Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jitendra Kumar Bagaria S/O Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan Through Its ... on 10 December, 2018
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
(1 of 17) [CW-25338/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25338/2018
1. Jitendra Kumar Bagaria S/o Shri Vidyadhar Singh Bagaria, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Village Fadanpura, Post Khirwa, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Dist.
Sikar (Raj.)
2. Manoj Kumar Meena S/o Shri Mangal Ram Meena, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Kho Ghati, Post Bainwara, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Mithlesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ram Pal Meena, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village And Post Dhigawara, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
4. Vinod Kumar Meena S/o Shri Murari Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Village And Post Bamanwas, Tehsil Bamanwas Pattakalan, Distt.
Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)
5. Nitin Yadav S/o Shri Gajraj Singh Yadav, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Opposite Hans College, Amai Road, Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Vikram Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Nand Singh Shekhawat, Aged About
39 Years, R/o Village And Post Bhavathari, Tehsil Surajgarh, Distt.
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
7. Sunil Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Ramavtar Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Village Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
8. Kunal Sahu S/o Shri Foosa Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Quarter No.
7, Govt. Hospital, Gudamalani Distt. Barmer (Raj.)
9. Ten Singh Bariya S/o Shri Vestaji Bariya, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 3G-
7, Shastrinagar Colony, Banswara (Raj.)
10. Aman Kumar Mishra S/o Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o 61, Anand Nagar, Ghatwa, Tehsil Nawan, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department
Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24877/2018
1. Arvind Kumar S/o Harphool Bairwa, Aged About 28 Years, R/o C-43,
Ambedkar Nagar, District Alwar Rajasthan.
2. Niranjan Kumar Sharma S/o Vijendra, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo
Jherli, Via Pilani, District Jhunjhunu.
3. Deepali Sharma D/o Pooran Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Near
Ramdulari College, Jhareda Road, Hindauncity, District Karauli,
Rajasthan.
4. Bhagirath Renwal S/o Oghar Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village
Birampuri, Post Mohara, Via Nimaj, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25592/2018
Manish Avasthi, S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Age 30 Years, R/o Baswa,
Tehsil and Village Post Baswa, District Dausa.
(2 of 17) [CW-25338/2018]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ajmer.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25593/2018
Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, Aged About 43
Years, Gram Jirawali, Post Karoth, Tehsil Rajgarh, Post Alwar, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25743/2018
1. Dinesh Chaturvedi S/o Ramdarash Chaturvedi, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Opposite Ashiyana Hotel, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan.
2. Ankit Singh Shekhawat S/o Nahar Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
33 Paramhans Colony, Bandhu Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25869/2018
Monika Rathore D/o Haraj Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Plot No. 96,
Rajender Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondent
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.26449/2018
Manisha Yadav D/o Shri Sunder Lal Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, Resident
Of G-II Plot No. 70, Laxmi Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghara
Ghati , Ajmer (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24954/2018
Azhar Javed S/o Shri Abrar Ahmed, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Plot
No. 11, 12, Behind Akashwani, Bazariya, Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
(3 of 17) [CW-25338/2018]
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26047/2018
Radha Kishan Meena S/o Shri Ram Singh Meena, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Kaimla, Tehsil Nandauti, District Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ghooghara
Ghati, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26048/2018
Rohit Singhal S/o Shri Shiv Dayal Singhal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident
Of 112/122, Agarwal Farm, Vijay Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020 (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.26479/2018
Ritu Dhingra D/o Shri Roshan Lal Dhingra, Aged About 34 Years, Resident
Of 115/84, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.)
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed,
Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, Mr. Shobhit Tiwari,
Mr. R.P. Saini, Mr. Rajaram Chaudhary,
and Ms. Sara Parveen
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig & Mr. Govind Gupta for RPSC
and Mr. MSS Sharma on behalf of
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG for the State.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
(4 of 17) [CW-25338/2018]
10/12/2018
BY THE COURT:
Not unusually the final answer key on which an assessment has been made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for passing the preliminary examination in pursuance to the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination, 2018 (RAS/ RTS Examination, 2018) for writing the main examination thereunder is under challenge before this court.
This bunch of petitions together raise disputes on the final answer key on model questions No.11, 22, 45, 61, 63, 68, 73, 84 and 101 at the preliminary examination.
