Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1142 (MP)

Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma v. High Court of M. P.

2010-11-18

ALOK ARADHE, S.R.ALAM

body2010
ORDER S.R. Alam, C. J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner who has appeared in the preliminary examination for direct recruitment to Higher Judicial Services, has challenged the legality and validity of the action of respondent in fixing the cutoff marks as 80 for general well as for OBC category candidates. It has been averred in the writ petition that candidates belonging to OBC category have been discriminated in the recruitment process. It has further been stated that at least 45 candidates ought to have been called for main examination. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has sought the relief of quashing of the list of candidates who have appeared in the preliminary examination for recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and has also prayed for a direction to respondent to prepare fresh list of such candidates in the same ratio of proportion as has been done in the case of general category candidates. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no provision in the Rules which empowers the respondent to fix the cut-off marks for appearing in the main examination. In the absence of any provision in the Rule, cut-off marks for appearing in the main examination for recruitment to the post of District Judge to the Higher Judicial Services (Entry Level) could not have been fixed by the respondent. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in Chhater Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1997 SC 303 and State of Punjab and others Vs. Manjit Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC 4580 . 4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent has pointed out that an advertisement for recruitment of District Judge to the Higher Judicial Services (Entry Level) was issued on 4.3.2010. The preliminary examination was held on 4.7.2010 and the result has been declared in third week of July, 2010. The main examination has already been held on 5.9.2010. The petitioner has filed the writ petition on 23.8.2010. It was submitted by learned senior counsel for the respondent that petitioner has not secured the cut-off marks. The preliminary examination was held on 4.7.2010 and the result has been declared in third week of July, 2010. The main examination has already been held on 5.9.2010. The petitioner has filed the writ petition on 23.8.2010. It was submitted by learned senior counsel for the respondent that petitioner has not secured the cut-off marks. Thus, the petition is belated and cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioner who is an unsuccessful candidate. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on decisions of Full Bench as well as Division Bench of this Court in Omprakash Baburam Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1978 MPLJ 136 and Jayant Kumar Chavhan Vs. Public Service Commission, M.P. 1978 MPLJ 784 as well as a decision of Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, (1994) 6 SCC 293 . 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. An advertisement was issued inviting applications for recruitment of 20 posts of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Higher Judicial Services of the State. 11 posts were under the general category whereas three posts each were reserved for SC/ST and OBC category candidates. The preliminary examination was held on 4.7.2010 and 3271 candidates were found suitable in preliminary examination. With a view to short-list the candidate, the preliminary examination was held which consisted of objective test. The candidates who secured the minimum cut off marks in the said preliminary examination, were allowed to appear in the main examination. The matter of appointment of District Judge (Entry Level) is governed by the provisions of M.P. Uchchtar Nyayik Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The Rules provide that procedure for selection for direct recruitment and promotion shall be such as may be specified by the High Court from time to time. The Committee of the respondent decided to fix the cut-off marks for candidates belonging to various categories with a view to short-list the candidates, as permitting all 3271 candidates who were declared qualified in preliminary examination to appear in the main examination for only 20 posts was neither feasible nor practicable. The candidates who secured the cut-off marks were permitted to appear in the main examination. The candidates who secured the cut-off marks were permitted to appear in the main examination. The issue with regard to fixation of cut-off marks is no longer res-integra, as the same stands concluded by an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Chandel Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 10.2.2009 wherein, Division Bench of this Court has up-held the action of fixation of same cut-off marks for general category and OBC category candidates. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondent has no authority in law to fix the cut-off marks, cannot be accepted. 7. Besides that, admittedly, the main examination has been held on 5.9.2010 and results have already been declared, therefore, at this point of time, the relief as sought by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted, as the same would amount to putting the clock back in time. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same deserves to and is hereby dismissed.