Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dinesh Saran S/O Ramchandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 May, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:25504]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10358/2023
1. Nidhi Choudhary D/o Shri Rajendra Singh Bhamu, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o V/p Piprali, District Sikar.
2. Bablu Mali S/o Shri Ram Lal Mali, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village Man Singh Ji Ka Khera, Post Dantra Bandh,
Tehsil Asind, Bhilwara.
3. Vikas Thory S/o Shri Banawari Lal, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o V/p Karanga Chhota, Tehsil Fatehpur, Sikar.
4. Ravindra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Antram Sharma, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Marholi, Tehsil Bari, District
Dholpur.
5. Rajendra Kumar Dhakar S/o Gopal Lal Dhakar, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o V/p Bijoliya Khurd, Tehsil Bijoliya,
District Bhilwara.
6. Deepak Singh S/o Shri Mukat Singh, Aged About 23
Years, R/o V/p Kanjoli, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli.
7. Vinod Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Chhitar Mal Choudhary,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Titrima, Tehsil Chaksu,
Post Titrima, District Jaipur.
8. Chain Singh Panwar S/o Shri Bheru Singh Panwar, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o V/p Barkhdwa, Tehsil Deedwana,
District Nagaur.
9. Hariom Parashar S/o Shri Prem Shankar Parashar, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Mohalla Vamanpura, Bayana,
Bharatpur.
10. Omprakash S/o Shri Gordhan Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o V/p Sarla, Tehsil Sedwa, District
Barmer.
11. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Mange Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Gunjasari, Tehsil Bhadra, Hanumangarh.
12. Prem Poonia D/o Shri Shyam Singh Poonia, Aged About
22 Years, R/o Village Bhagwanpura, Teshil Nawa, Nagaur.
13. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Prajapat, Aged About
21 Years, R/o V/p Kumbhasar, Nokha, Bikaner.
14. Rohtash Kumar S/o Shri Jadveer Singh, Aged About 24
Years, R/o V/p Bhadira, Nadbai, Bharatpur.
15. Amit Sharma S/o Shri Daudayal Sharma, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Indoli, Post, Basai Nawav, Dholpur.
16. Anil Kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Samndar Lal, Aged About
27 Years, R/o V/p Sakray, Shri Madhopur, Sikar.
17. Maneesh Jangid S/o Shri Kailash Chand Jangid, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o V/p Khedi Bandanwars, Ajmer.
18. Ravin S/o Shri Dharampal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Suratpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
19. Ronak Mewara S/o Shri Mukesh Mewara, Aged About 20
Years, R/o Village Nagola, Tehsil Bhinai, District Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (2 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
20. Priyanka Choudhary D/o Shri Gordhan Ram Choudhary,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Barmer Magra, Barmer.
21. Resham Khan S/o Shri Ramadan Khan, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Barmer, Chouhtan.
22. Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri Babulal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village Supawas, Tehsil Kumher, Bharatpur.
23. Jyoti Kumari D/o Shri Baljeet Singh, V/p Ujoli, Tehsil
Kotkasim, Alwar.
24. Anil Kumar Saini S/o Shri Motilal Saini, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Bhandari, Tehsil Sikray, Dausa.
25. Sanjay Kumar Saini S/o Shri Nanag Ram Saini, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o V/p Pinan, Teshil Reni, Alwar.
26. Hansraj Kasana S/o Shri Kailash Chand Kasana, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village Khichawas, Post Bane Ka
Barkheda, Dausa.
27. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Jeewan Puri, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o V/p Gusaiyon Ki Dhani, Kari, Tehsil Nawalgarh,
District Jhunjhunu.
28. Rohitash Gurjar S/o Shri Babu Lal Gurjar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o V/p Navrangpura, Tehsil Viratnagar, District
Jaipur.
29. Surendra Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Rajgarh, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur.
30. Parshuram Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Sharma, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Village Surajpura, Post Banasthali, Tehsil
Newai, District Tonk.
31. Ankur Bhardwaj S/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o V/p Balawala, Teshil Sanganer,
Jaipur.
32. Chander Kala D/o Shri Sube Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village Hameerwas Chota, Tehsil Rajgarh, District
Churu.
