The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued an advertisement for recruitment to various posts, including Sub-Registrar/Stamp Inspector. One of the issues involved a disputed question in the main examination, where two correct answers were possible but only one was accepted by the MPSC. The original applicant challenged the exam results before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), which directed a recount of marks for candidates in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category by excluding the disputed question. The Bombay High Court, however, ruled that this direction was discriminatory and quashed the Tribunal's judgment.

Background

• Petitioner: Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC)
• Respondents: The State of Maharashtra and others, including individual candidates.
• MPSC conducted a recruitment exam for several posts, including Sub-Registrar/Stamp Inspector, in which 975 candidates qualified for the main exam.
• The dispute arose regarding Question No. 40 in Paper I, Set ‘C,’ which had two correct answers, but the MPSC’s answer key only recognized one.

Controversy

• The original applicant (belonging to EWS) argued that MPSC’s answer key for Question No. 40 was flawed, leading to wrongful negative marking.
• The MAT ordered a recount of marks for EWS candidates, excluding the disputed question.

MPSC’s Response

• The MPSC argued that it would be unfair to recount marks only for EWS candidates.
• The court acknowledged the MPSC’s concerns about the burden of re-evaluation and potential changes in the merit list and appointments.

High Court’s Judgment

• The Bombay High Court held that the direction for a selective recount of EWS candidates was discriminatory.
• It ruled in favor of upholding the existing results without re-evaluation, emphasizing minimal disruption to the recruitment process.

Acts and Sections Discussed

• Constitution of India (Part IV-A, Article 51A): Relevant to the disputed question regarding Fundamental Duties.
• 42nd and 82nd Constitutional Amendments: Discussed in relation to the fundamental duties question in the exam.
• The Representation of People Act, 1951: Cited in the context of one of the disputed answer options.

Ratio Decidendi

The court based its decision on the Supreme Court ruling in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of UP (2018), emphasizing the limited scope of judicial intervention in academic matters. It held that re-evaluation should not be ordered unless there is a clear material error, and any such exercise should apply equally to all candidates to avoid discrimination. The court opted not to interfere with the answer key and upheld the MPSC's existing results.

Subject:

Recruitment Exam Dispute – Judicial Review of Exam Results.

#MPSC #FundamentalDuties #Reevaluation #NegativeMarking #EWS