Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rama Kant Tamrakar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 12 December, 2013
WRIT PETITION No.18004/2013 1
12.12.2013
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents-State.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the parties that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court, Bench at Indore, in W.P. No.7675/2011 (S), Diwakar Rao Rojaskar vs. The State of M.P. & another, decided on 26.08.2013. It is not in dispute that after examining the records of the examination, this Court has reached to the conclusion that the allegations of irregularities committed in conducting the examination and declaring the results of persons like petitioner are serious in nature and, therefore, this Court has directed that revaluation of the answer-sheets of the persons like petitioner be conducted by constituting a two members independent Committee. In view of this, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition can be disposed of with similar direction.
This Court in the case of Diwakar Rao Rojaskar (supra), after examining the entire record, has held that it would be necessary to conduct revaluation of the answer- sheets of the petitioner in the said case by a two independent valuers of the subject concerned. The direction issued in the aforesaid case reads thus :
"From perusal of the record it is evident that the allegations made by the petitioner are WRIT PETITION No.18004/2013 2 serious in nature. Undisputedly petitioner belongs to SC/ST Category for whom passing marks are 30 as prescribed. Since the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was awarded seven marks less and for this the petitioner is relying on the answer copy of Mr. Arun Kumar Kadam of whom roll number is 1478 and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi having roll No.1154 to whom higher marks were given upon submitting the same reply, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a short direction that the petitioner shall submit a fresh representation with full particulars how the petitioner is entitled for higher marks. If such a representation is filed along with fee of Rs.10,000/- as the petitioner is in job, then the representation submitted by the petitioner relating to answer script of the petitioner for Paper V (Company Accounts, Cost Accounts & Store Control) shall be sent for revaluation to two independent valuer of the subject, who shall revalue the marks awarded to the petitioner keeping in view the answer scripts of Mr. Arun Kumar Kadam and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi. Needful be done by the petitioner within four weeks. After revaluation, if there is any change, then the respondents shall declare the modified result within another period of eight weeks."
Since there are serious allegations made in the present petition also with respect to the valuation of the answer-sheets of the petitioner, similar directions as have been given by this Court in the case of Diwakar Rao Rojaskar (supra) are necessary.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with similar directions as have been quoted herein above. The directions issued by this Court in the case of Diwakar Rao Rojaskar (supra) would be applicable in the case of WRIT PETITION No.18004/2013 3 petitioner mutatis mutandis. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner will submit relevant representation, describing the paper in which he wants the revaluation as also the name of the candidate with whom he wish to claim parity. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
While reassessing the answer-sheets of the petitioner, the respondents will keep in mind the memorandum 03.12.1979 (Annexure P-4) issued in respect of grant of grace marks to such candidates, who have not achieved the minimum passing marks.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge A.Praj