Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dariya Kumari vs Raj.Public Service Commission & Anr on 5 May, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3083 / 2018
Rameshvri Kumari D/o Shri Durga Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident of Kharad, Tehsil Dhorimanna, District Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) Through Its
Secretary., Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3016 / 2018
Dariya Kumari D/o Shri Hardana Ram Meghwal, W/o Shri Hemant
Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste- Meghwal, Resident of 84,
A Block, Ramdev Colony, Tehsil- Jalore, District- Jalore (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
2. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Director (Secondary),
Education, Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3107 / 2018
1. Mula Ram S/o Shri Chetan Ram, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste
Jat, R/o Village & Post Dandanli, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer.
2. Heera Ram S/o Shri Anda Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Suthar, R/o Village & Post Dandanli, Tehsil Sindhari, District
Barmer.
3. Girdhari Lal S/o Shri Kheta Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Nai, R/o Village & Post Dongari, Tehsil Chitalwana, District
Jalore.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3140 / 2018
Bhunda Ram S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 39 Years, B/c Prajapat,
R/o Village Khuntaliya, Post Haryada, Tehsil Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur
(RAJ) (Roll No. 842664)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
(RAJ)
3. The Director, Department of Secondary Education, Bikaner
(RAJ)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3240 / 2018
1. Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Achlaram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Jhadoli, Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi (Raj.).
2. Nisha Rani Gurjar D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Ghabhai, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village & Post Kemri, Tehsil Nadoti, District
Karoli (Raj.).
3. Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Radhryshyam Sharma, Aged About
22 Years, R/o Village & Post Khemawas, Tehsil Lalsot, District
Dausa (Raj.).
4. Rajendra Prasad Bairwa S/o Shri Narayan Bairwa, Aged About
39 Years, R/o Village Lakhanpur, Post Chaundiyawas, Tehsil Lalsot,
District Dausa (Raj.).
5. Rajnish Godara S/o Shri Manphool Godara, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village & Post Kakadwala, Tehsil Lunkaransar, District
Bikaner (Raj.).
6. Vijendra Puniya S/o Shri Samdarram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Khudera Chota, Post Khudera Bada, Tehsil Ratangarh,
District Churu (Raj.).
7. Jandel Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village & Post Tarsuma, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.).
8. Rajiram Sansi S/o Shri Krishan Ram Sansi, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village Kesar Desar, Post Khonda, Tehsil Rawatsar,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
9. Lokesh Meena S/o Shri Hemraj Meena, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village Mundli, Post Raital, Tehsil Mangarol, District Baran
(Raj.).
10. Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Narendra Singh, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Danwara, Tehsil Bawri, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
11. Navodita Kumari D/o Shri Parsuram Gurjar, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village Jhalatala, Post Moloni, Tehsil Ber, District
Bharatpur (Raj.).
12. Sunita Sharma D/o Shri Rajkumar Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Bhuribhadaj, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur
(Raj.).
13. Roshni D/o Shri Jagdish Gar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
Masitawali, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
14. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Tilokaram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Village Nandoli Mendtiya, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.).
15. Rampratap S/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village
Ranyawali, District Ganganagar (Raj.).
16. Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village & Post Rujiyabadawas, Tehsil Bikaner, District
Bikaner (Raj.).
17. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Pritiviraj, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Rampura Nyola, Tehsil Suratgarh, District
Ganganagar (Raj.).
18. Umesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Premchandra Choudhary,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Ramsagar, Post Nagar Fort,
Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.).
19. Jainarayan Upadhyaya S/o Shri Bhagwanaram Upadhayaya,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gajner Road, Near Chungi Naka, Bheruji
Temple, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.).
20. Pannaram S/o Shri Roopa Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Ahoni Beniwali Ki Dhani, Madhasar, Panchayat Samiti Baytu,
District Barmer (Raj.).
21. Daljeet Singh S/o Shri Ramesh Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village Khedla Janedpur, Tehsil Vajirpur, District Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.).
22. Gopi Chand S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Pareek, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Gadana, Post Post Ganjuwas, Tehsil Taranagar,
District Churu (Raj.).
23. Pritam Singh S/o Shri Jagsir Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
73LNP, Post Ratanpura, Tehsil Padampur, District Ganganagar
(Raj.).
24. Ghanshyam Dan Ratnu S/o Shri Sitaram, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village & Post Dasodi, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner
(Raj.).
25. Prahlad Kumawat S/o Shri Shankarlal, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village & Post Desalsar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
26. Naresh Meena S/o Shri Ramlal Meena, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village & Post Dai, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.).
27. Anisha Shekh D/o Shri Yasin Khan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
45, Canal Block, Near Moti Palace, Chand Kangan Store, Koda
Chowk, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar (Raj.).
28. Manish Kumar S/o Puranchand, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village & Post Kaliyan, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
29. Shivprakash S/o Shri Rajaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Sector No. 12 Hanumangarh Junction (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) Ajmer
Through Its Secretary.
2. All the Affecting Selected Candidates Through the Secretary,
Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Ajmer (Raj.).
3. The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer (Raj.).
4. The State of Rajasthan Through the Director, Department of
Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3304 / 2018
Pawan Kumar Pareek S/o Shri Chhagan Lal Pareek, Aged About 28
Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident of Rajaldesar, Tehsil-
Ratangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
2. State of Rajasthan Through, Director (Secondary), Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3325 / 2018
Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Kodar Ji, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village
& Post Akhepanji Ka Gara, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3484 / 2018
Manbhawna D/o Jag Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Post Vada Bhadvi, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3505 / 2018
Suraj Kanwar Chundawat D/o Shri Girdhari Singh Chundawat,
Aged About 28 Years, Byecaste Chundawat, R/o F-337, New Bapu
Nagar, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its
Secretary.
2. Director, Department of Secondary Education, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3732 / 2018
Sonam Choudhary D/o Shri Balwant Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Ward No. 17, Near Shiv Mandir, Anupgarh, Distt. Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through, Secretary,
Ajmer.
3. Deputy Secretary, RPSC, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3733 / 2018
Baga Ram S/o Shri Malla Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dabaliya
Vishnawal, Tehsil Lohawat, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through, Secretary,
Ajmer.
3. Deputy Secretary, RPSC, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3806 / 2018
Poona Ram S/o Purkha Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Shivpura,
Raydhanu Distt. Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through- The Secretary, Department
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) Though Its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3817 / 2018
1. Amar Ram S/o Shri Pokar Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Motaniya Nagar, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Uma Kanwar Deora D/o Shri Dhan Singh Deora, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Sanisar Jee Ki Gali, Village- Post Khiwandi, Tehsil
Sumerpur, Pali, Rajasthan.
3. Rohini Solankiya D/o Shri Jeevan Nath Solnkiya, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Plot No. 11, Shiv Gauraksha Sadan, Near Pal Ship
Gram, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Indira D/o Shri Nanak Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No.
244, Roop Nagar- II, Backside of Sai Dham Temple, Pal Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Anju Rajpurohit D/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Rajpurohit, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. 173, Ajjet Colony, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through, Secretary,
Ajmer.
3. Deputy Secretary, RPSC, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3854 / 2018
1. Champa Lal Paliwal S/o Shri Leela Dhar Paliwal, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Hopardi, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Sonu Sharma S/o Shri Radhe Shyam, R/o VPO Pharsewala,
Tehsil Padampur, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3980 / 2018
Krishan Gopal S/o Prakash Chand, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward
No 4, Chandani Chauk, Gali No 1, Purani Abadi, Shri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary of Education,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4284 / 2018
Mamta Solanki D/o Shri Ramchandra Solanki, Aged About 36
Years, By Caste- Solanki, R/o 59, Malveer Nagar, Bhinmal, District-
Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4390 / 2018
Bajarang Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5041/ 2018
Sunil s/o Shri Babu Lal, b/c Bishnoi, aged 25 years, r/o Post
Phitkasni, V/P Saran Nagar, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan, Ajmer through
its Secretary.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4170/ 2018
Mahendra Singh Chouhan s/o Bheru Singh Chouhan, age about 28
years, b/c Rajput, r/o Nai Basti Kundali, Post - Karakala, Tehsil
Salumber, District Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Education,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3622 / 2018
Mahesh Kumar Regar S/o Sh. Ramswaroop Regar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Sangariya, Tehsil Phooliya Kallan, District Bhilwara
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer Through Its
Secretary., Ajmer.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5082 / 2018
Arvind Kumar Salvi S/o Shri Nagendra Kumar, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Salvi Basti, Bhanda, Udaipur, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4789 / 2018
Himmat Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Nimbera Kallan, Via Kushalpur, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali,
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur , Rajasthan
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Rajasthan
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan
----Respondents
Reportable
____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.R. Mehta, Mr. Kailash Jangid, Mr. Bharat
Devasi, Mr. H.R. Vishnoi, Mr. Kan Singh Oad,
Mr. Tribhuwan Singh, Mr. Manoj Pareek, Mr.
Mahendra Vishnoi, Mr. M.S. Godara, Mr.
Kuldeep Mathur with Mr. Vinod Choudhary,
Mr. Ravi Panwar, Mr. V.N. Kalla, Mr.Roshan
Lal and Mr.R.S.Kumpawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi assisted by Mr. Khet Singh &
Mr. Vikas Joshi for RPSC
Mr. Rajendra Singh for Mr. B.L. Bhati, GC
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 16/04/2018
Pronounced on 05/05/2018
1. Vexed by the evaluation of the answer scripts and the
consequential determination of merit by the respondents
culminating into issuance of the provisional select list, pertaining
to the recruitment process initiated by the respondent-Rajasthan
Public Service Commission, Ajmer (henceforth to be referred to as
'the Commission/respondent-Commission), vide advertisement
dated 13.07.2016, for recruitment to the post of Senior Teachers
in various Subjects by conducting Senior Teacher Competitive
Examination, 2016 under the Rajasthan Education Subordinate
Service Rules, 1971, the instant writ petitions preferred by some
of the candidates, who have participated in the said recruitment
process, register a challenge thereto.
2. The striking identicalness in the challenge and the
substantial similitude of the contextual facts constituting the
edifice of the lis in all material particulars, coupled with the reliefs
claimed herein, permits analogous adjudication of the present writ
petitions. Therefore, in light of the commonality of the
impeachment, as projected in these writ petitions, they have been
analogously heard and this common adjudication would answer
the surging debate, so as to bring the present controversy to an
end.
3. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and
substance, the following reliefs:
"A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
Revised Answer Key dated 03.02.2018 and
06.02.2018 (Annex-7) and Result dated 06.02.2018
(Annex.8) for the post of Senior Teacher (Social
Science) may kindly be quashed and set aside in
pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.07.2016
(Annex-2).
B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to issue afresh
expert committee report and answer key while
considering the questions/objections submitted by the
petitioners as per the authentic books in pursuance of
the advertisement dated 13.07.2016 for the post of
Senior Teacher (Social Science).
C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to re-determine
the complete merit list/result for further selection
process while making the necessary corrections in the
revised answer key for the questions quoted aforesaid
of Paper-I i.e. General Knowledge and Paper-II i.e.
Social Science for the post of Senior Teacher (Social
Science) in pursuance of the advertisement dated
13.07.2016.
D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to award the
actual marks to the petitioners for their correct answer
as per their authentic proofs of the question quoted
above of the Paper-I i.e. General Knowledge and
Paper-II i.e. Social Science for the post of Senior
Teacher (Social Science) in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 13.07.2016.
E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to permit the
petitioners in the further selection and provide
appointment on the post of Senior Teacher (Social
Science) in their respective category in pursuance of
the advertisement dated 13.07.2016 with all
consequential benefits, if, they found selected in
revised merit.
F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which
this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be
passed in favour of the petitioners.
G. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be
allowed with costs."
4. Since the skeletal account of the facts portrayed by the
rival versions and construed to be germane, falls in a narrow
compass, and to reiterate, nothing turns on the facts with fringe
differences in the present writ petitions and in course of the
arguments as well, no marked distinguishable features have been
highlighted warranting individual analysis thereof, therefore the
pleaded facts would be recited, in bare essentials, from the
pleadings of some of the petitions collectively, keeping in view the
present adjudication.
5. To start with, the respondent-Commission issued an
advertisement dated 13.07.2016 for the posts of Senior Teacher in
various Subjects. The Commission has, for that purpose, invited
the online application forms from the eligible candidates for the
post in question, in accordance with the Rajasthan Education
Service Rules, 1971.
6. The petitioners, being eligible and possessing the
requisite qualifications, applied for the said post in their respective
categories by way of filling the online application forms.
Subsequent thereto, the admit cards were issued to the respective
candidates. The petitioners, thereafter, appeared in the related
examinations, so conducted by the respondents, as per the
schedule.
7. Out of the various papers, comprised in the
examination in question, the present impugnment pertains to
the papers, namely, Paper-I (General Knowledge-I) and
Paper II (Subject Paper-Sanskrit, Hindi) and; Paper-I
(General Knowledge-II and Paper-II (Subject Paper Social
Science), in totality.
8. The respondents earlier issued the answer key for the
Paper of General Knowledge on 21.08.2017 and for the Papers of
Social Science and Sanskrit on 30.08.2017, and for the Paper of
Hindi on 01.09.2017, wherein the answers of all the questions, in
the respective subjects, have been mentioned.
9. Thereafter, on 21.08.2017, the Commission has also
issued a Press Note pertaining to the answer key dated
21.08.2017 uploaded by the Commission on its website, whereby
objections were invited from the concerned candidates, who have
appeared in the examination on 26.04.2017 and 01.05.2017 in
G.K. Paper-I; the said objections were to be submitted, as per the
said Press Note, from 23.08.2017 to 25.08.2017. Another Press
Note came to be issued by the Commission on 30.08.2017
regarding the answer key dated 30.08.2017 uploaded on the
website of the Commission, whereby objections were invited from
the concerned candidates who appeared in the examination held
on 30.06.2017, 01.07.2017 and 02.07.2017 in the Subjects of
Sanskrit, Science and Social Science; the said objections were to
be submitted, as per the said Press Note, from 31.08.2017 to
02.09.2017.
