MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON KUMAR SAUAV V/S SHRIMAN VIJAY GEHLOT SAHEB AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, Feb. 19 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Jan. 19:

1. The instant intra court appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by order dated 14.08.2025 passed in WP No.12700 of 2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. Heard Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, Advocate on the question of admission.

3. The short facts of the case are that the appellant appeared in the selection process conducted by respondent No.1 to 3 through the agency which is respondent No.4. The appellant challenged the final answer key and provisional merit list issued on the basis of final answer key for the examination conducted for appointment to the post of Mining Sirdar T & S Grade-C. Learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition and the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that initially an answer key was issued on 22.01.2023 and the appellant objected to answers of Question No.65 and 86. After considering the objections, a revised final answer key was issued on 31.05.2023, whereby the answer of Question No.65 was corrected and the objection in respect of Question No.86 was superseded. He further submits that not only the answers of Question No.65 and 86 were wrong, but the answers of Question No.16 and 64 were also wrong and, therefore, the appellant preferred the writ petition seeking modification in the answers of the subject questions in the revised final answer key issued on 31.05.2023. He submits that his objections were turned down by the Expert Committee. Learned Single Judge has also not considered the objections raised by the appellant. Learned Single Judge declined to entertain the objections in respect of Question No.16and 64 on the ground that no objection to the answers were originally raised by the appellant. Objection of the appellant was considered in respect of Question No.65 by the authorities themselves however, the objection to Question No.86 was not considered by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Courts have very limited role particularly, when no mala fides have been alleged against the Expert Committee.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the objections raised by the appellant and appoint an expert to consider the correctness of the revised final answer key.

6. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant and after perusal of the record, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in declining to interfere in the revised final answer key. The appellant has not levelled any allegation against the Expert Committee. The Expert Committee was constituted for the purpose of determining the correctness of the answers and the Committee is competent to consider the objections raised by the candidate.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2025/WA/2678/WA_2678_2025_FinalOrder_19-01-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.