##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5147

1 WP-48210-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 4 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 48210 of 2025

NITIN SHIVHARE

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Ms. Nidhi Patankar learned Senior counsel with Mr. Aditya

Shrivastava- Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms.Monika Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the State.

Shri Yogesh Singhal- Advocate for the respondent [R-3].

ORDER

The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying for issuance of a writ/order directing the respondent authorities to

revise his result by declaring question no.1052 as correct and question

no.697 and 229 as incorrect.

[2]. The M.P. Employees Selection Board published an advertisement,

at the instance of the School Education Department and Tribal Welfare

Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, inviting applications for

recruitment to the post of Middle/Primary School Teachers through the

Teacher Eligibility Test-2024. The petitioner submitted his candidature for

appointment to the said post. An examination was conducted by the Board

on 22.04.2025. After the examination, the key answers were published by the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR

AGRAHARI

Signing time: 2/11/2026

2:38:51 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5147

2 WP-48210-2025

Board inviting objections from the stakeholders.

[3]. After redressal of the objections raised, as many as five questions

were declared incorrect and accordingly evaluation was done for 95

questions. The final select list was published by the Board on 25.09.2025.

The petitioner secured proportionate score of 88.421053 and percentile of

99.349367. He secured an overall rank of 340. The respondents have

disclosed in their return that the cut-off percentile was 99.767631. The

petitioner thus could not secure the cut-off and was eventually not selected.

Being aggrieved by his non-selection, the petitioner submitted a

representation to the Board on 27.10.2025, Annexure P/8, raising objection

to correctness of three questions and when the same was not considered by

the Board, the present writ petition is filed.

[4]. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner

has raised objections with regard to three questions. It is his submission that

out of three, two questions, namely question no.229 & 697, were inherently

defective and should be declared invalid by the Board. She further submitted

that question no.1052 was correctly answered by the petitioner, however, the

expert body erroneously declared the question incorrect and cancelled the

same. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner has not been

selected by a small margin and, therefore, even if his objection regarding one

question is accepted, he would be selected. She referred to the documents

filed along with the petition to say that the objections raised by the petitioner

were justified and should have been considered by the Board. In support of

her submission, learned counsel relied upon the recent judgment of the Apex

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR

AGRAHARI

Signing time: 2/11/2026

2:38:51 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5147

3 WP-48210-2025

Court in the case of Siddhi Sandeep Ladda Vs. Consortium of National Law

Universities and Anr. in SLP(C) No. 12786 of 2025. She thus submitted that

the interference is warranted by this Court.

[5]. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3

refuted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is his

submission that the key answers were settled by the body of subject experts,

which does not warrant any interference in the present writ petition. He

submitted that after the examination, the key answers were published by the

Board and the objections were invited. Upon the objections, five questions

were found to be incorrect and were accordingly cancelled. So far as

question no.1052 is concerned, it was found by the expert body that