10. The aforementioned Press Notes dated 21.08.2017 and
30.08.2017 read as under:-
"jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx] vtesj
&% izsl &uksV %& fnukad 21-08-2017
vk;ksx }kjk fnukad 26-04-2017 o 01-05-2017 dks vk;ksftr ofj"B v/;kid
xzsM f}rh; ijh{kk 2016 ds izFke izz'u i= th-ds- dh mRrjdqaft;ka vk;ksx dh
osclkbZV ij fnukad 21-08-2017 dks tkjh dj nh x;h gSA mDr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr
fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ dks mRrj dqath ij dksbZ vkifRr gks rks fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd ds lkFk
fnukad 23-08-2017 ls fnukad 25-08-2017 dks jkf= 12%00 cts rd viuh vkifRr
vkWuykbZu vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij ntZ djok ldrk gSA vkifRr;ka vk;ksx dh
osclkbZV ij miyC/k iz'u i= ds Øekuqlkj gh izfo"V djsaA bl ijh{kk ds iz'u i=
vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij miyC/k gSaA vkifRr izkekf.kd ¼ Standard Authentic½
iqLrdksa ds izek.k lfgr vkWuykbZu layXu djsaA okafNr izek.k layXu ugha gksus dh
fLFkfr esa vkifRr;kas ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA lkFk gh mDr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr
vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vfrfjDr ;fn dksbZ vU; vH;FkhZ vkifÙk ntZ djokrs gSa rks mu ij dksbZ
fopkj ugh fd;k tkosxkA
vk;ksx }kjk izR;sd iz'u gsrq vkifRr 'kqYd : 100@& fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA
vH;FkhZ viuh ,Iyhds'ku vkbZMh tUe frfFk rFkk vk;ksx esa jftLVMZ eksckbZy uEcj ls
vk;ksx ds iksVZy ij ykWfxu dj iz'uksa ij vkifRr;ka ntZ djkdj izfr iz'u vkifRr
'kqYd :-100@& ds fglkc ls dqy vkifRr 'kqYd dk Hkqxrku bZ&fe= fd;ksLd vFkok
vH;FkhZ Lo;a ds ek/;e ls Hkh iksVZy ij miyC/k isesaV xsVos ds ek/;e ls djokdj
vkifRr;ksa dks LFkkbZ :i ls ntZ dj ldrk gSA vk;ksx }kjk 'kqYd okil ykSVkus dk
izko/kku ugha gSA 'kqYd ds vHkko esa vkifRr;ka Lohdkj ugha dh tkosaxhA vkifRr;ka
dsoy vkWuykbZu gh izLrqr djsaA vkWuykbZu vkifRr;ksa dk fyad fnukad 23-08-2017 ls
fnukad 25-08-2017 dks jkf= 12%00 cts rd gh miyC/k gS] mlds i'pkr~ fyad
fuf"Ø; gks tk,xkA vU; fdlh ek/;e ls Hksth xbZ vkifRr;ka Lohdkj ugha dh
tk,axhA vkifRr;ka dsoy ,d ckj gh yh tk,axhA vkWuykbZu vkifRr;kas ds fy, iksVZy
rpsc.rajasthan.gov.in/examobjection ;k fyad rpsc.rajasthan.gov.in ij Hkh
myiC/k gSa] dks vH;FkhZ fDyd djsA
¼Hkxor flag jkBkSM½
lfpo"
"jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx] vtesj
&% izsl &uksV %& fnukad 30-08-2017
vk;ksx }kjk fnukad 30-06-2017] 02-07-2017 dks vk;ksftr ofj"B v/;kid xzsM
f}rh;] laLd`r] foKkku] lkekftd foKku ijh{kk 2016 ds iz'u i=ksa dh mRrjdqaft;ka
vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij fnukad 30-08-2017 dks tkjh dj nh x;h gSA mDr ijh{kk esa
lfEefyr fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ dks mRrj dqath ij dksbZ vkifRr gks rks fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd ds
lkFk fnukad 31-08-2017 ls fnukad 02-09-2017 dks jkf= 12%00 cts rd viuh
vkifRr vkWuykbZu vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij ntZ djok ldrk gSA vkifRr;ka vk;ksx
dh osclkbZV ij miyC/k iz'u i= ds Øekuqlkj gh izfo"V djsaA bl ijh{kk ds iz'u
i= vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij miyC/k gSaA vkifRr izkekf.kd ¼ Standard Authentic½
iqLrdksa ds izek.k lfgr vkWuykbZu layXu djsaA okafNr izek.k layXu ugha gksus dh
fLFkfr esa vkifRr;kas ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA lkFk gh mDr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr
vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vfrfjDr ;fn dksbZ vU; vH;FkhZ vkifÙk ntZ djokrs gSa rks mu ij dksbZ
fopkj ugh fd;k tkosxkA
vk;ksx }kjk izR;sd iz'u gsrq vkifRr 'kqYd : 100@& fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA
vH;FkhZ viuh ,Iyhds'ku vkbZMh tUe frfFk rFkk vk;ksx esa jftLVMZ eksckbZy uEcj ls
vk;ksx ds iksVZy ij ykWfxu dj iz'uksa ij vkifRr;ka ntZ djkdj izfr iz'u vkifRr
'kqYd :-100@& ds fglkc ls dqy vkifRr 'kqYd dk Hkqxrku bZ&fe= fd;ksLd vFkok
vH;FkhZ Lo;a ds ek/;e ls Hkh iksVZy ij miyC/k isesaV xsVos ds ek/;e ls djokdj
vkifRr;ksa dks LFkkbZ :i ls ntZ dj ldrk gSA vk;ksx }kjk 'kqYd okil ykSVkus dk
izko/kku ugha gSA 'kqYd ds vHkko esa vkifRr;ka Lohdkj ugha dh tkosaxhA vkifRr;ka
dsoy vkWuykbZu gh izLrqr djsaA vkWuykbZu vkifRr;ksa dk fyad fnukad 31-08-2017 ls
fnukad 02-09-2017 dks jkf= 12%00 cts rd gh miyC/k gS] mlds i'pkr~ fyad
fuf"Ø; gks tk,xkA vU; fdlh ek/;e ls Hksth xbZ vkifRr;ka Lohdkj ugha dh
tk,axhA vkifRr;ka dsoy ,d ckj gh yh tk,axhA vkWuykbZu vkifRr;kas ds fy, iksVZy
rpsc.rajasthan.gov.in/examobjection ;k fyad rpsc.rajasthan.gov.in ij Hkh
myiC/k gSa] dks vH;FkhZ fDyd djsA
¼fxfjjkt flag dq'kokgk½
lfpo"
11. The objections were submitted by number of
candidates regarding the wrong questions and their erroneous
answers, in pursuance of the aforequoted press notes, before
declaration of the results for the post of Senior Teacher, pursuant
to the advertisement year, 2016.
12. After undertaking the aforementioned exercise, the
Commission again issued the revised answer key dated
03.02.2018 and 08.02.2018 for the Papers of General Knowledge;
for the Subject of Social Science on 06.02.2018; for the Subject of
Sanskrit on 14.02.2018 and; for the Subject of Hindi on
15.02.2018, wherein also answers for all the questions were
mentioned. However, the petitioners found that the number of
answers of the questions were erroneous, whereas, some of the
questions were deleted. The Commission, after issuance of the
revised answer keys, as above, has not invited objections
pertaining thereto and has declared the results of the provisionally
selected candidates for the post in question, thereby depriving the
petitioners to raise their objections regarding the revised answer
keys.
13. While adjudicating the controversy, this Court has
made it sure that this Court is granting indulgence of adjudication
over and above, the experts opinion, only to the candidates, who
were awake to their rights and filed their appropriate objections,
in lieu of invitation of the objections called for by the respondents.
This Court is also making it categorical that this Court is not
evaluating any objection(s), which were not submitted, upon the
aforementioned opportunity being granted to the candidates
before declaration of the results.
14. After declaration of the results, as aforementioned, the
petitioners have again approached the respondents for ventilating
their grievances regarding objections pertaining to the
aforementioned revised answer key and deletion of certain
questions by the Commission, but nothing was done by the
respondents, in regard thereto.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that
that respondents ought to have remained more careful, while
conducting the examination in question, which pertained to the
public employment, and thus, should have kept a close watch
over the whole process therefor, before declaring the results, and
for the purpose of proper evaluation of merit, the respondents
should have consulted the authentic text books of the related
Subjects, which has not been done in the present case.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further
submitted that the petitioners secured good marks and have also
made it to the cut off marks in their respective categories, but for
the irregularities creeping-in in the recruitment process in
question, the merit of the petitioners qua other candidates has not
been properly evaluated.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also submitted
that while taking decision to delete certain questions treating the
same to be the wrong questions, that were forming part of the
Papers, benefit thereof was not given to the concerned candidates,
including the present petitioners, who have opted correct answers
of such questions, thereby ousting such candidates from the merit
list, and thus, for no fault on their part, they have been made to
suffer. Therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, the
respondents have made a mockery of the entire selection process,
by playing with the future of the educated unemployed youth,
aspiring for recruitment to the post in question being fully
qualified and eligible to be appointed on the said post.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that by issuing a wrong model answer key, the respondent-
Commission has wrongly calculated the marks, that were to be
awarded, as proper criteria for awarding negative marks, as per
the guidelines for the said examination, was not adhered to. The
said irregularity in the examination has thus, culminated in
deprivation of the petitioners of their proper placement in the
merit list, and their consequential appointment on the post in
question, as well.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners also made a
submission that once the respondents were given fresh objections
by the concerned candidates regarding the answer key so issued
earlier and the expert report, on earlier objections, the
respondents were under an obligation to reconsider those
objections submitted by the concerned candidates, alongwith the
authentic proof in support of the answers opted by them.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made a
categorical submission that the revised final answer key issued by
the Commission is based on erroneous experts opinion, pertaining
to the wrong or deleted questions, as the said answer key is not
based on the authoritative data, rather contrary to the authentic
proofs backed by the authors of repute in the respective field, as
submitted by the petitioners alongwith their objections to the
earlier answer key, so issued by the respondents.
21. To reinforce their submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners have relied upon the precedent law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in M/s. Utkarsh Classes Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL)
No.12720/2011 decided on 25.10.2012), wherein the
following order was passed:-
"Heard.
In the writ petition filed in public interest as
against the respondents, prayer has been made to
direct them to provide the question paper and OMR
sheet to the candidates as soon as the examination is
over and disclose the answer key within a period of 7
days from the date of the competitive examination.
Prayer has also been made in the writ application for
furnishing the syllabus at the time of initiation of
selection exercise.
In the reply filed by RPSC, it is stated that in
every recruitment conducted by the respondent, the
candidates are not required to deposit the question
papers and in fact, they are allowed to carry question
paper with them after the examination. In such cases,
there is no question of supply of question papers.
Further, complete syllabus is put on website usually at
the time the advertisement for appointment is issued.
In some cases, where syllabus is not provided on the
date of advertisement, it is provided on subsequent
date before reasonable time of conduction of the
examination. It is further stated that in light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board
of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497],
RPSC held a meeting on 28.06.2012 wherein it was
decided to declare a model answer key on its website
before declaring the result. This has been decided to
negate any ambiguity regarding the correctness of
questions and their respective answers. The decision
has been taken so as to avoid litigation so that the
students are able to adjudge their performance
without any hassle and the Court is not burdened with
the petitions.
In view of the stand of RPSC, learned counsel
Dr.P.S.Bhati has submitted that the relief against the
RPSC stands satisfied. However, other examinations
are also being conducted by the other respondents.
They are also bound to follow same procedure.
Mr.I.S. Pareek learned counsel appearing for the
other respondents has also submitted that they will be
publishing the syllabus at the time of initiation of the
recruitment process and in any case, in reasonable
time well before holding the examination. It is also
submitted that in case where the question papers are
not provided, they shall supply the question papers
and they will put the question papers on website as
well as publish model key answers of the objective
type questions, on the similar basis as decided by the
RPSC in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
In view of the submission made by the counsels
appearing for the respondents, it is ordered that let in
future, the respondents shall supply the syllabus at
the time of initiation of recruitment process and shall
also put the question papers on website in case, they
are not permitted to be carried by the candidates and
shall also publish the model key answers of objective
type questions, if any, on their website before or at
the time of declaration of the result.
The writ application is disposed of accordingly."
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to substantiate
their submissions, have also relied upon the precedent law laid
down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench
in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & Ors.
(D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.698/2013 decided on
25.10.2013), relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"45. For the reasons and discussions above as well as in
view of the admitted facts and in the light of the material
available on record, we have no hesitation in concluding
that the respondent - RPSC, failed to maintain the purity
and transparency in the selection process in dispute and
also failed to ensure that no undeserving candidates
gained advantage over the deserving, including the writ
petitioners, on account of errors in the questions/answer
key while conducting the screening/written examination
for the purpose of shortlisting. Further, the respondent-
RPSC committed illegality in not revising the initial result
of the selected 502 candidates while declaring the result
twice over, in view of the deletion of questions. The
respondent-RPSC has decided not to revise the result of
502 candidates declared successful in the initial result,
even after deletion of more questions which increased in
the number of candidates who became eligible for
interview, the sole criterion for selection.
46. We are satisfied that the 502 candidates, who were
found successful in the initial result, did not acquire any
indefeasible right to be appointed and this legal position is
no more res integra in view of settled position in a catena
of decisions by the Honourable Supreme Court. We are
also in agreement with the observations of the learned
single judge for inclusion of the element of written
examination, as an essential component in the process of
selection with an interview in the Rules of 1978, in
consonance with the views expressed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court of the land in a catena of judgments. When grave
suspicion is created and is allowed to persist, do
precipitate into rumours going around which do not
appear of any good either to the candidates or to the
administration involved in the process.
47. We are informed that no final merit list has been
prepared and published in compliance of the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge. We have been further
informed that no appointment orders have been issued to
the candidates in the selection process in dispute. Since
the purity, propriety and significance of the selection
process has been polluted and at the same time
undeserving candidates have gained advantage at the cost
of deserving candidates including the writ petitioners.
Therefore, in the contextual facts and circumstances of
the case at hand; the screening/written test conducted by
the respondent-RPSC in response to advertisement dated
26 May 2011 for appointment to the post of APP Gr. II,
cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence, the view
taken by the learned single judge in quashing the
impugned select list dated 2nd February 2013 (ANNEXURE-
5, annexed to the Writ Petition Number 2142 of 2013),
cannot be faulted.
