Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajesh Kumar Sahu vs Professional Examination Board on 23 January, 2020
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Vijay Kumar Shukla
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
W.P. No.1598/2020
Brajesh Kumar Sahu
-Versus-
Professional Examination Board and another
Shri Vinay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Diwakar, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Himanshu Mishra, Govt. Advocate for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Jabalpur, dtd.23.01.2020) Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"i. To call the relevant records of the petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
ii. To command the respondents to decide and consider the representation dated 7-01-2020 (Annexure-P/2) pending before respondent No.2, in the interest of justice.
iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner with cost of the petition, in the interest of justice."2
2. Besides that the petitioner is claiming bonus marks in the High School/Higher Secondary Schools Teachers Eligibility Test, 2018 conducted by the Professional Examination Board. According to the petitioner he had participated in the said examination and had given correct answers in certain questions out of 100 in the concerned subject, however the respondents have cancelled the questions in the said subject and has awarded grace marks to all examinees. The petitioner had given correct answers in some of the cancelled questions.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents who have entered appearance on advance copy, submitted that the marks have been awarded for the cancelled questions after taking into consideration the formula contained in Clause 2.9(A) as well as process of normalisation provided in Clause 2.9(B) of the Examination Rules.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring to the notice of this Court any provisions of law or rules for award of bonus marks in the Eligibility Test, 2018 conducted by the respondents.
5. The issues pertaining to the legality and validity of the formula contained in clauses 2.9(A) and 2.9(B) of the Madhya 3 Pradesh Rajya School Shiksha Seva (Shaikshnik Samvarg) Seva Sharten Evam Bharti Niyam, 2018 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2018"] have already been considered and decided by this Court in W.P. No.22510/2019 (Brijesh Kumar Patel and others vs. the State of M.P. and others) referring to the orders passed by by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, i.e. W.P. No.20290/2019 (Pushpendra Burman and others vs. The State of M.P. and others) and other connected writ petitions on 29- 11-2019, wherein the petitioners having failed to qualify in the High School/Higher Secondary Schools Teachers Eligibility Test, 2018 in the subjects of Economics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Social Science and Sanskrit, have challenged the cancellation of question papers and sought for a direction to the respondents by virtue of the Rules 2018. Further, this Court also took note of the order passed in W.P. No.8083/2016 and other connected writ petitions, decided on 22-6- 2017, wherein the Single Bench at Indore, in order to understand the discrepancy made in the results, requested to the Indian Institute of Management, Indore to examine the process of normalisation. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the process of normalisation is adopted while conducting the examination of IITs, IIMs and all such examinations where the examination is held in number of sessions using different sets of question papers. A detailed and exhaustive report was submitted by Professor Shri 4 Kapoor on behalf of the Indian Institute of Management, Indore and the M.P. Professional Examination Board. As per the report there is no defect in the process of normalisation adopted by the Professional Examination Board.
6. Thus, the formula contained in Clause 2.9(A) and process of normalisation in Clause 2.9(B) of the Examination Rules have been considered by this Court in the earlier orders. In view of the aforesaid, we do not perceive any merit in the present writ petition, as the same is squarely covered by the decisions mentioned hereinabove.
7. Ex-consequenti, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2020.01.31 12:27:22 +05'30'