Writ petition No.25338/2018 is taken as the lead case. The respondent RPSC vide Advertisement No.2/2018 called applications from eligible candidates for the RAS/RTS Examination, 2018. The said examination entailed one paper of General knowledge and General Science at the preliminary examination and for those who were short listed at the preliminary examinations. The preliminary examination was conducted on 5-8-2018. The model answer key along with answer key was uploaded on the website of RPSC on 9-8-2018 and objections were invited thereto duly supported by material based on Standard and Authentic text Books and government publications. The answer key and model questions No.11 & 22 at the preliminary examination are as under:-
Model Question Paper
1) Question 11. Which of the following painters does not belong to Alwar School of painting?
1) Jamnadas
2) Bakasaram
3) Nanakram
(5 of 17) [CW-25338/2018]
4) Nandram
Answer of RPSC: Option-3-Nanakram
ii) Question 22. Which is not correct match?
Shifting Agriculture State
1) Pondu Odisha
2) Masha Himachal Pradesh
3) Poonam Kerala
4) Jhoom Assam
Answer of RPSC: Option-2- "Masha- Himahcal Pradesh"
Following the submission of objections (duly supported by NCERT and RSBSE text books of class X and XII respectively as also publications by the government available on official website/s) by the petitioners, the result of preliminary examination was declared on 23-10-2018. The petitioners were declared not qualified for the RAS/ RTS main Examination 2018. The final answer key on the basis of which the result of preliminary examination for RAS/ RTS 2018 was declared and uploaded on RPSC's website on 25-10-2018.
The case of the petitioners is that despite their objection to question No.11 duly supported by Standard and Authentic text Books as also government's authenticated information on its official website, the RPSC has wrongly found option 3 thereto (Nanak Ram) to be correct even though Nanak Ram belonged to the Alwar School of Painting. That question ought to have in fact been deleted in view of none being the correct options to question 11 of the Model Question. It has been submitted that Nanak Ram belongs to Alwar School of painting as per the Rajasthan District Gazette relating to Alwar--a part of Gazette of India obtainable from the publication branch, Central Government Press, Jaipur and so downloaded by the petitioner. Reference has also been made to a (6 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] book published by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, Jaipur, a body of the State Government authored by Dr. Reeta Pratap under the aegis of the Human Resources Development department Government of India which specifically states Nanak Ram to be a painter related with the Alwar School of Painting. It has been submitted that in view of the aforesaid Standard and Authentic text Book as also the information in the Rajasthan District Gazette relating to Alwar, RPSC's final answer key holding that Nanak Ram was not a painter of the Alwar School and option 3 to model question No.11 was the correct answer is exfacie and demonstrably erroneous.
Similarly in respect to question No.22 of the model question paper relating to general awareness and general studies, the RPSC held the option 2 Masha-Himachal Pradesh as the correct answer, for being a mismatch between the agriculture produce and corresponding state. The petitioner's case is that option 1 to the said question Pondu-Odisha was also a mismatch in terms of the Standard and Authentic Books i.e. text book published by NCERT for class X and text book published by RSBSE for class XII which ought to have been accepted as correct as they state that Pondu cultivation corresponds to the State of Andhra Pradesh. It has been submitted that in this view of the matter with the RPSC's final answer key also rightly providing for option No.2-Masha-Himachal Pradesh as the correct answer for mismatch, the petitioners' option No.1 to question No.22 Pondu-Odisha being a similar mismatch also ought to have been reckoned as the correct answer. Hence both option 1 and 2 to question No.22 in the model question paper ought to have either been treated as correct and marked appropriately or the question No.22 aforesaid ought to have itself been deleted.
(7 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] It has been submitted that the failure of the RPSC to delete the two disputed questions in the model question paper in view of the unassailable objections of the petitioners on the basis of Standard and Authentic text Books and government publications available on the government's website has obviously prejudiced the petitioners by being denied marks for correct answers to the two questions and further being visited with negative marks while those who answered the two questions incorrectly would obviously have been given the benefit of marks thereon wrongly to their unfair advantage. And hence the result of the preliminary examination at the RAS/ RTS examination 2018 declared by the RPSC on 23-10-2018 is unsustainable, arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside, submitted counsel.
