MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONTHROUGH ITS SECRETARYVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THESECRETARY AND OTHERS...Shri Mukul v. Salunke, Advocates for
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:21523-DB *1* wp4173a4191a24 mpscIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4173 OF 2024MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONTHROUGH ITS SECRETARYVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THESECRETARY AND OTHERS...Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner/ MPSC.Shri V.M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.Shri Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.3.Shri V.D. Salunke a/w Shri Mayur V. Salunke, Advocates forRespondent Nos.4 and 5....WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4191 OF 2024BABAR SURAJ SAHEBRAO AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITSSECRETARY AND OTHERS…Shri V.D. Salunke a/w Shri Mayur V. Salunke, Advocates for thePetitioners.Shri V.M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.3/MPSC.Shri R.J. Nirmal, Advocate for Respondent No.4.... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.Reserved on : 09th September, 2024Pronounced on : 12th September, 2024.
Legal Reasoning
*2* wp4173a4191a24 mpscFINAL ORDER (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :- 1.The Petitioner in the first Writ PetitionNo.4173/2024, is the Maharashtra Public Service Commission(herein after referred to as ‘the Commission’). Respondent Nos.1and 2, are the State Authorities. Respondent No.3 is the originalApplicant in Original Application No.1042/2023, before thelearned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).Respondent Nos.4 and 5, were the Respondents before theTribunal.2.In the second Writ Petition No.4191/2024, thePetitioners were Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Original ApplicationNo.1042/2023. The State of Maharashtra and the Commission,are the Respondents in this petition.3.We have considered the strenuous submissions ofthe learned Advocates and the learned AGP. We have perused thevoluminous petition paper books and the cited reports. Whileissuing notices, we had passed an order on 09.8.2024. *3* wp4173a4191a24 mpscBackground of the case4.The Commission had published an advertisementdated 23.06.2022, for filling in various posts, including the postsof Sub Registrar/ Stamp Inspector (Grade I), vide a recruitmentprocess under the advertisement. The individual Applicants andthe Respondents were the candidates, who had participated in thesaid recruitment process. The original Applicant YogeshSopanrao Dawale, belongs to the Economically Weaker Sectioncategory (hereafter referred to as ‘EWS’). About 78 posts wereavailable. Six were reserved for the EWS candidates. Severalcandidates had applied for the preliminary examination. 975qualified for the main exam.5.The issue before the Tribunal was with regard toquestion paper-I, under Set ‘C’, wherein, Question No.40 was thenucleus of the controversy. In question Set No.C, Question No.40was posed with four answer options, out of which, one optionwas supposed to be the right answer. Grievance of the originalApplicant was that, Question No.40 had two correct answers outof the four options and this led to a confusion amongst thestudents, who were appearing for the said exam. Hence, the issue
Legal Reasoning
*4* wp4173a4191a24 mpscwas raised before the Tribunal that, the allotment of marks hassuffered a discrepancy, since the model answer key prepared bythe subject experts showed only one answer as being correct andthree answers being wrong, when there were two answers whichwere actually correct and two other were wrong.6.The result of the main examination was publishedon 21.12.2023. Thereafter, though the Presenting Officer beforethe learned Tribunal made the statement, on instructions, that noappointments would be made, the recommendations which werealready forwarded by the Commission to the State Government,were accepted and acted upon by the Government, in defiance ofthe order of the Tribunal. The State appointed 77 candidates outof 78 posts available. Probably, one post was not filled in sinceone candidate (the Original Applicant) had appeared before thelearned Tribunal by filing the Original Application.Controversial Question6.The learned Advocate for the original Applicant,Shri A.S. Deshpande, has brought to our notice that the subjectexperts had prepared a set of answer keys. When the said answer *5* wp4173a4191a24 mpsckeys were found to be riddled with mistakes, the subject expertsprepared a second Set of answer key (with corrections). This Setof answer key also contains mistakes, is the contention of thelearned Advocate.7.He, therefore, raises a question as regards thecompetency of the subject experts and further adds that thenames of the subject experts were tendered in a sealed envelopebefore the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal hadnot opened the said envelope to peruse the names of the subjectexperts. In these matters before us, we have not called for thenames of the subject experts and we have not shown anyinclination towards opening the sealed envelope containing theirnames, which was tendered to the learned Tribunal.8.We are reproducing the suspect Question No.40along with the four options (answers), in Marathi as well as inEnglish, as follows :-“40. खालीलपैकीकोणतेवि(cid:14)/kku असत्यआहे?