Madhya Pradesh High Court – Photo: Amar Ujala Expansion Main Examination of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) ‘s case has again reached the High Court. The double bench has stayed the order of the single bench. The single bench had ordered to conduct a special examination of the candidates selected in the revised results. The single bench considered the commission’s decision to re-conduct the main examination to be unfair. Challenging the order of the Single Bench, an appeal has been filed in the MP High Court. On this, a division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Vijay Kumar Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra issued notices to the concerned parties and sought answers. In the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners Dipendra Yadav, Shailbala Bhargava and others, it was stated that the PSC 2019 (MPPSC-2021) Revised rules were implemented in the examination. While hearing the petition filed against this, the High Court’s Jugal Peeth had issued orders to ensure compliance of the unamended rule . Even before the order of the High Court came, the MPPSC had released the results while conducting the main examination. After this, the PSC had decided to conduct the main examination again, releasing the revised results under the unmodified rule. Against this, more than 233 candidates selected in the main examination had filed a petition in the High Court. While hearing the petition, the single bench had said in its order that the re-examination would be unjust for the candidates who have been selected in the main examination and have been selected for the interview. There will be more expenditure in conducting the main examination again, which is not in the public interest. Like before, according to the new list, special examination should be conducted for the selected candidates in 6 months. The final list should be prepared according to the results of the previous main examination and special examination. In the appeal filed against the single bench, it has been said that the unmodified rules in issuing the result of preliminary and main examination have not been followed. The order of the Single Bench is inconsistent with the order passed by the Double Bench. While hearing the appeal, the Division Bench stayed the order of the Single Bench. Advocates Rameshwar P Singh and Vinayak Shah appeared on behalf of the petitioners. ,