PRANAY BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The issues pertaining to the legality and validity of the formula contained in clauses 2.9(A) and 2.9(B) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya School Shiksha Seva (Shaikshnik Samvarg) Seva Sharten Evam Bharti Niyam, 2018 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2018"] have already been considered and decided by this Court in W.P. No.22510/2019 (Brijesh Kumar Patel and others vs. the State of M.P. and others) referring to the orders passed by by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, i.e. W.P. No.20290/2019 (Pushpendra Burman and others vs. The State of M.P. and others) and other connected writ petitions on 29- 11-2019, wherein the petitioners having failed to qualify in the High School/Higher Secondary Schools Teachers Eligibility Test, 2018 in the subjects of Economics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Social Science and Sanskrit, have challenged the cancellation of question papers and sought for a direction to the respondents by virtue of the Rules 2018. Further, this Court also took note of the order passed in W.P. No.8083/2016 and other connected writ petitions, decided on 22-6- 2017, wherein the Single Bench at Indore, in order to understand the discrepancy made in the results, requested to the Indian Institute of Management, Indore to examine the process of normalisation. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the process of normalisation is adopted while conducting the examination of IITs, IIMs and all such examinations where the examination is held in number of sessions using different sets of question papers. A detailed and exhaustive report was submitted by Professor Shri Kapoor on behalf of the Indian Institute of Management, Indore and the M.P. Professional Examination Board. As per the report there is no defect in the process of normalisation adopted by the Professional Examination Board.

(3.) Thus, the formula contained in Clause 2.9(A) and process of normalisation in Claus 2.9(B) of the Examination Rules have been considered by this Court in the earlier orders. In view of the aforesaid, we do not perceive any merit in the present writ petition, as the same is squarely covered by the decisions mentioned hereinabove.