Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sadhna Chouhan vs M.P. Public Service Commission on 20 August, 2019
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1 WP-20740-2016
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-20740-2016
(SADHNA CHOUHAN Vs M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION)
15
Jabalpur, Dated : 20-08-2019
Shri P.K.Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior counsel with Shri Anshul Tiwari,
learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri Kaustubh Singh, learned panel lawyer for the respondents State. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 30.12.2014 for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger. Exam for the post was to be conducted on 02.08.2015 and 03.08.2015. Petitioner participated in the said examination. She was successful and was called for interview on 22.11.2016. The select list of Forest Ranger was published on 05.12.2016 in which the name of the petitioner was at serial no.94. Merit list of online examination and interview was published on 05.12.2016 and name of petitioner for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest was at serial no.63.
The grievance of the petitioner is that she was not selected for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest because scaling method was not advertised in the Examination Rules dated 20.12.2014. It was averred by the petitioner that she got 632 marks out of 900 marks in the written examination but due to scaling method, she was given only 610.69 marks in the written examination. Petitioner has opted for the subject of Electronic Engineering and Agriculture which comes under the category of scaling, therefore, 22 marks was deducted and thus petitioner could not qualify for Assistant Conservator of Forest. It is submitted by the petitioner that Rules of the games cannot be changed in the midway of the selection process. It was not advertised on 30.12.2014 that scaling will be done and therefore, respondents had committed illegality in changing the Rules and not selecting the petitioner for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. On the basis of aforesaid, Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 28/08/2019 13:19:10 2 WP-20740-2016 petitioner has prayed that she may be awarded marks without scaling and thereafter, respondents may be directed to consider the case for appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest.
Respondents had filed reply to the writ petition and it was stated by the respondents that petitioner offered her candidature as a Scheduled Tribes Female Category candidate and had exercised her option for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and second option was given for Ranger Officer. Cut-off marks for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest for Scheduled Tribes Female Category candidate was 691.85 marks and for the post of Ranger Officer cut-off marks was 632.56 marks. Since the petitioner secured 665.59 marks, she was selected for the post of Range Officer. It is submitted by the petitioner that in Clause-5 of advertisement relates to Forest Service Examination, 2014. It is clearly mentioned that scaling will be done in evaluating the optional subjects. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 argued that last date for submission of application form was 13.2.2015 and a Corrigendum was issued on 20.11.2015 and examination was conducted on 05.1.2016. As per the Corrigendum dated 20.11.2015, scaling is to be done for optional subjects. The Corrigendum was published in the Gazette notification and petitioner went ahead and took examination knowing that scaling will be done for optional subject as per the Corrigendum dated 20.11.2015. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has taken part in the examination knowing fully well the rules of examination and later on when she is not selected, she cannot turn back and challenge the examination rules.
Learned counsel for the respondent had relied on (2017) 4 SCC 357, Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Bihar and others and (2018) 3 SCC 706, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav and another. The Apex Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar and another held that a person who consciously takes part in selection process cannot thereafter turn around and challenge the method of selection and its Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 28/08/2019 13:19:10 3 WP-20740-2016 outcome. Learned Apex Court in the matter of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission held that process of scaling is a recognized method for ensuring uniformity amongst candidates who have taken examinations in different subjects. When there are a number of examiners evaluating the papers of large number of candidates in an examination, there is a possibility of "examiner subjectivity" or "examiner variability" to minimize the examiner variability. The Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 72 held that moderation would be the best method to be followed.
In aforesaid cases, the Apex Court approved the scaling method adopted by the Commission.
In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that no illegality is committed in the recruitment rules and scaling method was rightly done and as the petitioner has come up in merits for Ranger Officer, she has been selected.
Considered the arguments of both the parties.
It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 that cut-off marks for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest for Scheduled Tribe Female Category was 691.85 marks. Petitioner had obtained 665.69 marks even if the arguments of the petitioner is accepted and 22 marks is given to the petitioner then she will only get 688 marks which will be below cut-off marks of Scheduled Tribes Female Category.
In view of the above, petitioner has no case. Though elaborate arguments had been advanced regarding corrigendum and by which certain method was introduced in the examination and it was also submitted that scaling method was introduced on 20.11.2015.
On going through the return filed by the respondents, it is mentioned that advertisement and Corrigendum is filed as Annexure R/4 and same is mentioned in Clause-5 but no such clause is found in the document attached, however, mentioning of Corrigendum is also found in the results, which has Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 28/08/2019 13:19:10 4 WP-20740-2016 been declared on 05.12.2016 and it is mentioned in the select list and results were declared as per the Corrigendum No.03/04/examination/2014 dated 20.11.2015. Examination was conducted from 05.01.2016 to 21.2.2016. It is clear that Corrigendum was issued before conducting of examination, therefore, selection process had not began and therefore, petitioner cannot say that Rules of games of selection had been changed in the midway.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sh Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 28/08/2019 13:19:10