'Expert Committee Did Not Consider Authentic Data': MP High Court Grants Relief To Candidates Challenging Answer Key In MPPSC Exam
Live LawThe Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted relief to Petitioners/candidates challenging the correctness of the answer key to a question asked by MPPSC in an examination. Hearing a batch of writ petitions, moved by the candidates of the examination, Justice Vivek Agarwal observed- It is true that the opinion of the Expert Committee is to be given precedence over anything else but it is also true that the future of a candidate cannot be jeopardized merely because the Experts failed to take into consideration the authentic data of the Government of India without disclosing the reasons for not accepting that data. Considering the submissions of parties and documents on records, the Court opined that both the Options being correct, the State, as per the scheme of the examination, should award marks for the same, irrespective of the opinion of the Experts- The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission cannot be allowed to deprive of their genuine & legitimate right for the failure of their so called Experts in not referring to the material produced by the similarly situated persons while dealing with a subject in the concurrent list. It is directed that the petitioners and all other similarly situated persons, who have filled Option Above 30% as the Answer to Question No.81 and similar option in identical Question in different sets that what percentage of total forest area of Madhya Pradesh, Teak Trees are found, will have to be awarded marks and if after award of marks, the petitioners qualify for the Main Examination then they be permitted to participate in the Main Examination either by issuing them the roll number or entry pass or by holding the separate examination as the case may be inasmuch as it will not be out of place to mention that hearing of these writ petitions was delayed on the request of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, which sought time when the matters were listed before this Court on 12.4.2022.