(1) संवि(cid:14)धानाच्याभाग- ४मध्येमूलभूतकत(cid:31)व्येवि!लेलीआहेत.(2) ४२व्याघटना!ुरुस्तीनंतरमूलभूतकत(cid:31)व्येभारताच्या राज्यघटनेतसमावि(cid:14)ष्टकेलीगेली. *6* wp4173a4191a24 mpsc(3) २००२मध्ये८२व्याघटना!ुरुस्तीकायद्यानंतर, आणखीएक मूलभूतकत(cid:31)व्यजोडलेगेले.(4) लोकप्रतितविनधीत्(cid:14)काय!ासन१९५१मध्येअतिधविनयविमत करण्यातआला.Which of the following statement is false?(1) Fundamental Duties are given in Part IV of theConstitution.(2) After the 42nd Constitutional Amendment FundamentalDuties have been added to the Constitution of India.(3) In 2002, after the 82nd Constitution Amendment Act,another Fundamental Duty was added.(4) The Representation of People Act was enacted in theyear 1951.” 9.We had, therefore, observed in paragraph Nos.4, 5, 6and 8 of our order dated 09.08.2024, as under:-“4.Part IV of the Constitution of India pertains toArticles 36 to 51. Part IV-A carries the title“Fundamental Duties”. Article 51A was introduced withthe introduction of Part IV-A, vide the 42nd Amendment tothe Constitution of India w.e.f. 03/01/1977. Apparently,Answer No.1, suggesting “Fundamental Duties are givenin Part IV of the Constitution” is also a correct answer, inview of the peculiar nature of the Question. Since Option 1is a false statement, the answer to the Question No.40would be correct. Same is the case with Option No.3. ThePetitioner/Maharashtra Public Service Commission(MPSC) suggested Option 3 to be the correct answer toQuestion No.40, losing sight of Option No.1, which couldalso be a correct answer to Question No.40.5.The case of the MPSC before the MaharashtraAdministrative Tribunal, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar(Tribunal), as well as before us is that, it is only OptionNo.3, which is the correct answer to Question No.40. Thelearned Advocates appearing before us, who have perused *7* wp4173a4191a24 mpscChapter IV-A of the Constitution of India, submit asOfficers of the Court that, Option No.1 as well as OptionNo.3, would be the correct answer to Question No.40. Thelearned Advocates for the Original Applicants submit that,no Examinee could be divested of half mark for a correctanswer and consequentially, deduction of a half mark byholding that Option No.1 is a wrong answer, has causedgrave prejudice to the examinees. 6.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner/MPSCsubmits that the State Government, relying upon theofficial result of the examination and recommendations,has appointed the candidates in order of merit, on15/03/2024. Naturally, all these Appointees are undertraining/probation in the above facts and circumstances ofthis case.7.…...8.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner/MPSCsubmits that the State Government has made 77appointments to the post of Sub-Registrar and StampInspector, Group (B), out of 78 posts. The learnedAdvocate Shri. Salunke representing the Appointedcandidates, and who are the Petitioners before us in WritPetition No.4191/2024, submits that, two Petitioners havealready joined employment.”10.The issue raised before the Tribunal, was answeredvide the impugned judgment delivered by the Tribunal on21.03.2024, by concluding in paragraph Nos.15, 16 and 17,which read thus:-“15. In spite of the fact that error occurred onpart of MPSC is apparent, the question arises,to what extent indulgence may be caused bythis Tribunal. The applicant seems to be the *8* wp4173a4191a24 mpsconly candidate who has approached theTribunal. The learned C.P.O. submitted thatM.P.S.C. has not provided any information thatany other petition on the subject matter ispending or decided by the Principal Bench atMumbai or Bench at Nagpur. As has beenargued by the learned counsel, the applicanthas approached this Tribunal since his chanceof sure selection has been jeopardized becauseof the error committed by M.P.S.C. May theapplicant, be only candidate, when the errorcommitted by M.P.S.C. is beyond the realm ofdoubt, it appear to us that it would be unjustand unfair to adopt the 'let go' approach.Considered from the applicant's perspective itmay be a life-time opportunity for him and hecannot be deprived of that. 16. The next question arises what order canbe passed in the facts and circumstances, whichhave come on record? The dispute is in respectof only one question, which we havereproduced hereinabove. The stand taken bythe M.P.S.C. that the answer option No. 3 wasthe only correct answer is already disapprovedby us. We have also held that out of 04, 02answer options i.e. 01 and 03 are falsestatements. In the circumstances, if anycandidate has marked option 01 as the correctanswer, he must have been given 02 marks forcorrectly answering the said question. As is thecase of the applicant, though he has correctlychosen the first option to be the correct answerand marked it, the M.P.S.C. has held the saidanswer wrong and for giving wrong answer hasawarded the applicant minus 05 marks whenthe applicant was expecting 02 marks forcorrectly answering the question. This is thepoint of deadlock.17. