Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhunda Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 12 March, 2019
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 922/2018
Bhunda Ram S/o Mohan Lal, B/c Prajapat, R/o Village
Khuntaliya, Post Haryada, Tehsil Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur Raj
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary,
Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer Raj
3. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education,
Bikaner Raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1438/2018
1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Tiloka Ram, Aged About 37 Years,
Village Nandoli Mertiya, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur
(Raj.).
2. Rampratap S/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 35 Years,
Village Ranyawali, District Ganganagar (Raj.).
3. Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma,, Aged
About 23 Years, V/p Runiyabadawas, Teh. And District
Bikaner (Raj.).
4. Gopi Chand S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Pareek,, Aged
About 27 Years, Village Gadana, Post Gajuwas, Teh.
Taranagar, Dist. Churu (Raj.).
5. Ghanshyam Dan Ratnu S/o Shri Sitaram,, Aged About 33
Years, V/p Dasodii Teh. Kolayat, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. The Raj. Public Service Commission (Rpsc) And Ors,
Ajmer Through Its Secretary.
2. All The Affecting Selected Candidates, Through The
Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Rpsc),
Ajmer (Raj.).
3. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education Ajmer
(2 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
(Raj.).
4. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Director, Department
Of Secondary Education Bikaner (Raj.).
5. Nisha Rani Gurjar D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Ghabhati,,
Aged About 32 Years, Village And Post Kemri, Tehsil
Nadoti, District Karoli (Raj)
6. Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma,, Aged
About 22 Years, V/p Khemaas, Tehsil Lalsot, District
Dausa (Raj).
7. Rajendra Prasad Bairwa S/o Shri Narayan Bairwa,, Aged
About 39 Years, Village Lakhanpur, Post Chaundiyawas,
Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj).
8. Rajnish Godara S/o Shri Manphool Godara,, Aged About
28 Years, V/p Kakadwala, Tehsil Lunkaransar, District
Bikaner (Raj.).
9. Vijendra Puniya S/o Shri Samdarram,, Aged About 27
Years, Village Khudera Chota, Post Khudera Bada, Tehsil
Ratangarh, District Churu (Raj.).
10. Jandel Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh,, Aged About 32 Years,
V/p Tarsuma, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.).
11. Rajiram Sansi S/o Shri Krishan Ram Sansi,, Aged About
37 Years, Village Kesar Desar, Post Khonda, Tehsil
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
12. Lokesh Meena S/o Shri Hemraj Meena,, Aged About 28
Years, Village Mundli, Post Raital, Tehsil Mangarol, District
Baran (Raj.).
13. Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Narendra Singh,, Aged About
31 Years, Danwara, Tehsil Bawri, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
14. Navodita Kumari D/o Shri Parsuram Gurjar, Aged About
24 Years, Village Jhalatal, Post Moloni, Tehsil Ber, District
Bharatpur (Raj.).
15. Sunita Sharma D/o Shri Rajkumar Sharma,, Aged About
32 Years, Village Bhuribhadaj, Tehsil Kotputli, District
Jaipur (Raj.).
16. Roshni D/o Shri Jagdish Gar,, Aged About 30 Years,
Village Masitawali, Teh. Tibbi, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
17. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Pritviraj,, Aged About 31
Years, Village Rampura Nyola, Tehsil Suratgarh, Dist.
(3 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
Danganagar (Raj.).
18. Umesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Premchandra
Choudhary,, Aged About 28 Years, Village Ramsagar, Post
Nagar Fort, Teh. Duni, Dist. Tonk (Raj.).
19. Jainarayan Upadhyay S/o Shri Bhagwanaram Upadhyay,,
Aged About 32 Years, Rajner Road, Near Chungi Naka,
Bheruji Temple, Bikaner (Raj.).
20. Pannaram S/o Shri Roopa Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
Ahoni Beniwali Ki Dhani, Madhasasr, Panchayat Samiti
Baytu, Dist. Barmer (Raj.).
21. Daljeet Singh S/o Shri Ramesh Gurjar,, Aged About 25
Years, Village Khedla Janedpur, Teh. Vajipur, Dist. Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.).
22. Pritam Singh S/o Shri Jagsir Singh,, Aged About 36 Years,
73Lnp, Post Ratanpura, Teh. Padampur, Dist. Ganganagar
(Raj.).
23. Prahalad Kumawat S/o Shri Shankarlal,, Aged About 31
Years, V/p Desalsar, Teh. Nokha, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.).
24. Naresh Meena S/o Shri Ramlal Meena,, Aged About 26
Years, V/p Dai, Teh. Nainwa, Dist. Bundi (Raj).
25. Anisha Sheikh D/o Shri Yasin Khan,, Aged About 23
Years, 45, Canal Block, Near Moti Palace, Chand Kangan
Store, Koda Chowk, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar (Raj.).
26. Manish Kumar S/o Puranchand,, Aged About 23 Years,
V/p Kaliyan, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).
27. Shivprakash S/o Shri Rajaram,, Aged About 30 Years,
Sector No. 12, Hanumangarh Junction (Raj).
28. Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Achlaram,, Aged About 27 Years,
Village Jhadoli, Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1452/2018
Anil Kumar Jain S/o Mahendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o P. No. 07, Crp Colony, Near Jda Colony, Paldi Meena, Agra
Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
(4 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)
3. The Director, Secondary Education , Rajasthan Bikaner
(Raj.)
4. The Expert Committee Paper-I G.k. And Paper-Ii Sanskrit,
Through Its Secretary Rpsc Ajmer.
5. Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Achlaram, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village Jhadoli, Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi (Raj.)
6. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Tiloka Ram, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village Nandoli Mertiya, Tehsil Makrana, District
Nagaur (Raj.)
7. Rampratap S/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Ranyawali, District Ganganagar (Raj.)
8. Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Village Runiyabadawas, Teh. And District
Bikaner (Raj.)
9. Gopi Chand S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Pareek, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village Gadana, Post Gajuwas, Teh.
Taranagar, Dist. Churu (Raj.)
10. Ghanshyam Dan Ratnu S/o Shri Sitaram, Aged About 33
Years, R/o V/p Dasodi Teh. Kolayat, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
11. Nisha Rani Gurjar D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Ghabhai,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Kemri, Tehsil
Nadoli, District Karoli (Raj.)
12. Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o V/p Khemaas, Tehsil Lalsot, District
Dausa (Raj.)
13. Rajendra Prasad Bairwa S/o Shri Narayan Bairwa, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Village Lakhanpur, Post
Chaundiyawas, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
14. Rajnish Godara S/o Shri Manphool Godara, Aged About 28
Years, R/o V/op Kakadwala, Tehsil Lunkaransar, District
Bikaner (Raj.)
15. Vijendra Puniya S/o Shri Samdarram, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Khudera Chota, Post Khudera Bada,
Tehsil Ratangarh District Churu (Raj.)
16. Jandel Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o V/p Tarsuma, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
17. Rajiram Sansi S/o Shri Krishan Ram Sansi, Aged About 37
(5 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
Years, R/o Village Kesar Desar, Post Khonda, Tehsil
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
18. Lokesh Meena S/o Shri Hemraj Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Mundli, Post Raital Tehsil Mangarol,
District Baran (Raj.)
19. Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Narendra Singh, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Danwara, Tehsil Bawri, District Jodhpur
(Raj.)
20. Navodita Kumari D/o Shri Parsuram Gurjar, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Village Jhalatal, Post Moloni, Tehsil Ber,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
21. Sunita Sharma D/o Shri Rajkumar Sharma, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Village Bharibhadaj, Tehsil Kotputli, District
Jaipur (Raj.)
22. Roshni D/o Shri Jagdish Gar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Masitawali, Teh. Tibbi, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
23. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Pritviraj, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Rampura Nyola, Tehsil Suratgarh, Dist.
Ganganagar (Raj.)
24. Umesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Premchandra
Choudhary, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Ramsagar,
Post Nagar Fort, Teh. Duni, Dist. Tonk (Raj.)
25. Jainarayan Upadhyau S/o Shri Bhagwanaram Upadhyay,
Aged About 32 Years, Gajner Road, Near Chungi Naka,
Bheruji Temple, Bikaner (Raj.)
26. Pannaram S/o Shri Roopa Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
Ahoni Beniwali Ki Dhani, Madhasasr, Panchayat Samti
Baytu, Dist. Barmer (Raj.)
27. Daljeet Singh S/o Shri Ramesh Gurjar, Aged About 25
Years, Village Khedla Janedpur, Teh. Vajipur, Dist. Sawai
Madhopur (Raj)
28. Pritam Singh S/o Shri Jagsir Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
73Lnp, Post Ratanpura, Teh. Padampur, Dist. Ganganagar
(Raj)
29. Prahalad Kumawat S/o Shri Shankarlal, Aged About 31
Years, V/p Desalsar, Teh. Nokha, Dist. Bikaner (Raj)
30. Naresh Meena S/o Shri Ramlal Meena, Aged About 26
Years, V/p Dai, Teh. Nainwa, Dist. Bundi (Raj)
(6 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
31. Anisha Sheikh D/o Shri Yasin Khan, Aged About 23 Years,
45, Canal Block, Near Moti, Palace, Chand Kangan Store,
Koda Chowk, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar (Raj)
32. Manish Kumar S/o Puranchand, Aged About 23 Years, V/p
Kaliyan, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj)
33. Shivprakash S/o Shri Rajaram, Aged About 30 Years,
Sector No. 12, Hanumangarh Junction (Raj)
34. All The Affecting Selected Candidates Through The
Secretary, Rajasthan Public Services Commission (Rpsc),
Ajmer (Raj)
35. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education Ajmer (Raj)
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1453/2018
1. Rishi Raj S/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 27
Years, Vpo Bolkhera, Tehsil Kuman, Dist. Bharatpur
(Raj.).
2. Ved Kumari D/o Teekam Singh Dhakad,, Aged About 31
Years, V And P Muhari, Tehsil Weir, Dist. Bharatpur (Raj).
3. Vikash Mourya S/o Nathu Ram Mourya,, Aged About 33
Years, Vpo Nathusar Nangal, Via Mundra, Tehsil
Shrimadhopur, Dist. Sikar (Raj.).
4. Sangeeta Sharma D/o Om Prakash Sharma,, Aged About
32 Years, Village Jaipura, Post Gullana, Tehsil Baswa,
District Dausa (Raj).
5. Priti Rani Kumbhaj D/o Naresh Chand Sharma,, Aged
About 29 Years, Chhobey Para, Hindaun City, Dist. Karauli
(Raj).
6. Kamla D/o Cheta Ram,, Aged About 30 Years, Village
Kamalpur, Post Karola, Tehsil Sanchore, Dist. Jalore (Raj).
----Appellants
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.).
2. Rameshwari Kumari D/o Durga Ram, aged about 27 years
Khurad Teh. Dhorimanna, Dist. Barmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1455/2018
(7 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
Rameshvri Kumari D/o Shri Durga Ram, aged about 27 years,
resident of Kharad, Tehsil Dhorimanna, District Barmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajathan,Jaipur
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1456/2018
Lokesh Chopra S/o Rajaram Chopra, Aged About 26 Years,
Village Paldi, Post Darda Hind, Tehsil Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.)/
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Rpsc Through Its
Secretary., Ajmer (Raj.).
2. The State Of Rajasthan Through Director, Secondary
Education, Ajmer (Raj.).
3. Rameshwari Kumar D/o Durgaram, Aged About 27 Years,
Kharad Tehsil Dhori Mana Dist. Barmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1458/2018
Amita Kumari D/o Bahadur Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Village
Chirasan, Post Chirawa, Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.).
2. Bhunda Ram S/o Mohan Lal,, Aged About 39 Years, B/c
Prajapat, Village- Khantaliya, Post- Hariyada, Tehsil-
Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1459/2018
1. Manisha Sharma D/o Shivdyal Sharma, W/o Nitin Shukla,
Aged About 30 Years, Vpo Katkad, Tehsil Hindaun City,
(8 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
Dist. Karauli (Raj.).
2. Manorama Pankaj D/o Ramhet Pankaj, Aged About 32
Years, Mahendra Photo Studio, Dcm Road, Ratpura, Kota
(Raj.).
3. Sharda Devi D/o Bajaran Lal Sharma,, Aged About 31
Years, Village Bhadawas, Tehsil Chaksu, Dist. Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through, Its
Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.).
2. Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Achlaram,, Aged About 27 Years,
Village Jhadoli, Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi (Raj.).
3. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Tiloka Ram,, Aged About 37 Years,
Village Nandoli Mertiya, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur
(Raj.).
4. Rampratap S/o Shri Hariram,, Aged About 35 Years,
Village Ranyawali, District Ganganagar (Raj.).
5. Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma,, Aged
About 23 Years, V/p Runiyabadawas, Teh. And District
Bikaner (Raj.).
6. Gopi Chand S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Pareek,, Aged
About 27 Years, Village Gadana, Post Gajuwas, Teh.
Taranagar, Dist. Churu (Raj.).
7. Ghanshyam Dan Ratnu S/o Shri Sitaram,, Aged About 33
Years, V/p Dasodi, Teh. Kolayat, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.).
8. Nisha Rani Gurjar D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Ghabhai,,
Aged About 32 Years, Village And Post Kemri, Tehsil
Nadoti, District Karoli (Raj.).
9. Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma,, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o Village And Post Khemawas, Tehsil
Lalsot, District Dausa Raj..
10. Rajendra Prasad Bairwa S/o Shri Narayan Bairwa,, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Village Lakhanpur, Post
Chaundiyawas, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa Raj..
11. Rajnish Godara S/o Shri Manphool Godara,, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Village And Post Kakadwala, Tehsil
Lunkaransar, District Bikaner Raj..
12. Vijendra Puniya S/o Shri Samdarram, Aged About 27
(9 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
Years, R/o Village Khudera Chota, Post Khudera Bada,
Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu Raj..
13. Jandel Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh,, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village And Post Tarsuma, Tehsil Bayana, District
Bharatpur Raj..
14. Rajiram Sansi S/o Shri Krishan Ram Sansi,, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Village Kesar Desar, Post Khonda, Tehsil
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh Raj..
15. Lokesh Meena S/o Shri Hemraj Meena,, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Mundli, Post Raital, Tehsil Mangarol,
District Baran Raj..
16. Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Narendra Singh,, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Danwara, Tehsil Bawri, District Jodhpur
Raj..
17. Navodita Kumari D/o Shri Parsuram Gurjar,, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Village Jhalatala, Post Moloni, Tehsil Ber,
District Bharatpur Raj..
18. Sunita Sharma D/o Shri Rajkumar Sharma,, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Village Bhuribhadaj, Tehsil Kotputli, District
Jaipur Raj..
19. Roshni D/o Shri Jagdish Gar,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Masitawali, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh
Raj..
20. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Pritviraj,, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Rampura Nyola, Tehsil Suratgarh,
District Ganganagar Raj..
21. Umesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Premchandra
Choudhary,, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Ramsagar,
Post Nagar Fort, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk Raj..
22. Jainarayan Upadhyay S/o Shri Bhagwanaram Upadhyay,,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gajner Road, Near Chungi
Naka, Bheruji Temple, Bikaner, District Bikaner Raj..
23. Pannaram S/o Shri Roopa Ram,, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Ahoni Beniwali Ki Dhani, Madhasar, Panchayat Samiti
Baytu, District Barmer Raj..
24. Daljeet Singh S/o Shri Ramesh Gurjar,, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Khedla Janedpur, Tehsil Vajirpur, District
Sawai Madhopur Raj..
