Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1029 (MP)

PARAS SAKLECHA v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-09-28

A.M.KHANWILKAR, K.K.TRIVEDI

body2015
ORDER : 1. We have heard counsel for the parties 2. The Registry has placed before us a sealed envelope received from Shri C.L.M. Reddy, Court appointed Overall Technical Supervisor. The same was directed to be opened in Court. Copies of the report were made available to the counsel appearing for both the parties. The matter was then deferred till 1:00 PM to enable the parties to examine the said report and to make submissions, if any. 3. We have perused the report given by Shri C.L.M. Reddy. It delineates the points discussed in the joint meeting held by him with the President & Secretary of APDMC, Two senior officials of AFRC along with a technical person assisting them and Senior Technical persons of the Agency. The points indicated in this report dated 25.09.2015 are acceptable to the counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned amicus curiae. 4. Mr. Trivedi, had initially expressed some reservation about the reduced number of cities (Indore, Bhopal, Delhi (NCR) and Ahmedabad) where examination centres will be arranged. That, however, has been done by APDMC due to the changed situation and to make the entire examination process more effective free, fair and transparent. That is being done by APDMC in consultation with AFRC and which has received in principle approval of Shri Reddy. We see no reason to deviate from that arrangement. In deference to the observations made by the Court, Shri Trivedi, on instructions of the petitioner, who is present in the Court, in all fairness, submitted that he would not pursue this contention any further. 5. With regard to the other points, the counsel for APDMC has given his counter suggestion with regard to points No. 7, 10 and 11. 6. As regards point No.7, Shri Reddy has noted that the Agency must maintain the servers at the examination centers in sealed condition at least for a period of one week after the declaration of results. That will be useful for scrutiny and review, if required at a later stage. 7. In the context of this suggestion of Shri Reddy, counsel for APDMC points out that APDMC cannot make any statement regarding the server of the Agency - as it is not within the control of APDMC. That will be useful for scrutiny and review, if required at a later stage. 7. In the context of this suggestion of Shri Reddy, counsel for APDMC points out that APDMC cannot make any statement regarding the server of the Agency - as it is not within the control of APDMC. For, that belongs to a private Agency who has been outsourced with the responsibility of conducting on line examination for and on behalf of APDMC. Further, since the data generated during the examination period will be contemporaneously transferred to the servers of APDMC and AFRC, both these Agencies may be asked to abide by the condition of sealing their respective servers at least for a period of one week from the date of declaration of results. The counsel for AFRC, on instructions, has agreed for this arrangement. As a result, point No.7 suggested by Shri Reddy is modified to that extent with further condition to be specified by Shri Reddy as may be deemed appropriate. Those instructions will have to be complied with in its letter and spirit by APDMC as well as AFRC. 8. As regards point No.10, Shri Reddy has suggested, amongst others, that Biometrics data must be sent to the monitoring servers instantaneously. According to APDMC, since the Biometrics data from the centers would be very bulky and online transmission may be difficult and slow, the APDMC may be permitted to furnish the same in CD-format. Even this suggestion may be considered by Shri Reddy and acted upon, as may be advised while ensuring that because of this modification of condition free and fair on line examination is not compromised in any manner. 9. That takes us to point No.11 regarding declaration of individual score. APDMC has committed itself to do so, but, keeping in mind its last experience, it has expressed some reservation and apprehension about the immediate fall out at the concerned examination hall - because of some misinformation or miscommunication not attributable to the Agency or APDMC as such. 10. Shri Reddy has suggested to declare the individual score contemporaneously, only to instill trust and confidence in the system and to improve its credibility. The counter suggestion given by APDMC is to allow them to declare the results on mobile or laptop or cyber cafe outside the Centres. Shri Reddy, may consider this request appropriately. 10. Shri Reddy has suggested to declare the individual score contemporaneously, only to instill trust and confidence in the system and to improve its credibility. The counter suggestion given by APDMC is to allow them to declare the results on mobile or laptop or cyber cafe outside the Centres. Shri Reddy, may consider this request appropriately. If he finds that the same is acceptable and in no way impact the process of free and fair online examination, may issue instructions accordingly. In other words, we leave even this issue open to be decided by Shri Reddy after considering the technical aspects thereof. However, that will not preclude or extricate APDMC from making request to the local police station well in advance to provide adequate police force, at least, during the examination period and for such further period, as may be necessary. We have no manner of doubt that considering the significance of the examination and the public interest involved, the respective police Authorities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned Districts will respond favourably and issue instructions as may be found necessary to facilitate completion of online examination within the time frame specified by the Court. 