33. Priyanka Dhankar D/o Shri Surjeet Singh, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Barkoli, Bharatpur.
34. Rahul Singh Dagur S/o Shri Jai Singh Dagur, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Hulyan Kathumar, Alwar.
35. Gudiya Sharma D/o Shri Sita Ram Sharma, Aged About
32 Years, R/o V/p Rudawal, Tehsil Rupwas, District
Bharatpur Sedh Ka Madh Bayana Road Rudawal.
36. Sunita Dhayal D/o Shri Mallu Ram Dhayal, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Near B.s. Tyagi School, Tilak Nagar, Bikaner.
37. Varsha D/o Shri Raju Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Raju Ram Godaro Ki Dhani Khara, Jalor.
38. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Goverdhan Ram, Aged About 27
Years, R/o V/p Phulasar Chota, Tehsil Bajju, District
Bikaner.
39. Priyanka Bishnoi D/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 23
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (3 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
Years, R/o V/p Phulasar Chota, Tehsil Bajju, District
Bikaner.
40. Sanjay Sharma S/o Shri Surya Prakash Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o V/p Maheshwara Khurd, Tehsil And
District Dausa.
41. Om Prakash K Choudhary S/o Shri Krishan Kumar
Choudhary, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sauon Ki Dhani
Lorti Hight Undkha, Barmer.
42. Santosh Choudhary D/o Shri Dama Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o V/p Dheeraji Ki Dhani, Undoo,
District Barmer.
43. Kavita D/o Shri Radheshyam, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
V/p Chanhiyawas, Banwarla, Tehsil Degana, District
Nagaur.
44. Pradeep Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Dhanraj Vaishnav, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o V/p Harigarh, Tehsil Khanpur, District
Jhalawar.
45. Jitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramgopal Sharma, Aged
About 19 Years, R/o School Ke Pass, Village Dantiya, Post
Garwada, District Jhalawar.
46. Jutharam S/o Shri Sanvala Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o V/p Korka, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore.
47. Kanchan Devi Dhakar D/o Shri Radheshyam Dhakar, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o V/p Bilavtiya Khera, Hingoniya, Tehsil
Sarwar, District Ajmer.
48. Deeksha Salvi D/o Shri Narulal Salvi, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Behind Charbhuja Mandir, Post Kunwaria,
District Rajsamand.
49. Shahin Akhatar D/o Shri Shabeer Mohammad, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o V/p Sadas, Tehsil Gangrar, District
Chittorgarh.
50. Hemant Kumar Jat S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Jat, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Village Sewati Kalan, Post Singor Kalan,
Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.
51. Rajiv Kumar S/o Shri Vijender Kumar, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vpo Rajpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
52. Rachana Kumari Parmar D/o Shri Nawal Singh, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o V And P Abdulpur, Tehsil Bari,
Dholpur, Rajasthan.
53. Dhiraj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o V/p Barodameo, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Alwar.
54. Pooja D/o Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Pachunda Kalan, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.
55. Shilpi D/o Shri Murari Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Mahadev Colony, Near Chirag Public School, Panipat,
Harayana.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (4 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
56. Dipendra Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 24
Years, R/o V/p Pacheri Kalan, Tehsil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu.
57. Nikhat Bano D/o Shri Liyakat Hussain, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ward No. 3, V/p Kotra, Deep Singh, Tehsil
Digod, District Kota.
58. Rameshwaree S/o Shri Hanuman Ram, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Gorsiyon Ka Tala Antiya, Chohtan, Barmer.
59. Chaudhary Divya Chunaram D/o Shri Chuna Ram, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o Lala Ki Beri Band, Barmer.
60. Rajendra S/o Shri Jodharam, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Godaro Ka Bass Khidrat, Jodhpur.
61. Nikhil S/o Hardev Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village
Odeljat, Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur.
62. Manvendra S/o Atar Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Village Gazipur, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur.
63. Manisha Yadav D/o Shri Surendra Kumar, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Mau, Post Chandpur, Tehsil Mundawar,
District Alwar.
64. Rajesh Kumar Tanwer S/o Shri Amar Chand Tanwer, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Balesar, Post Navrangpura,
Tehsil Viratnagar, District Jaipur.
