Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: normalisation mark in The State Of Telangana vs B. Krishna Chetana on 5 February, 2024Matching Fragments
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the women candidates are put to inconvenience by applying normalisation process and marks secured by the women candidates are deducted in the final list by applying the normalisation principle and on the ground of discrimination, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the learned Single Judge has ::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_73_2024 taken into account the fact that in the present case, there is only one event and if W.P.No.15675 of 2019, dated 14.10.2019 is concerned, there were five (5) events and the learned Single Judge has rightly relied on the order, dated 14.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge and granted relief in favour of the respondents. It is further submitted that the women candidates are being put to a position of disadvantage by applying normalisation principle. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition by directing the appellants not to apply normalisation procedure as set out in the notification. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Today, when a specific question was asked to the learned counsel for the respondents as to how they are affected by applying normalisation procedure, the learned counsel could not clarify as to how they are being affected. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had contended that it is for the ::8:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_73_2024 appellants to clarify and demonstrate as to how normalisation procedure has been adopted and how many marks were deducted for the respondents. Therefore, when there is a procedure for normalisation in the notification, the question of interfering with the notification would not arise. Moreover, the issue was already covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.15675 of 2019, dated 14.10.2019 and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.809 of 2019, dated 01.06.2021, wherein, the normalisation procedure was upheld by this Court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition and therefore, directing the appellants not to follow the normalisation process is contrary to law and the said order is liable to be set aside.