MP High Court Sets Aside Single Bench Order Altering MPPSC Answer Key; Says Courts Must Not Supplant Expert Opinion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of the Single Bench, which set aside the opinion of the expert committee appointed by the State to assess the disputed questions in the MPPSC (MP Public Service Commission) State Service Preliminary Examination conducted in December 2023. 

In doing so, the division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed that the courts must refrain from examining the opinion of the expert body formed by the examiner and accept their opinion. 

The division bench observed; 

"It has consistently been held that courts are not experts and should refrain from inquiring into matters beyond their core competence. The limited extent to which the courts may interfere are in cases where the error is extremely basic and is discernible to the Court without conducting a roving inquiry". 

The controversy arose after a group of candidates, including Anand Yadav, challenged the correctness of the questions and answers of the preliminary exam conducted in December 2023. The candidate had scored 154 marks, for which the cut-off for the unreserved category was 158 marks. 

The single bench, in its order dated May 16, 2024, directed the MPPSC to exclude question 7 of set D as non-est and to treat option C over option D for question 63 of set D in the examination of 2023. 

Question 7 of Set D pertained to the genesis of freedom of the press in India, and Question 63 of Set D related to the headquarters of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI). 

Senior Counsel appearing for MPPSC argued that the Single Bench exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the correctness of the answers approved by the expert committee of MPPSC. 

Senior Counsel argued that an expert committee had already assessed the seven questions in dispute and found that five out of them were indeed faulty, removing them from the zone of consideration. The rest of the two questions were approved by the expert committee, which was challenged by the candidates. 

The bench, citing the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v Rahul Singh [2018 7 SCC 254], reiterated that neither the courts should take the place of the experts nor should they appoint experts, and leave it to the expertise of the academicians. 

Question 63 of Set D required the candidate to select the right answer to the question pertaining to the location of the headquarters of the AKFI. The right answer arrived by the expert committee of the PSC was choice D- Delhi. The reason given was that, per the memorandum of association of AKFI and its constitution, the headquarters would be where the President resides or holds office. 

However, the bench noted that at the time of the examination, there was no elected President due to mismanagement issues. Later, however, the Delhi High Court appointed an Administrator who was based in Delhi. 

The candidates insisted that the correct choice was Option C- Jaipur, as it is the city where the last President held his office. The bench noted that the Single Bench opined that the court-appointed Administrator could not be equated with the President, as this post is occupied through an election, while the Administrator was appointed by the court. 

The division bench rejected the view of the Single Bench as the memorandum of association or the constitution of the Federation does not categorically prohibit the Administrator from being equated with the President. Therefore, the bench opined that in the absence of the President, choosing Delhi as the headquarters of the AKFI was plausible and acceptable.

Regarding Question 7 of Set D, the division bench noted that the Press of India was given freedom by William Bentick in 1835. However, it further noted that the question was challenged on the ground that the Press Act of 1835 was legislated by Charles Metcalfe, who was succeeded by William Bentick. 

 The bench observed that the expert committee examined the textbook on Modern India by Vidya Dhar Mahajan, in which the author opined that William Bentick was the first GG to take steps to free the Press in India in the year 1935.

Thus, it appeared that Charles Metcalfe, who succeeded William Bentick, carried forward the work started by William Bentick by legislating the Press Act of 1835. Therefore, the correct answer arrived at by the expert committee appointed by the MPPSC cannot be faulted. 

"Whenever the Court has to decide the correctness of answers challenged in examinations, it cannot embark on a complex journey to ascertain the correct answer, the authority conducting the examination would constitute the team of experts to look into the controversy", the court highlighted. 

The bench held that the interference of courts is limited where the error is extremely basic and discernible to the court without conducting a roving inquiry. Such errors may relate to a notorious fact. 

Therefore, the division bench set aside the order of the Single Bench. 

Case Title: MPPSC v Anand Yadav [WA 1232 of 2024]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 243

For Appellant: Senior Advocate Prashant Singh with Advocate Aditya Pachori

For Respondent no 1: Advocate Anshul Tiwari

For State: Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi

Click here to read/download the Order