AAYUSHA Vs. M P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the action of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission in not granting two marks to the petitioner in respect of question No. 62. The contention of the petitioner is that she has appeared in M.P. State Civil Services Preliminary Examination and has secured 290 marks. The cut off marks fixed by the Public Service Commission for the category in which the petitioner was considered were 292 marks. The contention of the petitioner is that she has submitted the correct answer to the question No. 62, as option "D" was the correct answer, however she was not awarded any marks. The petitioner has filed various documents to establish before this Court that Option-D is the correct answer. Various representations were received by the Public Service Commission in respect of the same question. The Public Service Commission after constituting a committee has arrived at a conclusion that Option-A and Option-C are the correct answer of question No. 62. The petitioner before this Court has filed certain documentary evidence in order to establish that the correct answer of question No. 62 is Option-D and this Court not being the expert in the field of Information Technology/Computer Sciences has directed the State Government to constitute a committee vide order dated 8-5-2014 and to submit a report. The State Government has constituted a Committee comprising of a Secretary, Department of Information Technology, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh as a Chairman; Dean of Computer Science and Information Technology, Rajiv Gandhi Technical University, Bhopal; Dean Computer Science Molana Azad National Technical Institute, Bhopal and State Informatic Officer, NIC as members. The Committee has submitted a detailed report and the Report of the Committee reads as under :--

(2.) As per the report submitted by the Committee, Option-O is the correct answer, meaning thereby the stand of the Public Service Commission on affidavit appears to be an incorrect stand and the petitioner has been deprived of two marks by the Public Service Commission. The experts appointed by the State Government by virtue of the order of this Court have explained as to why the option-D is the correct answer.

(3.) A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed by the Public Service Commission and though an attempt has been made to justify the wrong marking done by the Public Service Commission, at the same time jurisdiction of this Court in constituting the Committee has also been challenged. It has also been stated in the reply that it is the sole domain of the Public Service Commission to appoint valuers or to appoint experts and as per their experts' opinion "Option-D" is not the correct answer. The findings given by an independent Committee constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh of independent officers have given a categoric finding that the option-D is the correct answer and the petitioner, who has correctly answered, the question No. 62 cannot be deprived of her legitimate right of obtaining two marks. Earlier also this Court in the case of Rekha Suchdev v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 1506/2012 has constituted a committee and large number of candidates who were deprived of their selection, were benefited by the report submitted by the Committee before this Court. They were subsequently permitted to appear in the examination by virtue of proper marking done by the Public Service Commission pursuant to the report submitted by the Committee.