Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mulrlidhar Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7253
1 WP-8662-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8662 of 2015
MULRLIDHAR SOLANKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Thaman Ku. Khadka - Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to the
respondents to give him appointment on the post of Samvida Shala
Shikshak Grade-III.
2 . The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of
Anudeshak under Auphariketter Shiksha Kendra with effect from
12.10.1994. He continued on the said post till 01.04.2000. The
petitioner appeared in Guruji Test 2008 conducted by M.P.
Professional Examination Board and he was declared qualified.
3 . The State Government vide circular dated 04.10.2010
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7253
2 WP-8662-2015
directed for appointment of Samvida Shala Shikshal Grade-III from
Gurujis and Paryavekshak. In the policy, it was made clear that
Anudeshak who had worked till 31st March, 2000 on the said post
shall be entitled for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala
Shikshak Grade-III. The petitioner submitted his form under the said
policy seeking appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak-
III. The respondents recommended the name of petitioner for
appointment on the said post. Thereafter the petitioner submitted
various reminders, but his name was not considered for appointment,
hence he filed a writ petition filed before this Court.
4 . After notice, the respondents filed the reply that M.P.
Professional Examination Board prepared district wise list of 190
candidates who have qualified the eligibility examination in which
the name of petitioner was not mentioned. The petitioner secured
79.60 marks whereas the candidates secured 80 and above marks
were considered for appointment to the post of Samvida Shala
Shiksha Grade-III.
5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide letter
dated 26.12.2014, the District Project Co-ordinator, Jila Shiksha
Kendra, Dewas sought direction from Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha
Kendra that the petitioner secured 79.60 marks and worked from
12.10.1994 to 01.04.2000 on the post of Anudeshak, therefore, he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7253
3 WP-8662-2015
can be declared qualified by treating 70.60 equivalent to 80 marks.
However, no direction was given by the Commissioner.
6 . The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. It
is not in dispute that he fulfils the qualification and necessary
experience for appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak
Grade -III. His name was recommended by the District Project
Coordinator because he secured 79.60 marks. If the said percentage
is round off to 80 than he is eligible for appointment on the post of
Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III.
7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that still the
respondents are considering the cases of Guruji/Paryavekshak for
appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and
letter dated 27.01.2024 written by District Project Coordinator to
Block Education Officer is filed as Annexure R J/2. However, there
is no rebuttal by the respondents.
8. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and another Vs.
Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others [2005 (2) SCC 10] , has held that
the rule of rounding off based on the logic and common sense, if part
is one half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if part is
less than half then its value shall be ignored. 46.50 should have been
rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done. In the case of
Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Jiwaji University Gwalior,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7253
4 WP-8662-2015
[2002 (2) MPHT 303], the coordinate Bench of this Court
considered the case of the petitioner for admission to the course of
Bachelor of Pharmacy, who secured 49.77% marks by applying the
principle of rounding off it was treated to be 50% and writ was
allowed. The aforesaid judgment was followed by Division Bench of
High Court of Bombay in the case Anup Prakash Vyas Vs.
University of Pune and another [2013 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal
630]. Therefore, the marks of the petitioner 79.60 is liable to be
treated as 80. Hence, the petition is allowed. The name of the
petitioner be considered for appointment to the post of Samvida
Shala Shiksha Grade-III.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
b
