at any stage if the need arises for any clarification or
amendment, the same will be done by issuing a corrigendum.
4. In continuation of the advertisement dated 05.09.2020, the
advertisement (Annexure P/2) dated 09.02.2021 was issued notifying that
the online preliminary examination would be held on 20.03.2021 between
14:00 to 16:00 in single shift. The petitioners had appeared in pursuance to
the said advertisement in the online preliminary examination held on

7
20.03.2021. The proposed model answer keys were published by the
Examination Cell of the High Court vide notification dated 22.03.2021 for
the valuation of response answer sheets. By this notification, the
objections/clarifications etc. were also invited from the candidates in respect
of the model answer key along with the source document/proof on the basis
of which objection/clarification was raised. The objections were required to
be submitted within seven days. The candidates having objection to model
answers key had submitted the same. By order dated 25.03.2021, the
Chairman of the Examination-cum-Selection and Appointment Committee
constituted an Expert Committee to finalize the model answers after
considering the objections received in respect of each model answer. The
Expert Committee consists of the Principal Registrar (Vigilance) and Special
Judge/IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. On the basis of the
report dated 17.05.2021 submitted by the Expert Committee, a final answers
key was prepared and after approval by the Examination-cum-Selection and
Appointment Committee, the results of the online preliminary examination
was prepared and published on 24.05.2021. Along with the results, the
decision on the objections in respect of various proposed model answers was
also published. The decision of the Expert Committee on the objection to
model key answers have been divided into three categories, which are as
under :
(i) Firstly, the objections in respect of following questions were rejected :

Q. 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34,
Nos. 38, 44, 47, 48, 49, 54, 56, 59, 63, 66, 70, 73. 77, 79, 83,
84, 86, 89, 94, 96, 98, 106, 107, 108, 109, 116, 118,
8
129, 133, 147 & 150
(ii) Secondly, the model key answers for which the objections were
accepted and model key answers have been modified. :
Q. No. Modifications
4 Option 1 & 2 in place of option 2
28 Option 2 in place of option 4
62 Option 2 & 3 in place of option 4
(iii) Thirdly, the questions in respect of which the objections have been
accepted and the questions have been cancelled and prescribed 01 mark has
been awarded to each candidate :
Q. 1, 16, 17, 60, 82, 99, 103, 114, 128, 136

Nos.
The respondents on the basis of the aforesaid modification in
question/model key answer have declared the result of preliminary
examination. The category-wise cut off marks and number of qualified
candidates in the examination are as under :
Cat. Cut-off Marks No. of qualified

candidates
UR 115 1132
OBC 105 314
SC 88 337
ST 82 159
9
Total 1942
5. The petitioners have approached this Court with the grievance that the
key answers of as many as 06 questions have wrongly been changed on the
basis of the recommendation of the Expert Committee whereas in respect of
these questions the original key answers were correct. They have further
raised grievance that objections in respect of as many as 03 questions have
been wrongly rejected whereas the model key answers for these questions is
incorrect. Their further grievance is in respect of deletion of 10 questions
and awarding 01 mark each to all the candidates.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. Before proceeding further, we deem it proper to have a look at the
legal position in respect of scope of judicial review in such matters. The
Supreme Court in the matter of Kanpur University, through Vice
Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and others, (1983) 4 SCC 309
while holding that the publication of the key answers along with the result of
the test is desirable in the interest of fairness has further held that the
correctness of key answer should be ascertained from the standard and
prescribed text books and not merely on the basis of inferences.
8. In the matter of Manish Ujwal and others Vs. Maharishi
Dayananda Saraswati University and others, reported in (2005) 13 SCC
744 while considering the selection process for admission to MBBS/BDS
course through common entrance test wherein first round of counselling was
10
already over, the Hon'ble Supreme found that the 06 key answers provided
by the University were undisputedly, palpably and demonstrably wrong and
held that the student community cannot be made to suffer on account of
errors committed by the University and has directed fresh evaluation with
the rider that the admissions made in the first round of counselling will not
be affected by the fresh evaluation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed for
re-evaluation of all questions by feeding correct answers and thereafter
preparing fresh ranking for second counselling. In the matter of Manish
Ujwal (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
“8. It seems that nearly thirty thousand students

