SWATI SIKARWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-484
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on August 01,2018

Swati Sikarwar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sheel Nagu, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had appeared in the preliminary examination held by the respondents-MPPSC on 18/2/2018 for recruitment to State Administrative Service. The petitioners could not secure requisite marks to qualify for appearing in the main examination. On coming to know that certain questions despite having been answered correctly have not been evaluated inasmuch as no marks have been given, the petitioners filed the objection in terms of Clause 5 of the Advertisement which enables the candidates to prefer representation/objection to the provisional model answer.
(3.) Specific averments have been made in the petition that objection to the provisional model answer was preferred online. However, there is no proof/receipt filed in that regard. 3.1 Subsequently, the objection filed by several other candidates to the provisional model answer were considered by the Committee of expert constituted by the MPPSC whereafter the final Model Answers were framed. 3.2 Apprehending that the petitioners would not be eligible to appear in the main examination, the present petitions have been filed on or after expiry of the last date of filling up of the examination form of the main examination. 3.3 The MPPSC in it's return filed to the present petition has taken a specific stand that they have not received any objection from the petitioners in terms of the Clause 5 of the Advertisement. 3.4 No rejoinder has been filed in response to the said stand taken by the respondents-MPPSC. 3.5 Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued and taken this court to certain select questions which according to the petitioners have been answered correctly and yet no marks have been given for the same for the reason that final model answer reflected a palpably wrong answer to the said question. 3.6 One of the questions pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is question No.80 which is reproduced below:- '80. The term_refers to an individual who breaks into computer systems without authorization, deliberately defaces Web sites for fraudulent purpose. (A) white hat (B) hacker (c) cracker (D) stacker. In regard to the above, it is submitted that the petitioners had marked 'hacker' as right answer which according to the petitioners is the correct answer but the final model answer shows 'cracker' as the correct answer. It is submitted by the petitioners that there are few more similar questions in regard to which despite the correct answers having been given, no marks have been awarded to the petitioners. 3.7 The answers given by the petitioners especially to question No.62 appears to be correct while the final model answer showing the correct answer to this question appears to be palpably wrong, but this court cannot go into the correctness of the final model answers in the absence of any proof submitted by the petitioners of having made representation/objection to the provisional model answers.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.