25. Pritam Singh S/o Shri Jagsir Singh,, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o 73Lnp, Post Ratanpura, Tehsil Padampur, District
(10 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
Ganganagar Raj.
26. Prahalad Kumawat S/o Shri Shankarlal, Aged About 31
Years, V/p Desalsar, Tehsil Nokha, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.).
27. Naresh Meena S/o Shri Ramlal Meena,, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village And Post Dai, Tehsil Nainwa, District
Bundi Raj..
28. Anisha Sheikh D/o Shri Yasin Khan,, Aged About 23
Years, R/o 45, Canal Block, Near Moti Palace, Chand
Kangan Store, Koda Chowk, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar
Raj..
29. Manish Kumar S/o Puranchand,, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Village And Post Kaliyan, District Sriganganagar Raj..
30. Shivprakash S/o Shri Rajaram,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Sector No. 12 Hanumangarh Junction Raj..
31. All The Affecting Selected Candidates Through The
Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Rpsc)
Ajmer (Raj.).
32. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education Ajmer
(Raj.).
33. State Of Rajasthan Through The Director, Department Of
Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1523/2018
1. Champa Lal Paliwal S/o Shri Leela Dhar Paliwal, Aged
About 29 Years, Village Hopardi, Tehsil Phalodi, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Sonu Sharma S/o Shri Radhe Shyam,, Aged About 27
Years, Vpo Pharsewala, Tehsil Padampur, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
(11 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Devasee
Mr. Manoj Bhandari
Mr. Kailash Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi with Mr. Khet Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 12th March, 2019
BY THE COURT: [Per Justice Dinesh Mehta, J.]:
The present bunch of appeals questions the correctness of the judgment dated 5.5.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in various writ petitions, challenging the answer key published by the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission' or 'RPSC'), pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.7.2016 for recruitment to the post of Senior Teachers.
Numerous candidates having vied for the post of Senior Teacher pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 13.7.2016 filed writ petitions and challenged the result/revised answer key dated 3.2.2018/6.2.2018, as according to them the answers to many questions given in the answer key were wrong. The said group of writ petitions was heard by the learned Single Judge conjointly involving various questions and answers of Paper-I (General Knowledge-I); Paper-II (Subject-Sanskrit, Hindi); Paper-I (General Knowledge-II) and Paper II (subject-Social Science).
It is to be noticed that the answer key of the paper - General Knowledge was initially published on 21.8.2017; for the papers of (12 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] Social Science and Sanskrit on 30.8.2017; and for the paper of Hindi on 1.9.2017. After publication of the model answer key, the respondent Commission invited objections from the candidates.
The candidates submitted their objections regarding various questions and answers, whereafter the Commission issued revised answer key for the papers of General Knowledge on 3.2.2018 and 8.2.2018, for the subject of Social Science on 6.2.2018 and for the subject of Sanskrit on 14.2.2018 and for the subject of Hindi on 15.2.2018.
Some of the candidates approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions at Jodhpur, while some had approached Jaipur Bench of this Court. Learned Single Judge at Jodhpur as well as at Jaipur almost simultaneously considered the concern shown by the candidates; but in a bid to avoid conflicting decisions, learned Single Judge at Jaipur did not dilate upon the questions, which were subject matter of challenge before learned Single Judge at Jodhpur.
The case of the first appellant Bhunda Ram was decided by the learned Single Judge alongwith the bunch of writ petitions heard at Jodhpur, whereas some of the appellants have filed leave to appeal as they had earlier filed writ petitions at Jaipur, but their rights are affected by the adjudication made by learned Single Judge at Jodhpur, vide its order dated 5.5.2018.
We grant them the leave to appeal. Some of the appeals have been filed belatedly. As we are otherwise hearing the lead appeal on merit, we deem it in the interest of justice and hence allow their application(s) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and proceed to hear such appeals on merit.
(13 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] The writ petitioners had questioned the correctness of as many as 33 questions before the learned Single Judge.
Learned Single Judge firstly considered various judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and thereafter, proceeded to pronounce on each of them. Learned Single Judge has given his verdict qua some of the questions holding the answers to be correct based on his reasoning and/or relying upon experts' opinion refused to interfere (23); while referring some of the questions (8) to the expert committee to be constituted by the RPSC. As regards remaining two questions, being question No.26 & 79 of subject paper Sanskrit, as no objection was raised by the candidates before RPSC, when first answer key was published, learned Single Judge did not permit the challenge.
The appellants have preferred the present intra-court appeals, being dissatisfied with the adjudication made by the learned Single Judge, as according to them the view taken by the learned Single Judge was not in confirmity with the material available on record and/or the same is incorrect.
Counsel from both the sides have cited scores of judgments; the appellants cited judgment to buttress their contention that the High Court has power to cure or correct the answer key and to quash the result in appropriate cases; whereas the respondent RPSC relied upon judgments, ruling that the High Court should refrain from interfering in such matters and they should better be left to the wisdom of the experts.
During the course of argument Mr. Joshi learned counsel appearing for the respondents RPSC informed that they have carried out the adjudication made and directions given by the (14 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and have not filed any appeal thereagainst. This being the position and in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge has pronounced upon some of the questions, while holding the answers given in the revised answer key to be wrong; some of the answers to be correct, while leaving some of the questions un-adjudicated while relying upon the experts' opinion, we deem it necessary to examine correctness of the adjudication made by learned Single Judge in relation to some of the questions posed before us. Bearing the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in mind, we set out for scrutiny of the questions; answers and the findings arrived at by learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the appellants have confined their grievance to only few of the questions, adjudication whereof by the learned Single Judge was purportedly erroneous. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the contentious question; its answer in the first answer key; the answer in the revised answer key, experts' opinion and adjudication made by the learned Single Judge:
(1) Question No.(8): GENERAL KNOWLEDGE GROUP-II Paper I 8- ^Hkkjr ds e:LFkyhdj.k ,oa Q. 8 According to 'Desertification Hkwvcu;u ,Vyl ¼bljks&2007½* ds vuqlkj and Land Degradation Atlas of jktLFkku esa e:LFkyhdj.k ls izHkkfor {ks= India (ISRO-2007) the total area gS under desertification in Rajasthan is (1) 70% (2) 67% (1) 70% (2) 67% (3) 65% (4) 59% (3) 65% (4) 59% Answer as per First Answer Key - (2) 67% Answer as per Second Answer Key - (2) 67% Answer given by Appellant - (3) 65% (Nearest Answer) Learned Single Judge :- "(2) 67%" is the correct answer.
(15 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] Mr. Bharat Devasi learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the question aforesaid was specific and required the candidate to give figures of desertification in Rajasthan, as per "Desertification and Land Degradation Atlas of India (ISRO-2007).
He contended that though he could not lay hands on such ISRO- 2007, but ISRO has published Desertification and Degradation Atlas of India in June, 2016 giving out figures for desertification on the basis of survey conducted during 2003-05 and 2011-13, according to which, desertification in Rajasthan was 63.19% during 2003-05, whereas it was 62.90%, during the period 2011- 13 and accordingly, the answer given by the appellant viz., 65% being nearest to the said figure was correct; whereas learned Single Judge has accepted the answer given by the RPSC viz., 67% to be correct, without there being any authenticated material in this regard.
Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifying the answer given by the commission contended that the same is verifiable from the perusal of page no.470 of the book known as "Geography of Rajasthan" written by Professor HS Sharma and Dr. ML Sharma, published by Panchsheel publication.
During the course of arguments, we asked the learned counsel for the Commission to produce the Desertification and Land Degradation Atlas of India (ISRO-2007) itself, so as to be sure of the date, instead of resorting to books written and published by different authors.
To our surprise, the expert committee has not resorted to said publication ISRO-2007, nor was the Commission in a position to place the said ISRO-2007. We have also tried at our end to lay hands to such Atlas, if the same was available at the website of (16 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] ISRO, but we record that our efforts bore no fruits. However, as per the Desertification and Land Degradation Atlas of India published by ISRO in June, 2016, which is available on its website, we find that the percentage of desertification in Rajasthan for 2003-05 and 2011-13 has been indicated as 63.19% and 62.90%.
