ANKITA CHANDRAWAT Vs. M.P. HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law and fact are involved in these two writ petitions, they are being heard analogously. For the sake of convenience, pleadings and documents available in the record of Writ Petition No.1281/2016 are being referred to in this order. 2 - Petitioners participated in the recruitment process conducted by the High Court for appointment on the post of Civil Judge Class II (Entry Level). In Writ Petition No.1281/2016, petitioners secured 85 marks in the preliminary examination, whereas the cut -off marks fixed to be eligible for being successful in the preliminary Writ Petition Nos:: 1281/2016 & 1224/2016.

(2.) examination, in the unreserved category, was 86 marks. Similarly, petitioners in Writ Petition No.1224/2016 also appeared in the preliminary examination in the Civil Judge Class II, Entry Level Examination 2015, conducted on 20.12.2015, and received 85 marks. It is their case also that the cut -off mark fixed to be eligible to appear in the final examination was 86 and infact all the petitioners missed their chance to be declared qualified in the preliminary examination by one mark.

(3.) It is the case of all the petitioners that in the examination, Question No.15 and Question No.55 were answered by them correctly and inspite of having answered the questions correctly, they were not given marks. Interalia contending that if one mark each, in these questions, are granted to each of the petitioners, they would be declared qualified in the preliminary examination and would become eligible to appear in the final examination. It is stated that the model answers notified by the Examination Section of the High Court, with regard to both these questions i.e... Question No.15 and Question No.55 are incorrect, the questions answered by the petitioners are correct and, therefore, seeking benefit of two additional marks, the writ petitions have been filed.