65. Ankit Jain S/o Shri Kailash Chand Jain, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Dudu Road, Shiv Colony, Brijlal Nagar,
Malpura, Tonk.
66. Amit Kumar Meena S/o Shri Prem Prasad Meena, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o V/p Sundargarh, P.o. Ulela, Tehsil
Jahzpur, District Bhilwara.
67. Kripal Singh S/o Shri Chanan Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Sitodai, Tehsil Fatehgarh.
68. Girdhar Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o V/p Moolana, Tehsil Fatehgarh, Jaisalmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Panchayati Raj Department (Elementary
Education) Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. The Director, Department Of Elementary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)
4. The Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Through
Its Secretary, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary
Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer (Raj.)
5. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its
Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (5 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
Premises, Durgapura, Rajasthan, Jaipur - 302018.
----Respondents
Along with connected matters shown in the appended
Schedule-I
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with
Mr. Akshit Gupta
Mr. Harendra Neel
Mr. Pulkit Bhardwaj
Ms. Pragya Seth
Ms. Sarah Sharma
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
Mr. Aamir Khan
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma
Mr. Raghunandan Sharma with
Mr. Nikhil Kumawat
Ms. Komal Kumari Giri
Mr. Bajrang Sepat
Mr. Prateek Kasliwal with
Ms. Gauri Jasana
Mr. Suresh Khileri with
Mr. Kapil Khandelwal
Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki
Mr. Shivatma Kumar Tank
Ms. Neha Godara
Mr. Almas Khanam
Mr. Narendra Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Himanshu Jain
Mr. Rishiraj Maheshwari
Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG with
Mr. Naveen Yadav
Mr. Kapil Vyas
Mr. Jai Vardhan Joshi
Mr. Nalin G. Narain, AGC with
Mr. Arpit Jain
Mr. Manish Bhardwaj
Ms. Apoorva Agarwal
Mr. Yashraj Kasliwal
Mr. Girraj P Sharma
Mr. Prahlad Sharma with
Ms. Kajol Swami
Mr. Sanjay Mahla with
Ms. Sunita Mahla
Mr. Nagendra Sharma
Mr. Narendra Singh Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
Reportable
Reserved on 07/03/2024
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (6 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
Pronounced on 31/05/2024
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the
controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and
predominantly defined by the challenge raised regarding the
correctness and/or validity of the final answer key dated
26.05.2023, as issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board (hereinafter, RSSB), pursuant to the invitation of
objection(s) from the applicants/candidates as against the
preliminary answer key published on 18.03.2023.
2. Therefore, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant
adjudication on common questions of law; with the consent of
learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 10358/2023 titled as Nidhi Choudhary and
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, is being taken up as the
lead case. It is cautiously clarified that discrepancies in the
present batch of writ petitions, if any, pertain purely to the factual
narratives contained therein and not viz-a-viz the questions of law
to be determined by this Court.
3. The overarching factual matrix, enveloping the lis to be
determined by this Court, is noted herein-under:-
3.1 That the respondent no.5-RSSB issued advertisement dated
16.12.2022 for selection on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level
I).
3.2 That in total, 21000 posts came to be notified vide said
advertisement.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (7 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
3.3 That selection on the aforesaid posts was advertised to be
based upon a competitive examination, scheme of which is noted
herein-under:-
1. Total Number of Questions: 150
2. Maximum Marks: 300
3. Time Duration: 2 hrs. and 30 mins.
4. Negative Marking: 1/3 marks
5. Weightage per Correct Answer: 2 marks
3.4 That as per the advertisement, the candidates were required
to fill the application form between 21.12.2022 to 19.01.2023.
3.5 That the written examination was conducted by the RSSB on
25.02.2023.
3.6 That on 18.03.2023, the RSSB issued the model answer key.
3.7 That on the same date, a press note was released inviting
objections from the candidates as against the model answer key
dated 18.03.2023. For doing so, the stipulated time given to the
candidates was 20.03.2023 to 22.03.2023. At this nascent
juncture, it is made clear that as per the record before this Court,
it is reflected that not all the petitioners had raised objections
against the model answer key, in the time frame so prescribed by
the respondent-RSSB.