Having gone through the material placed for our consideration and considering the arguments advanced by rival counsel, we are of the opinion that when the question was so specific, the respondent Commission can rely only upon "Desertification and Land Degradation Atlas of India (ISRO-2007)", and not upon any other book, guide or paper whosoever may be its author. In the face of such categorical question, the expert committee and the Commission was required to rely upon ISRO- 2007 only. The Commission and expert committee apparently not looked at such report; they have not even produced the same for perusal of this Court, so that it can reach to a definite/correct conclusion.
This being the situation, the Commission has erred in relying upon the book "Geography of Rajasthan", authored by Professor HS Sharma and Dr. ML Sharma as such book is a purported reproduction or interpretation of ISRO-2007.
Notwithstanding the above, we are still not inclined to accept the argument of the appellant that his answer of 65% being closest to 63.19% should be held to be a correct answer. The question as well as the suggested answer(s) given in relation thereto are wrong.
The question (question no.8) of General Knowledge Group-II, Paper-I thus deserves to be deleted.
(17 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] (2) Question No.(15): GENERAL KNOWLEDGE GROUP-II, PAPER-1 15- vkgM+ ds fo"k; esa fuEufyf[kr dFkuksa esa ls Q. 15. Which of the following statements dkSulk dFku vlR; gS \ about Ahar is not correct ? ¼1½ vkgM+ ds mR[kuu ls ekuo thou ds fofHkUu (1) Excavation of Ahar has thrown light on pj.kksa ij izdk"k iM+rk gS various phases of human life; ¼2½ vkoklh; Hkouksa dh uhao bZaVksa dh gksrh Fkh (2) Houses were built on brick foundations.
¼3½ feV~Vh vFkok dPph bZaVksa ls fufeZr Hkou vc (3) The super-structures of either clay or mud miyC/k ugha gSA bricks have all gone.
¼4½ vkgM+oklh nhokjksa ,oa uhaoksa dks etcwr ,oa (4) Aharians mixed quartz nodules and chips lkSUn;Z;qDr cukus gsrq feV~Vh esa DokV~t ds in clay to strengthen and beauty the walls and VqdM+s ,oa fpIl ds lfEeJ.k dk iz;ksx djrs FksA foundations.
Answer as per First Answer Key - (2) Houses were built on brick foundations. Answer as per Second Answer Key - (2) Houses were built on brick foundations.
Answer given by Appellant - more than one incorrect statement Learned Single Judge :- "(2) Houses were built on brick foundations." is the correct answer.
Mr. Devasi learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the options, namely option no.(2) and (3) reproduced above are correct. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon following books :
1- d{kk 12 & jktLFkku dk bfrgkl ,oa laLd`fr& ¼laLdj.k 2008] ist ua- 16 ls 17½ ek/;fed f"k{kk cksMZ] jktLFkku vtesj 2- d{kk 09 & lkekftd foKku] ¼ist ua- 10 ls 11½ ek/;fed f"k{kk cksMZ] jktLFkku vtesj 3- izkphu Hkkjr dk bfrgkl ¼ist ua- 101] 102½ laiknd f}tsUnzukjk;.k >k o d`'.keksgu Jhekyh fgUnh ek/;e dk;kZUo; funs"kky; fnYyh fo"ofo+|ky; 4- izkphu Hkkjr dk bfrgkl rFkk laLd`fr ¼ist ua- 72½ ¼izdk"kd ;qukbZVsM cqd fMiks½ ds- lh- JhokLro Navigating the Court through above referred books, he submitted that the combined reading of the aforesaid books shows that both the answer No.(2) and (3), are correct.
(18 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] As against this, Mr. Joshi learned counsel appearing for the Commission relied upon a book written by Dasrath Sharma "Rajasthan through the Ages, Vol-1, Page 35 and submited that the answer given by the RPSC, duly confirmed by the learned Single Judge, viz., "answer No.(2)-Houses were built on brick foundations", was the correct answer.
Having considered the question, corresponding answers and relevant material, though we are of the prima-facie opinion that the best answer out of the four options given is that "Houses were built on brick foundations." but as a note of caution we would like to add that the questions, the answers whereof is not very specific and the same depends upon various aspects, the court should go with experts' opinion, until and unless it is ex-facie, rather shockingly, erroneous.
We therefore, affirm the finding of the learned Single Judge qua this question.
(3) Question No.(84): GENERAL KNOWLEDGE GROUP-II, PAPER-1 ¼84½ Vjeu ds vuqlkj vR;qRd`"V j[krs gS Q. 84. According to Terman very superior ¼1½ 140 ls vf/kd cqf)yfC/k contain.
(1) Above 140 I.Q.
¼2½ 120&125 cqf)yfC/k
(2) 120-125 I.Q.
¼3½ 110&115 cqf)yfC/k (3) 110-115 I.Q.
¼4½ 110 ls uhps cqf)yfC/k (4) Below 110 I.Q.
Answer as per First Answer Key - Question was deleted.
Answer as per Second Answer Key - (1) Above 140 I.Q. Answer given by Appellant - (2) 120-125 I.Q. Learned Single Judge - "(1) Above 140 I.Q." is the correct answer.
Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the RPSC had firstly deleted the question and, thereafter, in the revised answer (19 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] key, answer (1) namely, "above 140 IQ" has been given as the correct answer, which stood affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the appellants questioning the correctness of the adjudication made by the learned Single Judge, placed for our consideration, photocopy of work of Lewis M. Terman: "The Measurement of Intelligence" and submitted that according to said publication, Terman had propounded that persons having intelligence quotients (IQ) of 120 - 140 are 'persons of very superior intelligence'. Apart from the above book of Lewis M. Terman, the appellant relied upon the following books:
1- f"k{kk euksfoKku ¼ist ua- 358½ ys[kd & ,l ds eaxy 2- f"k{kk euksfoKku ¼ist ua- 361½ ys[kd & ih Mh ikBd 3- cky fodkl ,oa f"k{kk "kkL=] ist & 138 Mr. Tarun Joshi learned counsel appearing for the Commission submitted that the expert committee has given its opinion, relying upon the following books namely;
(1). Theory of Practice of Psychological Testing (Page NO.223) and;
(2). Educational Psychology (page NO.299), written by Mr. SS Chouhan.
He placed photocopies of these books to support the view taken by the experts.
We are again at a loss to comprehend that when the question is so specific and refers to the principle of Terman, why the RPSC and expert committee have not referred to the work of Terman himself. The RPSC and expert committee are at least supposed to have the book/work of Terman himself, if not the (20 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] paper setter. They have failed to look at the work of Terman and instead relied upon other authors, setting out Terman's view.
Since the question is very specific and it required the candidates to point out the level of IQ, which according to Terman falls in the category of very superior intelligence, the answer no.2 is the correct answer, which has been practically conceded by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Commission.
We therefore hold that the answer given in the revised key viz. (1), though affirmed by learned Single Judge is incorrect. We thus set aside the same and hold that the answer given by the appellants, i.e., "(2) 120-125" is the correct answer.