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme *9* wp4173a4191a24 mpscCourt in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (citedsupra) way out for such an impasse is toexclude the suspect or offending question. Itappears to us that in the instant matter theaforesaid can be the only solution. The marksof the candidates thus will have to be re-counted excluding the marks awarded to thesaid question, which would also include theminus marks. The further question immediatelyarises whether the marks scored by all thecandidates who had appeared for theexamination requires recounting? Consideringthe facts in the present matter recounting of themarks of all the candidates may not berequired. We have already noted that theapplicant is the only candidate who seems tohave raised the dispute. The applicant isadmittedly making his claim against the seatreserved for EWS candidates. Competition ofthe applicant is with the candidates belongingto EWS category. According to him, he is thehighest scorer candidate in EWS category. Assuch, if the direction is given for recounting ofthe marks scored by the candidates comingfrom EWS category excluding the marks scoredby the said candidates in an answer to thedisputed question, that would serve thepurpose. According to us, such direction wouldmeet the ends of justice. Hence, the followingorder: -ORDER1. The MPSC (Respondent No. 3) isdirected to recount the marks scored by thecandidates who have applied for the post ofSub-Registrar/Stamp Inspector (Grade-1) inpursuance of advertisement No. 33/2023 dated14.08.2023 for the seats reserved for EWScategory in the mains examination held for thesaid post on 07.10.2023 by excluding the marksawarded to question No. 40 in Question Paper *10* wp4173a4191a24 mpscSet 'C' and for the same question in thequestion paper sets 'A', 'B' and 'D' and preparethe select list afresh in order of merit for thesaid category and issue order of appointmentsaccordingly in order of merit.2. The aforesaid exercise is to be carriedout within 03 weeks from the date of this order.3. The Original Application stands allowedin the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.4. Since the O.A. has been allowed anddisposed of the Misc. Application also standsdisposed of.”Analysis and Conclusion11.The issue before us is as to whether, the Tribunal haswrongly restricted recounting of the marks scored by thecandidates, who have applied for the post of Sub Registrar/Stamp Inspector (Grade I), only to the extent of the seatsreserved for the EWS category in the main examination, byexcluding the marks awarded to Question No.40 in questionpaper Set C and for the same question in question paper Sets A,B and D, with the further direction to prepare the select listafresh in order of merit for the said category and issue orders ofappointments.12.Naturally, the contention before us is whether, thisCourt should go into Question No.40 in question Set C and itself *11* wp4173a4191a24 mpscenter into an exercise of taking a decision as to which answer canbe deemed to be a correct answer? We have no intention ofentering into such exercise for reasons more than one. Firstly,though the question pertains to our field and the correct answerscan be easily deduced, we are not expected to do so. Secondly,this Court is advantageously guided by the judgment of theHonourable Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others vs.State of UP and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, more particularlyparagraph Nos.30 to 38, which read as under:-“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clearand we only propose to highlight a fewsignificant conclusions. They are: 30.1If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing anexamination permits the re-evaluation of ananswer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet asa matter of right, then the authority conductingthe examination may permit it;30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing anexamination does not permit re-evaluation orscrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct fromprohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstratedvery clearly, without any "inferential process ofreasoning or by a process of rationalisation"and only in rare or exceptional cases that amaterial error has been committed;30.3The Court should not at all re-evaluate orscrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-ithas no expertise in the matter and academicmatters are best left to academics;30.4The Court should presume the correctness ofthe key answers and proceed on that
Decision
*12* wp4173a4191a24 mpscassumption; and30.5In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go tothe examination authority rather than to thecandidate.31. On our part we may add that sympathy orcompassion does not play any role in thematter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error iscommitted by the examination authority, thecomplete body of candidates suffers. The entireexamination process does not deserve to bederailed only because some candidates aredisappointed or dissatisfied or perceive someinjustice having been caused to them by anerroneous question or an erroneous answer. Allcandidates suffer equally, though some mightsuffer more but that cannot be helped sincemathematical precision is not always possible.This Court has shown one way out of animpasse-exclude the suspect or offendingquestion.32. It is rather unfortunate that despite severaldecisions of this Court, some of which havebeen discussed above, there is interference bythe Courts in the result of examinations. Thisplaces the examination authorities in anunenviable position where they are underscrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, amassive and sometimes prolonged examinationexercise concludes with an air of uncertainty.While there is no