Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badam Singh Yadav vs M.P.M.K.V.V. Co. Ltd.,Bhopal on 22 June, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-8479-2011
(BADAM SINGH YADAV Vs M.P.M.K.V.V. CO. LTD.,BHOPAL)
Gwalior, Dated : 22-06-2018
Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ravi Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the final result of Accounts Training of batch No.78 on 14.11.11 Annexure P/1 sh whereby petitioner has been declared as fail in the said examination. It is petitioner's contention that he had obtained minimum passing marks e ad in each of the subjects, and therefore, he could not have been declared as fail. Consequently, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the result Pr dated 14.11.11 declaring the petitioner as fails and further declaring a him as pass as per the terms as mentioned in the mark-sheet and hy further refunding the entire amount if any has been recovered ad consequent to declaring him as fail.
The controversy is that admittedly petitioner was appointed as M Assistant Grade III in the services of respondents in the year 1987.
of Petitioner was given first up-gradation in terms of the policy dated 19.7.90, Annexure P/3, on completion of 9 years of service. Thereafter rt petitioner became entitled for second up-gradation on completion of ou 18 years of service which was extended to the petitioner vide order C dated 25.1.2006 Annexure P/4 w.e.f. 22.7.2005.
A condition has been mentioned in the promotion order itself h ig that petitioner will be required to undergo Accounts Training as and H when they are deputed for training and pass the associate examination, failing which they will forfeit the benefit of higher pay scale from the date of issue of order of undergoing accounts training. Petitioner was deputed for accounts training and he had appeared in the final test of accounts training of batch No.78 as is reflected from Annexure P/1 but he was declared as fail because there were two conditions to pass Accounts Training Examination, namely securing 35 marks in each subjects and 40% in aggregate. In fact, petitioner had secured only 38% marks, and therefore, because of his failure to keep the aggregate marks at 40%, he was declared as fail. Petitioner submits that he had since obtained minimum passing marks in each of the subjects, therefore, he should have been declared as pass because it will have ramification on his second up-gradation. He also submits that as per the policy of 1990 there is no provision for passing of Accounts Training Examination and prescribing such condition vide Annexure R/1 dated 16.6.1997 is illegal and arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Annexure R/1 dated 16.6.1997 which prescribes for undergoing Accounts Training and passing of the examination with at least 35% marks in each subjects and 40% marks in aggregate has never been challenged. It is sh submitted that petitioner already knew this fact when second up-
e gradation was afforded to him vide order Annexure P/4 dated ad 25.1.2006. At this point of time also, petitioner did not challenge such Pr condition. Thus, once petitioner had accepted such condition and appeared in the Accounts Training Examination, thereafter it is not a open for him to say that authorities could not have prescribed such hy examination or could not have prescribed 40% marks in aggregate to ad keep the benefit of second up-gradation. Learned counsel also points M out that petitioner was deputed for training on 19.7.11 and a condition is prescribed that only one chance will be available to a person to pass of such examination, therefore, once petitioner has failed in such examination and has failed to obtain overall 40% marks in aggregate, rt he is not entitled to any relief. ou In view of such facts, when a scheme has been formulated by the C department which prescribed for obtaining 35% marks in each subjects h and 40% marks in aggregate and apparently petitioner has failed to ig obtain 40% aggregate marks and was declared as fail, no illegality or H irregularity can be prescribed to the result which has been declared in relation to the petitioner by the authorities and since there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the said result, inasmuch as petitioner has failed to obtain aggregate 40% marks, none of the reliefs sought by the petitioner can be extended to him. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-
Digitally signed by MADHU SOODAN PRASADDate: 2018.06.22 17:40:42 +05'30' sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H