(4) Question No.(21): SOCIAL SCIENCE GROUP-II PAPER- II:
21- ^^eqnzk og gS tks eqnzk dk dk;Z djsA** eqnzk Q. 21 " Money is what money does" this dh ;g ifjHkk'kk nh xbZ gSA definition of money is given by ¼1½ gkVZys fonlZ }kjk (1) Hartley Withes ¼2½ ek"kZy }kjk (2) Marshall ¼3½ ,Q- ,- okdj }kjk (3) F.A. Walker ¼4½ ØkmFkj }kjk (4) Crowther Answer as per First Answer Key - (3) F.A. Walker Answer as per Second Answer Key - Deleted Answer given by Appellant - (3) F.A. Walker Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - Deleted Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the definition of money: "money is what money does", has been coined indisputably by F.A. Walker, which is evident from the following:
lUnHkZ iqLrd & vihykFkhZ ds }kjk izLrqr lk{; 1- d{kk 12 & O;f'V ,oa lef'V] vFkZ"kkL= ¼laLdj.k 2017] ist ua- 103½ (21 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] ek- f"k- cksMZ] jktLFkku vtesj 2- lkekftd foKku& II ¼ist ua- 50½] euq izdk"ku vtesj
3. Life history of FA Walker & Hartley Withers
4. Net Article : Money: Meaning & Functions of Money, J. Singh As against this, Mr. Joshi learned counsel for the respondent Commission submitted that though Monetary Economics by ML Seth suggests that option (3) is correct, but at the same time, text book of 10th and 11th relied upon by some of the students suggests that option "(1) Harley Withers", is correct. As such, confronted with the conflicting opinion, the expert committee advised to delete the question, while recording the following :
Question No. Answer Remarks/References (Series A) (use proper argument or reference in support of your answer 21 1 Monetary Economics; M.L. Seth and Page 33 (for option 3) 3 Proofs given by students in text book of 10th & Both correct 11th standard favours option 1, so we cannot deny that.
A.No.7186 (in library) Delete Since two options cannot be true hence the panel advises for deletion of the question.
A look at the experts' opinion while dealing with the disputed question, leaves us flummoxed. The approach and the conclusion arrived at by the so called experts compels us to record our anguish and concern about the manner in which the experts have dealt with the issue. The question was very specific and the candidates were required to give name of the economist, who had given the quoted definition of money.
Needless to observe that F.A. Walker and Hartley Withers are known names and the experts should have known or at least resorted to the book/or work of these authors themselves to conclude with certitude. Yet again, the experts have applied rudimentary approach and have relied upon text book of 10 th and (22 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] 11th, as if the authors of these text book have the last word on the subject. Such approach of the expert committee cannot be countenanced by any court of law.
The examinations were conducted for selection of teachers, who would teach students of Class 10 th and 11th, and the teachers, the architects of the Nation, are supposed to know the correct position. It was incumbent upon the expert committee to have resorted to authentic work of F.A. Walker and Hartley Withers and their opinion should have been based on such work, to justify the status as an experts' opinion. The expert committee is supposed to give the correct and pointed answer, instead of being swayed by the fact that different books (Monetary Economics-ML Seth and text book of 10th and 11th ) suggest different answers.
Learned Single Judge having perused the report of the experts quoted above, had came to the conclusion: "After a careful examination, this Court finds that the report of the expert committee is self explanatory."
Despite keeping restraint, we are constrained to record that the experts appointed for the purpose of giving their opinion have failed to exploit their resources, let apart their expertise and instead of relying upon the authentic work of the authors, they have applied very primitive approach and resorted to the text book of 10th standard.
While disapproving such primitive approach of the experts; on the basis of material available, we hold that the answer given in the first answer key, namely, option (3) "F.A. Walker" is the correct answer.
The revised answer key vide which the question has been deleted is erroneous. The finding of the learned Single (23 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] Judge affirming the same, perhaps being overawed by experts' opinion, is set aside.
(5) Question No.(65): SOCIAL SCIENCE GROUP-II PAPER- II:
65- lkekU;K yksd lsokvksa ds fo"k; esa fuEu Q. 65. Consider the following statement about dFkuksa ij fopkj dhft,% Generalist Civil Services :
(i) os vf/kdka"k loksZPp iz"kklfud inksa ij dk;Z (1) They mainly work at most of the top djrs gSA administrative positions.
(ii) os dqN laxBuksa ds dk;Zdkjh v/;{k ds :i (2) They act as executive heads of some
esa dk;Z djrs gS organizations.
(iii) os eaf=;ksa dks ijke"kZ nsrs gSA (3) They advice to the ministers.
(4) They act as head of some public
(iv) os dqN lkoZtfud m|eksa ds eqf[k;k ds :i esa dk;Z djrs gSaA enterprises.
Select the correct answer by using the codes uhps fn;s x;s dwV dh lgk;rk ls lgh mRrj dk p;u djsa % given below :
Codes :
(1) (i), (ii), (iii) vkSj (iv) (1) (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) (2) (i), (ii) vkSj (iii) (2) (i), (ii) & (iii) (3) (I) vkSj (iii) (3) (i) & (iii) (4) dsoy (i) (4) (i) only Answer as per First Answer Key - (1) (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) Answer as per Second Answer Key - (1) (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) Answer given by Appellant - (3) (i) & (iii) Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - (1) (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) Qua the aforesaid question, both first and revised answer key published by the respondent Commission ruled that option (1) is correct answer, which said stand of the Commission has been approved by learned Single Judge.
Mr. Devasi learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention that option (3) is the correct answer, relied upon the following:
1- d{kk 12 & yksd iz"kklu ¼173] 174½ ek-f"k- cksMZ] jktLFkku vtesj 2- yksd iz"kklu ¼ist ua- 10-16] 10-17½ ys[kd ,e y{ehdkUr (24 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] A simple reading of the question and corresponding options given therewith leaves no room for ambiguity that the option (1) as approved by the learned Single Judge, is the correct answer; as a civil servant carries out all the above four activities.
We thus, do not find any infirmity in the adjudication made by the learned Single Judge in this regard.
(6) Question No.(76): SOCIAL SCIENCE GROUP-II PAPER-
II:
¼76½ tSu n"kZu esa ekS{k izkIr O;fDr ¼thoUeqDr½ Q. 76. In Jainism Liberated person dks dgrs gS (Jivanmukt) is called ¼1½ vgZr (1) Arhat ¼2½ dsoyh (2) Kevali ¼3½ fLFkrizK (3) Sthita Prajha ¼4½ leRo ;ksxh (4) Samatva Yogi Answer as per First Answer Key - (1) Arhat Answer as per Second Answer Key - (1) Arhat Answer given by Appellant - (2) Kevali Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - (1) Arhat The respondent commission has taken "Arhat" to be the correct answer in both the answer keys and the same has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge by observing that the experts' opinion is self-explanatory.
Learned counsel for the appellants, however, argued that the correct answer to the above referred question is "Kevali", i.e., option (2). In support of his argument, learned counsel for appellants relied upon the following:
1- d{kk 12 & n"kZu "kkL= ¼ist ua 25] 71½ ek-f"k- cksMZ] jktLFkku vtesj 2- Hkkjrh; n"kZu] vkykspu vkSj vuq"khyu ¼ist ua- 43½] ys[kd pUnz/kj "kekZ Whereas Mr. Joshi for RPSC, relied upon following: 1- Hkkjrh; n"kZu ds ewy rRo] ys[kd MkW- jkeukFk "kekZ 2- Hkkjrh; n"kZu] vkykspu vkSj vuq"khyu] ys[kd pUnz/kj "kekZ (25 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] After considering the material placed and using the little knowledge of jainism at our disposal, least we can say is: "Kevali" cannot be the correct answer, as "Kevali" is living person, who has attained "Kewal Gyan", meaning, one who can see past, present and future and who has vanquished 8 Karmas; whereas "Jivanmukt" or "Liberated" means, a person, rather soul, getting freedom from the agony of life and death.
