REKHA SACHDEV Vs. YOGESH GEHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGARD being had to the similar controversy involved in the bunch of cases, they were heard analogously together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and by a common order all the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of. Facts of Writ Petition No.1506/2012 (s) are narrated, as under:- The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by her non-selection in the M.P. Civil Services Examination, 2010 (Preliminary Examination). The contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the M.P. State Civil Services Examination, 2010 for the various posts and the petitioner submitted her application form to the M.P. Public Service Commission. The examination was to be held in three stages (a) Preliminary Examination; (b) Main Examination;4 and (c) Interview. The petitioner has stated that the preliminary examination took place on 20.02.2011 and was purely an objective type of examination. A candidate was required to fill in Optical Mark Reader Sheet (OMR Sheet) based upon the four answers given in the question paper itself. The petitioner's contention is that as she has opted for Public Administration as one of the optional subject, she was permitted to appear in Public Administration and the other paper was of General Knowledge. The petitioner further stated that each question of General Knowledge was assigned one mark and each question of Public Administration was assigned two and half marks. The petitioner further stated that result of the examination was declared in the month of August, 2011 and the petitioner was not declared successful.

(2.) THE petitioner further stated that she submitted an application to the respondent M. P. Public Service Commission under Right to Information Act, 2005, with a request to furnish the Model Answer Key, meaning thereby that the key on the basis of which marks were awarded to all the candidates. The petitioner kept on representing before the MP Public Service Commission demanding Model Answer Key. However, it was only on 22.10.2011, a reply was received by the petitioner asking the petitioner to produce the Examination Hall Ticket. The petitioner, however, submitted the desired information and she was also informed that she has received 322 marks and the cut off marks, prescribed by the MP Public Service Commission, entitling a candidate to appear in the Main Examination,5 were 324 in the category of women. The petitioner has further stated that inspite of her request, the Model Key Answers were not furnished to her and the petitioner kept on reminding the authorities with a request to decide her application, which was submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner for the first time on 16.12.2011 was served with a copy of Model Answer Key along-with petitioner's OMR Sheet. The OMR Sheet of the petitioner and the model answers are on record as Annexure P/9. The petitioner immediately after receiving the Model Answer Key, based on which the marking was done by the MP Public Service Commission, submitted a representation to the respondents on 20.12.2011.

(3.) THE petitioner has re-produced the questions and the answers in the writ petition and has also categorically stated that in respect of certain answers as per the answers reflected in the Model Answer Key, marks have been awarded on the basis of the incorrect answers. Notices were issued by this Court and a detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed by the M.P. Public Service Commission. It has been stated in the reply that the examination was held on 20.2.2011, result was declared on 05.08.2011 and as per the M.P. State Civil Services Examination Rules, 2008, the respondents were required to call fifteen times candidates of the total number of vacancies. It is further stated that fifteen times candidates were called to appear in the main examination; however, as the petitioner has not been able to receive the cut off marks prescribed by the MP Public Service Commission, she was not called for interview. It has been stated in the reply that Model Answer Key sheet was prepared by the experts of the subject and thereafter the question paper was given to candidates and based upon the answers reflected in the Model Answer Key, marks have been awarded. The MP Public Service Commission, instead of commenting upon the fact whether marks have been awarded to certain candidates on the basis of incorrect answers reflected in the Model Answer Key, submitted a reply duly supported by some of the judgments of the Apex Court and has taken a stand that this Court is not competent to re-appreciate7 the answers provided by the MP Public Service Commission in the Model Answer Key. A stand was also taken that discrepancy, if any, in framing the question or answer was for all candidates and not for petitioner alone. The MP Public Service Commission has placed heavy reliance on the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in the matter of H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2010. Not only this, other judgments have also been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the MP Public Service Commission and his contention is that the High Court is under no obligation to stood as an appellate authority to examine the correctness of the questions or the answers or the authenticity of the books based upon which the answers find place in the Model Answer Key. Learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.