1. Challenge to order awarding 15 marks instead of 20 for computer certificate under employment scheme. (Para 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.
Rambeer Singh Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
State Of M.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5900 of 2010
Decided On : 24-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri S.K. Sharma with Ms. Pooja Shukla, learned counsel.
For the Respondents:Shri Rinkesh Goyal, learned Government Advocate.
For the Petitioner: Shri S.K. Sharma with Ms. Pooja Shukla, learned counsel.
For the Respondents:Shri Rinkesh Goyal, learned Government Advocate.
Where a recruitment policy prescribes specific marks for a qualification and the candidate possesses the requisite certificate, they are entitled to the full marks; administrative misunderstandings cannot justify awarding lower marks than those prescribed by the policy.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Recruitment and Selection - Awarding of marks for qualification - Selection process for rural welfare assistants - Entitlement to full marks upon possession of requisite computer qualification certificate - Administrative misunderstanding resulting in awarding lower marks is unsustainable (Paras 5, 7, 9).
Facts of the case:
A petitioner challenged a selection order in a recruitment process for rural welfare assistants. Under the governing policy, 20 marks were to be awarded to candidates possessing a computer qualification certificate. Despite having the requisite certificate, the petitioner was awarded only 15 marks. The respondents admitted in their reply that the award of 15 marks instead of 20 was due to a misunderstanding.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner possessed a valid certificate from a government polytechnic. It was held that the minimum qualification required as per the scheme was simply passing the computer examination, making the argument that a diploma was mandatory unsustainable. The respondents' admission of a misunderstanding further validated the petitioner's claim.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to 20 marks for computer qualification under the applicable selection policy given the certificate possessed.
Ratio Decidendi: When a selection policy prescribes a specific number of marks for a qualification and the candidate possesses the requisite certificate, they must be awarded the full marks. An administrative error or misunderstanding cannot be used to justify the denial of marks to which a candidate is eligible under the policy.
Result: Impugned order quashed; respondents directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner after awarding 20 marks and extend consequential benefits if found suitable.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed 20 marks for computer certificate; respondent argued only diploma eligible. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Court noted policy grants 20 marks for certificate, petitioner held certificate, respondent admitted error. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. To qualify for marks, only passing the computer examination is required, not a diploma. (Para 9 )
5. Impugned order quashed; respondents directed to reconsider candidature awarding 20 marks and extend benefits. (Para 10 )
6. What qualification entitles a candidate to 20 marks under the policy for Rojgar Sahayaks?
Only passing the computer examination, not a diploma; a certificate from a recognized polytechnic suffices. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
ORDER :
ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):
(i) That, the impugned order dated 16.9.2010 Annex P/1 may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That, the selection process be completed as per the policy and marks be awarded only for the eligible candidates having qualification.
(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the welfare of rural candidates, a scheme was introduced in the name of Madhya Pradesh Rojgar Guarantee Parishad and for the efficient functioning of the said scheme, certain workers were employed and designated as Rojgar Sahayaks. Their appointments were directed to be made in accordance with the policy dated 14.04.2010. It is further submitted that the said scheme provides a detailed procedure for selection, wherein the distribution of marks is prescribed under Clause 3 of the policy. As per the said criteria, 20 marks are allotted for a computer qualification certificate and the remaining marks are allotted for different qualifications to calculate the total marks for selection. It is further submitted that the petitioner has obtained the certificate pertaining to computer qualification and is therefore eligible to be awarded 20 marks; however, instead of 20 marks, only 15 marks were awarded to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner does not possess a diploma certificate; therefore, only 15 marks were awarded to him and 20 marks were not awarded. He has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that under the policy dated 14.04.2010 governing appointment of Rojgar Sahayaks, 20 marks are prescribed for a computer qualification certificate. The petitioner possesses the requisite certificate and is, therefore, entitled to 20 marks; however, only 15 marks were awarded to him.
6. As per the scheme, the minimum qualification prescribed as under:
7. The petitioner possesses a certificate from Government Polytechnic, Ashok Nagar, which has been enclosed by the respondent as Annexure R/1. Even in paragraph 3 of the reply, the respondents have mentioned that as per the policy framed by the State, 20 marks are to be awarded by the Authority to a computer diploma holder; however, due to some misunderstanding, 15 marks were awarded in the impugned order. The respondent has admitted in the reply that 15 marks were wrongly awarded instead of 20 marks in the following manner:
“3. That, as per the policy framed by the state authorities 20 marks has to be awarded for computer diploma holders though due to some misunderstanding in the order impugned 15 marks has to be awarded.”
8. The relevant portion of circular dated 12.6.2009 issued by Deputy Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:
(1) Diploma from all Universities recognized by UGC.
(2) Diploma from all Open Universities recognized by UGC.
(3) Diploma level examination from DOEACC.
(4) Modern Office Management Course from Govt. Polytechnic College
LkHkh foHkkx vius lsok HkrhZ fu;eksa esa mDrkuqlkj izko/kku djsaA
9. As per the scheme, the requisite qualification is only to pass the computer examination; therefore, the argument of the Government Advocate that the minimum qualification is obtaining a diploma is not sustainable.
10. Considering the above, this petition is disposed in following manner:
(i) The impugned order dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed.
(ii) In the requisite qualification, only the requirement of passing the computer examination has been mentioned and since the petitioner possesses the certificate (Annexure R-1), the respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner after awarding 20 marks to hi