In this view of the matter, answer given by the RPSC, i.e., Option (1), is the correct answer. The finding of the learned Single Judge qua this question is upheld. (7) Question No.(90): SOCIAL SCIENCE GROUP-II PAPER-
II:
90- ,d miHkksDrk dk lkE; ml fcUnq ij Q. 90. A consumer's equilibrium establishes at LFkkfir gksrk gS tgkW a point where (1) MU1/MU2=P1/P2 ¼1½ MU1/MU2=P1/P2 (2) MU1/MU2=P1/P2 = Marginal utility of income ¼2½ MU1/MU2=P1/P2=vk; dh lhekUr mi;ksfxrk (3) MU1/P1=MU2/P2== Marginal utility of income ¼3½ MU1/P1=MU2/P2=vk; dh lhekUr mi;ksfxrk (4) All of these ¼4½ ;s lHkh Answer as per First Answer Key - Deleted Answer as per Second Answer Key - (4) All of these Answer given by Appellant - (2) MU1/MU2=P1/P2 = Marginal utility of income Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - (4) All of these The RPSC has in its first answer key decided to delete the question; whereas in revised result, option (4) "All of these" has been shown to be correct answer.
Learned Single Judge held that answer of the RPSC, i.e., "(4). All of these" is correct.
(26 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] Assailing the finding of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Bharat Devasi contended that the correct answer is the option (2), which is discernible from the following: -
1- d{kk 12 & O;f'V ,oa lef'V vFkZ"kkL= ¼ist ua- 20] 21½ ek-f"k- cksMZ] jktLFkku vtesj 2- O;olkf;d vFkZ"kkL= ¼ist ua- 14-38½ ys[kd ch ,y vks>k 3- usV vkfVZdy & ekbØks bdksuksfeDl] dUT;wej bfDoyhfcfj;e Having considered the rival submissions, we feel that no expertise is required to find out the correct answer, as a simple look at the question and its various options reveals that all the three options (1,2 & 3) qua this question indicate one and the same thing, and as a matter of fact they are depiction of the same formula in different ways. Hence, according to us also, option (4) is the correct answer.
In this view of the matter, no interference is warranted qua this question.
(8) Question No.(17): G.K. GROUP-I :
17- fuEufyf[kr esa ls dkSu lh oLrq vkgM+ Q. 17. which of the following objects are not lH;rk ds LFkyksa ls lacaf/kr ugha gS associated with Ahar Culture sites ¼1½ pkoy (i) Rice ¼2½ d`'.k&yksfgr e`n~Hkk.M (ii) Black & Read Ware ¼3½ rkWcs dh oLrq,W (iii) Copper Objects ¼4½ fpf=r /kwlj e`n~Hkk.M (iv) Painted Greyware Answer as per First Answer Key - (4) Painted Greyware Answer as per Second Answer Key - (4) Painted Greyware Answer given by Appellant - All alternatives (1)(2)(3)(4) deleted Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - (4) Painted Greyware In both the answer keys published by the RPSC option (4) "Painted Greyware", has been shown as the correct answer and (27 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] the learned Single Judge has also affirmed the stand of the RPSC, while observing thus:
"After a careful examination, this Court finds that the proof annexed with the report shows that all the other three options, except option (D) i.e. Painted Greyware is correct. Though learned counsel for the respondent has tired 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." Assailing the finding of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellants took us through the following to contend that even Painted Greywares were found at 'Ahar' Culture sites:
1- jktLFkku % bfrgkl ,oa laLd`fr ,ulkbDyksihfM;k ¼ist & 145½ MkW- gqdepUn tSu o MkW- ukjk;.k ekyh 2- izkphu Hkkjr dk bfrgkl ¼ist ua- 101 ls 107½ ys[kd f}tsUnzukjk;.k >k o d`'.keksgu Jhekyh fgUnh ek/;e dk;kZUo; funs"kky; bfrgkl foHkkx] fnYyh fo"ofo|ky; 3- Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo ¼ist & 131] 132½ ys[kd MkW- Jhd`'.k vks>k] lnL; dyk ladk;] jktLFkku fo"ofo|ky; t;iqj jhlpZ ifCyds"ku t;iqj Having gone through the material placed before us, it cannot be said with firmness that Painted Greyware were found in 'Ahar' culture. Be that as it may, since the experts have suggested option (4) to be correct answer, we have no reason to discard the same, atleast on the basis of the material placed before us. The answer suggested by the experts has not been shown to be demonstrably incorrect, hence, we refuse to interfere.
We therefore, affirm the view of the experts and that of learned Single Judge, qua this question. (9). Question No.(98): G.K. GROUP-I :
(28 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] 98- fuEu esa ls fdl unh dks ^nf{k.k dh xaxk^ Q. 98. Which of the following river is known ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gS \ as the Ganga of South ¼1½ d`'.kk ¼2½ xksnkojh (i) Krishna (ii) Godawari ¼3½ egkunh ¼4½ isfj;kj (iii) Mahanadi (iv) Periyar Answer as per First Answer Key - (2) Godawari Answer as per Second Answer Key - No correct answer is found (Delete) Answer given by Appellant - (2) Godawari Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - Deleted With reference to the above question, RPSC in its first answer key had shown option (2) "Godawari" to be correct answer, but however in the second/revised answer key, they have decided to delete the question. The stand of the Commission has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge while observing thus:
"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'".
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that option (2) "Godawari" is the only correct answer, which is clear evident from the following:
1- bafM;k okVj iksVZy ¼fgUnh½ 2- Hkkjr dk uohu Hkwxksy] i`-la- 25] ys[kd % MkW- ,y ,u oekZ] lsokfuo`r v/;{k & Hkwxksy foHkkx] eksguyky lq[kkfM+;k fo"ofo|ky;] mn;iqj jktLFkku fgUnh xzUFk vdkneh 3- usV vkfVZdy fMLdojh vkWQ bf.M;k Whereas learned counsel for the respondent Commission submitted that in some of the books/material "Kaveri" has been shown to be "Ganga of South". In support of his point, Mr. Tarun Joshi took us through the following:
1. INDIA- A Comprehensive Geography P-88 Dr. Khullar, Kalyani Publishers
2. Class 11- INDIA PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (NCERT) (P-27)
3. Geography of India P-3.21, Majid Hussain (29 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
4. Hkkjr dk Hkwxksy] ist & 88] 89 ys[kd & izksQslj jkepUnz frokjh] bykgkckn fo"ofo|ky;] izckfydk ifCyds"ku Having gone through the material produced by RPSC, what we find, is that some of the authors have shown "Kaveri" to be the "Ganga of South", whereas some have labeled "Godawari" to be the "Ganga of South". But it is pertinent to note that option "Kaveri" is not an option available qua this question. As such, "Godawri"-the available option (2), which has been shown to be "Ganga of South" by most of the authors, is the best suited option available out of the four suggested answers.
We feel it apt to reproduce the reasoning given by the RPSC while suggesting deletion of this question, which runs thus:
"No correct answer is formed. Thus, the question should be deleted."
According to us, there may be conflicting views about "Godawri" or "Kaveri" for being named as Ganga of South; but since "Kaveri" is not the option given, "Godawari" nearly known as "Dakshin Ganga" should have been taken to be the correct answer. The candidates having given option (2) "Godawari" cannot be deprived of their entitlement in the extant facts.
We therefore, hold that the decision of RPSC and corresponding approval by the learned Single Judge to delete the question was uncalled for. We further hold that out of the available options, "Godawari" was the correct answer and thus, appellants were correct in opting for option (2), "Godawari". Deletion of this question and affirmation of this stand is, thus, set aside.
(30 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] (10) Question No.(6): SANSKRIT : 6- ^viq=%^ v= lekl& ¼1½ u´~rRiq:'k% ¼2½ cgqozhfg% ¼3½ vO;;hHkko% ¼4½ deZ/kkj;%
Answer as per First Answer Key - (2) cgqozhfg% Answer as per Second Answer Key - ¼1½ u´~rRiq:'k% ¼2½ cgqozhfg% (Deleted) Answer given by Appellant - ¼2½ cgqozhfg% Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - Deleted In first answer key the Commission had indicated option (2) "cgqozhfg%" to be the correct answer, but in the second/revised answer key it has decided to delete the question as there were two correct answers, namely, u´~rRiq:'k% and cgqozhfg.
Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention placed the following for consideration of this Court:
1- HkSehO;k[;k okY;qe 4] i`'B la- 195&196] i`- la- 263 o 265 2- izkS< jpukuqokn dkSeqnh laLdj.k prqnZl] ist & 286 ys[kd ineJh MkW- dfiynso f}osnh fo"ofo|ky; izdk"ku] okjk.kklh 3- o`gn vuqokn pfUnzdk ist 207 ys[kd pØ/kj uksfV;ky gal "kkL=h 4- ysVjisM ,dkjlk uUn laLd`r egkfo|ky; eSuiqjh m- iz- O;kdj.k foHkkx MkW- jkeonu ik.Ms;] vflLVsUV izksQslj 5- oS;kdj.k fl)kUr dkSeqnh ys[kd Jh xksikynRr ik.Ms;] pkS[kEck lqjHkkjrh izdk"ku okjk.kklh 6- O;kdj.kegkHkk';e~ Jh xq:izlkn "kkL=h jkf'Vª; laLd`r laLFkku ubZ fnYyh 7- y?kqfl)kUr dkSeqnh Jhenfo}}j&ojnjktkpk;Ziz.khrk xhrk izsl xksj[kiqj Whereas the respondent Commission relied upon HkSehO;k[;k okY;qe 4] i`'B la- 121&122:
The expert committee constituted by the Commission has opined thus:
Question No Answer Remarks/ References
(Series A) (Use proper argument or references in support of your answer)
(31 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
6 2 iz"u dk tks mRrj vk;ksx }kjk ekU; gS] ogh izpfyr gSA
fujLr vkfo/keku%& iq=% ;L;a l% viq=%
;ksX; HkSehO;k[;k Vol iv i`0 195 & 196
ijUrq fodYi la[;k ¼1½ Hkh v"kqn~/k ugha gSA izek.k&i= y/kqfln~/kkUr dkSeqnh HkSeh iv i`0 la- 121 & 122 vr% iz"u fujLr ;ksX; gSA Looking to the nature of question, that too from the subject like Sanskrit Grammar, we are of the opinion that if the experts, having found two options to be correct, recommended to delete the question, there is no scope for any interference by this Court. The appellants have placed material indicating that option (2) is the correct answer; however, said material does not show that the other option (1), u´~rRiq:'k% is an incorrect answer. As such, when the experts have opined that both the options are correct, the court practically having no knowledge of the subject, cannot sit over their decision.
We therefore, affirm the deletion of this question. (11) Question No.(8): SANSKRIT :
8-^v/;srk^ bfr r`PizR;;kUrins /kkrwilxksZa Lr% % ¼1½ vf/k + b.k ¼2½ vf/k + baM~ ¼3½ vf/k + by~ ¼4½ vf/k + ,M~ Answer as per First Answer Key - ¼2½ vf/k + baM~ Answer as per Second Answer Key - ¼1½ vf/k + b.k ¼2½ vf/k + baM~ (Deleted) Answer given by Appellant - ¼2½ vf/k + baM~ Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - Deleted:
In the first answer key, RPSC had given option (2) " vf/k + baM~" to be correct answer, whereas in the revised result, the question has been deleted finding both the options (1) and (2) to be the correct answers.
(32 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] Learned counsel for the appellants asserted that option (2) is the correct answer and to lend support to his stand, Mr. Devasi relied upon following:
1- HkSehO;k[;k okY;qe 4] i`'B la- 39 2- ySVjisM & MkW- vdZukFk pkS/kjh] iwoZ dqyifr lkseukFk laLd`r ;wfuoflZVh] csjkoy xqtjkr] izkpk;Z jk'Vªh; laLd`r laLFkkue t;iqj ifjlj t;iqje 3- ysVjisM & MkW- egkohj izlkn lkjLor] izks- O;kdj.k "kkL=e o la;kstd ikB~; iqLrd fuekZ.k lfefr] O;kdj.k dkSeqnh izFkeks Hkkx% ¼d{kk 9 izosf"kdk½ ek- f"k- cksMZ jktLFkkue vtesje 4- y?kq fl)kUr dkSeqnh] MkW- vdZukFk pkS/kjh 5- c`g)krqdqlqekdj%] if.Mr gjsdkUr feJ pkS[kEck laLd`r izfr'Bku 6- ek/koh;k /kkrqo`fr%] Lokeh }kfjdknkl "kkL=h 7- oS;kdj.kfl)kUr dkSeqnh] Jh xksikynkl ik.Ms; As against this, the RPSC relied upon the following: HkSehO;k[;k okY;qe 4] i`'B la- 39 The expert committee constituted by the RPSC has decided to delete the question while observing as under:-
Question No Answer Remarks/ References
(Series A) (Use proper argument or references in support of your answer)
8 2 ;|fi vk;ksx }kjk iznRr lgh fodYi vf/kd lehphu gSA ijUrq
fujLr fodYi la[;k 1 ds vuqlkj Hkh ^v/;srk* in~flfn~/k gks ldrh gSA vr%
;ksX; fodYi 1 rFkk 2 nksuksa gh "kqn~/k gS iz"u ikB~;Øe ls gh iwNk x;k gS
ikB~;Øe ikVZ 1 ds fcUnq lkFk gS
vr% iz"u fujLr ;ksX;
Looking to the nature of question viz., Sanskrit Grammar, we are of the opinion that if the experts, having found two options to be correct, have recommended to delete the question, there is no scope for any interference by this Court. The appellants have placed material indicating that option (2) is the correct answer, but the material however, does not indicate that the other option (1) vf/k + b.k is a wrong answer. As such in the face of experts' view point that both the options are correct, we are not inclined to investigate in the matter.
(33 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] The deletion of this question is, thus, affirmed. (12) Question No.(103): HINDI:
103- fuEukafdr dgkuh vkanksyuksa ,oa muds lw=/kkjksa ls lEcfU/kr ;qXeksa esa ls dkSulk ;qXe vlaxr gS\ ¼1½ lspru dgkuh&eghiflag ¼2½ lekukUrj dgkuh&deys"oj ¼3½ vdgkuh&fueZy oekZ ¼4½ lgt dgkuh&jktsUnz ;kno As per First Answer Key - ¼3½ vdgkuh&fueZy oekZ As per Second Answer Key - (Deleted) Answer given by Appellant - ¼3½ vdgkuh&fueZy oekZ Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - Deleted While publishing the first answer key, RPSC had given option (3) to be the correct answer, whereas upon re-appraisal and consideration of various objections, the Commission has decided to delete this question.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that option (3) " vdgkuh&fueZy oekZ", is the correct answer and the Commission has committed an error in deleting the same.
It is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge while affirming the deletion of this question has observed as under:
"After a careful examination, this Court finds that the report of expert committee is self explanatory. Therefore, the deletion of this question has rightly been done."
Looking to the nature of the question and the fact that the appellants have failed to show that the stand of the respondent Commission is shockingly erroneous, we refuse to enter into this arena, much less venture into the exercise of upturning the opinion given by the subject experts.
(34 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] The action of deletion of this question taken by the RPSC and the view of the learned Single Judge is therefore, upheld.
