Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Final Answer Key of State Service Exam

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the final answer key for the 2024 Madhya Pradesh State Service and Forest Service Preliminary Examination. Several candidates had filed petitions alleging that multiple questions in the exam contained incorrect answers. These errors, they argued, had adversely affected their scores and their chances of qualifying for the main examination. The court, however, dismissed these claims and affirmed the validity of the final answer key, reinforcing the principle that courts should exercise caution when intervening in academic matters.

The Petition and Key Arguments

The petitioners pointed out specific discrepancies in the answer key, identifying six questions that they believed were erroneously marked. They contended that if these mistakes were corrected, they would meet the cutoff for the main exam. The petitioners argued that these errors were a result of incorrect evaluation by the expert committee responsible for preparing the final answer key. Furthermore, they urged the court to either rectify the alleged mistakes or conduct a fresh review of the contested answers.

Court's Reluctance to Intervene in Academic Matters

The court, however, adopted a cautious approach, reiterating its established position that judicial intervention in academic decisions should be minimal. Justice Vishal Mishra, who presided over the case, emphasized that courts are not equipped to replace the expertise of academic bodies, especially in complex evaluations like competitive exams. The judgment noted that unless there is clear evidence of bias, arbitrariness, or gross error, the decisions of expert committees should be respected. The court pointed out that the expert committee had followed due process in preparing the answer key and relied on authoritative sources.

Role of the Expert Committee

The expert committee, appointed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC), was tasked with reviewing the preliminary exam's answer key. The committee had evaluated the objections raised by candidates and had made necessary corrections before releasing the final answer key. The court reviewed the report submitted by the committee and found no glaring mistakes or procedural flaws. It observed that the committee had based its answers on credible academic sources and had followed a rigorous process in addressing objections.

Judicial Precedents on Academic Autonomy

The court's decision aligns with established judicial precedents that stress the importance of academic autonomy. Over the years, Indian courts have consistently held that unless there is a manifest error or evidence of unfairness, academic decisions should be left to the discretion of expert bodies. This judgment further reinforces the principle that courts should refrain from substituting their judgment for that of academic authorities, particularly in specialized fields requiring subject-matter expertise.

Conclusion

In dismissing the petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the authority of expert committees in academic evaluations. The judgment underscores the limited role of the judiciary in reviewing academic decisions, emphasizing that courts should intervene only in exceptional cases where there is clear evidence of bias or error. The decision provides clarity on the legal framework governing challenges to competitive examination results and strengthens the autonomy of academic bodies like the MPPSC.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community