appeared in the examination held between 9-5-2005
and 11-5-2005. It was an entrance examination for
admissions in the Government medical and dental
colleges as also for fifty per cent State quota in the
said disciplines in private colleges and not for the
remaining management quota. On the basis of the
results declared and ranking given, the first
counselling for admission to the aforesaid courses in
Government colleges and fifty per cent State quota in
private colleges has already taken place. It is possible
that fresh evaluation by feeding correct key answers
to the six questions may have adverse impact also on
those who may have already secured admission on
the basis of the results declared and ranking given by
feeding incorrect keys in relation to these questions.
Though we are of the view that the appellants in
particular and the student community in general,
whether one has approached the court or not, should
not suffer on account of demonstrably incorrect key
answers but, at the same time, if the admissions
already granted as a result of first counselling are
disturbed, it is possible that the very commencement
of the course may be delayed and the admission
process for the courses may go beyond 30-9-2005,
which is the cut-off date, according to the time-
schedule in the Regulations and as per the law laid
down by this Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) v. Union
of India. In this view, we make it clear that fresh
11
evaluation of the papers by feeding correct key

answers would not affect the students who have
secured admissions as a result of the first counselling
on the basis of ranking given with reference to the
results already declared.
9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta considering

a similar problem, this Court held that there is an
assumption about the key answers being correct and
in case of doubt, the court would unquestionably
prefer the key answer. It is for this reason that we
have not referred to those key answers in respect
whereof there is a doubt as a result of difference of
opinion between experts. Regarding the key answers
in respect whereof the matter is beyond the realm of
doubt, this Court has held that it would be unfair to
penalise the students for not giving an answer which
accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an
answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. There is
no dispute about the aforesaid six key answers being
demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not been
questioned by the learned counsel for the University.
In this view, students cannot be made to suffer for the
fault and negligence of the University.
10. The High Court has committed a serious

illegality in coming to the conclusion that "it cannot
be said with certainty that answers to the six
questions given in the key answers were erroneous
and incorrect". As already noticed, the key answers
are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that
view of the matter, the student community, whether
the appellants or intervenors or even those who did
not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be
made to suffer on account of errors committed by the
University. For the present, we say no more because
there is nothing on record as to how this error crept
up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was
negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary
to note that the University and those who prepare the
key answers have to be very careful and abundant
caution is necessary in these matters for more than
one reasons. We mention few of those; first and
paramount reason being the welfare of the student
and a wrong key answer can result in the merit being
made a casualty. One can well understand the
predicament of a young student at the threshold of his
12
or her career if despite giving correct answer, the

student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably
erroneous key answer; the second reason is that the
courts are slow in interfering in education matters
which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the
University while preparing the key answers; and
thirdly, in cases of doubt, the benefit goes in favour
of the University and not in favour of the students. If
this attitude of casual approach in providing key
answer is adopted by concerned persons, directions
may have to be issued for taking appropriate action,
including disciplinary action, against those
responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous
key answers but we refrain from issuing such
directions in the present case.
11. The second counselling for the admission

abovementioned, we are informed, is fixed from
25-8-2005, onwards. We direct re-evaluation of all
the questions by feeding correct answers, as above
noticed, and on that basis correct number of marks
obtained by all the students should be assigned and
their ranking prepared. This exercise shall be
completed within a period of three days from today.
List so prepared shall be put on internet soon
thereafter as also be published in the newspapers
wherein it was earlier published. The second
counselling and admissions hereinafter in the medical
and dentral courses in the State of Rajasthan in
Government colleges as also in the private colleges
insofar as the State quota is concerned would be
made on the basis of ranking as per the list which will
now be prepared by the University pursuant to the
directions of this Court. The merit list shall be
prepared for the same number of students as it was
prepared earlier while declaring the results on 22-5-
2005 and 23-5-2005.”
9. It is settled 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 that the
revision on the basis of the correct answer should not be limited only to
13
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. The Supreme Court in the matter of Richal and others Vs. Rajasthan
Public Service Commission and others, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81 has
reiterated the above position and upheld the re-distribution 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 Nank Dev

University v. Saumil Garg, had directed 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, 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 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 by the Division Bench of the High
Court. The Division Bench modified the order passed
by the Single Judge and declared that the entire
14
examination need not be cancelled. The order of the