3.8 That on 26.05.2023, the RSSB released the final answer key.
3.9 That vide said final answer key, after taking note of the
objections received against the 22 questions/answers in total, as
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (8 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
provided in the preliminary answer key, the RSSB did the
following:-
3.9.1 Deleted 5 Questions (Question Nos. 55,96,113, 149
and 150).
3.9.2 Changed the answers in 3 questions (Question Nos.
84,118 and 126).
3.9.3 Maintained the answers included in the preliminary
answer key in 14 questions (Question Nos.
9,19,21,22,47,51,64,83,90,119,122,12,8,130 and 131).
3.10 That being aggrieved of the aforesaid deviations and/or non-
deviations in the final answer key dated 26.05.2023, from the
preliminary answer key dated 18.03.2023, the petitioners have
approached this Court by way of the present batch of writ
petitions.
3.11 That pursuant to the filing of the instant petition, vide order
dated 12.09.2023, this Court as an interim measure, directed the
RSSB to re-verify the conclusion with respect to the above-noted
22 questions, as indicated in the final answer key, through its
body of experts within a period of 15 days.
3.12 That in compliance of the interim order dated 12.09.2023,
the RSSB submitted a compliance report, which forms part of the
record, having been placed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
8893/2023 titled as Priyanka Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan
and Ors.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (9 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
3.13 That as per the compliance report so furnished, the RSSB
pursuant to the re-verification of the final answer key dated
26.05.2023 by its body of experts, especially as against the
objected 22 questions, maintained the answers furnished in the
final answer key and as a result, did not make any further
deviations. Therefore, as on date, pursuant to the re-verification,
the RSSB maintains its answers as included within the final answer
key dated 26.05.2023.
3.14 That vide order dated 30.11.2023, this Court in order to
prevent the creation of third party rights, directed the respondent-
State to maintain the status quo with regards to the process of
appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level I). Therefore,
inadvertently, as on date, no third party rights have been created.
4. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Vigyan Shah, submitted that the final answer key dated
26.05.2023, issued by the respondent-RSSB, jeopardizes the
actual merit/position of the petitioners for recruitment on the post
of Teacher Grade III (Level I) as certain deviations and/or non
deviations, arrived at by the RSSB in the said final answer key,
from those answers included in the preliminary answer key dated
18.03.2023 are incorrect and non-tenable. Therefore, this Court
whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India must undertake the exercise of judicial review in respect
of the disputed answers, and where it clearly appears that the
disputed answer key is palpably and demonstrably erroneous,
change the answers and/or further direct the RSSB to constitute a
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (10 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
fresh body of experts to re-examine the said answers for the
purpose of preparation of the final merit list.
5. Mr. Shah further submitted that in the arena of public
employment and the examination so conducted for recruitment
therein, the scope of error on part of the body entrusted with
conducting the examination and/or observing the selection
process, ought to be removed in its entirety. If such errors are
allowed to creep in, it is not only the candidates appearing in the
said examination who would suffer, but the price shall be paid by
the public at large, which shall be effected by the inefficiency on
part of the respondent-State, resulting into the appointment of
incompetent individuals on public posts. In this regard, with
respect to the disputed answers, namely for Question Nos.
55,84,113,118,126 and 150 amongst others, the petitioners
placed reliance upon several text books and/or study material,
and argued that the said material makes it abundantly clear that
there is no room for doubt that the answers claimed to be correct
by the petitioners are indeed correct and therefore, the answer
key issued by the respondent-RSSB warrants judicial intervention.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated
in Kanpur University and Ors. vs. Samir Gupta and Ors.
reported in 1983 AIR (SC) 1230 wherein it was held that it
would be unfair to penalize the candidates for not giving an
answer which is demonstrated to be incorrect. Hence, there is no
doubt that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (11 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
answer key is erroneous and demonstrably wrong, being contrary
to the material relied upon by the petitioners which is annexed
with the body of the petition, the candidates/petitioners cannot be
made to suffer.
