IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 2651 of 2015 MANORAMA SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

None for petitioner.

Ms. Smrati Sharma - learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - learned counsel for respondent No.2.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Respondents be directed to cancel the modal answersheet of SET D of question paper of the examination, so far as it relates to the questions no. 3, 10, 50, 78, 127, 140, 160 & 175 attempted by the petitioner absolutely correct, and accordingly, issue a revised marksheet/result of the petitioner;

(ii) Respondents be further directed that after declaration of revised result/marksheet, the petitioner be included in the selection process on the post of Paryavekshak (Mahila), as per rules; and (iii) Any other relief doing justice including cost, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also be awarded in the interest of justice."

2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the discriminatory, erroneous and illegal action on the part of the respondents, whereby they have issued a wrong answer sheet for certain questions bearing Nos. 3, 10, 50, 78, 127, 140, 160, and 175, pertaining to the examination of Mahila Paryavekshak and Paryavekshak (Mahila) Anganwadi Karyakarta Recruitment Test, 2014.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State submits that as per Condition No. 2.19, if there was any error in the question or answer, the applicant was required to submit an objection within a period of one week in the office of the respondent. It is further submitted that various persons/candidates had objected to Questions Nos. 3, 10, 50, 78, 127, 140, 160, and 175, and as per the prescribed procedure, the model answers and the answers given were referred to a four-member expert committee. The said committee considered all the questions and decided that the model answers had been rightly given and accordingly, the result was declared. A copy of the report of expert committee has been filed along with the return as Annexures R/2 and R/3.

4. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that objections to the questions were examined by a four-member expert committee which found the model answers to be correct and accordingly, the result was declared. The facts and grounds have not been refuted by counsel for petitioner either by filing rejoinder or counter affidavit.

6. Considering the report of expert committee, interference is not called for unless it is proved that the said report is apparently illegal and prepared without application of mind. However, in the present case, as per averments made in the memo petition, I am of the opinion that petitioner has failed to convince the Court that the report is either arbitrary or the action of the respondents on the basis of said report is not sustainable.

7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in W.P.No.12556 of 2024 (Ravindra Singh Tank Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) on 21.10.2024, relying upon the judgment of Full Bench dealing with the similar issue, has observed as under:-

“5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as question Nos.42 to 60 were concerned, they were correctly answered by the petitioner and they were part of 11 questions which were cancelled by the respondent/Board. He has submitted that as per the formula provided in the example of Rule 2.9(a), the respondent/Board awarded 78.65 marks to the petitioner and the said marking was done after cancelling question Nos.42 and 60. As per counsel for the petitioner, question no.42 was cancelled by the Board giving reason that the question formations and options are incorrect and question No.60 was cancelled for the reason