doubt that candidates put in atremendous effort in preparing for anexamination, it must not be forgotten that eventhe examination authorities put in equally greatefforts to successfully conduct an examination.The enormity of the task might reveal somelapse at a later stage, but the Court mustconsider the internal checks and balances putin place by the examination authorities before *13* wp4173a4191a24 mpscinterfering with the efforts put in by thecandidates who have successfully participatedin the examination and the examinationauthorities. The present appeals are a classicexample of the consequence of suchinterference where there is no finality to theresult of the examinations even after a lapse ofeight years. Apart from the examinationauthorities even the candidates are leftwondering about the certainty or otherwise ofthe result of the examination-whether they havepassed or not; whether their result will beapproved or disapproved by the Court; whetherthey will get admission in a college orUniversity or not; and whether they will getrecruited or not. This unsatisfactory situationdoes not work to anybody's advantage and sucha state of uncertainty results in confusion beingworse confounded. The overall and largerimpact of all this is that public interest suffers.33. The facts of the case before us indicate that inthe first instance the learned Single Judge tookit upon himself to actually ascertain thecorrectness of the key answers to sevenquestions. This was completely beyond hisjurisdiction and as decided by this Court onseveral occasions, the exercise carried out wasimpermissible. Fortunately, the Division Benchdid not repeat the error but in a sense,endorsed the view of the learned Single Judge,by not considering the decisions of this Courtbut sending four key answers for considerationby a one-man Expert Committee.34. Having come to the conclusion that the HighCourt (the learned Single Judge as well as theDivision Bench) ought to have been far morecircumspect in interfering and deciding on thecorrectness of the key answers, the situationtoday is that there is a third evaluation of the *14* wp4173a4191a24 mpscanswer sheets and a third set of results is nowready for declaration. Given this scenario, theoptions before us are to nullify the entire re-evaluation process and depend on the resultdeclared on 14th September, 2010 or to go bythe third set of results. Cancelling theexamination is not an option. Whichever optionis chosen, there will be some candidates whoare likely to suffer and lose their jobs whilesome might be entitled to consideration foremployment.35. Having weighed the options before us, we areof opinion that the middle path is perhaps thebest path to be taken under the circumstancesof the case. The middle path is to declare thethird set of results since the Board hasundertaken a massive exercise under thedirections of the High Court and yet protectthose candidates may now be declaredunsuccessful but are working as TrainedGraduate Teachers a result of the first or thesecond declaration of results. It is also possiblethat consequent upon the third declaration ofresults some new candidates might get selectedand should that happen, they will need to beaccommodated since they were erroneously notselected on earlier occasions.36. The learned Counsel for the Appellantscontended before us that in case her clients arenot selected after the third declaration ofresults, they will be seriously prejudiced havingworked as Trained Graduate Teachers forseveral years. However, with the middle paththat we have chosen their services will beprotected and, therefore, there is no cause forany grievance by any of the Appellants.Similarly, those who have not been selected butunfortunately left out they will beaccommodated. *15* wp4173a4191a24 mpsc37. As a result of our discussion and taking intoconsideration all the possibilities that mightarise, we issue the following directions: 37.1The results prepared by the Board consequentupon the decision dated 2nd November, 2015 ofthe High Court should be declared by theBoard within two weeks from today. 37.2Candidates appointed and working as TrainedGraduate Teachers pursuant to the declarationof results on the earlier occasions, if foundunsuccessful on the third declaration of results,should not be removed from service but shouldbe allowed to continue. 37.3Candidates now selected for appointment asTrained Graduate Teachers (after the thirddeclaration of results) should be appointed bythe State by creating supernumerary posts.However, these newly appointed TrainedGraduate Teachers will not be entitled to anyconsequential benefits.38. Before concluding, we must express our deepanguish with the turn of events whereby thelearned Single Judge entertained a batch ofwrit petitions, out of which these appeals havearisen, even though several similar writpetitions had earlier been dismissed by otherlearned Single Judge(s). Respect for the viewtaken by a coordinate Bench is an essentialelement of judicial discipline. A judge mighthave a difference of opinion with anotherjudge, but that does not give him or her anyright to ignore the contrary view. In the eventof a difference of opinion, the proceduresanctified by time must be adhered to so thatthere is demonstrated respect for the rule oflaw.” *16* wp4173a4191a24 mpsc13.It is for the sake of brevity that we are observing thatsome of the examinees had opted for one of the correct