Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Vinod Kumar vs General Administration Department on 7 March, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.16784/2017
(Dr. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Indore: Dated 07/03/2018
Shri Pawan Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard finally with consent.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to include his name in the select list for appointment on the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon in preference to the respondent No.4.
The case of the petitioner is that he had participated in the selection process in pursuance to the advertisement dated 18/5/2016 issued by the respondent-PSC for recruitment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon. The petitioner and respondent No.4 both had obtained 182 marks in the final Mark List but while issuing the select list the respondent No.4 has been placed at S.N.196 in the main select list whereas the petitioner's name has been placed at S.N.35 in the supplementary list. Further grievance of the petitioner is that though he had submitted the representation but same has not been decided.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is senior in age than the respondent No.4, therefore the petitioner should have been appointed on the post in question instead of respondent No.4 because both of them had obtained equal marks in the final marking.
As against this, learned counsel for respondent-PSC submits that respondent No.4 has been selected as per the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.16784/2017 (Dr. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) applicable rules.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that undisputedly the petitioner and respondent No.4 are the OBC candidate and both of them have obtained 182 marks in the final tally. The name of respondent No.4 has been included at S.N.196 of the main select list whereas the name of the petitioner has been kept at S.N.35 of the supplementary list.
Rule 4 of the M.P.Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure deals with the situation when more than one candidate secured equal marks and provides as under :-
4. BY EXAMINATION (11) Following procedure will be adopted in determining seniority in the merit list where more than one candidates score equal marks -
(i) Where selection is made through competitive examination i.e. marks obtained in written examination and interview are added in the final selection, the candidate scoring more marks in the compulsory papers of the written examination will be placed above the candidates who score less marks in such papers.
(ii) if in the examination all papers are compulsory then total marks obtained in all the papers shall be taken into consideration.
(iii) If marks of written examination are also equal then the candidate who is senior in age will be placed above the candidate junior in age.
As per the aforesaid rule, in the case of tie, in the final selection the preference is to be given to the candidate scoring more marks in the compulsory written examination. The reply of the respondents reveals that in the present case all the papers 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.16784/2017 (Dr. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) of the written examination were compulsory papers and the respondent No.4 had scored 164 marks in the written examination whereas the petitioner has scored only 162 marks in the written examination, therefore the name of respondent No.4 has been kept above the petitioner and the respondent No.4 has been given preference in selection in terms of the aforesaid rules. The record further reflects that petitioner's representation has duly been considered and has been rejected vide order dated 3.11.2017. The rejection order also reveals that the petitioner had obtained 162 marks in the written examination and 20 marks in the interview. Hence the total was 182 whereas the respondent No.4 had obtained 164 marks in the written examination and 18 marks in interview, therefore his total was also 182. Though the petitioner is senior in age but on account of Rule 4 and the fact that respondent No.4 had obtained more marks in the written examination than the petitioner, the respondent No.4 has rightly been given preference as against the petitioner in the select list.
In view of this, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge mk Digitally signed by MUKTA KAUSHAL Date: 2018.03.16 17:49:47 +05'30'