11. That takes us to the last aspect. We had indicated to APDMC that process of admission should be completed at least by 5th October, 2015. Counsel for APDMC, however, submits that it may not be possible to achieve that target considering the short duration within which examination centres will have to be arranged in different cities and in multiple numbers. It may not be possible to conduct examination before 6.10.2015. That would also give sufficient time frame to the candidates for preparation and for other logistical purposes. He submits that, in any case, attempt will be made to complete the admission process before 11.10.2015. In that case, there will be some delay but it will be inevitable in the fact situation. Further, the actual loss of working days would come to around six days between 1st October, 2015 to 9th October, 2015. As a special case, that request will have to be accepted considering the fact that the examination is to fill up more than 1000 medical seats in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 12. Accordingly, as nothing more is required to be said at this stage, we defer the hearing of these matters till 13.10.2015. 13. As a special case, that request will have to be accepted considering the fact that the examination is to fill up more than 1000 medical seats in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 12. Accordingly, as nothing more is required to be said at this stage, we defer the hearing of these matters till 13.10.2015. 13. Needless to observe that the candidates who had filled the examination form for the proposed examination, which has been rescheduled and being a case of re-examination of the candidates who were eligible to appear in the examination, must be permitted to appear in the examination, to be conducted on or around 6.10.2015. 14. We further make it clear that this order has been passed only in continuation of our earlier orders dated 28.7.2015 read with orders dated 26.8.2015 and 7.9.2015, keeping in mind the recommendations made by Shri Reddy, Database Administrator. We accept the recommendations made by him on the above terms. 15. As a result, we defer the hearing of these matters till 13.10.2015. Post Lunch Session : 16. After the order was dictated in the pre-lunch session and before the lunch break, the Registrar General while interacting with us in chamber during the lunch break has informed that Shri Reddy may not be available on 06.10.2015 on which date the APDMC intends to hold the on-line examination due to prior professional commitment. He would be available only after 08.10.2015 as he will be arriving in the morning of 08.10.2015. Further, before leaving on 04.10.2015, he would be available at Bhopal for any other preparatory arrangements and supervision of the arrangements already done by APDMC in consultation with AFRC. 17. After this information was divulged to us by the Registrar General in the Chamber, immediately intimation was given to all the Advocates appearing in the case including the petitioner Shri Saklecha that the matter will be once again taken up after the lunch break to resolve this difficulty. 18. Counsel for APDMC, on instructions, pointed out that APDMC had geared up to conduct the examination on 06.10.2015, but, if that date is not possible, all efforts will be made to ensure that on-line examination is conducted after 2:30 PM of 08.10.2015, but in any case before 10.10.2015. 19. 18. Counsel for APDMC, on instructions, pointed out that APDMC had geared up to conduct the examination on 06.10.2015, but, if that date is not possible, all efforts will be made to ensure that on-line examination is conducted after 2:30 PM of 08.10.2015, but in any case before 10.10.2015. 19. Since, Shri Reddy has already been associated and has also contributed in making constructive suggestions during the past examination as well as for reexamination to be held by APDMC, we think that his presence during the on-line examination would be essential and would instill confidence about the entire process being free and fair as has been expressed by the counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned amicus curiae. 20. We may, therefore, accede to the request made by APDMC to permit them to re-schedule the examination after 2:30 PM on 08.10.2015, in any case not later than 10.10.2015 after making all the arrangements indicated by Shri Reddy. 21. Request has been made by the counsel for the respondent No.31 that, in case of any further clarification or difficulty experienced by APDMC, they should be permitted to move the Court for appropriate directions on urgent basis. We have no difficulty in acceding to this request but then APDMC before moving any formal application must give sufficient advance notice to the counsel for the petitioners and AFRC. 22. We observe that APDMC must, however, ensure that the admission process is completed before 14.10.2015 with further undertaking that the academic hours lost by the students due to delayed admission shall be made good during the academic year by conducting extra classes. 23. APDMC through counsel has also assured the Court that the notice regarding re-scheduled date of online re-examination will "prominently" mention that the admission process will be completed before 14.10.2015, so that the successful candidates have clear notice about the limited time frame for completing their admission process soon after declaration of results and merit list online. 24. Matters be now listed on 15.10.2015 instead of 13.10.2015, as was directed earlier.