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

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 3444 of 2013 RAJ KUMAR YADAV Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Ms. Prinka Tonk - Advocate for respondent No.3.

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

"1. A direction may kindly be given to the respondents to place the answer sheet before this Hon'ble Court to ascertain that despite of having the correct answer in respect of the question nos 26, 31, 32, 44, 46, 59, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 95, 97, 98, 99 & 39 the respondents have not given the correct marks for the correct reply of the questions and on account of minus marking they have deducted the 15 marks.

2. Further direction may kindly be given to the respondents to recount the petitioner answer sheet in respect of the abovementioned questions and to add the said marks in the final marks in the selection list;

3. Further direction may kindly be given to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the counseling and his candidature be considered for the further consideration of the post for which he had applied;

4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

5. Cost of this litigation may also be awarded;

6. Respondents be directed to insert the correct marks in respect of the question no.26, 31, 32, 34, 46, 59, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 95, 97, 98, 99 and 39 total 15 question multiplying by 3 total 45 and also directed not to deduct any marks on the ground of minus marking as all answers are correct."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have invited the application for the post of ITI Training Officer Recruitment for the year 2013. The petitioner had applied for the said post. In the said examination, the petitioner has given the correct answers of questions no.26, 31, 32, 44, 46, 59, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 95, 97, 98, 99, & 39. However despite of giving the correct answers the respondents have not accepted the same and has not given the number of said correct answer. The each question having three own marks. On the contrary, the respondents have noted that answers of that question has been wrongly given by the petitioner so they have deducted 15 marks on the basis of minus marking from the marks which is being obtained by the petitioner. Thereafter, respondents have accepted his own mistake and revised the marks of petitioner from 141 to 160 but in second round they have also committed the same mistake in not giving the correct numbers of the abovementioned questions. Hence, 15 answers which has been wrongly calculated by the respondents as a wrong answer.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that revised result was published and the total numbers of petitioner was increased to 160 and his rank was also revised. The entire process of examination including paper setting, preparation of answer sheets and evaluation is done by experts of the field and the correct answers have been finalized as per the opinions of the expert given in respect of each answer. It is further submitted that the decision of the expert body should not be questions or interfered in a writ petition. The provisional result was also uploaded on 10.04.2013 and objections were invited from 16.04.2013 to 23.04.2013. All the objections were placed before the Expert Committee who after due deliberation and consultation decided the objections. The final answer key was prepared as per the decision of the Expert Committee. After due scrutiny, respondent No.2 was conveyed the details of incorrect questions as well as wrong answers given in the model key answer and thereafter, they have revaluated the answer sheets and in final