Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sulekha Singhal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9828
1 WP.No. 14148 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 1st OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14148 of 2025
SULEKHA SINGHAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Umang Bansal- Advocate for petitioner through VC.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief(s):
(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction, directing the respondents to permit the
petitioner to appear for the mains examination of the Primary
Teacher Eligibility Test (PTET), despite the petitioner's failure
in the preliminary examination due to the erroneous
normalization process.
(b) Direct the respondent to review the normalization process
and ensure its accuracy, fairness, and transparency to prevent
similar issues from affecting other candidates.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9828
(c) Any other appropriate relief which the Hon'ble Court
deem fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner in
the interest of justice.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had appeared in
preliminary examination of Primary Teacher Eligibility Test. According to
petitioner, six questions were incorrect. In spite of that she obtained 93.88 out
150 (proportionate marks). However, after normalization of marks, her
normalized marks were reduced to 89.5 and accordingly, she was declared not
qualified. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that once petitioner has
obtained qualifying marks, then her proportionate marks should not have been
normalized and should not have been brought to 89.5. Even otherwise, if marks
of six wrong questions are added, then petitioner would have obtained
minimum normalized marks which could have made her qualified.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
4. So far as normalization of marks is concerned, the said process has
already been approved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the case
of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi and Others
reported in (2022) 11 SCC 578 has held that in case of single examination
where there are multiple number of examiners, process of moderation may be
adopted, while scaling of marks may be adopted where candidates are tested in
different subjects. The Supreme Court in the case of Atul Kumar Dwivedi
(supra) has held as under:
69. In conclusion, the exercise undertaken by the Board in
adopting the process of normalisation at the initial stage, that is to
say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of the Recruitment Rules was quite
consistent with the requirements of law. The power exercised by the
Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasised by the
High Court there were no allegations of mala fides or absence of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9828
bona fides at any juncture of the process. One more facet of the
matter is the note of caution expressed by this Court in para 20 of its
decision in Sunil Kumar v. Bihar Public Service Commission [Sunil
Kumar v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2016) 2 SCC 495 :
(2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 468] . As observed by this Court, the decisions
made by expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions,
should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary
and mala fide exercise of power are made out.
Therefore, normalization of marks is a recognized mode of striking
balance amongst the candidates who were given different question papers etc.
5. There is an another aspect of the matter. In the advertisement itself, it
was specifically mentioned by the authorities that the marks shall be
normalized and the formula was also mentioned in the advertisement. Petitioner
appeared in the examination without any protest. Once petitioner had appeared
in the process without any protest, then she cannot take somersault to challenge
any condition, after getting unsuccessful. The Supreme Court in the case of
Ashok Kumar And Another Vs. State of Bihar And Others reported in
(2017) 4 SCC 357 has held as under:
12. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If
the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh
process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they
participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon
being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ
petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle
of estoppel would operate.
13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several
decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala
Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6
SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] , this Court laid down the
principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without
objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9828
challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a
petition challenging an examination would not arise where a
candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot
subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or
that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not
palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of
India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S)
792] , this Court held that : (SCC p. 107, para 18)
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had
taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the
procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the
same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra
Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 SCC (L&S)
1052] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service
Commission [Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service
Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S)
345] .)"
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah [Amlan
Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC
(L&S) 627] wherein it was held to be well settled that the
candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully
well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it
upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar [Manish Kumar
Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S)
256] , the same principle was reiterated in the following
observations : (SCC p. 584, para 16)
"16. We also agree with the High Court [Manish Kumar
Shahi v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321 : (2009) 4
SLR 272] that after having taken part in the process of
selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have
been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not
entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection.
Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list,
he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection.
The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9828
that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the
Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles
him from questioning the selection and the High Court did
not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ
petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the
judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [Madan Lal v. State
of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S)
712] , Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P. [Marripati
Nagaraja v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC
(L&S) 68] , Dhananjay Malik v. State of
Uttaranchal [Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal,
(2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005 : (2008) 3
PLJR 271] , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam [Amlan
Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009)
1 SCC (L&S) 627] and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian
Airlines [K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC
515 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57] ."
16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service
Commission [Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service
Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 21] ,
candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware
that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in
computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection
process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge
the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to
be impermissible.
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [Ramesh Chandra
Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 : (2011) 3 SCC (L&S) 129] ,
candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in
the State of Uttarakhand participated in a written examination held
in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had
cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any
objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted.
Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents
were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be
deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or
the procedure of selection. This Court held that : (SCC p. 318, para
18)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9828
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part
in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and
question the method of selection and its outcome."
18. In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur [Chandigarh
Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745] , it was
held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by
subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn
around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after
knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep Kumar
Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey [Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh
Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 274] ,
this Court held that : (SCC p. 500, para 17)
"17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on
one more point that the appellants had participated in the
process of interview and not challenged it till the results
were declared. There was a gap of almost four months
between the interview and declaration of result. However,
the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it
appears that only when the appellants found themselves to
be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot
be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate
at the same time. Either the candidates should not have
participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or
they should have challenged immediately after the
interviews were conducted."
This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras
Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan [Madras
Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan, (2016)
1 SCC 454 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 164 : 7 SCEC 462] .
Thus, it is clear that after having participated in the process, specifically
when every candidate was specifically noticed in the advertisement itself that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9828
the provisional marks shall be normalized, petitioner cannot take U-turn
thereby challenging the normalization of marks.
6. So far as the contention of petitioner that six questions were wrong and if
additional marks for those six questions are added, then even she would have
obtained sufficient normalized marks for qualifying the eligibility test is
concerned, it is suffice to mention here that neither petitioner has disclosed the
details of those six questions nor has pointed out the reasons as to why she
claims that those questions were wrong.
7. No other argument is advanced by counsel for petitioner.
8. Since no case is made out warranting interference, petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
pd