Reply to petition has been filed by the RPSC. Mr. M.F. Baig its counsel has submitted that the objections to the final answer key as raised by the petitioners were examined by the experts appointed by the RPSC but not found sustainable. Only thereafter the result of the preliminary examination was declared. It has been submitted that the option 3 for model question No.11 was the correct answer for the reason that as per the source material available with the experts Nanak Ram belonged to the Kishangarh style of painting and not to the Alwar School of painting. The experts appointed by the RPSC, for that conclusion relied on the book "Drawings of Rajasthan" by Chitralekha Singh and the book Alwar ki Chitrankan Parampara by Dr. Jai Singh Neeraj. In regard to model question No.22's answer Mr. M.F. Baig submitted that the option-2 was the correct answer and the mismatch was Masha pattern of agriculture in (8 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] Himachal Pradesh. It was submitted that Pondu agriculture is indeed carried out in Odisha and was not a mismatch. In support of the contention that the experts were right in their conclusion in this regard Mr. M.F. Baig submitted that they had placed reliance on the book Advanced Geography of India authored by Dr. Suresh Chand Bansal and published by Minakshi Publication of Merut. It has been submitted that the view of the correct answer to model questions 11 and 22 taken by the experts of the RPSC is a plausible one and not evidently being demonstrably wrong, no interference therewith can be made by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. M. F. Baig thus prayed for dismissal of the petitions. He emphatically also submitted that the process of preparation of model question papers and answer key is a multilayer exercise by experts which ensures that no error creeps in the process. He submitted that in the process for preparation of the model question papers and final answer key for the RAS/ RTS 2018 preliminary examination as many as 49 subject experts in the aggregate were engaged at various levels. He submitted that candidates at the RAS/ RTS examination were expected to cull out the best and the most appropriate answers in a multiple choice objective type examination and the search for the correct answers had to be made not from the basic level books but from an indepth study of source material for higher level of education at the graduate plus level. Mr. M. F. Baig submitted that nothing obliges the RPSC to confine its evaluation of merit at the preliminary examination for the RAS/ RTS which are at the graduate plus level to the class X and class XII levels text books which the petitioners would have the court declare. He submitted that knit picking by the petitioners on the basis of school level books even if published by NCERT.
(9 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] RBSE and stray availability of information at the government website/s cannot be of any avail to the integrity of the RPSC's processes at the RAS/ RTS preliminary examination in the instant case.
Counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder reiterated that in respect of model question No.11 the correct answer was not Nanakram--option 3-- in the answer key of the RPSC as he belonged to the Alwar School of painting in terms of a Standard and Authentic Book i.e. one published by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth academy Jaipur which is a body of the State Government and also in the District Gazette of Rajasthan a Government publication and District Gazette of Rajasthan available on the government's website. Counsel submitted that as against the aforesaid Standard and Authentic information, the RPSC oddly seeks to rely upon authors such as Chitralekha Singh and Dr. Jai Singh Neeraj whose books Alwar ki Chitrankan Parampara and Drawing of Rajsthan by no stretch of imagination partake the description of Standard and Authentic text Book in the State of Rajasthan nor constitute part of information on the website either of the Central or State Government. It was submitted that in respect of model question No.22 NCERT's publication on social studies (which includes geography) for class X and RSBSE's publication of text book for class XII clearly indicates Pondu relates to Andhrapradesh and not to Odisha and hence when placed against Odisha was a mismatch. Yet not so recognized without good cause in the RPSC's final answer key despite objection based on authentic and standard books to petitioners' grave detriment.
It has been submitted that this court in various judgments running (10 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] through Aditya Pratap Singh Vs. Rajasthan University Health Science [2009(3) WLC (Raj.) 328] to Manish Sharma Vs. RPSC, SBCWP No.14655/2011 decided on 27-8-2012 has held that an expert committee of the examining body while determining correct answers to model question papers is expected to use for reference Gazette notifications, government order, circular etc. and Standard and Authentic text Books published by Statutory bodies such as Boards/ Universities instead of relying upon random books of private publishers not generally in use in the state. Counsel also relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.10622/2014, and other connected petitions decided on 18-11-2014, wherein the court in para 9 of the judgment issued certain guidance in regard to the manner of determination of correct answers at an examination conducted by the RPSC. Counsel emphasized para 9(ii) of the judgment in Ramdhan Kumawat, which reads as under:-
9(ii) The said Expert Committee shall prepare the model answer keys, taking recourse to the standard text books prescribed for being taught in the schools and standard reference books used for colleges, published by the Education Boards or the State Government, or shall take recourse to other government publications or materials, which are officially put on the government website or used for the information of public at large, or to the publications of the books written by the authors recognized by the Government as the authority on a particular subject. The Expert Committee shall disclose the source of information relied upon by them for each of the answer keys, while submitting their reports to the respondent No.1."
Counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of this court in the case of Lalit Mohan Sharma Vs. RPSC, writ petition No.1042/2005 decided on 18-11-2005, by the Full Bench of this court, on a reference, (11 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] upholding the final answer key to a model question paper in view of it being based on standard text books which were then currently read by the students in the State. It was submitted that it is thus apparent that for the determination of correct answer key to questions in a model question paper based on multiple choice objective type conducted by the RPSC standard and authentic text book/s currently read by students have to be given priority over other text books used elsewhere outside the state of Rajasthan which are neither approved/ authorized/ recognized by the Government or by the Universities/ Boards in the State of Rajsthan. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor Vs. Sameer Gupta [(1983)4 SCC 309], wherein it was held that where the answers to a question could not be sustained by any reasonable body of men well versed in a particular subject, and was thus demonstrably wrong--even on domain expertise argument was of no avail. Counsel submitted that in the aforesaid case the Apex Court held that the contention of the university was falsified by a large number of acknowledged, approved and recognized text books currently read by students of UP. Counsel submitted that a similar situation on facts obtains in the case at hand were Standard and Authentic text Books by the NCERT and RBSE as also information on Rajasthan Government's website is being overlooked for the books of private publishers of Merut with no standing or approval/ recognition by the State of Rajasthan. Similarly reliance is oddly and impermissably being placed by RPSC on a private author's book without any reference to its publishers. In the academic world, counsel submitted the credibility of a publisher is very relevant to determine the Standard and Authenticity of Books as they alone ensure the integrity and reliability of the date/ information in the (12 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] books published by them.
Heard. Considered.
It is no doubt true that academic matters including those relating to competitive examination are best left to the domain of experts concerned. The limitation of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters are well known. But for reason of overarching fairness, necessity of level playing field, of equality and justice, the doors of court's interference are not closed where an outlandished case of, first an exfacie demonstrable error being made out and it is then not being corrected despite objections filed with supporting material moreso on invitation therefor by the examining body. The court however for its interference has even in such situations has yet to find demonstrable wrong in the answer/s in question permitting of no doubt in regard thereto with reference to Standard and Authentic text Book and/ or those approved/ recognized by Universities/ Boards and Government Central or State. The court has thus to intercede where a call on that count is necessarily made out. This as finding of a palpable error strikes at the right to fairness inhering in every candidate and which demonstrable error can jeopardize merit at an examination for recruitment to public office to public detriment. It is for the court to ensure that no injustice is done even in the field in the domain of experts. Exfacie and crying lethargy and misdirection in such situations whenever made out is not beyond the ken of the court's equitable extraordinary jurisdiction for the protection of a citizen's fundamental right of fairness and justice referable to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(13 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] The state of law with regard to interference with the results at an examination based on multiple objective type questions culled out from various judgments of the court referred to earlier in this judgment makes it evident that the correct answer key has to be based on material available in text books which are Standard and Authentic published by Universities/ Boards government and/ or based on material available on government website/s either Central or State. This court in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) has categorically held in para 9(ii) of its judgment that the expert committee shall prepare model answer key taking recourse to the standard text books prescribed and taught in the schools and colleges published by the Education Boards or the State Government and/ or shall take recourse to other government publications or material which are officially put on the government website while disclosing the source of information relied upon by them for each of the answer keys.
In the instant case in respect of model question No.11 the petitioners have relied upon the gazette notification on the website of the State of Rajasthan to contend that Nanak Ram did not belong to the Alwar School of Painting as also the publication of the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy
--a government of Rajasthan entity to the same end, as against the books of private authors whose publishers have not been stated nor obviously approved or recognized by the State/ Central Government or a University/ Board. In respect of model question No.22, reliance by the petitioners has been placed on text-books published by NCERT and RSBSE collected by team of nationally recognized academic experts for the answer that Pondu and Odisha were also a mismatch. Yet the RPSC's experts have oddly (14 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] contrary to the dictum of the court in Ramdhan Kumawat for a contrary view relied on the book authored by a Professor in Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh and published by a publisher in Merut.
