Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 836 (MP)

Aayusha v. M. P. Public Service Commission

2014-07-15

S.C.SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : S.C. Sharma, J.:- The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the action of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission in not granting two marks to the petitioner in respect of question No. 62. The contention of the petitioner is that she has appeared in M.P. State Civil Services Preliminary Examination and has secured 290 marks. The cut off marks fixed by the Public Service Commission for the category in which the petitioner was considered were 292 marks. The contention of the petitioner is that she has submitted the correct answer to the question No. 62, as option "D" was the correct answer, however she was not awarded any marks. The petitioner has filed various documents to establish before this Court that Option-D is the correct answer. Various representations were received by the Public Service Commission in respect of the same question. The Public Service Commission after constituting a committee has arrived at a conclusion that Option-A and Option-C are the correct answer of question No. 62. The petitioner before this Court has filed certain documentary evidence in order to establish that the correct answer of question No. 62 is Option-D and this Court not being the expert in the field of Information Technology/Computer Sciences has directed the State Government to constitute a committee vide order dated 8-5-2014 and to submit a report. The State Government has constituted a Committee comprising of a Secretary, Department of Information Technology, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh as a Chairman; Dean of Computer Science and Information Technology, Rajiv Gandhi Technical University, Bhopal; Dean Computer Science Molana Azad National Technical Institute, Bhopal and State Informatic Officer, NIC as members. The Committee has submitted a detailed report and the Report of the Committee reads as under :-- "1. In compliance of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 8-5-2014, department of Information Technology, Government of Madhya Pradesh Constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Information Technology on 24-6-2004. Head of the department, Computer Science and Information Technology MANIT, Bhopal, Head of the department, Computer Science and Information Technology, RGPV, Bhopal and State Informatics Officer, National Informatics Centre, M.P. are the members of the committee. 2. The meeting of the committee was held on 4-7-2014 under chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Information Technology. Head of the department, Computer Science and Information Technology MANIT, Bhopal, Head of the department, Computer Science and Information Technology, RGPV, Bhopal and State Informatics Officer, National Informatics Centre, M.P. are the members of the committee. 2. The meeting of the committee was held on 4-7-2014 under chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Information Technology. The committee has gone through the question No. 62 of the Question Paper (SET-B, Booklet No. 1023650) provided by M.P. Public Commission for preliminary exam conducted on 24-2-2013 for State Civil Services. 3. The committee was of the opinion unanimously that the correct answer of the question No. 62 is option D-All of the above repeat -option D all of the above. A..com, .net and .gov are all valid domain name extensions and can be obtained for use. However, "gov" domain is a sponsored top level domain (sTLD) in the Domain Name System of Internet and use of .gov domain is restricted to Government entities in USA. B. Some examples of valid.gov domain addresses are -www.whttehouse.gov, www.usa.gov, data.gov etc." 2. As per the report submitted by the Committee, Option-O is the correct answer, meaning thereby the stand of the Public Service Commission on affidavit appears to be an incorrect stand and the petitioner has been deprived of two marks by the Public Service Commission. The experts appointed by the State Government by virtue of the order of this Court have explained as to why the option-D is the correct answer. 3. A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed by the Public Service Commission and though an attempt has been made to justify the wrong marking done by the Public Service Commission, at the same time jurisdiction of this Court in constituting the Committee has also been challenged. It has also been stated in the reply that it is the sole domain of the Public Service Commission to appoint valuers or to appoint experts and as per their experts' opinion "Option-D" is not the correct answer. The findings given by an independent Committee constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh of independent officers have given a categoric finding that the option-D is the correct answer and the petitioner, who has correctly answered, the question No. 62 cannot be deprived of her legitimate right of obtaining two marks. The findings given by an independent Committee constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh of independent officers have given a categoric finding that the option-D is the correct answer and the petitioner, who has correctly answered, the question No. 62 cannot be deprived of her legitimate right of obtaining two marks. Earlier also this Court in the case of Rekha Suchdev v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 1506/2012 has constituted a committee and large number of candidates who were deprived of their selection, were benefited by the report submitted by the Committee before this Court. They were subsequently permitted to appear in the examination by virtue of proper marking done by the Public Service Commission pursuant to the report submitted by the Committee. 