Division Bench was challenged wherein this Court in
paragraph 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
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. 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
15
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 question paper has to be treated as
containing the question less 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.”
10. In the matter of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
summarized the principles of the scope of judicial review in respect of
correctness of answer key and re-evaluation in the recruitment process. It
has been held that sympathy or compassion do not play any role in the
matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation and that if the rule do not
16
permit re-evaluation then court may permit the same only if it is
demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or by
a process of rationalization and only in rare or exceptional cases when a
material error has been committed. It has been observed that the court
should never take upon itself task to re-evaluate the answer sheets. In this
regard, it has been held that :
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and

we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are:
30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing

an examination permits the re-evaluation of an
answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a
matter of right, then the authority conducting the
examination may permit it;
30.2 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 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;
30.3 The court should not at all re-evaluate or

scrutinize 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.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or

compassion does not play any role in the matter of
17
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
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice
having been caused to them by an erroneous question
or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally,
though some might suffer more but that cannot be
helped since mathematical precision is not always
possible. This Court has shown one way out of an
impasse-exclude the suspect or offending question.”
11. In the matter of Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and
others, (2013) 4 SCC 690 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there
is a defect in the answer key, the most natural and logical way of correcting
the evaluation of the scripts is to correct the key and get the answer scripts
re-evaluated on the basis thereof. In this regard, it is held that :
“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 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. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was
and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
20. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that

while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do
18
justice to those who may have suffered on account of an

erroneous key being applied to the process but also to
the writ petitioners, Respondents 6 to 18 in the matter
of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit
list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the
ouster of the appellants should they be found to fall
below the 'cut off' mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave
two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he
contended that the appellants are not responsible for the
error committed by the parties in the matter of
evaluation of the answer scripts. The position may have
been different if the appellants were guilty of any fraud,
misrepresentation or malpractice that would have
deprived them of any sympathy from the court or
justified their ouster. Secondly, he contended that the
appellants have served the State efficiently and without
any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of
them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh
recruitment within the State or outside the State. They
have also lost the opportunity to appear in the
subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their
ouster from service after their employment on the basis
of a properly conducted competitive examination not
itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous
consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship
to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience
gained by these Appellants over the years would also,
according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not
have the advantage of using valuable human resource
which was found useful in the service of the people of
the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. Rao, therefore,
prayed for a suitable direction that while re-evaluation
can determine the inter se position of the writ
petitioners and the appellants in these appeals, the result
of such re-evaluation may not lead to their ouster from
service, if they fell below the cut off line.
21. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr.

Rao. It goes without saying that the appellants were
innocent parties who have not, in any manner,
contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or
the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or
malpractice against the appellants who have served the
State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances,
while inter se merit position may be relevant for the
appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an
19
inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-

evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally
benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment
on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the
answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be
ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment
letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such
re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on
that basis according to their inter se position on the
merit list.”
12. From the above judicial pronouncements, it is clear 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 books and not merely on the basis of inferences.
In a competitive examination candidates cannot be made to suffer on
account of the errors committed by the examining body and to avoid any
such gross injustice, re-evaluation can be directed. Such re-evaluation and
revision on the ground of incorrect model answer key should not be limited
only to those candidates who had approached the court but should be
extended to all candidates because the fault did not lie with the candidate
but with the examining body. If for any justifiable reason some questions are
deleted and marks are re-distributed uniformly giving benefit to all the
candidates, then the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. Even if
the rules do not permit re-evaluation, the court may permit the same only if
it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning
or by process of rationalization, in rare or exceptional cases when material
error has been committed.