7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the respondent-RSSB,
tasked with such an important task of administering recruitment
on crucial public posts, ought to have exercised utmost
carefulness whilst preparing the impugned final answer key,
primarily for the welfare of the candidates, who invest a lot of
their time and energy to prepare for such examinations. An
incorrect answer key results in the merit being made a casualty
and/or a mockery on the face of fairness. It was also averred that
in matters of large scale public employment, where the Courts are
slow in extending interference, the responsibility upon the body
administering the examination i.e. RSSB, for conducting a fair and
proper examination with demonstrably correct answers, increases
substantially.
8. In support of the arguments advanced above, especially on
the aspect of permissibility of judicial review wherein the answers
are demonstrably incorrect, learned counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance upon the dictum enunciated in Kanpur University (Supra), D.B. SAW No. 847/2022 titled as Suman and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., Guru Nayak Dev University vs. Saumil Garg and Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 749, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 847/2022 titled as Suman and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (12 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] No. 1092/2015 titled as Pankaj Oswal and Ors. vs. RPSC and Ors., D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 497/2022 titled as RPSC and Ors. vs. Gyanendra Sharma and Ors. amongst others.
9. Resultantly, learned counsel prayed that the final answer key dated 26.05.2023 be declared erroneous and as a consequence thereof, either the answers so deemed correct by the petitioners, which form part of the record by way of the pleadings, be accepted as the correct answers, or in alternative, the RSSB be directed to constitute a novel expert committee for re-examining the objections so raised against the preliminary answer key and for the preparation of the subsequent final answer key, pursuant to said re-consideration, based on authentic text books and study material.
10. Per contra, Mr. R.N. Mathur Sr. Counsel and Mr. Bharat Vyas AAG, appearing on behalf of the respondents, vehemently refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the scope and permissibility of judicial review in matters of administrative decision-making is only sparingly permissible. In support of the said submission, learned counsel averred that this Court, whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can only limit its findings on whether the body tasked with the administration of the concerned examination, followed the due procedure of law or not. However, in no circumstance whatsoever, can the Courts substitute their own views with the decisions arrived at by the experts of the administering body, especially when the latter followed the due (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (13 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] process of law and the answers/findings so arrived at did not pass the hurdle of being declared demonstrably and palpably erroneous.
11. In furtherance of the arguments advanced above, learned counsel further contended that the Courts are not experts of the subject-matter of the contested answers and hence, for ascertaining their validity, the Courts must leave it upon the experts to render their findings on correctness of the answers so furnished, as they would be more prone to understanding the intricacies of the subject-matter. In this regard, it was submitted that upon receiving the objections by the candidates in pursuance to the press note dated 18.03.2023, the experts duly assessed the objections whilst placing proper reliance on authentic study material and thereafter, made requisite changes, wherever required. Only after the said assessment of the objections, as received, the final answer key dated 26.05.2023 was issued.
12. Moreover, it was also submitted that even during the course of the proceedings before this Court, in pursuance of the interim order dated 12.09.2023, the RSSB re-verified its conclusions with respect to the noted disputed answers, as indicated in the final answer key, through its body of experts and thereafter, found no further change necessary. In essence, the subject matter experts have already re-assessed the final answer key dated 26.05.2023 and therefore, a further direction if issued for re- consideration/assessment of objections, shall be an exercise futile since its inception, as findings of fact, once already ascertained by (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (14 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] experts, cannot be changed subsequently. Moreover, re- constitution of expert committees time and again, for continuous assessment of the final answer key, based on a candidates assumed belief of correctness, shall be a never ending exercise, which shall inadvertently halt the entire selection process for a considerable period of time, thereby adversely affecting the public at large, including the thousands of candidates who participated in the concerned examination, but are not before this Court as on date.
13. As a result, whilst praying for the dismissal of the present batch of petitions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well the Division Bench of this Court as enunciated in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759, Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and Anr. vs. Rahul Singh and Anr. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309, Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors. reported in (2020) 6 SCC 362 and Kavita Bhargava vs. Registrar, Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2253/2022, amongst others.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (15 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
14. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the instant petition and perused through the judgments cited at Bar.