4. This Court has constituted a Committee and the Committee has arrived at a conclusion that the Option-D is the correct answer and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for two additional marks. If two additional marks are granted to the petitioner, she shall be eligible to participate in the further process of selection. At this stage learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission has drawn the attention of this Court towards a judgment delivered in the case of Satish Kumar Dwivedi and ors. v. M.P. Public Service Commission and one another, W.P. No. 13632 of 2013 decided on 10-9-2013 by the Principal Seat and the paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-- "4. Dr. Shrikrishan Sharma, the controller of examinations, who is personally appearing before this Court submits that the Question Nos. 10, 33, 42, 55, 71, 79 and 89 in W.P. No. 13632/2013 are same and identical to the Question Nos. 30, 53, 62, 75, 91, 95 and 54 which have been assailed in W.P. No. 11370/2013, wherein this Court has upheld the stand of the respondent/PSC and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and therefore, the contention of the petitioners in this regard stands covered by the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 11370/2013." The aforesaid paragraph makes it very clear that the same question No. 62 was also considered by the Single Bench of Principal Seat of this Court and the Single Bench after considering the question No. 62 has dismissed the writ petition. The same examination was also subjected to a judicial scrutiny again in W.P. No. 11370 of 2013, Indra Kumar Dwivedi v. M.P. Public Service Commission and anr. and again the Single Bench of Principal Seat vide order dated 10-9-2013 after taking into account the same question No. 62 has dismissed the writ petition. The matter was again considered by this Court in W.P. No. 9202/2013, Ku. Ananta Soni v. M.P. Public Service Commission and two Ors. and this Court has also dismissed the writ petition preferred by Ku. Ananta Soni vide order dated 30th September, 2013. A writ appeal was preferred by Ku. Ananta Soni and the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 964/2013 has affirmed the order passed in writ petition, meaning thereby in respect of question No. 62, the Single Bench as well as Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the claim of the petitioner therein in the aforesaid cases, however this case is having slightly distinguishable feature. The committee was constituted on 8-5-2014 as serious doubts were raised in respect of key answers and in respect of the report submitted by the Committee, constituted by the M.P., Public Service Commission and therefore, the State Government was directed to constitute a Committee and the State Government has constituted a Committee, comprising of a Secretary, Department of Information Technology, Govt, of Madhya Pradesh as a Chairman; Dean of Computer Science and Information Technology, Rajiv Gandhi Technical University, Bhopal; Dean Computer Science Molana Azad National Technical Institute, Bhopal and State Informatic Officer, NIC as members. The experts of the subject have given an opinion that Option-D was correct answer of question No. 62, meaning thereby, the petitioner has rightly answered the question No. 62 as Option-D. In the cases referred in the above paragraphs, the report of the subsequent committee was not at all in existence and therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of her legitimate two marks on account of a mistake committed by the Public Service Commission, as she has rightly answered as per the opinion of the committee. 5. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/Public Service Commission are distinguishable on facts. A committee was constituted in the present case by this Court and thereafter during the pendency of the petition the experts committee has submitted its report. 5. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/Public Service Commission are distinguishable on facts. A committee was constituted in the present case by this Court and thereafter during the pendency of the petition the experts committee has submitted its report. Now the report of experts committee, which was not certainly at all considered by the Single Bench as well as by the Division Bench of this Court is on record and therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/Public Service Commission are distinguishable on facts. 6. In the present case, it was also argued by learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission that the petitioner has never represented in time to the Public Service Commission in respect of the alleged wrong marking on the part of the Public Service Commission in spite of the fact that a notice was issued on 24-2-2014 by the Public Service Commission. 7. This Court has carefully gone through the said notice published by the Public Service Commission and the same reads as under :-- 8. In the aforesaid notice, it was categorically mentioned that no representation of any kind will be entertained by the Public Service Commission and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court after declaration of the result. The plea canvassed by the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission that the petitioner has not represented in time is of no use in light of the notification issued by the Public Service Commission. 9. This Court has constituted the experts committee, which was certainly an experts committee comprising of very senior officers and the persons holding very senior positions in the field of Information Technology and the finding of the Committee have not been challenged by the Public Service Commission. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the committee has rightly given its findings. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the Committee has opined "Option-D" is the correct answer and therefore, the petitioner is certainly entitled to receive two additional marks for answering 'D' option. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the Committee has opined "Option-D" is the correct answer and therefore, the petitioner is certainly entitled to receive two additional marks for answering 'D' option. It is needless to mention that the petitioner as she was vigilant in the matter has filed the present petition, shall be entitled for the benefit of two additional marks and therefore, the question of extending the relief to other candidates in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. The cut off marks prescribed by the Public Service Commission are 292 and the petitioner has received 160 marks in first paper and 130 marks in the second paper and therefore, she was not permitted to appear in the further process of examination, however after granting two additional marks the petitioner shall be entitled to appear in the further process of selection. Hence, the Madhya Pradesh, Public Service Commission is directed to hold a special examination for the petitioner as she has received 292 marks, which are required for qualifying the preliminary examination. The exercise of conducting a Special Examination for the petitioner be concluded within a period of 60 days from today. No order as to costs.