20
13. Having examined the present case in the light of the aforesaid judicial
pronouncement and the limited scope of judicial review, we find that the
grievance of the petitioners is now confined to 19 questions.
14. The petitioners have raised the grievance that in respect of following
06 questions the model key answers have been wrongly modified meaning
thereby the modified model answer key to these questions are incorrect and
on that basis the evaluation has resulted into miscarriage of justice. These
questions are question No.4, 28, 50, 62, 75, 88.
15. The second set of objections is that in respect of three questions
though the objections were raised and the original model key answer is
incorrect, yet the objections have wrongly been rejected. These questions are
question No. 19, 49 & 84.
16. In respect of the 10 deleted questions, the objection is that these
questions have wrongly been deleted. These deleted questions are question
No.1, 16, 17, 60, 82, 99, 103, 114, 128, 136.
17. The entire material has been enclosed by the petitioners along with the
writ petitions in order to demonstrate that the above model key answers
about which the objection has been raised in the petition are not correct.
18. During the course of arguments, a consensus has been arrived at
between the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent-
High Court that the matter should be referred to a Committee of two retired
High Court Judges having the expertise. Counsel for all the parties have
accepted the names of Hon'ble Shri Justice (Retd.) K.K. Trivedi and Hon'ble
Shri Justice (Retd.) C.V. Sirpurkar, the retired Judges of this Court as
21
members of the Committee for the purpose of re-examining the model
answer keys of the questions about which the grievance has been raised in
these petitions. It is undisputed that complete transparency and fairness is to
be observed in the examination process especially when the examination is
for the purpose of screening the candidates for the post of Civil Judges and
also that even one incorrect model answer will change the list of selected
candidates resulting into the inclusion or exclusion of some of the
meritorious candidates. Hence, we are also of the opinion that interest of
justice will be served by appointing a Committee of two eminent retired
Judges of this Court to examine the disputed model key answers. Therefore,
we appoint a Committee comprising of Hon'ble Shri Justice (Retd.) K.K.
Trivedi and Hon'ble Shri Justice (Retd.) C.V. Sirpurkar, the retired Judges of
this Court for the purpose of examining the correctness of the model key
answers of the questions in respect of which the grievance has been raised in
these petitions.
19. The matter does not end here because the list of selected candidates
for the main examination has already been published vide notification dated
24.05.2021 and these selected candidates are not before this Court, therefore,
any direction in these petitions which may prejudicially affects their right
cannot be issued. The similar situation had arisen when the Delhi High Court
by order dated 09.04.2012 had allowed W.P.(C) No.449/2012 by holding that
some of the questions were not framed correctly and some answers in the
model answer key were also not correct, therefore, directing re-evaluation of
the answer sheets and further directing that the candidate whose names
22
appeared in the select list if secured lesser marks would not be excluded
from the list of the eligible candidates appearing for the main examination.
This resulted into anomalous position because some of the candidates in the
revised list, who had obtained more marks than the last candidate of the
earlier list were excluded, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.4795/2012 in the matter of PALLAV MONGIA Vs. REG.
GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR. vide order dated 28.05.2012
while disposing of the appeal held that :
“ The appellants before us belong to

general category and had secured more marks
than the last candidate allowed to appear in the
mains examination by the revised list.
There can be no justification in the process to
allow the candidates, who had secured lesser
marks to appear in the mains examination and to
exclude those who had secured higher marks,
whatever may be the reason.
Thus, in view of the above, we allow
the appeals and direct that any candidate whether
he has approached the court or not, who has
secured equal or higher marks than the last
candidate who has been permitted to take mains
examination, be permitted to participate in the
mains examination.
With these observations, the appeals stand
disposed of.”
20. It is also worth noting that the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of
Arti Meena V. Rajasthan High Court, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 2000 when
the issue was raised that some of the model key answers to the questions in
the preliminary examination for the post to Civil Judge cadre were wrong
had directed to delete certain question papers and recompute the marks and
prepare the fresh list of eligible candidates including all such candidates
23
therein who secured more marks than the last candidate originally allowed to
appear in the main examination keeping in view the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of PALLAV MONGIA (supra).
21. On the examination of the record, we have also found that in the
original list of qualified candidates published on 24.05.2021, 1942
candidates have been found to be qualified whereas as per the advertisement
candidates up to 10 times of the vacancies i.e. 2520 could be qualified for
the purpose of main examination and in certain circumstances it could even
be more. Therefore, if additional candidates are permitted to appear in the
main examination then that will not result into breach of the condition of the
advertisement. We make it clear that no additional candidate who has
obtained marks less than the prescribed minimum marks can be permitted to
appear in the main examination.
22. In view of the above analysis, we dispose of the present writ petitions
with the following directions :
(i) Since the petitioners have enclosed the relevant material in
the writ petitions in respect of their plea relating to
correctness of model key answers in issue, therefore, the
present writ petitions are treated as representations on
behalf of the petitioners and Principal Registrar (Exam) is
directed to place all these writ petitions before the two-
member Committee constituted by this order forthwith.
(ii) The two-member Committee will examine the grievance of
the petitioners raised in these petitions in respect of the

