Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
-( 1 )-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
Writ Petition No. 3363/2017
Kshitiz Sharma ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
Writ Petition No. 3364/2017
Suman Sharma ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
Writ Petition No. 3451/2017
Mamta Parashar ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
Writ Petition No. 3452/2017
Prabhakar Singh ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
Writ Petition No. 3453/2017
Sonia Sharma ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
Writ Petition No. 3511/2017
Bajrang Singh Chauhan ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
-( 2 )-
AND
Writ Petition No. 3512/2017
Kapil Kant Tiwari ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
Writ Petition No. 3513/2017
Hricha Sharma ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
Writ Petition No. 3886/2017
Deepmala Shrivastava ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
Writ Petition No. 4164/2017
Dolly Gupta ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
Writ Petition No. 5057/2017
Arvind Sharma ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rohit Arya
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Anil Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner/s in Writ
Petitions No. 3363/2017, 3364/2017, 3451/2017, 3452/2017,
3453/2017, 3511/2017, 3512/2017, 3513/2017 and 5057/2017.
Shri J.D.Suryanvanshi, Advocate with Shri Kunal
Suryavanshi, Advocate for petitioner in Writ Petition No.
-( 3 )-
3886/2017.
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No. 4164/2017,
Shri Jitesh Sharma, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri R.D. Jain, Senior Advocate with Shri Sangam Jain,
Advocate for MP Public Service Commission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for Reporting : No
ORDER
(Passed on 11th April, 2022) The order passed today shall govern the disposal of batch of writ petitions mentioned above.
Petitioners herein have been aspirant to become Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (ADPPO) and therefore had appeared in the examination conducted by MP Public Service Commission (MP PSC) in the year 2015, of which results were declared in May, 2017. Petitioners were unsuccessful. Being aggrieved by the results the petitioners approached this Court with a grievance that the answer sheets were not properly evaluated. The model answers given were ignored, as a result the petitioners are at loss in the matter of reckoning of ranking in the competitive examination.
Shri R.D. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, submits that in fact, there is no provision for revaluation of marks in the examinations conducted by MP PSC. Even otherwise, pursuant to the result declared in the year 2017 appointments on the vacancies for ADPPO had already been made. Tenure of ADPPO has also come to an end and now fresh notification has been issued inviting applications for examination for the post of ADPPO. Therefore,
-( 4 )-
much water has flown under the bridge and the very cause for which writ petitions are filed does not exist by eflux of time. Indeed, learned counsel for the petitioners combats the aforesaid contention with submission that once the answers were not properly evaluated qua model answers, the petitioners' ranking deserves to be revised for the purposes of providing appointment as ADPPO.
In my considered view, the aforesaid exercise would be mere academic in nature as neither the posts for which the petitioners are contestants exist as on date, as incumbent selected in the examination of 2015 occupied the posts and their tenure has also come to an end. Fresh selection process has also begun. Therefore, in the fitness of things, no useful purpose would be subserved by keeping writ petitions pending.
Under such circumstances, no indulgence is warranted. Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Let a photo copy of the order be kept in all the connected writ petitions.
(Rohit Arya)
(yog) Judge.
YOGESH
VERMA
2022.04.12
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
14:08:07
+05'30'