answer(option No.1), which was also a correct answer. However, optionNo.3, was declared by the subject experts to be the correctanswer. Such examinees were treated as having tendered a wronganswer and besides losing two marks for that one question, goingby the negative marking pattern, another half mark was deductedfrom the marks scored by such examinees. As such, theseexaminees lost a total of two and half marks on account of theerror committed by the Commission.14.Per contra, those candidates who had opted for thesecond correct answer which was option No.3 and which wasdeclared by the subject experts to be the correct answer, wereawarded two marks. Naturally, they did not suffer any deduction.15.This created three set of examinees, as under:-(i)The first set comprised of the examinees whoneither opted for option No.1, nor option No.3.(ii)The second set of examinees comprised of those *17* wp4173a4191a24 mpscwho opted for option No.1, which was also a correct answer, butended up in losing two and half marks, under the negativemarking pattern. The sole Applicant before the Tribunalbelonged to this set. There could be a few more, who haveneither approached the Tribunal, nor this Court.(iii)The third set comprised of examinees, who opted foroption No.3, which was the second correct answer and whichwas declared to be the correct answer key by the subject experts.Hence, they scored two marks.View of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay (supra)16.In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the HonourableSupreme Court has held in paragraph No.30 that “the law on thesubject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlighta few significant conclusions.”17.We have considered the highlighted conclusions bythe Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph No.30.1 to 30.5 andone more resolution set out in paragraph No.31, for dealing withthe fact situation emerging from the litigation before us. At theoutset, the first two options were put to the Commission and we *18* wp4173a4191a24 mpscare informed by Shri Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for theCommission, on instructions, that the Rules of the Commissionapplicable to such examinations, do not permit re-evaluation andthe Authority conducting the examination does not permit re-evaluation.18.With regard to the scope of this Court in directingre-evaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets, Shri Kulkarni hasrightly stated that though the Court may order re-evaluation, itwould foist an onerous task on the Commission of conducting re-evaluation of all those students who were posed with QuestionNo.40, keeping in view that it had two correct answers and,therefore, the second set of examinees as illustrated in paragraphNo.15 above, would be benefited as their answers (option No.1)would also be deemed to be a correct answer, which would fetchthem two marks for the correct answer and restore the half markdeducted for an incorrect answer.19.While we are guided by the conclusions of theHonourable Supreme Court set out in paragraph No.30.4 and30.5, in the backdrop of a herculean task that would be foisted *19* wp4173a4191a24 mpscon the Commission if re-evaluation was to be ordered, it isevident that the Honourable Supreme Court desires, in suchsituations, that the Court should presume the correctness of theanswer key and proceed on that presumption since the benefitwould go to the Examination Authority rather than to thecandidates. However, any other option, as suggested by theHonourable Supreme Court, is also available, if it casts a lesserburden on the Commission.20.In paragraph No.31 of Ran Vijay Singh (supra),the Honourable Supreme Court noted that the entire examinationprocess does not deserve to be derailed only because somecandidates are disappointed or perceive some injustice havingbeen caused to them by an erroneous question or answer. Allcandidates have to suffer equally, though some might suffermore, but that cannot be helped since mathematical precisionwill not always be possible. One way out of such an impassewould be to exclude the suspect or offending question.21.In the above backdrop, the learned Advocate for theCommission is instructed, under a written communication dated *20* wp4173a4191a24 mpsc04.09.2024, to inform this Court that since option No.1 andoption No.3 are correct answers to Question No.40 and since thesubject experts recorded only option No.3 to be the correctanswer vide their answer key, the Commission is willing todelete the said Question No.40 in the light of the observations ofthe Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph No.31 of Ran VijaySingh (supra). On this submission, we called upon the learnedAdvocate to inform us as to whether, this could be a cumbersometask for the Commission. The answer was that it would be a hugetask for the Examination Authority to re-evaluate the answersheets of all those candidates, who have attempted QuestionNo.40. By deleting the said question, all the three sets ofexaminees (illustrations set out in paragraph No.15, hereinabove), will have to be re-evaluated.22.In view of the above, we will have to assess as towhich option, as prescribed by the Honourable Supreme Court,would foist minimal burden on the Commission and result inaltering the results, which in turn may cause retraction of theappointment orders, already issued to 77 candidates. We hadposed questions to the learned