[MPSC Exam] Judicial Intervention In Result Even At Interim Stage Of Proceedings Affects All Candidates: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that the courts should refrain from interfering in results of examinations as judicial intervention affects all candidates and not just the parties seeking relief. "Indeed, we would venture to suggest that except in the most exceptional circumstances, there should not be such interim interventions by a Court for the simple reason that allowing the benefit to even a single candidate (let alone 250) irredeemably alters the balance in regard to the other candidates who have managed to cross the qualifying threshold criteria", the court stated. Justices G.S. Patel and Gauri Godse dismissed three writ petitions challenging Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) order upholding the decision to delete certain questions from a recruitment exam conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC). The MPSC had conducted a combined exam for the posts of Police Sub Inspector, Sales Tax Inspector and Assistants in Mantralaya. As per usual practice the answer key was published and objections were invited by the candidates. After consulting experts, MPSC decided to delete 5 questions. The petitioners challenged the decision to delete three of the questions before MAT which rejected the application. Hence the present challenge before the High Court. The controversial question was – "27. Observe the following statements: a. Verul caves is in Aurangabad district. b. Chambhar caves is in Pune district. c. Chikhaldars hill station is in Raigad district. d. Gautala National Park is in Jalgaon distri Which of the above statement is/are correct? (1) Only a statement is correct (2) Only b and c statements are correct (3) Only a and d (4) All the above" The petitioners selected (a) as the only correct answer. The MPSC answer key was that statements (a) and (d) are correct. While there was no doubt about the correctness of option (a), experts differed on statement (d) leading to decision of MPSC to cancel the question. The court observed that the petitioners were essentially requesting that for them there should be 96th question on which they should receive one additional point. The court noted that the question was wrongly framed and the statement (d) could not be allowed to stand as it was wrong. Even though petitioners chose (a), keeping the question would have had the effect of "completely unbalancing the entire equation". "...it is not possible to say that for other candidates the examination should be of 95 questions, but for these Writ Petitioners alone it should be treated as being of 96 questions", the court stated. The court relied on Apex Court decision in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and observed that judicial interference does not only affect the Petitioners, but all the candidates. The entire examination process is derailed. Hence, there should be minimum interference of the court. The court supported MAT's observation that unequal treatment given to the candidates and unequal treatment given to the Questions are two different things. "What is being canvassed before us is precisely the opposite: viz., that the Petitioners should be given preferential treatment and the uniform applicability of the MPSC deletion decision should not made applicable to the Petitioners. That is a submission that only needs to be stated to be rejected", the court held. The court observed that interim or final relief to the petitioners would adversely affect many other candidates. "Even basic notions of equity and justice would not permit such a preferential treatment." Finally, the court noted that it is really being asked to review an administrative decision of the MPSC to delete the question in the guise of a writ petition challenging the MAT order. However, since there is nothing wrong with MPSC's decision making process there can be no question of interference. Case no. – Writ Petition No. 8575 of 2022Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom ) 321 Case Title – Somnath Jotiram Chavan & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors Coram – Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Gauri Godse Click Here To Read/Download Order

[MPSC Exam] Judicial Intervention In Result Even At Interim Stage Of Proceedings Affects All Candidates: Bombay High Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

[MPSC Exam] Judicial Intervention In Result Even At Interim Stage Of Proceedings Affects All Candidates: Bombay High Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers