The court emphasized the importance of adhering to objection processes, the limited role of judicial review in model answer keys, and the impact of delay and laches in filing petitions.

ORDER PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – The petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor (Home Science), with a further directions to direct the respondents to explain about 18 disputed questions to the answer sheets of the subject in question.

2. The facts of the case are that on 24-1-2018, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Madhya Pradesh PSC’ for short), issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor under various subjects. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Home Science). After the examination was over, the key answers were uploaded by the Madhya Pradesh PSC. The objections were invited by Madhya Pradesh PSC on 30-6-2018 against key answers. The petitioner allegedly made objection with regard to 18 questions. According to appellant, without considering his objection, the respondent No. 2 published the select list on 4-9-2019 for the post of Assistant Professor and the name of the appellant did not find place in select list and instead it finds place in waiting list. He sought information under the RTI as to what decision was taken on his representation and in response to the same, it has been intimated that the concerned e-mail address on which the objections were invited is managed by S.P.A. He, therefore, submitted that what would mean by S.P.A. or who manages the said e-mail, is not his concern, but in any case, his objection ought to have been decided.

3. We have perused the record and we find that the select list was published on 4-9-2019 and the instant writ petition has been filed on 1-12-2021 i.e. after about more than two years. Clause 27 and 29 of the advertisement dated 24-1-2018, deal with the issues of key answers, their scrutiny and preparation of the final result. The same are reproduced as under : –

4. On perusal of the aforesaid Scheme, it is seen that after the examination is over, the answer sheets along with proposed key answers are sent to the candidates on their registered e-mail I.D. It also provides that on the basis of model key answers, objections are invited from the candidates within seven days from the date of uploading the model key answers on the website of the Madhya Pradesh PSC and against each objection, fee of Rs. 100/- is prescribed. The objections so received are placed before the Expert Committee and it is on the basis of the Expert Committee opinion, the model key answers are modified and appropriate decision is taken. When this entire exercise is over, the final key answers are again uploaded on the official website of Madhya Pradesh PSC and on the basis of final key answers, the valuation of the answer sheet of individual candidate is made.

5. We do not find any rule which prescribes that an individual intimation is required to be sent to any of the candidates on his or her individual objections. The process appears to have been adopted so as to maintain fairness and transparency in the examination process. The petitioner has also failed to point out as to whether he within a period of seven days, after depositing of requisite fees, has raised the objection to the Madhya Pradesh PSC. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy as to which of the rules/instructions of the advertisement have not been adhered to.

6. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak vs. State of M. P., 2017(4) M.P.L.J. 353 has considered the scope of interference in the Model Answer Keys. It has been held that in exercise of power of Judicial Review, the Court should not refer the matter to Court appointed expert as Courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against experts constituted to finalize answer key. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for Courts to leave decisions to academicians and experts. It has also been held that the C