48. Defects pointed out by the Registry are hereby
overruled. Misc. Application Nos.528/2013 & 561/2013
seeking condonation of delay are allowed for the reasons
detailed out in the applications. D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No.638/2013 is hereby closed in view of the
judgment and order passed on the identical issue.
49. In the result, the intra-court appeals are adjudicated
upon as under:
i) the intra-court appeals preferred by the State of
Rajasthan and respondent-RPSC fails and are hereby
dismissed.
ii) the intra-court appeals filed by the writ petitioners are
allowed and disposed of quashing the entire selection
process including the screening/written test conducted by
the respondent-RPSC on 1st December, 2011, in response
to advertisement dated 26 May 2011, for appointment to
the post of APP Gr. II as well as the impugned select list
dated 2 February 2013 (ANNEXURE - 5, annexed to the
nd
Writ Petition
Number 2142 of 2013).
iii) The process of selection shall be conducted afresh.
iv) The stay applications stand closed.
v) No order as to costs."
23. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for
the petitioners on the precedent law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Secretary,
Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Devesh
Kumar Sharma (D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.648/2017
decided on 03.05.2017), relevant portion of which reads as
under:
"7. We have learned Mr. Rastogi, learned
counsel for the appellants, in the morning and even
after recess.
7.1 Before proceeding further, it will not be out of
place to mention that the RPSC is in the usual habit of
referring the matter to the Expert Committee for key
answer and our little experience of this Court is that
the maximum service litigant is the RPSC for
conducting examinations referring answer key to
Expert Committee. We fail to understand, how RPSC
comes to this conclusion. When question is framed,
why the answer is not fixed. Everywhere in the
Country, when the question is referred, the answer
key is also submitted to the Public Service
Commission. Therefore, this practice itself is required
to be deprecated which is followed by the RPSC. How
far it is statutorily valid, is required to be viewed very
seriously by the Courts. Day in and day out, the RPSC
is before this Court and questions are answered in the
key answer referred to Expert Committee. It was
experience of every member of the Bar and the Bench
that the RPSC is acting unconstitutionally and
arbitrarily to their permissible limit.
7.2 In that view of the matter, counsel for the
appellant was not in a position to defend as to how
far the RPSC was following the decision of the
Supreme Court while referring the questions of
answer key to different Expert Committee and now
taking advantage when convenient to them.
7.3 In our considered opinion, we cannot be a party
to such a fraud which will lead to corruption for all
times to come. Once the decision is taken to refer it
to the third Expert Committee, unless it is cancelled
by the competent Court or authority to recall the
decision of third Expert Committee and to go back to
the decision of Expert Committee I and II will lead to
cross the permissible limit by the RPSC. .
7.4 We, as member of Division Bench, would not
allow the RPSC to travel back to the decision of
Expert Committee I and II as per their rule of
convenience to refer the question to third committee,
though they have referred to third committee which
has not been cancelled by the Full Forum of the RPSC.
7.5 It seems that to avoid any observation by the
Court in earlier litigation where decision was put
before the Court regarding third Expert Committee
clearly established that earlier decision in the case of
Lakshandra Kumar Sharma Vs. RPSC (supra), the
Court has not approved the earlier key answers. In
that view of the matter, the opinion of third Expert
Committee is substituted by the earlier two Expert
Committees. The Courts should not permit the RPSC
to blow hot and cold as per their rule of convenience.
7.6 It will not be out of place to mention that lacs of
unemployed and poor persons are applying for
different posts and this practice by RPSC has ruined
career of many persons. Now we hope in view of
direction of Division Bench in Narendra Singh
Rathore Vs. RPSC (supra), there might be some
respite of the youth of the State and country.
7.7 In that view of the matter, the view taken by the
learned Single Judge to accept the third view, we are
accepting the same.
8. The appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be
dismissed and the same is dismissed.
8.1 Even costs of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rs. Five lacs)
imposed is on lower side in view of the fact that the
maximum litigation is of RPSC and public is suffering,
therefore, the costs imposed by the learned Single
Judge is genuine and the order of the learned Single
Judge is affirmed."
24. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed
reliance on the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur
Bench in Devesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Secretary, Rajasthan
Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr.(S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.4867/2017 decided on 25.04.2017), relevant
portion of which reads as under:-
"This Court need not apply the standard test of
demonstrable wrong or palpably wrong as the third
panel constituted by the respondent RPSC to ward off
all challenge, invarious writ petitions, itself has held
that option Nos. 1 and 2 both are correct and the
question is confusing. Thus, question No.56 has been
termed by expert panel to be confusing, hence, said
question is not clear, unequivocal and unambiguous.
That being so, there is no other option with this Court
but to strike Q.No.56 from the Question Paper.
Hence, a direction is issued that the said question
No.56 shall be deleted and revised result shall be
prepared and declared by the respondent RPSC to
end simmering and long standing grievance of the
candidates that RPSC is not capable of conducting
papers upto the highest standard.
Till today, RPSC has conducted more than
hundred competitive examinations, for recruitment of
various posts. Till today there is not a single
examination, where due to challenge made to this
Court or Supreme Court, RPSC has not revised the
result. Sometimes RPSC has to revise result for more
than four times. Each competitive examination open
flood gates of litigation, which result into various
rounds of litigation. Revised result prepared by expert
panel again lead to challenge resulting to rerevision of
the result. Time has come for the court to ring alarm
bell. Those who are at helm of affairs at RPSC, must
now awake from their slumber. They must tread with
caution, to select paper setter. The experts selected
ought to be persons of eminence. Doling out of
favours to incompetent persons as paper setters or
experts must end once for all.
Taking totality of circumstances and reasons
spelt above, the writ petition is allowed with cost of
Rs.5 Lakhs. The cost shall be deposited with the
Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, within
one month, as at instance of RPSC unnecessary
unwanted litigation has been generated, leading to
filing of numerous writ petitions. Lot of time and
energy of this court has been wasted by deciding the
writ petitions and the appeals arising therefrom,
which could have been avoided, had RPSC ensured
highest standards."
25. Reliance has further been placed by learned counsel for
the petitioners on the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at
Jaipur Bench in Rishabh Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan
(S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7040/2014 decided on
26.06.2014), relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"We are not expert in the subject and this of
course is an issue for deeper examination by the
experts, but as evident from afore-extracted
excerpts, the experts in the subject have also not
found the equipercentile formula/method free from
doubt and have expressed their reservations
thereabout. The intention of the university in applying
the equipercentile formula was to make up for the
difference in the difficulty level of the candidates and
from what has been discussed above, this has
obviously failed to achieve that purpose. What is
more, the examination in question ought to be as per
the statutory requirement contained in clause-5 of the
MCI Regulations should be based on common
standards providing the level playing field to all the
candidates, which, in this competitive era, is need of
the hour. The different lists/charts produced by the
respondent-university indicate that intensity of
competition was so high amongst the students that
there was tie at almost every second level with
number of students securing same marks. With large
number of defects and deficiencies in the setting of
examination papers, it cannot be said that best
among the lot has been selected by mere adoption of
the equipercentile formula. In fact, the competition is
so stiff that difference of 0.001% could result in lot of
change in the inter se merit placement of candidates.
When the All India PMT Examination-2014 with as
many as 6 lacs candidates could be held on the basis
of single question paper by adopting the OMR sheet
method, why the common examination cannot be
held simultaneously for all the candidates on the basis
of a common paper is difficult to approve. As rightly
argued by learned Advocate General, holding such
examination now would be in conformity with MCI
Regulations, 1997 and when the Government upon
consideration of all these factors, has taken a
conscious decision to hold the examination afresh, its
decision cannot be said to be without justification.
There is therefore no reason for this Court to find
fault with such decision of the Government.
Contention that other organizations/ institutions
have also adopted the equipercentile formula in the
competitive/entrance examination, does not lead us
any where because the present matters are being
decided on the basis of datas/material placed on
record of this case, according to which the
equipercentile method has been found to be not
suitable to achieve the object of securing uniform
evaluation on common standards providing equal
playing field to all the candidates. The cited Single
Bench judgment of this court in Dr. Vijay Pal Singh,
supra, and that of the Division Bench in Dr. Anil
Kumawat, supra, upholding the former judgment,
being distinguishable on facts, cannot be applied to
the facts of the present case as in that case
application of equalization through SEP was upheld as
an alternative to cancellation of examination due to
emergency arising from dysfunctional computers in
the main examination. Those judgments neither
endorse nor can they be said to approve holding
separate examination on the basis of different
question papers to secure uniform evaluation of
candidate on common standards providing equal
opportunity to all the candidates.
In view of the above discussion, the process of
examination of RPMT-2014 and result thereof
declared by the respondent-University on 05.06.2014,
being illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India, are quashed and set
aside. Decision of the Government to hold fresh RPMT
Examination is upheld. The respondents, however,
are set at liberty to hold fresh RPMT-2014
examination on the basis of application forms already
received, with permission of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court to suitably modify the calendar of the said
examination laid down by their Lordships in the order
dated 19.05.2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.737/2013
- Lipika Gupta and Another Vs. Union of India and
Others so as to complete the admission process by
30th September, 2014.
Accordingly the writ petitions of the petitioners,
who remained unsuccessful in the RPMT-2014
examination stand allowed and the writ petitions of
the petitioners declared successful, are dismissed.
This also disposes of stay applications"
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed
reliance on the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur
Bench in Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15028/2016 decided on
08.11.2016), relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, this Court is of the view that for the total post
of 13098 School Lecturers in the State of Rajasthan
more than five lakhs prospective teachers who have
obtained education upto Post Graduation and Degree
in Education (B.Ed.) have applied. Number of the
candidates have already obtained Ph.D. qualification.
Therefore, it is not only necessary to ensure quality in
the recruitment of teachers, but it also equally
imperative that the system of the recruitment of
teachers should inspire trust and faith in the residents
of State of Rajasthan.
To remove any kind of doubt in the mind of
prospective candidates, that the system is not fair, it
is necessary that sanctity of examination is ensured in
the eyes of public at large so as to inspire their trust.
It is necessary that RPSC should follow highest
standards of the transparency so that name and
reputation of RPSC is held in esteem by the
candidates and residents of State of Rajasthan.
Therefore, this court will reject the submission
advanced by Mr. M.F. Baig that answer key given by
the experts be kept in sealed cover and the same be
not shared with the candidates as there is
apprehension that such a course will lead to
multiplicity of litigation. The learned counsel has
submitted that the RPSC be permitted to keep
everything under the wrap till the selection process is
completed and result is announced.
This Court rejects the argument raised by Mr.
M.F. Baig believing in the fairness of the persons at
the helm of the affairs at RPSC, as this Court believes
that the RPSC has nothing to hide in their cupboard.
Transparency not only inspire confidence of the
persons in the system but also ensure that merit is
only yardstick to which RPSC is committed and RPSC
shall make every effort that the teachers are spotted
on the touchstone of merit alone. This Court shall
follow the maxim that fairness in recruitment should
not only be followed but should also appear to have
been followed. Therefore, to achieve highest
standards of transparency, following directions are
issued:-
(a) That the revised answer key alongwith report of
experts shall be uploaded on the website of RPSC
within one week from the receipt of certified copy of
this order.
(b) That after the needful is done by the RPSC, no
objections shall be entertained by RPSC and the
revised answer key shall be final and shall be followed
by RPSC for computation of the result.
(c) That only qua the answer to the question which as
per revised answer key is palpably wrong and is
unacceptable to the experts having authority in the
subject, court shall be able to entertain the challenge
made to the revised answer key and if two views are
possible due credence shall be given to the one view
if same is in consonance with the revised answer key
approved by the experts.
(d) That for a period of fifteen days, after uploading
of the revised answer key, the computation of the
result shall be kept in abeyance to enable any
aggrieved person to approach the court in case
revised answer key to a question is palpably wrong
and is against all the accepted principles or cannons
of the subject.
(e) That in pursuance of the selection made, any
appointment/posting letter already issued, shall be
kept in abeyance for a period of fifteen days from
receipt of certified copy of this order by RPSC and the
State Government.
A copy of this order under the seal and
signature of the Court Master be handed over to Mr.
M.F. Baig and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Government
Counsel for onward transmission and necessary
compliance."
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner have further
substantiated their submissions by placing reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Jitender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Haryana Public Service
Commission, reported in 2012 SCC Online P&H 15657),
relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"As stated above, the course adopted by the
Commission has resulted in discrimination to many
of the aspiring and deserving candidates as in the
process of weeding out a small cause of inequality,
it has infected the roots of the pious tree of
equality which has led to destroying the tree itself.
This has resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution and thus unsustainable.
In view of the above, these writ petitions are
allowed with following directions :-
(i) The Haryana Public Service Commission shall
constitute a Committee of Experts to consider the
151 representations received by the Commission in
pursuance to Clause 9 of the booklet of question
papers and submit its report to the Commission.
Commission shall consider the same and take
steps in accordance with the law;
(ii) The Haryana Public Service Commission shall
publish the answer key of the preliminary
examination within a period of three days from
today, call for the representations from the
candidates within a reasonable time, on receipt
thereof, if any, the same be referred to a
Committee of Experts, which shall consider these
representations and submit its opinion to the
Commission which shall thereafter take a decision
thereon and take appropriate steps in accordance
with law.
In case, discrepancies are found in the question
papers/answer keys as per the report of the
Committee of Experts, corrective measures be
taken by the Commission and the following be also
taken into consideration, i.e. wherever the
question(s) in respect of which the option shown to
be correct in the answer key is incorrect and
instead another option as determined by the
Committee of Experts is found to be correct,
answer key be corrected. Question(s) in respect of
which the answer in the answer key is debatable or
question(s) in respect of which there is/are more
than one correct option or questions in respect of
which none of the options is correct or question(s)
which is/are confusing or do not supply complete
information for a clear answer, would have to be
removed from the purview of examination. In the
case of paper of General Studies, answers be
evaluated accordingly of all the candidates.
However, in the case of optional subjects, the
Commission shall have no option but to order re-
examination in the said optional paper(s) if
discrepancies in question paper(s)/answer key(s)
is/are of such a nature where the question(s)
is/are to be deleted.
