TALAT PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the COl1stitution or India seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing the examination held by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge, Class II, held on 19 -2 -89.

(2.) THE facts leading to this petition, in brief are that the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter railed 'Service Commission') advertised 150 post of temporary Civil Judges. Class II, in the M. P. Judicial service, vide notice No. 0388 examination. Out of the 150 advertised posts. 101 seats were advertised for general categories and the other posts were reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates. The petitioners in response to the above mentioned advertisement applied for the post of Civil Judge, Class, II. They were allowed to appear for the written examination. However, the petitioner were not called for interview, because according to the Service Commission they did not qualify in the written test to be called for interview. The petitioners in their petition have challenged the examination on various grounds including collusion of Ex Chairman of the Service Commission with the Khotari Institute, delay in declaring the results. non -issuance of the mark sheets and the decision in M. P. No. 1464 of 89 decided by the Gwalior Bench of this Court on 2 -5 -1990 whereby the Service Commission ", as directed to revalue the answer sheets of the petitioners in that case and then revise the results in respect of those two petitioners.

(3.) IN view of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior in M. P. No. 1464 of 89 dated 2 -5 -90, it cannot be disputed that the result of one of the petitioners in that petition i. e. Omprakash Gupta it was found that the valuation of the answer sheets was done carelessly and the Court after perusing the answer sheets and the model answers came to the conclusion that the petitioner was wrongly debarred from interview by Service Commission holding that he had secured only 142 marks. The Court also came to the conclusion that in view of the mistakes discovered on perusal of the answer sheets revaluation of the answer sheet of that petitioner should be made and the petitioner should be called for interview. It has been stated that in pursuance of the directions of the Court the petitioner was called for interview and he has been declared successful.