Advocates on all the six option *21* wp4173a4191a24 mpsc[paragraph Nos.30.1 to 30.5 and 31 of Ran Vijay Singh(supra)]. Divergent views were expressed by the learnedAdvocates, Shri Deshpande, for the original Applicant, and bythe learned Advocate Shri Salunke, for the appointed candidates.Each of them addressed us keeping in focus the cases of theirindividual clients.23. Upon examining their submissions in the light ofRan Vijay Singh (supra), in paragraph Nos.30, 31 and 32, weare guided by the observations of the Honourable Supreme Courtin paragraph No.32 viz. “……. Additionally, a massive andsometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an airof uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in atremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not beforgotten that even the examination authorities put in equallygreat efforts to successfully conduct an examination. Theenormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, butthe Court must consider the internal checks and balances put inplace by the examination authorities before interfering with theefforts put in by the candidates who have successfullyparticipated in the examination and the examination *22* wp4173a4191a24 mpscauthorities…… ”24.In view of the above, we have the following optionsbefore us, as a resolution causing minimal burden to theCommission, in this matter:-(a)We find that the deletion of Question No.40 [readparagraph No.31 in Ran Vijay Singh (supra)] would result incompelling the Commission to carryout re-evaluation of all thosecandidates, who have attempted Question No.40 in question SetNos. A to D. This would be a herculean task and eventuallywould lead to change of marks and which would have acascading effect on the appointments already made while fillingin 77 posts. Most of these appointed candidates are not before us.(b)Any re-evaluation would have the same effect as inoption (a) set out herein above. [see paragraph No.30.1 and 30.2in Ran Vijay Singh (supra)].(c)The least impact that would be created is byfollowing the conclusion of the Honourable Supreme Court inclause No.30.4 in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), which is, topresume the correctness of the answer key and proceed on thatassumption. *23* wp4173a4191a24 mpsc25.Our justification in opting for this option [paragraph30.4 in Ran Vijay Singh (supra)], is thus: (a)The answer key (answer option No.3), is the rightanswer to Question No.40. By following this option, there is norequirement for re-evaluation. If re-evaluation is done, it wouldnot only lead to modifying the marks of each candidate, butwould also change the merit list, thereby resulting in retracting/canceling the appointment orders already issued to 77 candidates.(b)These affected candidates are not before the Court. (c)Taking into view the huge burden that would be caston the Commission, if we opt for any other option leading to re-evaluation, change in the select list and cause cancellation of fewappointment orders.(d)Therefore, we are of the view that the conclusion ofthe Honourable Supreme Court in clause No.30.4 of the RanVijay Singh (supra), would cause least upheaval in thecalculations of marks, the merit list and the appointment ordersof the candidates, since, the results already declared, wouldremain unchanged. *24* wp4173a4191a24 mpsc26.In view of our conclusion as above, we do not findthat the learned Tribunal was justified in directing that the resultsof only those candidates belonging to the EWS category, whohad applied for the post of Sub Registrar/ Stamp Inspector(Grade I) for the said reserved EWS category, alone, should bereviewed with the direction to recount their marks by excludingQuestion No.40 in question paper sets A to D. This wouldtantamount to being discriminatory and would lead to an unfairsituation. Such a direction to be made applicable selectively forthe candidates who applied through the EWS category, is not inconsonance with the ratio laid down by the Honourable SupremeCourt in Ran Vijay Singh (supra).27.In view of the above, both the Writ Petitions areallowed. The impugned judgment delivered by the learnedTribunal dated 21.03.2024, stands quashed and set aside andOriginal Application No.1042/2023, stands rejected. Rule ismade absolute, accordingly.28.Before parting, we deem it appropriate to advert tothe serious grievance voiced by the learned Advocate Shri A.S.Deshpande. He submits that the MPSC/ Commission must *25* wp4173a4191a24 mpscseriously consider only competent persons as subject experts.The first answer key Set, had several mistakes. When grievanceswere received by the Commission, the subject experts had toagain prepare a corrected second answer key Set, which is atissue before us. According to Shri Deshpande, several mistakesagain crept into the second answer key Set. He is justified insubmitting that this is not expected from the subject expertswhen the Commission spends a huge amount on theirremuneration. The least that can be said is that the subject expertscannot repeatedly commit mistakes.29. We join the learned Advocate Shri Deshpande in hisastonishment, on repeated mistakes being committed by thesubject experts and we deem it appropriate to direct theCommission to ensure that, only such persons should benominated as subject experts, who would seriously embark uponthe task of preparing flawless answer key Sets. kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)