The result be thereafter compiled and declared
only after the above process is given effect to.
The main written examination, which is fixed for
2.9.2012 shall stand postponed till the above
exercise is completed by the Commission.
Copy of this order be given dasti to Mr. Mehtani,
counsel for HPSC under the signatures of the
Special Secretary of this Court."
28. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in further
reinforcement of their submissions, have relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court at Madurai Bench in J.
Antony Clara Vs. S. Vijayalakshmi (Writ Petition (MD)
No.13267/2013 decided on 01.10.2013), relevant portion of
which reads as under:-
"33.This judgment does not help the respondents
in any manner, for the reason that first of all that
judgment relates to wrong key answers. Secondly,
the wrong key answers were applied as against all
the candidates. Thus either advantage or
disadvantage was uniform to all. But, in the instant
case, the wrong questions were only in 'B' series
question paper. Unfortunately, except 8000
candidates, around 24 thousand candidates have
been benefited with correct question papers.
Therefore, either advantage or disadvantage will
not be uniform if the above method adopted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is followed in the instant
case.
34.In view of foregoing discussions, though it will
cause some hardship for TRB to conduct re-
examination and though the candidates have to
once again burn their night oil to prepare for their
examination and though it may cause financial
burden considerably to the official respondents, on
that score this Court cannot allow injustice to be
caused to candidates by allowing TRB to value the
answer sheets by adopting any one of the methods
suggested by the learned Advocate General. I find
that ordering for re-examination is the only
equitable relief this Court could grant to the
parties.
35.I regret that this Court is made to take such a
hard line. This Court is able to foresee the hardship
and sufferings that the candidates are going to
experience. This Court is also conscious of the fact
that the candidates who have faired well in the
present examination may not do so well in the re-
examination and ultimately suffer. All these
hardships are, in my considered view, because of
the indifferent attitude of TRB, as narrated above.
Judiciary, being the institution which has been
established under the Constitution to enforce
equality and to protect the other rights of the
citizens, cannot show any reluctance to take a
hard line to order for re- examination. After all, as
the English proverb goes, "one cannot make omlet
without breaking few eggs".
36.In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of
in the following terms:
(i)The written competitive examination for
recruitment of Post Graduate Assistants in Tamil
subject held on 21.07.2013 is hereby set aside.
(ii)The official respondents, more particularly the
Teachers Recruitment Board, is directed to conduct
fresh examination as early as possible, in any
event, not later than six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii)For such a fresh examination, fresh hall tickets
need not be issued to the candidates. Old Hall
Tickets downloaded from the Teachers Recruitment
Board Website can be considered as sufficient.
(iv)There shall be no fresh calling for applications.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are
quashed.
gb To
1.The Principal Secretary, Government of
Tamilnadu, Department of School Education, Fort
St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road,
Chennai-6.
3.The Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board,
E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College
Road, Chennai-6."
29. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners have
submitted that that the Commission, being a 'constitutional
functionary', is expected to exercise its power in accordance with
law, and also to see that the examinations, particularly the one in
question, are conducted in a fool proof manner, so as to avoid any
discrepancy or anomaly in the said examination.
30. In refutation of the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent-
Commission submitted that after the examination was over, the
respondent-Commission issued a model answer key and invited
objections with regard thereto, and upon receipt of the objections
so invited from the concerned candidates, the Commission, for the
purpose of dealing with such objections in an appropriate manner,
constituted an expert committee, which dealt with all those
objections with due application of mind, and having found no
substance therein, recommended that the answers given in the
answer key were correct. Further, wherever the expert committee
has found two possible answers to a question, has recommended
for deletion of such question(s).
31. So far as one of the grounds raised in the present
petitions that the expert committee constituted by the
Commission was not comprising of three or more members, and a
single member (expert) has been entrusted with the task of
examining the correctness of the answers mentioned in the
answer key, is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-
Commission has submitted that the report of the expert
committee, in regard to the different Subjects, which has also
been placed for perusal of this Court, revealed that the expert
committee was comprising of minimum three, or in some cases,
more than three members, and therefore, such ground raised in
the present writ petitions has no legs to stand.
32. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has
further submitted that the report given by the expert committee
deserves paramount consideration, as neither any allegation of
malafide or extraneous consideration has been ever raised against
any of the members of the expert committee, nor any allegation
has been raised against the respondent-Commission by any of the
candidates regarding the method adopted in preparing the report
by the expert committee, which is fair and transparent.
33. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission further
submitted that it is settled law that under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Court does not sit in appeal over
the report submitted by the expert committee and substitute its
own finding setting aside the finding of the expert committee. In
this regard, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has
relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in
Umrav Singh Charan Vs. The Rajasthan Public Service
Commission & Anr. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14119/2016
decided on 08.02.2017), relevant portion of which reads as
under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners, of course,
relied on the judgment rendered by this High Court in
the case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & anr. Vs. State
of Rajasthan & ors. (supra) to drive home the point
that the Court was well within its' power under Article
226 of the Constitution to go into the questions and
correct answers and in the said case, learned Single
Bench directed the R.P.S.C. to make fresh evaluation
of the answersheets of the candidates by specific
directions for deleting certain questions. Learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that the appeals
filed by the State as well as Commission before the
Division Bench against the said order and judgment
were also dismissed. However, a perusal of Para 10
and 11 of the judgment of the learned Division Bench
in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kamlesh Kumar
Sharma & ors. (supra) will show that the respondent
- Commission has rather ignored the errors pointed
out by the Expert Committee and thereafter, the
learned Single Bench on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties and submissions made at bar as well as in
the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex
Court of the land and by High Courts, examined the
controversy in a great detail with respect to the
allegations of wrong framing of 21 questions, and
concluded that four questions should be deleted and
answer key in respect of one should be changed. It is
important to point out that the said paper was with
respect to objective type questions to test the
knowledge of law of the candidate. The questions
being related to the subject of 'law' could not be
ignored by the Court, of which subject, the learned
Single Judge himself was an expert but the same may
not be possible where the courts are not expert on
other subjects and therefore, the report of an expert
committee comprising of the members being expert
of that particular subject cannot be ignored. Hence,
the Court cannot sit as an appeal examining body
over the report of the expert committee given by
experts of that particular subject and cannot replace
their own opinion over and above the opinion of the
expert on the subject. In fact, the Division Bench of
the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case Mukesh
Thakur Vs. State of HP & others reported in 2006 (1)
Shim. L.C. 134 found inconsistency in framing of the
questions relating to the examination in the subject of
Civil Law - II and after evaluating, it quashed the
result prepared by the commission. However, the
matter was carried in appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case titled as H.P. Public Service
Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & anr. reported in
(2010) 6 SCC 759 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that it was not permissible for this court to have
intervened and examined the question papers and
answer sheets itself, even if these questions pertained
to the subject of law, more particularly when the
Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the
candidates. It would be apt to reproduce the following
observations:
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for
the High Court to examine the question papers and
answer sheets itself, particularly, when the
Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the
candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the
question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for
all the candidates appearing for the examination and
not for respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance
that the High Court was examining the answer sheets
relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable
to understand as to whether such a course could have
been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of
the considered opinion that such a course was not
permissible to the High Court."
In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is
absolutely clear that this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction should restrain itself from exercising its
power to judicially review in the decision taken by the
experts in so far it relates to revised key answers in
the absence of malafide.
The candidates may have had a case wherein no
expert committee had been constituted to go into the
objections. But once, the expert committee has been
formed and there is no allegation of bias or malafide,
any further interference would only unsettle the
settled legal position that the Courts have to show
deference to the recommendation of the expert
committee consisting of able and distinguished
experts in the field. The view expressed by the expert
committee requires to be given paramount
consideration specially as there is no allegation of bias
and malafides or even a whisper of extraneous
consideration.
In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
interfere either in the question paper or the answer
keys when the correctness of all the questions has
been re-examined by the expert committee.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed."
The aforequoted judgment of the learned Single Judge of the
Hon'ble Court was challenged by the petitioners therein by filing
D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ No.230/2017(Umrav Singh Charan Vs.
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors.),which too
was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide
judgment dated 08.03.2017. The relevant portion of the said
judgment reads as under:-
"16. We are in full agreement with the view taken by
the learned Single Judge as the limitation, which has
been put by the judicial pronouncement are rightly
and aptly accepted by the learned Single Judge. Even
the other issues, which has been raised by learned
counsel for the appellants have been considered by
the learned Single Judge, while relying on the
judgment of the Apex Court in H.P.Public Service
Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. [(2010)
6 SCC 759]. The relevant extract of the same reads
as under:-
". . . . . .It would be apt to reproduce the following
observations:
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for
the High Court to examine the question papers and
answer sheets itself, particularly, when the
Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the
candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the
question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for
all the candidates appearing for the examination and
not for respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance
that the High Court was examining the answer sheets
relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable
to understand as to whether such a course could have
been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of
the considered opinion that such a course was not
permissible to the High Court."
In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is
absolutely clear that this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction should restrain itself from exercising its
power to judicially review in the decision taken by the
experts in so far it relates to revised key answers in
the absence of malafide.
The candidates may have had a case wherein no
expert committee had been constituted to go into the
objections. But once, the expert committee has been
formed and there is no allegation of bias or malafide,
any further interference would only unsettle the
settled legal position that the Courts have to show
deference to the recommendation of the expert
committee consisting of able and distinguished
experts in the field. The view expressed by the expert
committee requires to be given paramount
consideration specially as there is no allegation of bias
and malafides or even a whisper of extraneous
consideration.
In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
interfere either in the question paper or the answer
keys when the correctness of all the questions has
been re-examined by the expert committee."
17. Taking into consideration the jurisdiction of the
appellate court, we are of the opinion that the view
taken by the learned Single Judge declining to
exercise the discretion has been rightly done. Even
after the expert committee, the view which has been
taken for deletion is the call of the day on the given
date and it is well known that every opinion put forth
on one day, changes on the next day and the learned
Single Judge has rightly accepted the same. Even in
our opinion, changing the view taken by the learned
Single Judge would be bad in law. But ultimately the
sufferers are the students and their guardians.
18. Taking into consideration the fact that 13000
teachers are awaiting the government schools, in
absence whereof poor students and their guardians
are the sufferers. In that view of the matter, to put
an end to the controversy, we are opinion that the
view taken by the learned Single Judge is required to
be accepted and the same is accepted. However, by
this order, we are issuing certain directions to the
RPSC, which are required to be implemented
forthwith.
(a) The RPSC will ensure that the answer keys are in
place with the help of an expert's opinion at the time
of finalization of the question papers. If the question
paper or answer key are found to be erroneous, the
person concerned who has prepared the same shall
be debarred from the appropriate position of
examination at RPSC, and his remuneration shall be
stopped.
(b) If such person/expert is a government servant
then appropriate departmental action shall be
initiated against such person for playing with the life
of candidates and causing disruption of recruitment
process where masses of unemployed youth are
participating. Therefore, the RPSC shall have direct
responsibility to ensure zero error in the question
paperand answer key before letting them out in the
public domain.
(c) The RPSC shall have take all necessary steps for
appointment of the expert committee/person so as to
ensure that disputed question papers and Answer
Keys giving rise to mass litigation and generating
perennial frustration to the unemployed youth is
brought down to considerable level.
(d) The RPSC itself shall constitute a committee of
three of its members who shall study the process
being adopted by UPSC and other State PSC and
submit a report to this Court within a period of 60
days so as to ensure that the mass disruption of
selection process does not take place on account of
wrong question papers and wrong answer keys. Such
report shall be placed before the concerned Division
Bench before being made applicable and if necessary,
further orders shall be passed by this Court at that
stage. The report shall be implemented thereafter and
it is expected that in future, such harassment is not
caused to the teaming millions of unemployed youth.
19. We regret that we are dismissing these appeals.
But with heavy heart, we have issued the aforesaid
directions and hope that in future, the RPSC will not
adopt this practice. Hence, the appeals being devoid
of merit deserve to be dismissed.
20. These appeals are dismissed accordingly."
34. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has
further reinforced his submissions by placing reliance on the Full
Bench judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in
Lalit Mohan Sharma & Ors.Vs. RPSC & Ors., reported in
2006(1) CDR 834 (Raj.) (FB), relevant portion of which reads
as under:-
"19. It has specifically been averred in the written
statement that out of disputed questions no question
had an incorrect answer or contrary to the correct
answer given in the standard books as mentioned by
the petitioners/other candidates.
20. In the context of impressive array of facts, as
fully detailed above, we are not inclined to accept the
contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the key answers
provided by the respondent-Commission for
evaluating the answer-sheets of the petitioners were
wrong or that despite there being a report by the
Expert Committee the Court must take in hand the
exercise of finding out as to whether the key answers
are correct or wrong. There is no need to go into the
plea raised by the petitioners for examining the
disputed questions and the authenticity of the key-
answers provided by the respondent Commission in
view of the report of the Expert Committee
constituted for the propose. Surely, the Court is not
an expert in the field of education and the various
subjects for which the question paper written
statement settled. Expert Committee constituted for
the purpose has given its report based upon
recognized text books authored by persons of repute
in the field. There is no allegation, whatsoever that
the members constituting the Committee did not
know or had no specialization in the concerned
subjects nor is there any allegation of bias against
them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no
occasion at all arises for the Court to further probe
the matter. The contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners needs thus no further
comments. Suffice is it, however, to motion that while
urging that the key-answers provided by the
respondent Commission are wrong, all that is being
urged is that in some of the recognized test book or
books of repute, different answers of the concerned
questions have been provided. Assuming what has
been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners to be correct, it would neither be
permissible nor just and proper to interfere and other
re-evaluation of the answer sheets.
Thus, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has made a
submission that the decision of the Commission, based on the
recommendation and advice of the expert committee, constituted
for that purpose, is not open to challenge.
35. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has
thus made out a case that the Commission conducted the
examination in question by adopting a procedure, which is fair and
transparent, based on advice of experts at various levels. The
candidates were given opportunity to raise their objections against
the answer keys, thus ruling out the possibility of mistakes,
making the system interactive and responsive. The contention of
the petitioners that the answer keys provided by the expert were
incorrect, is based on self evaluation of the petitioners, which is
not legally tenable. The opinion of the expert is final and beyond
judicial review. In totality, learned counsel for the respondent-
Commission makes out a case that evaluation of answer scripts is
the job of experts.
36. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
perused the record of the case alongwith the precedent laws cited
at the Bar.
37. The questions arises for consideration of this Court is
whether this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
can sit in appeal over the report given by the expert committee
and substitute its own finding in place of the opinion of the expert
committee, pertaining to the evaluation of the answer scripts of
the examination for public employment.
38. Before entering into the merits of the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners in regard to the
faulty answer keys, we propose to first deal with the contention of
the respondents regarding the scope of judicial review in such
matters.
39. Leading precedent law, in this series, is Kanpur
University & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors., reported in
(1983) 4 SCC 309, wherein, the question arose for consideration
before the Hon'ble Apex Court was to the effect that if a paper-
setter commits an error while indicating the correct answer to a
question set by him, can the students who answer that question
correctly be failed for the reason that though their answer is
correct, it does not accord with the answer supplied by the paper-
setter to the University as the correct answer? In the case before
the Supreme Court, the questions were multiple choice objective
type and the candidates were required to exercise choice in
respect of one correct answer out of the four alternatives, as in
the case at hand.
40. The relevant portion of the judgment in Kanpur
Univesity & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors. (supra) reads as
under:
" . . . . . .We agree that the key-answer should be
assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be
wrong and that it should not be held to be
wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or
by a process of rationalisation. It must be
clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say,
it must be such as no reasonable body of men
well-versed in the particular subject would
regard as correct. The contention of the University
is falsified in this case by a large number of
acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read
by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room
for doubt that the answer given by the students is
correct and the key answer is incorrect.
. . . . . . . Secondly, a system should be devised by
the State Government for moderating the key
answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if
English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it
is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi
language as a translator. The translator must know
the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art
of translation. Fourthly, in a system of 'Multiple
Choice Objective-type test', care must be taken to
see that questions having an ambiguous import are
not set in the papers. . . . . . . . ."
41. The Hon'ble Apex Court, recently, in Ran Vijay Singh
& Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2018) 2 SCC
357, has laid down the precedent law regarding the scope of
judicial view in the matters pertaining to the recruitment process,
while referring the law laid down in Kanpur University & Ors.
Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors. (supra) amongst other precedent laws.
42. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) is
reproduced, in extenso, as hereunder:-
"What a mess! This is perhaps the only way
to describe the events that have transpired in the
examination conducted by the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board. We have
reached the present stage of judgment after eight
long years of uncertainty for, and three
evaluations of the answer sheets of, more than
36,000 candidates who took the examination for
recruitment as Trained Graduate Teachers way
back in January 2009. Hopefully today, their
travails, as those of the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board, will come to a
satisfactory end.
2. On 15-1-2009 the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board (for short "the Board")
published an advertisement inviting applications
for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate
Teachers in Social Science. The recruitment was to
be in accordance with the provisions of the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act,
1982 and the Rules framed thereunder.
3. More than 36,000 candidates took the written
examination held pursuant to the advertisement
and the result of the written examination was
declared by the Board on 18-6-2010. It may be
mentioned that the written examination was based
on multiple-choice answers which were to be
scanned on OMR sheets.
4. The candidates who qualified in the written
examination were called for an interview held
between 16-7-2010 and 26-7-2010. Eventually,
the combined result (written examination and
interview) was declared on 14-9-2010. According
to the appellants, they were successful in the
written examination as well as in the interview and
were amongst those who were in the select list for
recruitment.
5. Some candidates who were not successful in the
written examination or in the interview filed writ
petitions in the Allahabad High Court between
2010 and 2011. All these writ petitions were
dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The reasons
for dismissal of these writ petitions were that
there was no provision for re-evaluation of
the answer sheets in the Uttar Pradesh
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board Act, 1982 or the Rules framed
thereunder. Reliance was also placed by the
learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ
petitions on the decision of this Court in H.P. Public
Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur [H.P. Public
Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6
SCC 759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCEC 713]
in which this Court considered a large number of
its earlier decisions and held: (SCC p. 767, para
26)
"26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to
the effect that in the absence of any provision
under the statute or statutory
rules/regulations, the Court should not
generally direct re-evaluation."
6. Another batch of writ petitions (having 77 writ
petitioners) came to be listed before another
learned Single Judge of the High Court. The
subject and issues were the same and the learned
Single Judge admitted these writ petitions for final
hearing notwithstanding the dismissal of several
similar petitions. The challenge made by the writ
petitioners was to seven questions/answers in the
written examination which, according to them, had
incorrect key answers. The learned Single Judge
personally examined those seven questions and
concluded [Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.,
2012 SCC OnLine All 268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19]
that: (Ranjeet Kumar case [Ranjeet Kumar
Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 :
(2012) 4 All LJ 19] , SCC OnLine All para 42)
"(a) The correct answer of Question 24 in History
paper would be Option (1).
(b) For Question 25, History paper, Option (2) is
correct.
(c) Option (2) is the correct answer of Question 36
of History paper.
(d) Option (2) is the correct answer in respect to
Question 37 of History paper.
(e) Question 40 of History paper is wrongly
framed.
(f) In Question 43, there may be two correct
answers i.e. Options (1) and (3).
(g) In Question 32 of Civics paper, Option (3)
would be the correct answer."
The learned Single Judge then proceeded to
observe: (SCC OnLine All para 54)
"54. ... It cannot be doubted that being a selection
body for appointment of Teachers in Secondary
Schools, the Selection Board was under a pious as
well as statutory obligation to hold selection very
carefully, meticulously and in the most honest and
correct manner. The job of Selection Board could
not have been completed by mere holding a
selection without caring whether examination is
being conducted correctly and properly, whether
all the questions have been framed in a proper
manner, whether the answer(s), if it is multiple-
choice examination, have been given with due care
and caution so as to leave no scope of error or
mistake therein, etc. In fact, if such a mistake is
committed, it causes a multi-edged injury to an
otherwise studious, intelligent and well conversant
student who understands the subject, well knows
the relevant details and correct answers but
suffers due to sheer negligence of the examining
body. The obligation of the examining body cannot
be allowed to whittle out in any manner for any
reason whatsoever. For the fault of the examining
body, a candidate cannot be made to suffer."
7. On this basis, the learned Single Judge passed a
judgment and order dated 8-2-2012 [Ranjeet
Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All
268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] directing re-examination
of the answer sheets of these 77 writ petitioners.
It was further directed that in case these writ
petitioners are selected then those at the bottom
of the select list would automatically have to be
pushed out.
8. It must be recorded that the learned Single
Judge did refer to and cited several decisions of
this Court on the subject of re-evaluation but
unfortunately did not appreciate the law laid down.
The learned Single Judge relied on Manish
Ujwalv. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati
University [Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand
Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC 744] but
failed to appreciate that the six disputed answers
under consideration in that case were
demonstrably wrong and this was not in dispute
and even the learned counsel appearing for the
University did not question this fact. The decision
is clearly distinguishable on facts.
9. Be that as it may, the issue that remained
in Manish Ujwal [Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi
Dayanand Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC
744] was of the appropriate orders to be passed.
While considering this, the following cautionary
measures were suggested: (SCC p. 748, para 10)
"10. ... it is necessary to note that the University
and those who prepare the key answers have to be
very careful and abundant caution is necessary in
these matters for more than one reason. We
mention few of those; first and paramount reason
being the welfare of the student as a wrong key
answer can result in the merit being made a
casualty. One can well understand the predicament
of a young student at the threshold of his or her
career if despite giving correct answer, the student
suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably
erroneous key answers; the second reason is that
the courts are slow in interfering in educational
matters which, in turn, casts a higher
responsibility on the University while preparing the
key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, the
benefit goes in favour of the University and not in
favour of the students."
10. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the
learned Single Judge, the Board preferred Special
Appeal No. 442 of 2012 before the Division Bench
of the High Court. Some candidates also preferred
special appeals directed against the judgment and
order dated 8-2-2012 [Ranjeet Kumar
Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 :
(2012) 4 All LJ 19] . The special appeal filed by the
Board was dismissed by a Division Bench of the
High Court on 13-3-2012 [U.P. Secondary
Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P.,
2012 SCC OnLine All 4494] . In some other special
appeal filed by a candidate, it was stated by the
Board on 11-4-2012 that the answer sheets of all
the candidates would be re-evaluated in the light
of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
11. Following up on this, the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge was
implemented on 10-9-2012 and the re-evaluated
results of the written examination of all candidates
were declared. As a result of the re-evaluation, it
appears that some candidates, who were declared
successful in the combined result declared on 14-
9-2010 were now declared unsuccessful. The
appellants before us were not affected by the re-
evaluation of the written examination and
continued in the select list.
12. Thereafter, a set of petitions was filed
including some before this Court and eventually it
came to pass that those aggrieved by the order
passed by the Division Bench on 13-3-2012 [U.P.
Secondary Education Service Selection
Board v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 4494]
could file review petitions.
13. On 12-5-2014 the Board published the final
select list of candidates who had qualified in the
written examination as well as in the interview. In
this final select list, the appellants did not find a
place and, therefore, they challenged the order of
the learned Single Judge dated 8-2-2012 [Ranjeet
Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All
268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] . According to the
appellants the learned Single Judge had incorrectly
re-evaluated the seven disputed questions and had
arrived at incorrect answers to these questions.
14. The Division Bench heard all the review
petitions as well as the appeals and passed an
order dated 28-4-2015 [U.P. Secondary Education
Service Selection Board v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC
OnLine All 9066] referring the seven disputed
questions/answers for consideration by a one-man
Expert Committee. On or about 18-5-2015 the
Expert Committee gave its report to which the
appellants filed objections. Eventually, by the
judgment and order dated 2-11-2015 [U.P.
Secondary Education Service Selection
Board v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 5788 :
(2016) 3 All LJ 405] the Division Bench directed a
fresh evaluation of the answer sheets on the basis
of the report of the Expert Committee. This
decision of the Division Bench is under challenge
before us.
15. During the pendency of the appeals in this
Court, the third re-evaluation was completed by
the Board. The result of the third re-evaluation has
been kept in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was
initially filed before us but later returned to the
learned counsel for the Board.
16. We are pained that an examination for
recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers
advertised in January 2009 has still not attained
finality even after the passage of more than eight
years. The system of holding public
examinations needs to be carefully
scrutinised and reviewed so that selected
candidates are not drawn into litigation
which could go on for several years. Be that as
it may, we have still to tackle the issues before us.
17. It was submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellants that the Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and
the Rules framed thereunder do not provide for
any re-evaluation of the answer sheets and,
therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to
have undertaken that exercise at all. Reference
was made to the following passage from Mukesh
Thakur [H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh
Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S)
286 : 3 SCEC 713] which considered several
decisions on the subject and held: (SCC p. 765,
para 20)
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible
for the High Court to examine the question papers
and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the
Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the
candidates. If there was a discrepancy in
framing the question or evaluation of the
answer, it could be for all the candidates
appearing for the examination and not for
Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that
the High Court was examining the answer sheets
relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are
unable to understand as to whether such a course
could have been adopted by the High Court.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that
such a course was not permissible to the High
Court."
18. A complete hands-off or no-interference
approach was neither suggested in Mukesh
Thakur [H.P. Public Service
Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC
759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCEC 713]
nor has it been suggested in any other
decision of this Court--the case law
developed over the years admits of
interference in the results of an examination
but in rare and exceptional situations and to
a very limited extent.
19. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [Kanpur
University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] this
Court took the view that: (SCC p. 316, para 16)
"16. ... the key answer should be assumed to
be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and
that it should not be held to be wrong by an
inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalisation. It must be clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it
must be such as no reasonable body of men
well-versed in the particular subject would
regard as correct."
In other words, the onus is on the candidate to
clearly demonstrate that the key answer is
incorrect and that too without any inferential
process or reasoning. The burden on the
candidate is therefore rather heavy and the
constitutional courts must be extremely
cautious in entertaining a plea challenging
the correctness of a key answer. To prevent
such challenges, this Court recommended a few
steps to be taken by the examination authorities
and among them are: (i) establishing a system of
moderation; (ii) avoid any ambiguity in the
questions, including those that might be caused by
translation; and (iii) prompt decision be taken to
exclude the suspect question and no marks be
assigned to it.
20.Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth [Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth,
(1984) 4 SCC 27] is perhaps the leading case on
the subject and concerned itself with Regulation
104 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977
which reads: (SCC p. 37, para 10)
"104. Verification of marks obtained by a
candidate in a subject.--(1) Any candidate who
has appeared at the Higher Secondary Certificate
examination may apply to the Divisional Secretary
for verification of marks in any particular subject.
The verification will be restricted to checking
whether all the answers have been examined and
that there has been no mistake in the totalling of
marks for each question in that subject and
transferring marks correctly on the first cover page
of the answer book and whether the supplements
attached to the answer book mentioned by the
candidate are intact. No re-evaluation of the
answer book or supplements shall be done.
(2) Such an application must be made by the
candidate through the head of the junior college
which presented him for the examination, within
two weeks of the declaration of the examination
results and must be accompanied by a fee of Rs 10
for each subject.
(3) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to re-
evaluation of his answers or disclosure or
inspection of the answer books or other documents
as these are treated by the Divisional Board as
most confidential."
21. The question before this Court in Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar case[Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth,
(1984) 4 SCC 27] was: whether, under law, a
candidate has a right to demand an
inspection, verification and re-evaluation of
answer books and whether the statutory
regulations framed by the Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education governing the subject insofar as
they categorically state that there shall be no
such right can be said to be ultra vires,
unreasonable and void.
22. This Court noted that the Bombay High Court
[Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth v. Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education, 1980 SCC OnLine Bom 148 : AIR 1981
Bom 95] , while dealing with a batch of 39 writ
petitions, divided them into two groups: (i) cases
where a right of inspection of the answer sheets
was claimed; (ii) cases where a right of inspection
and re-evaluation of answer sheets was claimed.
With regard to the first group, the High Court held
the above Regulation 104(3) as unreasonable and
void and directed the Board concerned to allow
inspection of the answer sheets. With regard to the
second group of cases, it was held that the above
Regulation 104(1) was void, illegal and manifestly
unreasonable and therefore directed that the
facility of re-evaluation should be allowed to those
examinees who had applied for it.