24
model answer keys and will submit its proposal to revise
the model answer keys, if any, to the Examination
Committee of the High Court within a period of two weeks
from the date of placing the petitions before it.
(iii) Thereafter, the Examination Committee will take an
appropriate decision on the proposal to revise the model
answer keys and will take steps to get the fresh select list
of the candidates prepared for the purpose of main
examination within one week.
(iv) While preparing the fresh select list for permitting the
candidate to appear in the main examination, the
Examination Committee will keep in view the ratio of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of PALLAV
MONGIA (supra) and recompute the marks so as to
prepare a fresh list of eligible candidates by including all
such candidates therein who secured more marks than the
last candidate originally allowed to appear in the main
examination.
(v) The candidates whose names have been included in the
select list published vide notification dated 24.05.2021 will
not be excluded and in addition to them the newly included
candidates by way of above process will be permitted to
appear in the main written examination for recruitment to
the Civil Judges Class-II.

25
(vi) Since the last date of submission of the form for the main
examination is 09.02.2021 and the aforesaid process will
take time, therefore, the respondent may take an
appropriate decision for extending the last date of
submission of the application form for the main
examination.
(vii) The members of the Committee so appointed by this order
will be paid appropriate honorarium by the respondent-
High Court.
23. The signed order be placed in the record W.P. No.10070/2021 and a
copy whereof be placed in the record of connected W.P. Nos.10186/2021,
10221/2021, 10232/2021, 10445/2021, 10916/2021, 10971/2021,
11048/2021, 11049/2021, 11155/2021, 11196/2021, 11197/2021,
11266/2021, 11272/2021, 11391/2021, 11415/2021 and 11650/2021.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) (VISHAL DHAGAT)

JUDGE JUDGE
DV
Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2021.07.14
16:42:24 +05'30'

WP 10070 2021 FinalOrder 14-Jul-2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP 10070 2021 FinalOrder 14-Jul-2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP 10070 2021 FinalOrder 14-Jul-2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT

Case No. WRIT PETITION NO.10070/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.10186/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.10221/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.10232/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.10445/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.10916/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.10971/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.11048/2021

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH &

WRIT PETITION NO.11049/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.11155/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.11196/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.11197/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.11266/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.11272/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.11415/2021

WRIT PETITION NO.11650/2021

Date of Order 14/07/21

Bench Constituted Division Bench :

Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior counsel

(ii) In a competitive examination

(iii) Such re-evaluation and revision on

(iv) If for any justifiable reason some

distributed uniformly giving benefit to all

(v) Even if the rules do not permit re-

Per : Prakash Shrivastava, J.

This order will govern the disposal of W.P. Nos.10070/2021,

10186/2021, 10221/2021, 10232/2021, 10445/2021, 10916/2021,

10971/2021, 11048/2021, 11049/2021, 11155/2021, 11196/2021,

11197/2021, 11266/2021, 11272/2021, 11391/2021, 11415/2021 and

petitions involve same issue on identical fact situation.

2. For convenience facts are noted from W.P. No.10070/2021. In this

petition as many as 68 petitioners have challenged the list of selected

candidates dated 24.05.2021 declared for the purpose of appearing in the

main written examination. They have also prayed for a direction to

recompute the marks afresh based on the

corrections/amendments/restoration of wrongly deleted questions, in the test

for Civil Judges Class-2 (Entry Level – Direct Recruitment) online

3. The advertisement dated 05.09.2020 was issued by the respondent-

(Entry Level – Direct Recruitment). The advertisement was to fill up 252

disclosed in Part-B of the advertisement, the examination is to be held in

three phases, firstly, online preliminary examination; secondly, main

examination; and finally, interview. The preliminary examination was

The marks obtained in the preliminary examination are not to be added in

the final examination. The syllabus of the preliminary examination was

online preliminary examination was also disclosed in the advertisement by

mentioning that after the preliminary examination the proposed model

answers was to be made available in the M.P. High Court website

www.mphc.gov.in. The candidates had the opportunity to give their

option/suggestion, if any, in respect of the proposed model answer within

objection/suggestion could be given in writing under his own signature by

material relating to the source/document on which the

objections/suggestions were based. No objection/suggestion was acceptable

respect of model answer key then it would be treated to be final. The

valuation of the online preliminary examination was computer based and as

per advertisement maximum 10 times (which could be less also) candidates

category-wise were to be declared qualified/eligible to appear in the main

candidates may be slightly more than 10 times. The minimum marks