(13) Question No.(104): SANSKRIT:
104-fu'Øe.klaLdkjL; dky% ¼1½ prqFkZ ekls ¼2½ f}rh; ekls ¼3½ 'k'Bs ekls ¼4½ v'Ves ekls As per First Answer Key - ¼1½ prqFkZ ekls As per Second Answer Key - ¼1½ prqFkZ ekls ¼3½ 'k'Bs ekls (Deleted) Answer given by Appellant - ¼1½ prqFkZ ekls Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - Deleted Learned counsel for the appellants contending that the option (1) " prqFkZ ekls" is the correct answer, relied upon the following:
1- MkW- vdZukFk pkS/kjh] iwoZ dqyifr lkseukFk laLd`r ;wfuoflZVh] csjkoy xqtjkr] izkpk;Z jk'Vªh; laLd`r laLFkkue t;iqj ifjlj t;iqje }kjk nh xbZ jk;A 2- "kCn czã & Hkkjrh; Hkk'kkvksa dh varjkZ'Vªh; ekfld "kks/k if=dk osnksa esa miyC/k laLdkjksa dk Le`fr;ksa esa mic`g.k 3- euqLe`fr f}rh; v/;k;
4- d{kk 8 & laLd`r foHkkx dh iqLrd laLd`re ist & 79 As against this, the RPSC has relied upon the following: 1- Hkkjrh; laLd`fr & MkW- izfrizHkk xks;y ;s iqLrd fuEu lanHkZ iqLrdksa ds vk/kkj ij fy[kh xbZ 61- ikjLdj x`glw= 1@17 prqFkZ ekfl fu'Øef.kdk 62- euqLe`fr 2@34 prqFkZs ekfl drZO; f"k"kksfuZ'Øe.k 63- ohjfe=ksn; laLdkjizdk"k & prqFkZekfl drZO; f"k"kks"pUnzL; n"kZue 2- fjekDlZ & "kkSud vkpk;Z us 'k'B ekl esa Hkh ekuk gS uksV & ¼fjekDlZ ds laca/k esa vkjih,llh ds }kjk dksbZ lk{; ugha fn;k x;k gSA½ While deciding to delete the question, the expert of the committee of the Commission has observed thus:
Question No Answer Remarks/ References
(Series A) (Use proper argument or references in support of your answer)
104 1/3 fujLr vk;ksx }kjk iznRr mrj lgh gSA
;ksX; fu'Øe.k laLdkj izk;% vkpk;ksZa ds er esa prqFkZ ekl esa gh gksrk gSA
(35 of 39) [SAW-922/2018]
"kkSudkpk;Z us 'k'B ekl esa Hkh ekuk gS
vr% fodYi la[;k 3 Hkh v"kqn~/k ugha gSA nks fodYi 1] 2 lgh gksus ds dkj.k iz"u fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA While affirming the deletion of question, learned Single Judge has observed thus:
"After a careful examination, this Court finds that this question has been rightly deleted on the ground of having multiple correct answers to this question." It is to be noticed that even the experts have opined that as per most of the Acharayas', fu'Øe.k laLdkj takes places in forth month, however, "kkSudkpk;Z has said that the same can be done in the sixth month also.
In our considered opinion, option (1), as indicated by the Commission in its first answer key, is the correct answer. Merely because one author ""kkSudkpk;Z" has suggested that it can be done in "6th month also", it cannot be concluded that both the options (1) and (3) are the correct answer. It is noteworthy that even "kkSudkpk;Z has not disputed that fu'Øe.k laLdkj should take place in 4 th month, he has however additionally opined that the same can be done in 6th month also.
As discussed above, the experts' opinion in this regard is flawed. The deletion of this question and order of learned Single Judge is, thus, set aside. It is held that option (1) "prqFkZ ekls" is the correct answer.
(14) Question No.(106): HINDI:
106- dkSulk leqPp; lqesfyr ugha gS\ (36 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] ¼1½ u;s ckny] tkuoj vkSj tkuoj] t[e&eksgu jkds"k ¼2½ foiFkxk] "kj.kkFkhZ] vej oYyjh&tSusUnz ¼3½ vfHkeU;q dh vkRedFkk] NksVs NksVs rktey] VwVuk & jktsUnz ;kno ¼4½ "kkeh dkxt] [kqnk dh okilh] lchuk ds pkyhl pksj&ukfljk "kekZ As per First Answer Key - ¼3½ vfHkeU;q dh vkRedFkk] NksVs NksVs rktey] VwVuk & jktsUnz ;kno As per Second Answer Key - (Deleted) Answer given by Appellant - ¼3½ vfHkeU;q dh vkRedFkk] NksVs NksVs rktey] VwVuk & jktsUnz ;kno Correct answer as per Learned Single Judge - Deleted Learned counsel for the appellants contended that option (3) is the correct answer and in support of his argument, he relied upon the text book of Class 11th and 12th .
Learned Single Judge upholding the deletion of his question, in the second answer key has observed thus:
"After a careful examination, this Court finds that the report of expert committee is self explanatory. Therefore, the deletion of this question has rightly been done."
According to under Section, the appellants' solitary reliance upon text book of class 11 th and 12th cannot be said to be conclusive.
As against this, the subject experts have opined that the question deserves to be deleted. Such view of the experts, on the basis of material available, does not call for any interference. Learned Single Judge was justified in affirming the stand of the Commission.
(15) In addition to the above questions, in DBSAW No.1523/2018 arising out of SBCWP No.3854/2018, grievance has also been raised qua question No.13 of Paper II - Social Science, which reads as under:
13- 2011 dh tux.kuk ds vuqlkj Hkkjr esa iw:"k vkSj efgyk lk{kjrk dk izfr'kr gS% (37 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] iq:"k efgrk ¼1½ 83-78 79-60 ¼2½ 80-51 67-06 ¼3½ 79-63 66-77 ¼4½ 82-14 65-46 The RPSC has given option (4) "82.14 and 65.46" "to be the correct answer.
Mr. Kailash Jangid appearing for the appellant in this case submitted, that although the appellant had chosen option (3), but in view of various conflicting figures given in different books, the question deserves to be deleted.
Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent Commission submitted that though reply to the writ petition had not been filed, but, as per the instructions given to him, the Commission has referred to the authentic publication in this regard.
While upholding the answer of RPSC, the learned Single Judge has observed thus:
"After a careful examination, this Courts finds that there is no discrepancy in the language."
In a bid to ascertain the answer to this question and to confirm what has been informed to us by the RPSC, we surfed through the net and the official website of Maps of India and to our satisfaction, we record that the stand of the RPSC is correct. The contention of the appellant that different books depict different figures requiring the question to be deleted is not tenable in face of the categorical data published by the Government of India.
(38 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] We, therefore, hold that the answer given by the RPSC qua this question is correct.
We have been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the Commission that not only the result has been published, but the Commission has forwarded the list of selected candidates to the State Government, and thus, the selection process is over. While maintaining that no interference, at this stage, can be made, Mr. Joshi submitted that any direction to re-do the exercise would thwart the selection process on the one hand and affect the fate of the candidates already selected pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 5.5.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge at Jodhpur as well as at Jaipur. Counsel for RPSC, therefore, submitted that if the Division Bench comes to a conclusion that still some questions and their answers need to be revisited/reviewed, such adjudication be confined to the appellants alone, so that the rights of the successful candidates who are not before the court, are not affected.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having come to a definite conclusion that the Respondent Commission lacked professionalism and requisite proficiency while dealing with some of the questions, we feel that the appellants fate cannot be left in lurch , merely because the list of selected candidates has been sent. This is more so, because by way of interim order, this court had already observed that the selection shall remain subject matter of decision of these appeals.
Hence, with a view to give quitus to the dispute and to give finality to the selections already made, we hold that the (39 of 39) [SAW-922/2018] adjudication made by us will be confined to the appellants involved in the present appeals only. Their assessment shall be carried out in line with the adjudication made by us in the present appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are setting out the particulars of question(s) cataloging the question(s) and corresponding answer/direction which need to be rechecked:
Subject Q. No. Direction Reasons set
out in para
General Knowledge 8 Delete 1
General Knowledge 84 Option (2) is correct 3
Social Science 21 Option (3) is correct 4
Group-II Paper-II
General Knowledge-I 98 Option (2) is correct 9
Sanskrit 104 Option (1) is correct 13
As a result, all the appeals are allowed, as indicated above. Needless to observe that after re-appraisal of their result in the light of the findings given by us, if the appellants march ahead of the last selected candidate, they shall be given appointment, subject of course, to their other eligibilities. The respondent Commission shall carry out the requisite exercise and declare the result of the appellants within a period of three weeks from today.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
CPGoyal/reserved/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)