23. In appeal against the decision [Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth v. Maharashtra State Board
of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,
1980 SCC OnLine Bom 148 : AIR 1981 Bom 95] of
the High Court, it was held by this Court
in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case [Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth,
(1984) 4 SCC 27] that the principles of natural
justice are not applicable in such cases. It was
held that: (Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
case [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] , SCC p.
38, para 12)
"12. ... The principles of natural justice cannot
be extended beyond reasonable and rational
limits and cannot be carried to such absurd
lengths as to make it necessary that
candidates who have taken a public
examination should be allowed to participate
in the process of evaluation of their
performances or to verify the correctness of
the evaluation made by the examiners by
themselves conducting an inspection of the
answer books and determining whether there
has been a proper and fair valuation of the
answers by the examiners."
24. On the validity of the Regulations, this Court
held [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] that they
were not illegal or unreasonable or ultra vires the
rule-making power conferred by statute. It was
then said: (Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
case[Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] , SCC p.
42, para 16)
"16. ... The Court cannot sit in judgment over
the wisdom of the policy evolved by the
legislature and the subordinate regulation-
making body. It may be a wise policy which
will fully effectuate the purpose of the
enactment or it may be lacking in
effectiveness and hence calling for revision
and improvement. But any drawbacks in the
policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will
not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot
strike it down on the ground that, in its
opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but
is even a foolish one, and that it will not
really serve to effectuate the purposes of the
Act. The legislature and its delegate are the
sole repositories of the power to decide what
policy should be pursued in relation to
matters covered by the Act and there is no
scope for interference by the Court unless the
particular provision impugned before it can
be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in
the sense of its being wholly beyond the
scope of the regulation-making power or its
being inconsistent with any of the provisions
of the parent enactment or in violation of any
of the limitations imposed by the
Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are
shown to exist in the present case...."
It was also noted by this Court that: (SCC p. 52,
para 22)
"22. ... the High Court has ignored the cardinal
principle that it is not within the legitimate domain
of the Court to determine whether the purpose of a
statute can be served better by adopting any
policy different from what has been laid down by
the legislature or its delegate and to strike down
as unreasonable a bye-law (assuming for the
purpose of discussion that the impugned regulation
is a bye-law) merely on the ground that the policy
enunciated therein does not meet with the
approval of the Court in regard to its
efficaciousness for implementation of the object
and purposes of the Act."
25. Upholding the validity of Regulation 104, this
Court then proceeded on the basis of the plain and
simple language of the Regulation to hold that:
(Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case [Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth,
(1984) 4 SCC 27] , SCC p. 48, para 20)
"20. ... The right of verification conferred by clause
(1) is subject to the limitation contained in the
same clause that no revaluation of the answer
books or supplements shall be done and the
further restriction imposed by clause (3),
prohibiting disclosure or inspection of the answer
books."
This Court then concluded the discussion by
observing: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29)
"29. ... As has been repeatedly pointed out by
this Court, the Court should be extremely
reluctant to substitute its own views as to
what is wise, prudent and proper in relation
to academic matters in preference to those
formulated by professional men possessing
technical expertise and rich experience of
actual day-to-day working of educational
institutions and the departments controlling
them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to
make a pedantic and purely idealistic
approach to the problems of this nature,
isolated from the actual realities and grass
root problems involved in the working of the
system and unmindful of the consequences
which would emanate if a purely idealistic
view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to
be propounded. It is equally important that
the Court should also, as far as possible,
avoid any decision or interpretation of a
statutory provision, rule or bye-law which
would bring about the result of rendering the
system unworkable in practice. It is
unfortunate that this principle has not been
adequately kept in mind by the High Court while
deciding the instant case."
26. In Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public
Service Commission [Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission,
(2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883] the
question under consideration was whether the
High Court [Bihar Public Service
Commission v. Pramod Kumar Srivastava, 2003
SCC OnLine Pat 398 : (2003) 2 PLJR 801] was
right in directing re-evaluation of the answer book
of a candidate in the absence of any provision
entitling the candidate to ask for re-evaluation.
This Court noted that there was no provision in the
Rules concerned for re-evaluation but only a
provision for scrutiny of the answer book
"wherein the answer books are seen for the
purpose of checking whether all the answers given
by a candidate have been examined and whether
there has been any mistake in the totalling of
marks of each question and noting them correctly
on the first cover page of the answer book".
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava case[Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission,
(2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883] , SCC
pp. 717-18, para 7)
This Court reiterated the conclusion in Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth [Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth,
(1984) 4 SCC 27] that: (SCC p. 718, para 7)
"7. ... in absence of a specific provision conferring a
right upon an examinee to have his answer books
re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued."
27. The principle laid down by this Court
in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth[Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth,
(1984) 4 SCC 27] was affirmed in W.B. Council of
Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das [W.B.
Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan
Das, (2007) 8 SCC 242 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S)
871 : 5 SCEC 792] and it was reiterated that there
must be finality attached to the result of a public
examination and in the absence of a statutory
provision re-evaluation of answer scripts cannot be
permitted and that it could be done only in
exceptional cases and as a rarity. Reference was
also made to Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar
Public Service Commission [Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission,
(2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883] , Board
of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan
Panda [Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas
Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 : 5 SCEC 457]
and Board of Secondary Education v. D.
Suvankar [Board of Secondary Education v. D.
Suvankar, (2007) 1 SCC 603 : 5 SCEC 719] .
28. The facts in CBSE v. Khushboo
Shrivastava [CBSE v. Khushboo Shrivastava,
(2014) 14 SCC 523 : 6 SCEC 109] are rather
interesting. The respondent was a candidate in the
All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance
Examination, 2007 conducted by the Central Board
of Secondary Education (for short "CBSE"). Soon
after the results of the examination were declared,
she applied for re-evaluation of her answer sheets.
CBSE declined her request since there was no
provision for this. She then filed a writ petition in
the Patna High Court and the learned Single Judge
[Khushboo Srivastava v. Union of India, 2008 SCC
OnLine Pat 1553] called for her answer sheets and
on a perusal thereof and on comparing her
answers with the model or key answers concluded
that she deserved an additional two marks. The
view of the learned Single Judge was upheld
[Khushboo Shrivastava v. Union of India, 2009
SCC OnLine Pat 1054 : (2009) 1 PLJR 867] by the
Division Bench of the High Court.
29. In appeal, this Court in Khushboo Shrivastava
case [CBSE v. Khushboo Shrivastava, (2014) 14
SCC 523 : 6 SCEC 109] set aside the decision of
the High Court and reiterating the view already
expressed by this Court from time to time and
allowing the appeal of CBSE it was held: (SCC p.
526, paras 9-11)
"9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public
Service Commission [Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission,
(2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883] has
clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] that in
the absence of any provision for the re-
evaluation of answer books in the relevant
rules, no candidate in an examination has any
right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his
marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service
Commission[Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar
Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 :
2004 SCC (L&S) 883] was followed by another
three-Judge Bench of this Court in Board of
Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan
Panda [Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas
Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 : 5 SCEC 457]
in which the direction of the High Court for re-
evaluation of answer books of all the examinees
securing 90% or above marks was held to be
unsustainable in law because the regulations of the
Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which
conducted the examination, did not make any
provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the
rules.
10. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All
India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance
Examination, 2007 conducted by CBSE did not
provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of
answer sheets. Hence, the appellants could not
have allowed such re-examination or re-evaluation
on the representation of Respondent 1 and
accordingly rejected the representation of
Respondent 1 for re-examination/re-evaluation of
her answer sheets....
11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned
Single Judge [Khushboo Srivastava v. Union of
India, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 1553] nor the Division
Bench [Khushboo Shrivastava v. Union of India,
2009 SCC OnLine Pat 1054 : (2009) 1 PLJR 867] of
the High Court could have substituted his/its
own views for that of the examiners and
awarded two additional marks to Respondent
1 for the two answers in exercise of powers
of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution as these are purely academic
matters. ..."
30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear
and we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are: ]
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an
answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a
matter of right, then the authority conducting the
examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or
scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from
prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-
evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated
very clearly, without any "inferential process of
reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and
only in rare or exceptional cases that a material
error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or
scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has
no expertise in the matter and academic matters
are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of
the key answers and proceed on that assumption;
and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should
go to the examination authority rather than to the
candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or
compassion does not play any role in the
matter of directing or not directing re-
evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is
committed by the examination authority, the
complete body of candidates suffers. The
entire examination process does not deserve
to be derailed only because some candidates
are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive
some injustice having been caused to them
by an erroneous question or an erroneous
answer. All candidates suffer equally, though
some might suffer more but that cannot be
helped since mathematical precision is not
always possible. This Court has shown one way
out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or
offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several
decisions of this Court, some of which have
been discussed above, there is interference
by the courts in the result of examinations.
This places the examination authorities in an
unenviable position where they are under
scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a
massive and sometimes prolonged examination
exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty.
While there is no doubt that candidates put in a
tremendous effort in preparing for an examination,
it must not be forgotten that even the examination
authorities put in equally great efforts to
successfully conduct an examination. The enormity
of the task might reveal some lapse at a later
stage, but the court must consider the internal
checks and balances put in place by the
examination authorities before interfering with the
efforts put in by the candidates who have
successfully participated in the examination and
the examination authorities. The present appeals
are a classic example of the consequence of such
interference where there is no finality to the result
of the examinations even after a lapse of eight
years. Apart from the examination authorities even
the candidates are left wondering about the
certainty or otherwise of the result of the
examination -- whether they have passed or not;
whether their result will be approved or
disapproved by the court; whether they will get
admission in a college or university or not; and
whether they will get recruited or not. This
unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody's advantage and such a state of
uncertainty results in confusion being worse
confounded. The overall and larger impact of all
this is that public interest suffers.
33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in
the first instance the learned Single Judge [Ranjeet
Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All
268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] took it upon himself to
actually ascertain the correctness of the key
answers to seven questions. This was completely
beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this
Court on several occasions, the exercise carried
out was impermissible. Fortunately, the Division
Bench [U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection
Board v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 5788 :
(2016) 3 All LJ 405] did not repeat the error but in
a sense, endorsed the view of the learned Single
Judge, by not considering the decisions of this
Court but sending four key answers for
consideration by a one-man Expert Committee.
34. Having come to the conclusion that the High
Court (the learned Single Judge [Ranjeet Kumar
Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 :
(2012) 4 All LJ 19] as well as the Division Bench
[U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection
Board v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 5788 :
(2016) 3 All LJ 405] ) ought to have been far more
circumspect in interfering and deciding on the
correctness of the key answers, the situation today
is that there is a third evaluation of the answer
sheets and a third set of results is now ready for
declaration. Given this scenario, the options before
us are to nullify the entire re-evaluation process
and depend on the result declared on 14-9-2010
or to go by the third set of results. Cancelling the
examination is not an option. Whichever option is
chosen, there will be some candidates who are
likely to suffer and lose their jobs while some
might be entitled to consideration for employment.
35. Having weighed the options before us, we are
of the opinion that the middle path is perhaps the
best path to be taken under the circumstances of
the case. The middle path is to declare the third
set of results since the Board has undertaken a
massive exercise under the directions of the High
Court and yet protect those candidates who may
now be declared unsuccessful but are working as
Trained Graduate Teachers a result of the first or
the second declaration of results. It is also possible
that consequent upon the third declaration of
results some new candidates might get selected
and should that happen, they will need to be
accommodated since they were erroneously not
selected on earlier occasions.
36. The learned counsel for the appellants
contended before us that in case her clients are
not selected after the third declaration of results,
they will be seriously prejudiced having worked as
Trained Graduate Teachers for several years.
However, with the middle path that we have
chosen their services will be protected and,
therefore, there is no cause for any grievance by
any of the appellants. Similarly, those who have
not been selected but unfortunately left out they
will be accommodated.
37. As a result of our discussion and taking into
consideration all the possibilities that might arise,
we issue the following directions:
37.1. The results prepared by the Board
consequent upon the decision dated 2-11-2015
[U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection
Board v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 5788 :
(2016) 3 All LJ 405] of the High Court should be
declared by the Board within two weeks from
today.
37.2. Candidates appointed and working as
Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the
declaration of results on the earlier occasions, if
found unsuccessful on the third declaration of
results, should not be removed from service but
should be allowed to continue.
37.3. Candidates now selected for appointment as
Trained Graduate Teachers (after the third
declaration of results) should be appointed by the
State by creating supernumerary posts. However,
these newly appointed Trained Graduate Teachers
will not be entitled to any consequential benefits.
38. Before concluding, we must express our deep
anguish with the turn of events whereby the
learned Single Judge [Ranjeet Kumar
Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 :
(2012) 4 All LJ 19] entertained a batch of writ
petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen,
even though several similar writ petitions had
earlier been dismissed by other learned Single
Judge(s). Respect for the view taken by a
coordinate Bench is an essential element of judicial
discipline. A Judge might have a difference of
opinion with another Judge, but that does not give
him or her any right to ignore the contrary view.
In the event of a difference of opinion, the
procedure sanctified by time must be adhered to
so that there is demonstrated respect for the rule
of law.
39. With the above directions, the appeals and
miscellaneous applications are disposed of."
43. In H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh
Thakur & anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759, which has been
referred to in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the
absence of any provision under the statute or statutory
rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct
revaluation, while observing thus:
24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no
more res integra. This issue was considered at
length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543] ,
wherein this Court rejected the contention
that in the absence of the provision for
revaluation, a direction to this effect can be
issued by the Court. The Court further held that
even the policy decision incorporated in the
Rules/Regulations not providing for
rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot
be challenged unless there are grounds to
show that the policy itself is in violation of
some statutory provision. The Court held as
under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16)
"14. ... It is exclusively within the province of the
legislature and its delegate to determine, as a
matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute
can best be implemented and what measures,
substantive as well as procedural would have to be
incorporated in the rules or regulations for the
efficacious achievement of the objects and
purposes of the Act. ...
***
16. ... The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation- making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act."
44. The Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in academic matters, has laid down the following precedent law in Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr.H.L. Ramesh, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372:
"38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters."
