Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urmila vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 May, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5551 / 2018
Urmila D/o Shri Ram Diyal, W/o Shri Vinod Kumar, Aged About 27
Years, Resident of Chak 6 RWM, Post Office 4 DWM, Tehsil
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through 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
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.R.Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Khet Singh
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 05/05/2018
Pronounced on 16/05/2018
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"a. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be restrained from deleting
Question No.141 from Social Science Subject Question
Paper and Question No.92 from GK & Education
Psychology Subject.
b. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to give numbers
for Question No.141 from Social Science Subject
Question Paper and Question No.92 from GK &
Education Psychology Subject and to give appointment
(2 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
on the post of Senior Teacher Grade II.
c. 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 petitioner.
d. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed with costs."
2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present
controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in
a batch of writ petitions, leading case being S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 3083/2018 (Rameshvri Kumari Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 05.05.2018), relevant portion of
which reads as under:
"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
(3 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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
(4 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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).
(5 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
(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.
(6 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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,
(7 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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
(8 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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
(9 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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
(10 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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
(11 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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
(12 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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
(13 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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
(14 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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
(15 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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.
(16 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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.
(17 of 39)
[CW-5551/2018]
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 (18 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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:
(19 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] "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 (20 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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 (21 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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.
(22 of 39) [CW-5551/2018]
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 (23 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] & 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 (24 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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?
(25 of 39) [CW-5551/2018]
(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:
(26 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] (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).
(27 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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~ (28 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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 (29 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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 (30 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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 (31 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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 (32 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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 (33 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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 (34 of 39) [CW-5551/2018]
(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:
(35 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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 (36 of 39) [CW-5551/2018]
(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 (37 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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 (38 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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 (39 of 39) [CW-5551/2018] 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."
3. In light of the observations and directions contained in the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petition also stands disposed of in the same terms.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-