Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, Y. G. KHOBRAGADE
Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
1. The Petitioner in the first Writ Petition No.4173/2024, is the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as ‘the Commission’). Respondent Nos.1 and 2, are the State Authorities. Respondent No.3 is the original Applicant in Original Application No.1042/2023, before the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). Respondent Nos.4 and 5, were the Respondents before the Tribunal.
2. In the second Writ Petition No.4191/2024, the Petitioners were Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Original Application No.1042/2023. The State of Maharashtra and the Commission, are the Respondents in this petition.
3. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates and the learned AGP. We have perused the voluminous petition paper books and the cited reports. While issuing notices, we had passed an order on 09.8.2024.
Background of the case
4. The Commission had published an advertisement dated 23.06.2022, for filling
The court established that discrepancies in examination marking must be addressed fairly for all candidates, emphasizing the importance of accurate answer keys in recruitment processes.
Point of Law : Law that compassion sympathy or claim on basis of assessment cannot be permitted as entire examination process is derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or p....
Point of Law : 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-ev....
Judicial review is justified in cases of demonstrable error in examination answer keys, ensuring fair evaluation and selection processes.
The court upheld that key answers in examinations are presumed correct unless candidates clearly demonstrate errors; judicial interference in academic matters is limited and should respect expert opi....
Point of Law : Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in relevant rules for re-evaluation and tha....
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article