Judicial interpretation and dismissal of similar petitions by higher courts can influence the decision of a lower court.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. - In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to declare the process of selection, cancellation of questions and declaring the petitioners disqualified in the Eligibility Test 2018, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners have further prayed that the respondents be directed to qualify the petitioners in the selection and appointment on the post of Middle School Teacher giving relaxation and experience marks.

2. The learned counsel for the State urged that the present petition is covered by order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.20290/2019 (Pusphendra Burman and others vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected writ petitions whereby the writ petitions have been dismissed.

3. The petitioners in this petition 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, to apply the Rules called, Madhya Pradesh Rajya School Shiksha Seva (Shaikshnik Samvarg) Seva Sharten Evam Bharti Niyam, 2018 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2018"] and to award marks for cancelled question and prepare a final list afresh. In the petition formula contained in Clause 2.9.A of the Examination Rules has also been questioned.

4. The facts, briefly stated are that the petitioners appeared in the Eligibility Test, 2018 held for different subjects. The Examination was conducted in three shifts in some subjects. After declaration of the results the candidates raised grievances that some questions were incorrect as per the answer key prepared by the respondent - Professional Examination Board and some questions were out of syllabus. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for award of additional marks. It is also contended that the formula adopted by the Professional Examination Board is defective and arbitrary.

5. The learned counsel representing the Professional Examination Board in the said batch of writ petitions stated that there is no defect in the process of normalisation. They have adopted a proper procedure and protocol with regard to answer-key and after uploading the Model Answer-sheets, they have given 7 days time to raise objections and after receiving the objections/submissions the expert body has examined the same. He further argued that the validity of formula has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vivek Jain vs. The Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and others, (1994) AIR M.P. 164 and by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 . He further urged that similar petitions in respect of posts in the subjects of Economics, Mathematics, Social Science and Chemistry have already been dismissed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and bestowed our anxious consideration on the issues involved in the writ petitions.

7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already dismissed similar writ petitions viz. W.P. No.23296/2019 (Amit Nigam vs. State of M.P. and others; W.P. No.23669/2019 (Pushpraj Singh Raghuvanshi vs. State of M.P. and others); W.P. No.20197/2019 (Arun Kumar Shukla vs. State of M.P. and others); and W.P. No.22643/2019 (Dashrath Patel vs. State of M.P. and others) in respect of the posts in the subjects of Economics, Social Science, Mathematics and Chemistry respectively, after referring to Formula in clause 2.9.A of the Examination Rules. The relevant part of the order passed in the case of Amit Nigam (supra) is reproduced :

"It is seen from record that clause 2.9 v of the examination Rules (filed as Annxure P/6) empowers the examining body to cancel the questions in case of the eventuali