45. In the series, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following precedent law in University Grants Commission Vs. Neha Anil Bobde, reportedin (2013) 10 SCC 519:
"31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491] , Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University [(2001) 8 SCC 546 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1] and Rajbir Singh Dalal v.Chaudhary Devi Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 887] , has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
46. The U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hiram G. Hill, Jr. et al. (437 US 153, 57 L Ed 2d 117, 98 S Ct 2279), in paragraph 15, at page 146, while dealing with the plea of judicial review of reasonableness on Endangered Species Act, pointed out that such was not the function of the court, and observed, "We have no expert knowledge on the subject of endangered species, much less do we have a mandate from the people to strike a balance of equities on the side of the Tellico Dam."
There is a passage from Robert Bolt about the observations of Sir Thomas More quoted in the said judgment which, in the opinion of this Court, is illuminative and of relevance:
"The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal, not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal ........ I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain-sailing, I can't navigate, I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh there I'm a forester..... What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ..... And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?.... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-Man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down.... you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow them?..... Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake" R. Bolt, A Man for All Seasons, Act I, p. 147 (Three Plays, Heinemann ed 1967)."
This Court is in complete agreement with the lament of Sir Thomas More articulated by Robert Bolt, although the observation made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the aforementioned report is having persuasive value only, and the same is not a binding precedent.
47. Apart from the above, a piquant situation has also arisen in this case that some of the petitioners herein, without any demur or protest to the earlier answer key, by raising their objections in regard thereto, have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking redressal, and therefore, they are now estopped, from questioning the correctness of the answer key, as per the doctrine of constructive res judicata. Therefore, at this belated stage, no relief can be granted to such candidates.
48. The doctrine of constructive res judicata has been engrafted under Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is artificial form of doctrine of res judicata and provides that if a plea could have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he should not be permitted to take the plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding with reference to the same subject matter. Thus, it helps in raising the bar by suitably construing the general principle of subduing a cantankerous litigant. That is why, this rule is called 'constructive res judicata'.
49. The question, for the first time, arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Janapada Sabha, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1013, whether the concept of constructive res judicata can be applied in the writ petition or not? Although, in that case, the Hon'ble Court rejected the application of the doctrine of constructive res judicata to writ petition filed under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but thereafter, in the leading case of Devilal Modi Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam reported in (1965) 1 SCR 686, the Hon'ble Apex Court, clarifying the stand in this regard, held on considerations of public policy to prevent multifarious of legal proceedings between the same parties, the rule of constructive res judicata postulates that if a plea could have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he could not be permitted to take tht plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding which is based on the same cause of action and that this rule applies also where prior proceeding is a writ proceeding.
50. The principle of Constructive Res-judicata has been beautifully explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 806, Paras 3 and 4 of which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"3. The principle of estoppel per rem judicatam is a rule of evidence. As has been stated in Marginson v. Blackburn Borough Council, it may be said to be "the broader rule of evidence which prohibits the reassertion of a cause of action". This doctrine is based on two theories: (i) the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of the community as a matter of public policy, and (ii) the interest of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of litigation. It therefore serves not only a public but also a private purpose by obstructing the reopening of matters which have once been adjudicated upon. It is thus not permissible to obtain a second judgment for the same civil relief on the same cause of action, for otherwise the spirit of contentiousness may give rise to conflicting judgments of equal authority, lead to multiplicity of actions and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is the cause of action which gives rise to an action, and that is why it is necessary for the courts to recognise that a cause of action which results in a judgment must lose its identity and vitality and merge in the judgment when pronounced. It cannot therefore survive the judgment, or give rise to another cause of action on the same facts. This is what is known as the general principle of res judicata.
4. But it may be that the same set of facts may give rise to two or more causes of action. If in such a case a person is allowed to choose and sue upon one cause of action at one time and to reserve the other for subsequent litigation, that would aggravate the burden of litigation. Courts have therefore treated such a course of action as an abuse of its process and Somervell, L.J., has answered it as follows in Greenhalgh v. Mallard:
"I think that on the authorities to which I will refer it would be accurate to say that res judicata for this purpose is not confined to the issues which the court is actually asked to decide, but that it covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject-matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them."
"This is therefore another and an equally necessary and efficacious aspect of the same principle, for it helps in raising the bar of res judicata by suitably construing the general principle of subduing a cantankerous litigant. That is why this other rule has some times been referred to as constructive res judicata which, in reality, is an aspect or amplification of the general principle."
51. The judgment in Forward Construction Co. Vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri, reported in (1986) 1 SCC 100, further clarified the position by holding that an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined, but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to of essentially connected with subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the CPC was applied to writ case.
52. More than 150 years ago, the English Court of Chancery, in Henderson Vs. Henderson, (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313, confirmed that a party may not raise any claim in subsequent litigation which they ought to be raised properly in a previous action. In that case, The Vice Chancellor, Sir James Wigram held thus:
"I believe I state the rule of the Court correctly when I say that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter[s] which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. . . . . . . . ."
The said decision has also been followed and cited, as a good law, with approval numerous times, including:
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co., [2000] UKHL 65 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited v Zodiac Seats UK Limited, [2013] UKSC 46 Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc, [1991] 2 AC 93 Dexter v Vlieland-Boddy, [2003] EWCA Civ 14 Aldi Stores v WSP Group plc, [2008] 1 WLR 748 Henley v Bloom, [2010] 1 WLR 1770 This Court is conscious of the fact that the law laid down in Henderson Vs. Henderson (supra) is not a binding precedent, but the same carries persuasive value.
53. Although plethora of case laws of the Hon'ble Apex Court, have been referred to in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), however, to facilitate the present adjudication, the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in those precedent laws, needs to be briefly outlined in this judgment as well.
54. As pointed out by the Apex court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497, re-evaluation of answer books is not permissible. Decision of the Court in this regard, in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27, has been approved and followed in subsequent decisions. If re-evaluation has to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, besides leading to utter confusion. Barring re-evaluation of answer books and restricting remedy of the candidates only to re-totaling has been held to be valid. However, in the context of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the examinee would have the right to seek inspection of the answer books or taking certified copy thereof.
55. In President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 603, the Hon'ble Apex Court endorsed the view taken by it in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (supra) and held that it is in the public interest that the results of public examination when published should have finality attached to it. If inspection and verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty in the examination process. Therefore, in such matters, the Court should be extremely careful and reluctant to substitute its own views to that of the experts. However, the Apex Court sounded a note of caution that it would be wholly wrong for the Court to take a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature isolated from actual realities and grass root problems. It is, in these circumstances, the Apex Court observed that award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible, the examiner has to be not only careful and cautious but also has a duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. No element of chance or luck should be introduced. Absence of a provision for re-evaluation cannot be a shield for the examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the answer scripts. That would be against the very concept for which re-evaluation is impermissible.
56. In Secretary W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das & Ors., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 242, the view taken in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs D. Suvankar & Anr. (supra) has been approved.
57. It appears that the aforesaid position regarding impermissibility of re-evaluation has been departed upon, when it is a case of erroneous evaluation by using wrong answer key. In the case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690, the Apex Court was of the view that if the model answer key which forms the basis for evaluation was erroneous/defective, the result prepared on the basis of such evaluation would also be erroneous. Application of defective answer key would vitiate the result. In such a situation, the decision of the High Court to refer the model answer key to experts for examination, who in the course of their examination found several answers to be wrong, was not interfered with.
Additionally, the Supreme Court held that in a case of such nature, the High Court would be entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition.
58. There is no dispute to the proposition canvassed at the Bar that any matter pertaining to conduct of examination, for any purpose, be it for recruitment to public service or in case of examinations conducted by the Board or University, scope of judicial review is very limited. Judges do not assume the role of super-examiners and Courts are also not to act as appellate bodies. Courts ordinarily do not carry out a review of the assessment or evaluation of answers or of marks awarded by the examiner. Once evaluation is done, Courts refrain from entering into the domain of re-evaluation of the answers. Evaluation of answer scripts must be left to the experts in the field. Role of the Court in matters of evaluation of answers scripts is minimal. Courts should not act as appellate bodies in such mattes and should not assume the role of super-examiners.
59. Now that the principles of law are before this Court, and according to those principles judicially adumbrated hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to refer, in the following paragraph(s), to only those questions/answers, which in the opinion of this Court appear to be 'demonstrably wrong', and expect those, this Court does not deem it appropriate, in light of the aforementioned precedential backdrop, to make any observation with regard to correctness or otherwise, of those questions/answers, so as to substitute the findings of the experts by its own findings.
60. At this juncture, it is considered apt and expedient to quote the paper-wise question and correct answer as per the experts/respondent-Commission, pertaining whereto, the present writ petitions have been filed, and this will also follow the analysis made in regard to those questions and answers, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court.
"G.K. Paper - I Q.17 Which of the following objects are not associated with Ahar Culture sites
(i) Rice (ii) Black & Read ware
(iii) Copper Objects (iv) Painted Greyware Correct answer of RPSC (D) i.e. Painted Greyware.
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the proof annexed with the report shows that all the other three options, except option (D), are associated with the AHAR Culture, and therefore, answer (D) i.e. Painted Greyware is correct. Though learned counsel for the respondent has tried to make out a case from the Books of the Rajasthan Board that Painted Greyware was also part of the AHAR Culture, but on examination of the literature provided, answer (D) i.e. Painted Greyware, is holding the field.
Q.23 Maharana Pratap made Chawad his capital, it remained capital of Mewar till?
(i) 1597 (ii) 1605 (iii) 1609 (iv) 1615 Correct answer of RPSC (D) i.e. 1615
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
This Court has seen that the Book written by Colonel Tod, namely, History of Rajasthan (Part I) clearly mentions that Chawad remained capital of Mewar until 1615. The rebuttal made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of school books, which speaks that for twenty eight years, even in 1615, Chawad continued to be the Capital of Mewar.
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the proof annexed with the report clearly shows that 1615 was the exact year of change of Capital. Thus, the answer (iv) is correct. G.K. (Hindi & Sanskrit).
Q.24 Choose the leaders from the following who participated in the Bijolia Peasant Movement?
(i) Sadhu Sitaram Das (ii) Vijay Singh Pathik
(iii) Manikya Lal Verma (iv) Narayan Ji Patel Options:
(A) 1, 2, 4 (B) 1, 2 (C) 1, 2, 3, 4 (D) 1, 2,3 Correct answer of RPSC (C) i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
Various books examined point out the combination of the leaders, who participated in the Bijolia Peasant Movement, but the objection that Narayan Ji Patel was not part of it, is clearly demonstrated to be wrong, as the proof submitted clearly shows that Narayan Ji Patel was involved as Farmer Leader in the Bijolia Peasant Movement at the inception thereof, which started at his arrest for his refusal to render begaar in September 1918.
Therefore, option (C) i.e. 1,2,3,4 is correct. Q.26 Who among the following was not related to Mahant Pyarelal case
(i) Ram Karan (ii) Mohan Lal Jalori
(iii) Thapankesari Singh Bahut (iv) Som Dut Lahri Correct answer of RPSC (ii) i.e. Mohan Lal Jalori Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination of the proof annexed with the expert report, which shows that all the other three options, except option (ii) i.e. Mohan Lal Jalori, were directly involved in the Murder of Mahant Pyare Lal. Therefore, option (ii) i.e. Mohan Lal Jalori is the correct answer.
Q.37 Which of the following text on music were written by Rana Kumbha (A) Sangeetraj (B) Sangeet Mimosa (C) Sudhprabhanth (D) Kala Nidhi Options:
(1) A,B (2) A, C, D (3) A, B, C (4) A, B, C, D Correct answer of RSPC (1) i.e. A, B
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the answer (1) i.e. A, B, of the RPSC, is demonstrably erroneous, as the reason for excluding (C) Sudhprabhanth is that the Granth 'Sudhprabhanth' has been misspelt, as the correct name of Granth is "Sudhprabandh", which renders the answer wrong.
[Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts.] Q.51 Which one of the following cities hosted the meeting of W.S.F. for the first time in India
(i) Mumbai (ii) New Delhi
(iii) Jaipur (iv) Chennai Correct answer of RPSC (1) Mumbai Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the said question is within syllabus under the heading "Globalization and its Impact".
Therefore, Answer (1) i.e. Mumbai is correct. Q.53 Instrument of accession of J & K State with Union of India was signed on
(i) 22nd October, 1947 (ii) 24th October, 1947
(iii) 25th October, 1947 (iv) 26th October, 1947 Correct answer of RPSC (4) i.e. 26th October, 1947 Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the said question is within syllabus under the heading of para 3 (India's Federal System).
Therefore, Answer (4) i.e. 26th October,1947 is correct.
Q.98 Which of the following river is known as the Ganga of South
(i) Krishna (ii) Godawari
(iii) Mahanadi (iv) Periyar Deleted the question as the correct answer was Kaveri which is none of the options.
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the deletion of the question was done on the ground that some of the proof indicate that 'Godawari' was also known as 'Ganga of South'.
Therefore, deletion of this question was rightly done. Sanskrit:
6-^viq=%* v= lekl& ¼1½ uUrRiq:"k% ¼2½ cgqozhfg% ¼3½ vO;;hHkko% ¼4½ deZ/kkj;% As per the expert report option No.1 and option No.2 both were correct, hence, as per the advice of the expert committee the question stands deleted.
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the expert report is self explanatory coupled with the material showing that there are multiple correct answers to this question.
Therefore, deletion of this question was rightly done. 8- ^v/;srk* bfr r`PizR;;kUrins /kkrwilxkSZ Lr% % ¼1½ vf/k + b.k ¼2½ vf/k + baM~ ¼3½ vf/k + by~ ¼4½ vf/k + ,M~ As per the expert report option No.1 and option No.2 both were correct, hence, as per the advice of the expert committee the question stands deleted. The question is within syllabus. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the expert report is self explanatory coupled with the material showing that there are multiple correct answers to this question.
Therefore, deletion of this question was rightly done. 43- ^gu~ /kkrks% yM~ydkj e/;eiq:"k ,dopus :iaL;kr~& ¼1½ vgr~ ¼2½ vg% ¼3½ vgu~ ¼4½ vgzu~ Option No.4 is the correct answer.
