Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 165 (MP)

Bhupendra Kumar Dubey v. State of M. P.

2020-01-30

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, VISHAL DHAGAT

body2020
ORDER Mittal, CJ. -- 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to round-off the marks obtained by him in the Middle School Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018 taking into consideration the letter dated 31.7.2012 (Annexure P-3) as well as the similar order passed in W.P. No.6903/2009 (Jitendra Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another) on 7.4.2010 (Annexure P-4). 2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2/Professional Examination Board (for short "the Board"), the petitioner had appeared in the Middle School Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018 as unreserved candidate in science subject. In the said test, the petitioner obtained total 89.99 marks and was declared disqualified as the cut-off marks for unreserved category was 90. Thereafter, the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, requested the respondents to provide guidelines for rounding-off the marks. In response, the petitioner received the aforesaid letter (Annexure -P-3) of the Additional Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, intimating the petitioner that the rounding-off process is going on in the said department. The petitioner waited for some time for further communication from the Board, but no information has been received so far regarding rounding-off her marks. Accordingly, claiming similar relief as was given in the case of Jitendra Shukla (supra), this petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had obtained 89.99 marks in the said examination whereas the cut-off/minimum marks were 90 and if the same were rounded off to the cut-off marks, the petitioner would have been declared qualified in the said examination. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the letter (Annexure P-3) of Additional Secretary, the decisions of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Jitendra Shukla (supra), W. P. No. 207/2005 (Ku. Bhawna Mishra v. Barkatullah University & ors.) decided on 13.4.2006 and Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ page 619. It was contended that the aforesaid letter itself speaks about rounding-off the marks obtained by the candidates. Bhawna Mishra v. Barkatullah University & ors.) decided on 13.4.2006 and Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ page 619. It was contended that the aforesaid letter itself speaks about rounding-off the marks obtained by the candidates. It was also argued that the petitioner should have been granted 10% reservation on the basis of the certificate (Annexure P-5) issued by the competent authority of the Government of India in favour of the petitioner being economically weaker section of general category candidates having annual income less than Rs. 8,00,000/- in a financial year and also 25% towards the experience of working as Guest Teacher. On these premises, it was submitted that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the absence of any rule or provision for rounding-off the marks, no case for granting such relief is made out. It was further contended that this petition has been filed without examining the rules or law already settled in this regard, therefore, no interference is called for. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. The orders passed in the cases of Jitendra Shukla (supra), Ku. Bhawna Mishra (supra), and also in Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava (supra), as well as the letter (Annexure P-3) of the Additional Secretary are of no assistance for the petitioner in view of the various pronouncements of the Supreme Court on this issue. The apex Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission and another v. Rupashree Chowdhary and another (2011) 8 SCC 108 , has held as under: "11. We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990)3 SCC 655 . In the said judgment this Court has laid down that: (SCC p. 658, para 6) 6. … when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, [then] it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that: (SCC p. 658, para 6) 6. … when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, [then] it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.' " 7. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore v. G. Hemlatha and others (2012) 8 SCC 568 wherein it is observed that when the eligibility criteria is prescribed in the qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to and any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. The relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced as under: "12. No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder have been shown to us, which permit rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in M. Sc. (Nursing). When the eligibility criteria is prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the learned Single Judge was right in rounding-off 54.71% to 55% so as to make Respondent 1 eligible for admission to the PG course. Such rounding-off is impermissible." 8. In another judgment in the case of Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi (2018)14 SCC 129 , the similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court wherein it took note of the above pronunciations of law in the cases of Rupashree Chowdhary (supra), and G. Hemlatha (supra). In the said judgment, it has been observed as under : "22. With regard to question as to rounding-off of the marks, in our opinion, when a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding-off method to make up the minimum aggregate." 9. In the said judgment, it has been observed as under : "22. With regard to question as to rounding-off of the marks, in our opinion, when a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding-off method to make up the minimum aggregate." 9. From the aforesaid discussion, it is manifestly clear that in the present case also no provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder have been shown to us, which permit rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for selection and appointment to the post of Middle School Teacher. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no ground to issue any directions to the respondents as prayed for. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.