Madhya Pradesh High Court
Preeti Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2020
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Vijay Kumar Shukla
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
W.P. No.28127/2019
Preeti Sahu
-Versus-
The State of M.P. and others
Shri Paras Kant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Gupta, Additional Advocate General the State.
Shri S. Rai, 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.08.01.2020) Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
In the present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to declare the process of selection, cancellation of questions and declaring the petitioner disqualified in the Middle School Teachers' Eligibility Test - 2018 [for brevity "the Eligibility Test - 2018"], conducted by the Professional Examination Board, Bhopal, as illegal and arbitrary. Further, the respondents be directed to qualify the petitioner in the selection and appointment on the post of Middle School Teacher, giving relaxation and awarding additional marks of experience.
2
2. The learned counsel for the State urged that the present petition is covered by order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.20290/2019 (Pusphendra Burman and others vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions have been dismissed.
3. The petitioner in this petition having failed to qualify in the Eligibility Test - 2018 in the Subject Code - Geography, has challenged the cancellation of questions and sought for a direction to the respondents, to apply the Rules, namely, Madhya Pradesh Rajya School Shiksha Seva (Shaikshnik Samvarg) Seva Sharten Evam Bharti Niyam, 2018 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2018"] and award marks against the cancelled questions and prepare a fresh final list. In the petition the formula contained in Clause 2.9.A of the Rules for Conduct of Examination has also been questioned.
4. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the petitioner appeared in the Eligibility Test - 2018 held for different subjects. The Examination was conducted in three shifts for some subjects. After declaration of the results the candidates raised grievances that some questions were incorrect as per the Model Answer Key prepared by the respondent - Professional Examination Board, Bhopal and some questions were asked out of syllabus. Therefore, 3 the petitioner is entitled for award of additional marks. It is also contended that the formula adopted by the Examination Board is defective and arbitrary.
5. The learned counsel representing the Professional Examination Board in the said batch of writ petitions stated that there is no defect in the process of normalisation. They have adopted a proper procedure and protocol with regard to answer key and after uploading the Model Answer Sheets, they have given 7 days time to raise objections, if any, and after receiving the objections/submissions the Expert Body of the Board has examined the same. He further argued that validity of the formula has already been upheld 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 by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494. He further urged that similar petitions in respect of the posts in the subjects of Economics, Mathematics, Social Science and Chemistry have already been dismissed.
4
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and bestowed our anxious consideration on the issues involved in the present writ petition.
7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already dismissed similar writ petitions viz. W.P. No.23296/2019 (Amit Nigam vs. State of M.P. and others; W.P. No.23669/2019 (Pushpraj Singh Raghuvanshi vs. State of M.P. and others); W.P. No.20197/2019 (Arun Kumar Shukla vs. State of M.P. and others); and W.P. No.22643/2019 (Dashrath Patel vs. State of M.P. and others) in respect of the posts in the subjects of Economics, Social Science, Mathematics and Chemistry respectively, after referring to Formula in clause 2.9.A of the Conduct of Examination Rules. The relevant part of the order passed in the case of Amit Nigam (supra) is reproduced :
"It is seen from record that clause 2.9 v of the examination Rules (filed as Annxure P/6) empowers the examining body to cancel the questions in case of the eventualities therein. The said clause stipulates:
**2-9 v- =qfViw.kZ iz'u] mldk fujLrhdj.k ,oa cnys esa fn;k x;k vad %& ijh{kk mijkar eaMy }kjk vH;fFkZ;ksa ls iz'ku i= ds fo"k; esa vkifRr;kW vkgwr dh tkrh gS rnuqlkj~ fo"k;"fo'k"kKksa ls iz'kui= ds vkifRr;qDr iz'u dk ijh{k.k djk;k tkrk gSA fuEufyf[kr dkj.kksa ls iz'ku fujLr fd, tk ldrs gS% ¼i½ iz'u fu/kkZfjr ikB;~dze ls ckgj dk gksA 5 ¼ii½ iz'u dh lja puk xyr gksA ¼iii½ mRrj ds :i esa fn;s x;s fodYi esa ,sd ls vf/kd fodYi lgh gksaA ¼iv½ dksbZ Hkh fodYi lgh u gksA ¼v½ ;fn iz'u&i= ds fdlh iz'u ds vaxzsth ,oa fgUnh vuqokn esa fHkUurk gks ftl dkj.k nksuksa ds fHkUu&fHkUu vFkZ fudyrs gksa vkSj lgh ,d Hkh mRrj izkIr u gksrk gksA ¼vi½ dksbZ vU; eqnz.k =qfV gqbZ gks ftlls lgh mRrj izkIr u gks ;k ,d ls vf/kd fodYi lgh gksA ¼vii½ vU; dksbZ dkj.k] ftls fo"k; fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk mfpr le>k tk;sA ¼viii½ iz'u i= fo"k; fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk dh xbZ vuq'kalk vuqlkj ,sls fujLr fd, x, iz'uksa ds fy, lHkh dks bl iz'u&i= esa muds }kjk vftZr vadksa ds vuqikr esa ih-bZ-ch- vad iznku djrk gSA Hkys gh mlus fujLr fd, x, iz'uksa dks gy fd;k gks ;k ughaA mnkgj.k 01- %& ;fn fdlh 100 