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the proof rendered by the petitioners clearly show that option (3) i.e. vgu~ is the correct answer. However, option (4) i.e. vgzu~ of the RPSC also seems to be correct.
[Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts.] 104- fu"dze.klaLdkjL; dky% ¼1½ prqFksZ ekls ¼2½ f}rh; ekls ¼3½ "k"Bs ekls ¼4½ v"Ves ekls The question has been deleted as multiple options were correct. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that this question has been rightly deleted on the ground of having multiple correct answers to this question. 109- iBudkS'kykfHko`}ks dks;a fof/k% izkFkfedrka Hktrs? ¼1½ ini}fr% ¼2½ okD;fof/k% ¼3½ dFkki}fr% ¼4½ o.kZlekEuk;fof/k% Option No.2 is correct answer.
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the relevant proof indicate that option (1) ini}fr% and option (2) okD;fof/k%, both are correct answers.
[Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts.] 117- ukVdf'k{k.kfof/k"kq nks"kk.kkek/kkjs.k Js"B bfr& vkfnz;rsA ¼1½ d{kkfHku;fof/k% ¼2½ O;k[;k fof/k% ¼3½ leok; fof/k% ¼4½ jaxe'okfHku;fof/k% Option No.3 is correct.
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that option (3) i.e. leok; fof/k% of the RPSC is correct. Hindi:
26- ^tjB & tBj* 'kCn&;qXe dk vFkZ gS& ¼1½ tM+hcwVh& 'kjhj ¼2½ o`}&Tokyk ¼3½ toku&isV ¼4½ cw<k&isV
That RPSC has considered option (4) i.e. cw<k&isV as correct answer. Since no objection with regard to correctness of this question was raised, the same was not examined by the Expert Committee. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the candidates did not question the validity of this question, when they were given opportunity by the respondents to do so.
79- ^^dkO;'kksHkk;k% drkZjks /kekZ xq.kk%A** dkO; xq.k dh ;g ifjHkk"kk fdl vkpk;Z us izLrqr dh gS?
¼1½ Hkkeg ¼2½ naMh ¼3½ eEeV ¼4½ okeu
That RPSC has considered option (4) i.e. okeu as correct answer. Since no objection with regard to correctness of this question was raised, the same was not examined by the Expert Committee. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the candidates did not question the validity of this question, when they were given opportunity by the respondents to do so.
103- fuEukafdr dgkuh vkanksyuksa ,oa muds lw=/kkjksa ls lEcfU/kr ;qXeksa esa ls dkSu lk ;qXe vlaxr gS?
¼1½ lspru dgkuh & eghiflag ¼2½ lekukarj dgkuh & deys'oj ¼3½ vdgkuh & fueZy oekZ ¼4½ lgt dgkuh & jktsUnz ;kno As per expert report option No.3 and option No.4 both were correct, hence, as per the advice of the expert committee the question stands deleted.
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the report of the expert committee is self explanatory.
Therefore, the deletion of this question has rightly been done.
106- dkSu lk leqPp; lqesfyr ugha gS? ¼1½ u;s ckny] tkuoj vkSj tkuoj] t[e&eksgu jkds'k ¼2½ foiFkxk] 'kj.kkFkhZ] vej oYyjh&tSusUnz ¼3½ vfHkeU;q dh vkRedFkk] NksVs NksVs rktey] VwVuk & jktsUnz ;kno ¼4½ 'kkeh dkxt] [kqnk dh okilh] lchuk ds pkyhl pksj&ukfljk 'kekZ As per the expert report option No.2 and option No.3 both were correct, hence, as per the advice of the expert committee the question stands deleted.
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the report of the expert committee is self explanatory.
Therefore, the deletion of this question has rightly been done.
113-^^ft.k cu Hkwy u tkaork xsan xo; fxMjkt fr.k cu tacqd rk[kM+k Å/ke eaMS vktA^^ mi;qZDr Nan ds vuqlkj flag ds ou esa dkSu /kekpkSdM+h epk jgk gS ?
¼1½ xhnM+ ¼2½ gkFkh ¼3½ xsaMk ¼4½ 'kwdj
As per the advice of the expert committee the question stands deleted as the said question was found to be out of syllabus. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the report of the expert committee is self explanatory.
Therefore, the deletion of this question has rightly been done.
123- fgdky [k.M ;kstuk fdl fof/k dk foHkktu gS%& ¼1½ O;k[;ku fof/k ¼2½ lEck; fof/k ¼3½ iz;osf{kr v/;u fof/k ¼4½ O;fäjs[k fof/k Question deleted as the question has been misprinted, 'fgdky' misprinted instead of 'f}dky' Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the report of the expert committee is self explanatory.
Therefore, the deletion of this question has rightly been done.
G.K.(Social Science):
Q.7 Which one of the following Ishoyet is the eastern boundaries of the western Sandy plain in western Rajasthan
(i) 15 cm (ii) 25 cm
(iii) 40 cm (iv) 80 cm Correct answer of RPSC (3) i.e. 40 cm Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that though as per the RPSC, option (3) i.e. 40 cm is correct answer, but as per the proof rendered, it is demonstratively proved that answer (2) i.e. 25 cm there.
[Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts.] Q.8 According to Desertification and Land Degradation Atlas of India, ISRO 2007 the total area under desertification in Rajasthan is
(i) 70% (ii) 67%
(iii) 65% (iv) 59% Correct answer of RPSC (2) i.e. 67% Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the answer
(ii) of the RPSC i.e. 67% is correct.
Q.15 Which of the following statement about Ahar is not correct:-
(1) Excavation of Ahar has thrown light on various faces of human life.
(2) Houses were built on brick foundation. (3) The super structures of either clay or mudbricks have all gone (4) Aharians mixed quartz nodules and chips in clay to strengthen and beatify the walls and foundation.
Correct answer of RPSC (2) i.e. Houses were built on Brick foundation.
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the answer (2) of the RPSC i.e. 'Houses were built on brick foundation' is correct.
Q.84 Who according to the terman very superior contain
(i) above 140.00 IQ (ii) 120-125 IQ
(iii) 110-115 IQ (iv) Below 110 IQ Correct answer of RPSC (1) i.e. 140 IQ Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the answer (1) of the RPSC i.e. 'above 140.00 IQ' is correct. Q.95 Latitudinal and Longitudinal extent of India is:
(i) 8'6'-37 4'N & 68 7' E-97 25'E (ii)8'4'N-37 6'N & 68 7'E-97 25' E
(iii)6'4'N-37 6'N & 68 7'E-97 25'E(iv)6'4'N-37 4'N & 68 7'E-97 25'E Correct answer of RPSC (2) i.e. 8'4'N-37 6'N & 68 7'E-97 25' E. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
The RPSC has demonstrated that the measurement of Latitudinal and Longitudinal extent is India has been made from 'Kanyakumari', whereas the petitioners have shown that this should have been from 'Indira Point' in Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Thus, after a careful examination, this Court finds that the answer of the RPSC i.e. (2) i.e. 8'4'N-37 6'N & 68 7'E-97 25' E seems to be demonstrably erroneous. Hence, the southern-most point has been rightly taken as Indira Point. [Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts.] Social Science:
Q. 13 According to 2011 census, the percentage of Male & Female literacy in India is
(i) 83.78 & 76.60 (ii) 81.51 & 67.06
(iii) 79.63 & 66.77 (iv) 82.14 & 65.0 Correct answer of RPSC is (4) i.e. 82.14 & 65.0 Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Courts finds that there is no discrepancy in the language.
Q. 17 If personal income is Rs.50000/- and personal income tax is 2000/- consumption is 42,000/- personal interest payment 2000/-& personal saving is 4000/- the disposable income equals
(i) 42,000/- (ii) 44,000/-
(iii) 46,000/- (iv) 48,000/-
Correct answer of RPSC is (4) i.e. 48,000/-
After a careful examination, this Courts finds that option (iii) i.e. 46,000/- also seems to be correct.
[Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts].
Q. 21 Money is what money does this definition of Money is given by
(i) Hartley Withers (ii) Marshall
(iii) F.A.Walker (iv) Crowther RPSC deleted the question due to multiple answers Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the report of the expert committee is self explanatory.
Therefore, the deletion of this question has rightly been done.
Q. 65 Consider the following statement about Generalist Civil Services
(i) They mainly work at most of the top of administrative position
(ii) They act as executive heads of some organizations
(iii) They advice to the Ministers
(iv) They act as head of some public enterprises Select the correct answer by using the codes below:
Codes:
(1) i,ii,iii,iv (2) i,ii,iii (3) i,iii (4) i Correct answer of RPSC (1)
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the Generalist Civil Services work at all the above positions. Therefore, the answer of the RPSC (1) i.e. i,ii,iii,iv is correct.
Q. 76 In Jainism, liberated person (jeevanmukt) is called
(i) Arhat (ii) Kewali
(iii) Sthotipagya (iv) Saratavgarj Correct answer of RPSC is (1) i.e. Arhat Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the expert report is self explanatory.
Therefore, the answer of the RPSC (1) i.e. Arhat is correct.
Q. 78 The language of Ashokan Inscription is
(i) Prakrit (ii) Prakrit & Kharoshthi
(iii) Prakrit, Kharoshti & Aramaic (iv) Prakrit, Aramaic & Greek Correct answer of RPSC is (4) i.e. Prakrit, Aramaic & Greek Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the answer of the RPSC (4) i.e. Prakrit, Aramaic & Greek seems to be demonstrably wrong.
[Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts.] Q. 90 A common equilibrium establishes at a point where
(i) MU1/MU2 = P1/P2
(ii) MU1/MU2 = P1/P2 marginal utility of income
(iii) MU1/P1 = MU2/P2 marginal utility of income
(iv) all of these Correct answer of RPSC is (4) i.e. All of these.
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the answer of the RPSC (4) i.e. all of these is correct. Q. 112 Formal modes of people's participation in administration include
(i) Elections
(ii) Pressure groups
(iii) Advisory committees
(iv) Right to Information Select the correct answer by using the code given below:
(1) (i) and (iii) (2) (ii) and (iii) (3) (i), (iii) and (iv) (4) (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) Correct Answer of RPSC(3) i.e. Advisory committee Answer changed as option(3) on the basis of proof submitted by the candidates."
Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court:
After a careful examination, this Court finds that the answer of the RPSC i.e. (iii) Advisory Committee seems to be demonstrably wrong.
[Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts].
After examining the questions and answers on two consecutive dates, this Court has only pointed out the questions, which are demonstrably erroneous, but this Court is very hesitant to substitute the experts opinion by its own opinion, and therefore, this Court does not wish to substitute the answers given by the experts by its own analogy, and only wishes that for gaining maximum accuracy and ultimate confidence of the participating candidates, the questions earmarked for re- examination by the experts, as above, shall be re-referred to the expert committee.
61. In the present days, it has become a common feature that the number of selections conducted by the Commission are being called in question and judicial review thereof is being sought, on one or the other pretext. These types of anomalies in the public recruitment examinations, obviously, leads to a predicament of an educated unemployed youth, who although is aspiring for public employment - some of whom - at the threshold of their career, but wailing in despair for his turn to come in the long queue of the educated unemployed.
62. In the face of the aforesaid determination, coupled with the above consummate exposition of law and the often proclaimed caveat that a court of law ought not take upon itself the task of experts, examine the question papers and answers itself, record its opinion thereupon and issue consequential operative directions, more particularly, in absence of any allegation of bias or mala fide or extraneous consideration against the expert committee in hand vis-a-vis the disputed questions/answer key, this Court is neither inclined to enter into the grievance raised by the petitioners in relation to evaluation of their answers to the various questions pertaining to the disputed Papers, including erroneous questions/answers therein, nor this Court is inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioners in regard thereto.
63. However, the respondent-Commission being a Constitutional Body, entrusted with the high responsibility of undertaking the recruitment to public service, is expected to maintain a high standard for evaluation of the answer scripts so that purity of the selection process is not eroded and people of the country continue to repose faith and trust in the conduct of selection by the Commission. It is all the more necessary, in the wake of the fact that the respondent-Commission is being arrayed as party before this Court in regard to number of examinations conducted by it, that it is an onerous duty cast upon the Commission to rule out each and every possibility, being compelled whereby, the unemployed youth is dragging themselves as litigant before the courts, thereby burdening the courts, as well, with such unwarranted litigations. That being so, although, re-evaluation is not permissible in light of the aforesaid precedential backdrop, the respondent-Commission should consider and take appropriate steps to ensure fair and proper evaluation of the answer scripts so as to minimize all possible errors on the part of examiners and scrutinizers.
64. Before parting with this judgment, this Court also deems it appropriate to observe that the respondent-Commission should always keep in mind, while conducting the recruitment process for public employment, the constitutional and judicial mandates, as well as the verdicts delivered by the Courts of the country, more particularly, the verdicts and mandates of Hon'ble Apex Court - past, present and future - on the Subject, in all times to come, as well as exercise their own wisdom and resources optimally, so that the respondent-Commission, alongwith the State and its functionaries, may not be dragged into unwarranted litigations, which certainly waste, amongst others, their precious time and resources. Furthermore, it is to be borne in mind that the recruitment process of the kind in hand pertains to the post of Teacher, which is a reputed post, not only for the concerned candidates and the society at large, but also for the respondent- Commission.
65. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission to constitute an expert committee afresh, comprising of three or more members, other than the ones, who have remained members in the earlier expert committee pertaining to the recruitment in question. The said Committee shall re-examine the correct answers to the questions, pertaining whereto, in the foregoing paragraph, this Court has observed, "Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts". Such fresh expert committee shall be constituted by the respondent-Commission within a period of seven days from today. The expert committee to be constituted by the respondent-Commission, in pursuance of this judgment, shall submit its report, within a period of fourteen days from the date of its constitution by the respondent- Commission, regarding correctness of the questions/answers, which have been found to be 'demonstrably wrong' by this Court, as hereinabove, in this judgment. To reiterate, this Court, by this judgment, has not granted any relief to those petitioners, who have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without even raising any objection with regard to the earlier answer key, which they cannot do now, at this belated stage, as already observed hereinabove. However, it is made clear that the next phase of the recruitment in question shall be conducted, only after making compliance of this judgment. It is further made clear that after this judgment, no further objections shall be entertained by this Court, except in rarest of rare cases.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-