Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sapna Ravidas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
Writ Petition No. 16823/2021
Sapna Ravidas
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Vikas Mahawar, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kapil Duggal, counsel for respondent No. 3.
Shri Avinash Zargar, counsel for respondent No. 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh, Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes/No
Law laid down:
Significant paragraphs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(23/09/2021)
Per Virender Singh, J.
The petitioner vide this Writ Petition wants to change the
Rules of Game after the Game is Over, which, as per the settled
law cannot be done. We would refer to Madan Lal v. State of J
& K [(1995) 3 SCC 486] in this regard, wherein it is held that a
candidate having taken a chance to appear in an exam and having
remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either
the constitution of the selection criteria or the method of selection
as being illegal.
2. Facts relevant to the issue raised by the petitioner, in short,
are that with intent to bring uniformity and to avoid multiplicity
to conduct exams to test computer proficiency for recruitment of
data entry operator, office assistants etc. by the different
departments, the Department of Science and Technology,
Government of Madhya Pradesh issued circular dated 20.10.2014
for conducting Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT)
(Annexure P-1). It was directed that in any recruitment, wherein
having computer proficiency is one of the criterion, CPCT score
card alone will be sufficient to consider that the candidate possess
requisite computer proficiency. The procedure, criterion and
terms and conditions to get such certificate were also defined in
this circular. Subsequently another circular dated 26 th February
2015 was issued making CPCT certificate compulsory for
appointment in different Departments/Offices of the State
Government (Annexure P-2). A Rule Book was also prepared for
conducting CPCT (Annexure P-3). CPCT test pattern was
explained in clause 3.6 of this Rule book. This clause prescribes
that test will be in two "mandated to attempt" sections (i)
Multiple Choice Questions (M.C.Q) (ii) English-Hindi Typing.
MCQ Section will have 75 question of one mark each. Clause 3.9
prescribed that minimum passing score for CPCT will be 50%.
In this clause it was made clear that minimum passing score for
each module will be 38 marks for MCQ, 30 NWPM (Net Word
Per Minute) for English typing and 20 NWPM for Hindi Typing.
3. The petitioner appeared in CPCT conducted on 8th August,
2021 and secured 37 marks. Therefore, she was not permitted to
fill online application form for recruitment of "Junior Judicial
Assistant Examination, 2021" by the automated computerized
system.
4. Being aggrieved of non-acceptance of her aforestated
application form, she has come before this Court to issue a writ
of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to issue a valid CPCT
Score Card to her by either rounding off multiple choice question
(MCQ) percentage of 50% or to consider her qualified by taking
out the aggregate of theory and practical exams mandated in the
circulars mentioned above. It has been further prayed that a writ
of mandamus be issued directing respondent No. 4 to consider
her candidature and permit her to take part in the selection
process of Junior Judicial Assistant considering her CPCT score
card to be valid in all senses.
5. The aforesaid relief has been sought by the petitioner on the
grounds that Rule Book has no statutory force. Its mandate to
prescribe 38 passing marks in MCQs section is contrary to the the
norms/standard settled by the department vide circulars Annexure
A-1 and A-2. Otherwise also, the respondents are not justified in
keeping 38 marks to be passing marks as 50% of 75 MCQs
comes to 37.5, each MCQ has been assigned one mark. There is
no provision for ½ mark, therefore, it is not possible for any
aspirant to obtain 37.5 marks.
6. Another ground taken by the petitioner is that it is no where
mentioned in the circulars dated 20.10.2014 and 26.2.2015 (Anx.
A-1 & 2) that examinee has to obtain 50% marks separately in all
the modules, i.e., Computer Proficiency; English and Hindi
Typing. The petitioner has secured 60% and 70 % marks in
English and Hindi Typing respectively; her aggregate comes to
59.77%. Thus, she has qualified CPCT and is entitled to be
declared so qualified. Therefore, it is prayed, that she should be
declared pass CPCT either by rounding off the marks obtained by
her for MCQ module to 38 or by considering her aggregate
percentage for all three module, which comes to 59.77%.
7. The respondents have contested the prayer stating that the
circulars as well as Rule Book were issued way back in the year
2014 & 2015 and before appearing in the Test in question the
petitioner was well aware of the scheme of the Test. While
preparing the Rule Book, the issue of half marks (0.5 mark) in
MCQ module was taken care of and the department has
consciously determined that 50% of this module shall be
considered as 38 marks and made it clear to all the aspirants. The
Test in question is over. If the scheme of the test or its Rules are
interpreted in some other way than prescribed or determined by
the department, it will open Pandora box and similarly situated
candidates may again agitate the issue. It is further submitted that
nothing has been shown by the petitioner that any prejudice has
been caused to her. Furthermore, the test of CPCT is being
conducted on regular interval of six months and there is no limit
of chances for any aspirants to appear and qualify the same. The
petitioner also has fair chances to qualify the Test in the next turn.
Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted.
8. We have heard the counsels for the parties at length,
perused the circulars as well as the Rule Book (Annexures A-1 to
A-3) and do not find any discrepancy in respect of the scheme of
marks, which has been explicitly made clear in the Rule Book
before conducting the Test. We also do not find that any prejudice
has been caused to the petitioner. The scheme of the Test is clear.
Before conducting the test, it manifested in clear terms that 50%
of 75 MCQ shall be 38 marks and the petitioner was well aware
about the scheme of the Test. Therefore, if she has appeared in
the test without challenging the discrepancy pointed out by her
now, she cannot be permitted to challenge the same after the Test
is over as the law in this respect has been well settled in catena of
judgments. One of such judgment has been cited by the learned
counsel for respondent No. 4 i.e. Madan Lal case (supra).
Further, as stated by the respondent, the petitioner has fair
chances to appear and clear the Test in its next term. Therefore, in
our considered opinion, the petition is bereft of merit, deserves to
be and is dismissed hereby. However, no order as to the cost.
(Prakash Shrivastava) (Virender Singh)
JUDGE JUDGE
VIVEK
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI
Date: 2021.09.30 10:57:50 +05'30'