iz'uksas ds iz'u i= esa 2 iz'u fujLr fd, tkrsa gSa vkSj ewY;kadu ds ckn ;fn vH;FkhZ 98 iz'uksa esa 90 vad izkIr djrk gS] rks mlds vadksa dh x.kuk fuEukuqlkj gksxh] 90x100 &&&& = 91-83 ¼100&2½ mnkgj.k 02%& ;fn fdlh 150 iz'uksa ds iz'u i= esa 2 iz'u fujLr fd, tkrs gSa vkSj eYw;kdau ds ckn ;fn vH;FkhZ 148 iz'uksa esa 140 vad izkIr djrk gS] rks mlds vadksa dh x.kuk fuEukuqlkj gksxhA 140x150 &&&& = 141-89 ¼100&2½ mnkgj.k 03 %& ;fn fdlh 200 iz'uksa ds iz'u i= esa 2 iz'u fujLr fd, tkrs gSa vkSj eYw;kdau ds ckn ;fn vH;kFkhZ 198 iz'uksa esa 190 vad izkIr djrk gS] rks mlds vadksa dh x.kuk fuEukuqlkj gksxhA 190x200 &&&& = 191-91 ¼200&2½ 6 uksV %& lHkh x.kuk dks n'keyo ds nks vadksa rd dh tk;sxhA ¼vkns'k Øz-ih-bZ-ch-@5&i&1@48@5279@2016 Hkksiky fnukad 29-08- 2016 ds vuqlkj½** In the case at hand also as 32 questions in Economics were found to be either out of course, mistake of translation (the examination being in bilingual) and wrong options it was within the competence of the Professional Examination Board to cancel the same and rationalize the total marks as per example No.2 of Clause 2.9."
8. The validity of the said formula has already been examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vivek Jain (supra). Para 16 of the judgment being relevant is extracted hereunder :
"16. With respect to a cancelled question, the rule of the Board in 2.3, already quoted in a preceding paragraph, is that candidates are given proportionate marks for that question in relation to the marks earned by the candidate in that paper, irrespective of whether that question was or was not attempted by him. The rationale behind this course is quite discernible. It is deemed as if the cancelled question was not included in the paper. For example, if 5 questions out of 100 questions in a paper, say of Physics, are cancelled, it is deemed as if that paper consisted of only 95 questions. Then, the marks obtained by the candidate in relation to 95 questions are only considered. Supposing a candidate had scored 220 marks in relation to 95 questions, his score is 220/95. This score is then converted into 100 questions. That score would then come to Converted into round figure 220/95x100/1 = 231.57. Converted into round figure it will be 232 marks. This score of 232 marks is proportionate marks in relation to the marks earned by the candidate in the paper. The contention put forward by learned counsel for the 7 petitioners that even with respect to a cancelled question a candidate should be awarded full marks for the marking done by him, is unreasonable and cannot be accepted. Proportionate marks are properly awarded by the Board with respect to such questions and with respect to question cancelled by the Court, it is proper to direct award of proportionate marks as was also directed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rekha Sanghi's case (supra).
9. That apart, the Apex Court has also examined the formula in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and others (supra) and in para 16 of the judgment ruled thus :
"16. It is not in dispute nor it can be disputed that for the purposes of re-evaluation, the eight questions found incorrect were deleted and their marks were rightly allotted on a pro-rata basis in accordance with Clause 14 of the Rules which reads as under:
"Clause 14. Wrong (Defective) objective type question, its cancellation and marks to be allotted in lieu of it.
After the exams, the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) gets each question examined by the subject expert. If, upon examination by the subject experts, the questions are found defective/ wrong, it is rejected. Questions may be rejected on the following reasons:
(i) if the structure of the question is wrong;
(ii) out of the options given as answers, if more than one options are correct.
(iii) If no option is correct.
(iv) If there is difference in Hindi and English translation of any question because of which different meaning is drawn from both and one correct answer could not be ascertained.
(v) If any other printing mistake is there because of which correct answer is not ascertainable or more than one option is correct.
On such rejection of question upon the recommendation of Subject Expert Committee, on such questions the marks would be awarded by the 8 Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) to the candidates in proportion to their marks obtained in the particular question paper. Whether the rejected question has been or not been attempted. The question papers in which the questions have been rejected, their evaluation procedure would be as follows, if in any question papers out of 100 questions two questions are rejected and after evaluation candidate secures 81 marks out of 98 questions then in such case calculation of marks would be done as (81x100)/100-2= 82.65. On which basis merit would be determined. "
The other eight questions whose answers were found incorrect in the earlier model answers key were re-evaluated on the basis of revised model answers key. In Paper I, only the objective type questions were re-evaluated with the aid of model answers key prepared and provided to the examiners for the first time after the inquiry by the respondent-Board."
10. In view of the aforesaid, since all the issues canvassed before us, have already been examined by the Co-ordinate Bench and the Supreme Court as well, we do not perceive any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2020.01.25 13:40:43 +05'30'