Ajay Kumar Tiwari vs State of M.P. and Others

Deepak Misra, J.

The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in the subject of Mathematics in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the State Professional Examination Board and despite getting 106 marks out of 200 marks he was not selected and the respondent No. 4 who was awarded 104 marks got selected. Being aggrieved by this action of the respondents No. 1 to 3 the petitioner approached the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ''the Tribunal) for mitigation of his grievance. After abolition of the Tribunal the matter has been transferred to this Court.

According to the writ petitioner he had obtained 58 marks in general knowledge and 48 marks in mathematics whereas the respondent No. 4 has secured 65 marks in the first paper and 39 marks in second paper. It is contended by the petitioner that as per Rule 2.7 of the Rules meant for allocation of marks he was to be awarded five extra marks for his certificate in the scout/guide of M.P. Bharat Scout. It is put forth that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have not given due weightage to the petitioner and has illegally appointed the respondent No. 4.

A return has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 contending, inter alia, that the petitioner had obtained 106 marks out of 220 marks whereas the candidates who were found suitable have obtained 107 marks out of 220 marks and no candidate who had obtained less than 107 marks has been selected. It is also highlighted that a complaint was received as regards the appointment of respondent No. 4 and on the basis of the complaint his case was re examined and it was found that the respondent No. 4 was not entitled for eight marks i.e. 5 marks for B.ED. Examination and 3 marks for National Games and Sports Meet. The respondent No. 4 was only entitled for one mark for District Sports Meet. Accordingly, as pleaded by the respondents No. 1 to 3, the respondent No. 4 was entitled to get 105 marks and not 112 marks out of 200 marks. After the case the scrutinized the appointment letter was cancelled by order dated 12.3.90 vide Annexure- R-1. It is reiterated that as far as the appointment to the post of Lecturer in mathematics is concerned no one who had obtained less than 107 marks had been selected and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable. It is relevant to state here that extract of procedure of marking has been brought on record as Annexure-R-2.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 4 justifying his selection. It is relevant to state here that the counter affidavit was filed on 3.3.90 whereas Annexure-R-1 which is the cancellation of the appointment of respondent No. 4 is dated 12.3.90.

I have heard Mr. D.K. Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate. It is submitted by Mr. Nema that though the respondent No. 4 would not have been selected and the petitioner should have been awarded marks for his certificate of scout/guide and if that would have been taken into consideration the petitioner would not have been selected. It is contended by him that the cancellation of appointment of respondent No. 4 does not affect the entitlement of the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate, per contra, submitted that the petitioner had obtained only 106 marks out of 220 and the candidate who had been selected had obtained 107 marks and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit.

The crux of the matter is whether the petitioner was entitled to be selected. As far as his grievance relating to quashment of appointment of respondent No. 4 is concerned that does not survive inasmuch that has been cancelled as per Annexure-R-1. What survives whether the petitioner could be selected on the foundation that he would have been awarded more marks but has been awarded less marks. On a perusal of Annexure-R-2 it transpires that the total marks out of which marks were awarded is 220. The petitioner has been awarded 106 marks. Submission of Mr. Nema is that he has certificate that he had participated in the M.P. Bharat Scout and Guide and, therefore, he was entitled to be awarded some marks. On a scrutiny of Annexure-R-2 to the return filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 it appears that no mark was to be awarded for scout and guide and, therefore, the total marks awarded in favor of the petitioner was restricted to 106 only. The marks which are awardable are for the Sports Meet at the District Level, State Level and National Level. The participation in scout and guide cannot be regarded as a Sports Meet. There is provision for awarding of marks for NCC. The petitioner also does not fall in that category. There is also stipulation in Annexure-R-2 for grant of extra marks for obtaining certificate in BTC, B.Ed. and M.Ed. The petitioner does not possess the aforesaid certificates. In view of this awarding 106 marks out of 220 cannot be found fault with. The persons who have been appointed, as has been pleaded, have not received less than 107 marks. Thus, the petitioner has no right to be selected/appointed.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed without any order as to costs.