15. Concisely noted, from the overarching factual narrative of the present batch of writ petitions, it is rather apparent that the scope of the controversy/lis before this Court pertains to the judicial review of the final answer key dated 26.05.2023, as published for the Teacher Grade III (Level I) Examination, pursuant to receiving of the objections from petitioners/candidates as against the preliminary answer key dated 18.03.2023.
16. Prior to delving into the exercise of judicial review, this Court must briefly lay down the contours within which the said exercise is permissible, especially in matters of administrative decision- making, for public examinations of such a large scale.
17. On the aspect of judicial review, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukesh Thakur (Supra) held as under:-
"19. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No. 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics, chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court.
20. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (16 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
18. Following suit, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), further elaborated on the circumscribed permissibility of judicial review viz-a-viz the correctness of an answer key issued by the authority tasked with administering the concerned public examination. It was held as under:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
19. Similarly, in Vikesh Kumar Gupta (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"11. Though re-evaluation can be directed if Rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re- evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (17 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Anr.: (2010) 6 SCC 759) Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations."
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul Singh (Supra) expressly delineated the eventualities where the Court may exercise judicial intervention/scrutiny qua the answers ascertained by the experts, albeit sparingly. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein-under:-
"The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of-(1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions."
21. Therefore, in cumulative adherence of the dictum enunciated in the foregoing judgments, it can be summarized that the Hon'ble Apex Court, through a plethora of judicial pronouncements, has time and again held that the Courts ought to be extremely reluctant to substitute their own views as to what is correct and well-judged/ascertained, in relation to academic matters, in preference of those views formulated by and arrived at by professional experts possessing prowess, proficiency and expertise in the actual academic subjects included in the scheme of the examination.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (18 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
22. Having said so, the Hon'ble Apex Court, through said judicial pronouncements, has drawn a rather specific caveat, within the limits of which, judicial review of answer-keys promulgated by a body of experts, may be permissible albeit sparingly. In Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), it was held that the Courts whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer-key only if it is demonstrated very clearly that a material error has been committed on part of the administering body. The said error ought to be so evident and demonstrably erroneous, that in order to catch hold of the same, the Court must not adopt an inferential process of reasoning/rationalization.
23. Therefore, the only exception carved out, permitting the Court's interference in disputed answer keys whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pertains to when the disputed answer key appears to be 'palpably and demonstrably erroneous'.
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the celebrated judgment of Kanpur University (Supra), expounded on what is 'palpably and demonstrably erroneous', by holding as under:-
"15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of great importance to the student community. Normally, one would be inclined to the view, especially if one has been a paper setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished be the paper setter and accepted by the University as correct, should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University had not published the key answer along with the result of the test, no (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (19 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these matters which involve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy would have been worse than the disease because, so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The publication of the key answer has unravelled an happy state of affairs to which the University and the State Government must find a solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of examinations which they conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the human system.
16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text- books leave, no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect."
25. Hence, an error shall be deemed to be demonstrably erroneous, only if the Court is of the view that the purported error does not require examination or arguments to establish the fallacy so crept in, that is to say, the error must be self-evident on the face of the record. In an eventuality, where the error has to be established by a process of reasoning, then it cannot be said that the claimed fallacy is demonstrably erroneous. By logical (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (20 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] deduction, even in an eventuality, where two or more logical constructions are plausible qua a disputed question/answer, and one of those constructions is adopted in the answer-key, even then, the said answer key shall be protected from the scrutiny of the Court, as the said construction would be one of the plausible outcomes arrived at by the subject-matter experts.
26. Conclusively, to summarize the foregoing principles, reliance can also be placed upon the dictum of this Court as previously enunciated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/2021 titled as Surjan Lal Dhawan and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan where it was held that a court carrying on the exercise of judicial review merely scrutinizes the process in question-administrative or statutory, but necessarily public in its outcome, to see if it was arrived at in a procedurally fair and regular manner, free from illegality, not motivated by malice or mala fides or not so manifestly unreasonable in its conclusion that no reasonable individual placed in that situation would arrive at such a conclusion.
