Vinod Kumar Rajput vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Menon, Judge

Interalia contending that in the matter of selection/recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector various illegalities have been committed, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of petitioner that initially when results were declared certain candidates were declared as passed, but subsequently a revised result has been declared and in the said process answers of certain questions, particularly in the subject of General knowledge and Hindi, have been modified. Challenging revised Model Answer-sheet issued and contending that question No.10 and question No.14 in Set ''B'' Answer-sheet have not been properly valued, the answers given in the Model Answer-sheet are not correct, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Respondents have refuted the aforesaid contention and have brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court on 2.12.2011, in Writ Petition No.7169/2011 (Alok Gupta Vs. M.P. Professional Examination Board and others) and various other cases. After considering similar question the Gwalior Bench has held that once the Model Answer-sheet are prepared by a Board of Experts a Writ Court cannot interfere into the matter. For arriving at such a conclusion learned Gwalior Bench has placed 2 reliance on certain judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University and Others Vs. Samir Gupta and Others, and two Division Bench decisions of this Court in the case of Kumari Anjali Saxena Vs. The Chairman, Professional Examination Board, Bhopal and Others, and Vivek Jain Vs. The Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and Others, After taking note of the aforesaid judgments in para 18 the following principles are laid down :

In the light of the aforesaid legal position, it is crystal clear that the questions and answers derived by the experts from certain book cannot be said to be impermissible in the teeth of examination regulations nor can it be said that the experts have committed any error in doing the same, because it was in the province and prerogative of these experts. In absence of any malice being alleged against said experts or it is shown that said questions/answers are per se incorrect, this Court is under no obligation to sit as an appellate authority to examine either the correctness of the questions/answers or the authenticity of the book. It is in the domain of the experts.

Keeping in view the aforesaid now no indulgence into the matter is called for. Accordingly, finding no merit in the claim made by the petitioner, the same is dismissed.