Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sukhveer Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 RAJ 226
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 6) [CW-2257/2020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2257/2020
1. Sukhveer Kaur D/o Harneek Singh, Aged About 38 Years, 10 Ksd Mokhmwala, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
2. Bhagwanti D/o Jagdish Prasad, aged about 37 years, R/o Village 2 DWM, PO Birmana, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Women And Child Development, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Director, Women And Child Development Department, Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. S. Sandhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
03/03/2020
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the revised result, issued by the respondent - Rajasthan Staff Selection Board on 16.01.2020.
2. The facts appertain to the present writ petition are that the petitioner applied for the post of Supervisor (Women) (Anganwadi Workers Quota), pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.10.2018 for direct recruitment.
(Downloaded on 05/03/2020 at 08:40:48 PM)
(2 of 6) [CW-2257/2020]
3. All the candidates were required to undergo a written examination based on the following scheme :
ijh{kk Ldhe izFke [k.M Ø- la- fo'k; vad&100 le; ¼d½ Hkk'kk Kku] rdZ "kfDr ,oa lkekU; Kku 1 lkekU; fgUnh 50 2 lkekU; vaxzsth 25 3 xf.kr ,oa lkekU; rdZ "kfDr 25 f}rh; [k.M 3 ?k.Vs Ø- la- fo'k; vad&100 ¼d½ iks'k.k o LokLF; dk Kku rFkk ;kstuk,a 65 ¼[k½ f"k"kq dh izkjfEHkd ns[kHkky ,oa f"k{kk 35 dqy vad 200
4. The result was declared by the Selection Board on 22.07.2019. Certain candidates preferred writ petitions and challenged the paper set by the Selection Board (being SB Civil Writ Petitions No.6722/2019 and No.6058/2019), inter alia alleging that the scheme of the examination required that written paper would contain questions bearing 50, 25, 25, 65 & 35 marks respectively from subjects General Hindi, General English, Mathematics & Reasoning, iks'k.k o LokLF; dk Kku rFkk ;kstuk, vkSj f"k"kq dh izkjfEHkd ns[kHkky ,oa f"k{kk] whereas the question paper given during the examination, contained 150 questions of equal marks - 30 questions from each of the five subjects.
5. It was the contention of the petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions that paper set by the Selection Board was not in conformity with the scheme of the examination, as the questions relating to the concerned subject did not carry the (Downloaded on 05/03/2020 at 08:40:48 PM) (3 of 6) [CW-2257/2020] marks, which were fixed for concerned subject in the scheme of examination.
6. The Selection Board realized, rather accepted its mistake during the pendency of above writ petition and published a revised result.
7. The result was revised; separate weightage or marks for different subjects were allocated, so that total marks for each subject came in tandem with scheme of examination.
8. The revision of result was done while providing the following marks (weightage) to each question of different subjects as follows :
ijh{kk Ldhe ds vuqlkj fo'k;okj Hkkjkad %& iz"u i= esa iwoZ ifj.kke esa la"kksf/kr ijh{kk ijh{kk Ldhe ds Ø-la- fo'k; vk;s iz"uksa dh izR;sd iz"u ifj.kke esa izR;sd vuq:i Hkkjkad la[;k dk Hkkjkad iz"u dk Hkkjkad 1 Hindi 50 30 1-33 1-666 2 English 25 30 1-33 0-833 3 Maths & Res. 25 30 1-33 0-833 iks'k.k o LokLF; dk 4 65 30 1-33 2-166 Kku rFkk ;kstuk, f"k"kq dh izkjfEHkd 5 35 30 1-33 1-166 ns[kHkky ,oa f"k{kk
9. It is the case of the petitioners that as the paper set for the examination contained the stipulation that all the questions carry equal marks, the respondents cannot change the weightage of the marks or change the number qua the questions. Mr. Sandhu put forth his argument by stating that the respondents cannot change the rules of the game, after the game was played.
10. Mr. Sanadhya, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Selection Board has simply brought the paper and the corresponding weightage in line with the scheme of the examination. He emphasised that as a matter of fact, they have (Downloaded on 05/03/2020 at 08:40:48 PM) (4 of 6) [CW-2257/2020] corrected the inadvertent error or omission, committed by the Paper Setter, while setting the paper.
11. It was submitted that there is no substantial difference, inasmuch as neither the total number of questions has been changed nor the rules relating to examination have been changed, while arguing that the principles on which the petitioners have relied, is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
12. Learned counsel argued that merely because the weightage of question has been changed, it cannot be said that rules of the examination have been changed, particularly when the revised result relating to subjects has now come in tandem with the total marks allocated to each subjects.
13. He zealously pointed out that as a matter of fact, the revision of result has put the petitioners to an advantageous position, inasmuch as marks of both the petitioners have been increased, while meekly informing that it is a different matter, that after the revision of result, the cut off marks too spiked to 116, which was 104 marks earlier.
14. Heard.
15. Concededly, after the revision of result, marks of petitioners No.1 & 2 have been increased from 108 to 114 and 107 to 109 respectively.
16. The petitioners have benefitted due to revision of result. This fact itself shows that the respondent - Selection Board has rightly revised/rationalised the result, while giving appropriate weightage to the questions relating to individual subject, so as to bring the same in sync with the scheme of the examination.
17. Merely because the petitioners have been scooped out of the select list, as a consequence of revision of result and (Downloaded on 05/03/2020 at 08:40:48 PM) (5 of 6) [CW-2257/2020] corresponding upward movement of the cut off, they cannot challenge such revision.
18. This Court does not find any substance in the petitioners' arguments.
19. The rules of examination or the rules of game - as branded by the petitioners, refers to the scheme of examination, according to which, each subject was to carry different total marks given therein. Admittedly, due to inadvertence, the examiner who set the paper lost sight of the fact that each subject did not carry equal marks and he had framed 30 questions each from all the five subjects for a paper comprising of 200 marks.
20. It may be relevant to take stock of the backdrop facts. The result was firstly prepared by allocating 1.33 marks to each question. A writ petition came to be filed by Anupama & Ors (CWP No.6722/2019), in which the respondent - Board candidly accepted the fault. During the course of hearing the Selection Board came up with a solution to deal with such anomaly. Without making any observation, the Board was permitted to declare the result.
21. In considered opinion of this Court, the revision of marks and allocation of higher or lower weightage to the questions in such process does not amount to changing rules of the game, particularly in the present factual matrix.
22. Neither the total number of questions have been changed, nor the questions have been deleted. What has been done is that number/weightage qua each of the question with respect to individual subject has been rationalised in such a manner that total numbers in each subject become equal to the numbers fixed in the scheme of examination, as indicated in the table above. (Downloaded on 05/03/2020 at 08:40:48 PM)
(6 of 6) [CW-2257/2020]
23. If such rationalisation is not accepted, and any interference is made - it would lead to accepting/upholding previous method/result. It would then, permit an apparent, rather admitted illegality to perpetuate.
24. Had this rationalisation not been done, or if earlier result was to be examined, There could have been no course left, except to quash the entire examination and to order for a fresh examination.
25. This Court does not find any palpable or manifest irregularity warranting interference so far as the result impugned is concerned. The petition is thus dismissed.
26. The stay application is also dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 388-A.Arora/-
(Downloaded on 05/03/2020 at 08:40:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)