Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Tiwari vs The State Of M.P. on 22 January, 2020
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Vijay Kumar Shukla
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
W.P. No.25746/2019
Amit Tiwari
-Versus-
State of M.P. and another
Shri Ravindra Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Himanshu Mishra, Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Rahul Diwakar, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Jabalpur, dtd.22.01.2020) 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. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to apply the Rules 2018 in case of the petitioner and the marks for cancelled question may also be given by the respondent No.2 to petitioner result may be opened with the correction and petitioner may be declared qualified in the Middle School Eligibility Test 2018.
ii. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to fill one post regarding the Maths subject and after declaring the correct result, he may be selected for the aforesaid examination.
iii. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts 2 and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed, in the interest of justice."
2. In addition to challenge to the normalisation formula contained in Clause 2.9(B) of the Examination Rules, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by applying the aforesaid formula his marks have been reduced.
3. The issue raised in the instant petition has already been considered and decided 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, to apply the Rules called, Madhya Pradesh Rajya School Shiksha Seva (Shaikshnik Samvarg) Seva Sharten Evam Bharti Niyam, 2018 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2018"] and to award marks for cancelled questions and prepare a final list afresh.
3
4. In some petitions formula contained in Clause 2.9(A) of the Examination Rules was questioned. Dwelling upon the issue raised in the said batch of writ petitions this Court has taken into consideration the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vivek Jain vs. The Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and others, AIR 1994 MP 164 and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494, and dismissed the writ petitions. Apart from this, a Single Bench at Indore of this Court has also taken note of the process of normalisation as provided in Clause 2.9(B) of the Examination Rules in W.P. No.8083/2016 and other connected writ petitions, decided on 22-6-2017, wherein the Single Bench 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 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 4 conducted by the Professional Examination Board. Clause 2.9(B) of the Examination Rules is reproduced hereunder :
" 2-9 c ijh{kk esa ijh{kk ifj.kke ukeksZykbZt'ku i)fr%& izksQs'kuy ,Xtkfeus'ku cksMZ] Hkksiky ds vkns'k Ø0 ih0bZ0ch0@i&11@22&2016@4839@2016 Hkksiky] fnukad 04*- 08-2016 ds vuqlkj ih0bZ0ch0 }kjk vk;ksftr ijh{kk,¡] ftlesa ijh{kk vk;kstu ,d ls vf/kd f'kQVksa esa fd;k tkrk gS rks mu ijh{kkvksa esa ijh{kk ifj.kke ukeksZykbZts'ku i)fr ls rS;kj fd;k tkosxkA ftldk lw= fuEukuqlkj gS%& Normalized Marks of Jth candidate in ith sessions Mij is given by:
Mgt -Mgq Mij =------------- (Mij-Miq)+Mgq Mti - Miq Mij is the actual marks obtained by the Jth candidate in ith Mgt is the average marks of the top 0.1% of the candidates considering all sessions.
Mgq is the sum of mean and standard deviation marks of the candidates in the paper considering all sessions. Mit is the average marks of the top 0.1% of the candidates in the ith sessions.
Miq is the sum of the mean marks and standard deviation of the ith session."
5. 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.
5
6. 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: 2020.02.03 14:47:03 +05'30'