In view of above, the answer key for model questions No.11 and 22 determined by the RPSC for the RAS/ RTS Examination 2018 cannot prima facie be treated to be correct and the two questions/ answers have to be revised. Consequently the Chairman RPSC is directed to constitute a team of experts comprised of the as illustrious as professors in the concerned subjects available at short notice in Rajasthan or elsewhere to review the answer key qua questions 11 and 22 of the model question paper. The experts so appointed should follow the guidelines mandated by this court in para 9(ii) of the judgment in Ramdhan Kumawat (supra) decided on 18-11-2014.
Ten other connected petitions also challenge the final answer key to model questions No.45, 61, 63, 68, 73, 84 and 101 in RAS/ RTS Examination 2018. The questions are reproduced as under:-
Question No.45:
The President of India addresses the Parliament under Article 87 of the Indian Constitution
1) in a joint sitting of both House of Parliament
2) both Houses of Parliament assembled together
3) in a joint session of both Houses of Parliament
4) in a joint meeting of both houses Parliament.
Answer of RPSC: Option-4 Question No.61:
Under the Constitutional provisions on a Bill, recommendation of the Governor was required, but without recommendation of Governor it was introduced in Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and passed by it and (15 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] sent to the Governor, now
1) where assent to that Act was given by Governor shall not be invalid.
2) The Governor can refuse to assent on the ground of the violation of Constitutional provisions.
3) The Governor will send such a Bill to the assent of the President.
4) The Governor or the President assents it, then the court will declare it unconstitutional on the ground of Constitutional provisions.
Answer of RPSC: Option-1 Question No.63:
Which of the following fixed the four percent inflation target in India with tolerance level of +/-2 percent for the period 2016 to 2021?
1) Reserve Bank of India
2) Government of India
3) Niti Aayog
4) Fourteenth Finance Commission.
Answer of RPSC: Option-2 Question No.68:
Eleventh Five Year Plan emphasized on-
1) Economic Growth with Social Justice
2) Economic Growth and Human Development
3) Faster and more inclusive growth
4) Faster, sustainable and more inclusive growth Answer of RPSC: Option-3 Question No.73 Which of the following thermal power projects has the highest installed power capacity?
1) Suratgarh
2) Chabbra
3) Kalisindh
4) Kota Answer of RPSC: Option-1 Question No.84:
Which metal is generally used for coating of brass utensils to prevent copper contamination?
1) Tin
2) Zinc
3) Aluminum
4) Lead Answer of RPSC: Option-1 (16 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] Question No.101:
Solar observatory in Rajasthan is located at
1) Jaipur
2) Udaipur
3) Kota
4) Ajmer Answer of RPSC: Option-2 The test for the exercise of this court's jurisdiction in matters of challenge to final answer keys to examination held on multiple objective type question paper has been detailed in the foregoing paras of this judgment.
Applying the aforesaid tests to the challenge to model questions No.45, 61, 63, 68, 73, 87 and 101 counsel jointly submitted, these petitions also be similarly disposed of. Accordingly the connected petitions disposed of as under:-
(i) The answer key to questions No.61, 63, 68 of the model question paper at the RAS/ RTS preliminary examination is not demonstrably wrong, and hence no interference therewith is warranted.
(ii) The answer key to questions No.11 and 22 of the model question paper is demonstrably wrong and needs to be re-assessed by a committee of subject experts to be formed by the Chairman RPSC to revisite the questions No.11 and 22 within one week from today.
(iii) Similalry the answers to questions No.45, 73, 87 and 101 of the model question paper at the RAS/ RTS preliminary examination 2018 are not in consonance with the mandatory directions in this court's judgment in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat (supra)--para 9(ii). Hence the answers to aforesaid questions also be re-
(17 of 17) [CW-25338/2018] considered with reference to directions in para 9(ii) of the judgment in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat (supra).
The requisite exercise as directed above be completed within one week from today. The petitioners' result at the preliminary RAS/ RTS examination 2018 be accordingly revised. Thereon if the petitioners make the cut off in their respective categories for being entitled to write the RAS/ RTS main examination 2018 commencing 22/ 23 December, 2018 they be so allowed.
However taking into consideration that the time for constitution of the Committee of experts as directed above and it revisiting the answers to the question in issue only qua the petitioners is short it is further directed that in the eventuality the exercise of re-visiting the aforesaid questions in issue cannot be completed within one week from today, it be done within four weeks and the petitioners alone be allowed to write RAS/ RTS main examination, 2018 subject to outcome of their revised result at the RAS/ RTS preliminary examination, 2018 as directed hereinabove.
The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(ALOK SHARMA), J arn/ Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)