SURABHI BAGHEL Vs. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who had appeared in the Civil Judge Class-2 (Entry Level) Examination 2018 [in short "Exam. 2018"] and did not succeed in the Preliminary Examination, has sought a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to correct Question Nos.51,55,76 and 78 of the said Examination.

(2.) The respondent High Court of Madhya Pradesh published an advertisement dated 01-8-2018 inviting online applications for the post of Civil Judge Class-2 (Entry Level-Direct Recruitment). The petitioner appeared in the said Examination held on 29-9-2018. The result of Online Preliminary Examination was declared through website on 12-10-2018. The petitioner has scored 100 marks out of 150. Whereas the cut-off marks to qualify the Main Examination was 101 marks.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner is that in the advertisement itself it was clarified that if any candidate having any objection/suggestion in respect of any question, he/she may prefer a representation in that regard within a period of 7 days from the date of issuance of the model answer paper. The model answer in the website was published on 16-10-2018 and within the scheduled period of 7 days the petitioner has preferred a representation on 22- 10-2018 stating that answers of Question Nos.51, 55, 76 and 78 are incorrect in the Model Answer, whereas the petitioner had attempted them rightly, but the respondent did not correct the aforesaid answers.