2012 Supreme(MP) 864
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Sushil Harkauli, Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Ajay Kumar Gupta and another - Appellant
Versus
High Court of M.P. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8977-2012 with W.P. Nos. 8783, 8568, 8624, 8377, 8632, 8631 and 8630 of 2012
Decided On : 27-06-2012
Appearances :Mr. Anuwad Shrivastava, Mr. Vipin Yadav, Mr. M.A. Khan , Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocates for the Petitioners
Mr. V.S. Shroti, Sr. Advocate , Mr. Vikram Johri, Advocate with him for the Respondents.
The key answers in an examination should be assumed correct unless proven wrong, and the court can intervene to rectify discrepancies in key answers.
Headnote:
Key Answers - Recruitment Examination - Section 24 of IPC, Section 300 of IPC, Section 321 of Cr.PC, Dowry Prohibition Act, M.P. Land Revenue Code - The court discussed the correctness of key answers to questions related to various legal provisions and their interpretations, and directed re-tabulation of exam results based on its findings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the correctness of key answers in a recruitment examination for the post of Civil Judge, Class II, citing discrepancies in model answers to specific questions.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the legal provisions and interpretations related to the questions, and directed re-tabulation of exam results for affected candidates.
Issues: Discrepancies in model answers, correctness of key answers, and entitlement to marks for affected candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles to determine the correctness of key answers and directed appropriate action based on its findings.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions and directed re-tabulation of exam results for affected candidates.
Heard.
2. In this batch of writ petitions, since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
3. The petitioners had appeared in the preliminary examination, which was held for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Class II in Lower Judicial Service of the State. An advertisement was issued by which applications were invited for the post of Civil Judge, Class II. A preliminary examination was held on 6-5-2012, the result of which was declared on 12-5-2012. Three questions namely question Nos. 6, 61 and 95 were cancelled and consequently, revised result" was declared in which marks of the aforesaid three questions were deducted from the total marks. The case of the petitioners is that model answers to question Nos. 5, 8, 15, 25, 67 and 89 are not correct. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners inter alia have prayed for a direction to correct the answers to the aforesaid questions and to award them the marks in respect of the aforesaid questions as well as to permit them to appear in the main examination.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to question No. 5 submitted that correct answer to question No. 5 is option "C" whereas in the model answer the correct, answer is mentioned as "D". Learned Counsel for the petitioners while referring to the definition of Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code submitted that the word "dishonestly" as defined under Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code means that 'whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly", whereas as per model answer, all the options are correct. It is further submitted that option "C" is correct answer to question No. 5. Similarly, while drawing the attention of this Court to question No. 8, it is submitted that intention to cause death is not essential under Section 300 of the IPC in clause fourthly whereas in the model answer clause thirdly is mentioned as the correct answer. As per petitioners, the correct answer to the aforesaid question is "D" and not "C". Similarly, it is submitted that in respect of question No. 15, the correct answer is "D" whereas in the model answer, the correct answer is mentioned as "C". In respect of question No. 24, it has been urged that correct answer is option "D" whereas in the model answer, the same has been mentioned as option "B". It is also urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in respect of question No. 67, the correct answer is option "A" whereas in the model answer, the correct answer is described as option "C", which is incorrect. In respect of question No. 89, it has been submitted that all the options are correct whereas in the model answer, option "C" has been described to be the correct answer, which is incorrect. In support of their submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 5300/ 11.
5. On the other hand, Shri V.S. Shroti, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that key answer is assumed to be correct unless the same is proved to be wrong and the same cannot be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by process of rationalisation. It is further submitted that the question whether or not the key answer is correct has to be decided on the ground that key answer must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in particular subject would regard as correct. It has been further submitted that there may be two correct answers in respect of a question. It is also urged that the key answers are correct and the petitioners have miserably failed to point out that key answers are either palpably incorrect or such that no reasonable body or men well versed in the particular subject would regard them as correct. Learned Seni