27. Thus, having equipped oneself with the position of law with regards to judicial review of a challenged answer key, this Court must ascertain whether the answers included by the RSSB in the final answer key dated 26.05.2023, are palpably and demonstrably erroneous or not. It goes without saying that if the disputed answers hold their ground against the objections so raised, then in such an eventuality, judicial review shall not be permissible qua said answers. Conversely, if the said contested (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (21 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] answers are successful in highlighting the demonstrable fallacy, then the Court shall extend interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
28. Now, this Court shall undertake the exercise of assessing whether or not, the answers to the disputed questions, are demonstrably erroneous.
29. Having perused through the disputed answers reflected in the final answer key dated 26.05.2023, which were maintained even pursuant to the re-verification of said answers by an expert committee in accordance with the interim order dated 12.09.2023, report of which is annexed in the connected petition namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8893/2023 titled as Priyanka Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that in the absence of any material/information to elaborate upon the incorrectness of the disputed answers, no prudent man having sufficient knowledge, shall be able to categorically catch a glimpse of the mistake so purported to have crept in the impugned answer key dated 26.05.2023. Essentially, in order to establish a case of incorrectness and factual inaccuracy in the contested answer key, a prudent individual would have to take a deep dive into the world of academia and research on the purported illegalities. Even then, in order of lift the veil of inaccuracy and incorrectness, reasonable debate would be necessary before an informed decision can be made in adjudging the validity of the answers challenged. Moreover, in certain answers, as is also illustrated below, two logical outcomes may be (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (22 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] possible to be correct. In such scenarios as well, this Court ought to give the benefit of doubt to the RSSB administering the examination at such a large scale, which has included within the answer key one such plausible conclusion.
30. Illustratively, some of the contested answers, along with the rationale adopted by the expert-committee whilst rechecking the final answer key dated 26.05.2023 are reproduced herein-under:-
Question No. 55: Children who belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Socially and Educationally Backward Class are defined as-
a) Weaker Section
b) Special Backward Class
c) Below Poverty Line
d) Disadvantaged Group Answer in the preliminary answer key: Option D Answer in the final answer key, pursuant to receiving objections, by the expert committee: Question Deleted Answer post re-verification by the experts in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court dated 12.09.2023:
Question Deleted Rationale adopted by the experts for affirming the answer noted in the final answer key: That after reviewing the question, the experts opined that as per the definition clause of the Right to Education Act 2009, the definition a 'disadvantaged group' is broader, which also includes within its ambit those children who are disadvantaged on account of cultural, economic, geographical, linguistic or gender relating factors. Therefore, as the question included only a select few criterions for said qualification, the question was deemed appropriate to be deleted in order to remove ambiguity for all candidates appearing in the examination.
The rationale adopted by the experts cannot be claimed to be unfounded and/or arbitrary, for the reason, that on account of the (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (23 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] question being incomplete, the best recourse for uniformly ironing out ambiguity for all candidates, was to delete the question altogether.
Question No. 84: If any upper primary school has a total enrollment of 130 students, then how many teachers have to be provided by the Government in that school?
a. 2 b. 3 c. 4 d. 5 Answer in the preliminary answer key: Option C Answer in the final answer key, pursuant to receiving objections, by the expert committee: Option D Answer post re-verification by the experts in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court dated 12.09.2023:
Option D Rationale adopted by the experts for affirming the answer noted in the final answer key: The experts opined that there are different norms and standards qua primary and upper primary schools, as provided by the Right to Education Act 2009. The noted question pertained to an upper primary school, where there is a total enrollment of 130 students. In this regard, the experts relied upon the Right to Education Act, more particularly Part II which provides the schedule, part 1(b) of which provides for the strength of teachers viz-a-viz enrolled students. The Schedules states that at least one teacher is required for every 35 children and a full time head teacher, if the admission of children is above 100 students. Therefore, as the question asked for the number of teachers for 130 students, therefore, the correct option would be Option D i.e. 5 teachers, as mathematically, 4 teachers would be required for 130 children coupled with one extra teacher as a head teacher, because the count of the enrolled students surpassed
100.
The rationale adopted by the experts while re-affirming Option D is on account of pure mathematic precision, in terms of the Right (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (24 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] to Education Act 2009, which is the applicable statute. Therefore, no scope of error envelops the answer upheld by the experts in the final answer key.
Question No. 126: "Although a science teacher doesn't give direct explanation of any topic still teacher has an important role to play in inquiry approach". What role does a science teacher has to play in inquiry approach?
a. Instructor and Facilitator.
b. Instructor and Motivator.
c. Facilitator and Motivator.
d. Guide and Instructor.
Answer in the preliminary answer key: Option C Answer in the final answer key, pursuant to receiving objections, by the expert committee: Option D Answer post re-verification by the experts in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court dated 12.09.2023:
Option D Rationale adopted by the experts for affirming the answer noted in the final answer key: The expert opined that the question did not ask what the role of a teacher in their regular course of teaching is, rather the question specifically asked the role of a science teacher within the 'inquiry approach'. The 'inquiry approach' is a specific and innovative method purely designed for the student. So, it is clear that the teacher should be in the role of a guide and instructor in order to lead the student as to how to work, how to lead towards a positive result and instruct the student to follow correct steps for absolute result and also, provide proper reinforcement. Therefore, Option D would be correct.
The rationale adopted by the experts cannot be said to be faulty as it is noted that in an inquiry approach, which underlines the idea of per se avoiding direct spoon feeding to the student but rather guiding the student to arrive at conclusions by themselves, the teacher must assume the role of a Guide and Instructor to pilot the student's thought process, for it to arrive at an answer (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (25 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] independently. 'Motivator', as included in option C, does not fit in the 'inquiry approach', whilst Option D is more suitable. In this regard, it is also noted that the position of law is settled where even in an eventuality, where two or more logical constructions are plausible qua a disputed question/answer, and one of those constructions is adopted in the answer-key, even then, the said answer key/option shall be protected from the scrutiny of the Court, as the said construction would be one of the plausible outcomes. The benefit of doubt ought to go in favour of the body tasked with administering the examination at a large scale.
31. In light of the foregoing observations, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that whilst analyzing the disputed answers through the lens of a prudent man, this Court fails to come across any error apparent on the face of the record, compelling the Court to exercise the narrowly permissible judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
32. Therefore, in summation, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant petition, on the following summarized grounds, namely:-
32.1 That it is a settled position of law that Courts ought to be extremely reluctant to substitute their own views as to what is correct and well-judged/ascertained, in relation to academic matters, in preference of those views formulated by and arrived at by professional experts possessing prowess, proficiency and expertise in the actual academic subjects included in the scheme of the examination.
32.2 That an error in the answer-key may only be categorized as demonstrably and palpably erroneous in a circumstance where the said error does not require examination or arguments to establish (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (26 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] the purported fallacy, that is to say, the error must be self-evident on the face of the record.
32.3 That in the disputed answers before this Court, out of which illustrations of a few are noted above, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any specific arguments and/or debate, no prudent man could come to the conclusion that the answers adopted by the RSSB are erroneous, moreso demonstrably erroneous. For reference regarding the rationale adopted by the experts qua the other disputed answers, reliance can be placed upon the compliance report furnished by the respondent-RSSB in pursuance to the order dated 12.09.2023, as is placed in the connected petition namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8893/2023 titled as Priyanka Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
32.4 That in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the experts of the RSSB have already scrutinized the answers qua the examination conducted for the Teacher Grade-III (Level I), on two distinct occasions. Firstly, the experts scrutinized the answers incorporated in the preliminary answer key dated 18.03.2023 and thereafter, made necessary changes wherever required, in accordance with the objections received. Thereafter, in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court dated 12.09.2023, the RSSB again constituted an expert committee to re-assess the final answer key dated 26.05.2023 with regards to the disputed 22 answers. Even after the said re-assessment, no further change was deemed necessary by the experts and as a result, the final (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (27 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] answer key dated 26.05.2023, as prepared by the RSSB, was maintained.
32.5 That based on fallacies perceived by the petitioners in the answer key dated 26.05.2023, this Court cannot keep on ordering for the re-constitution of expert committees at the end of the respondent-RSSB to assess the claims of the petitioners, time and again, especially when the said re-assessment has already been conducted in pursuance to the passing of the interim order dated 12.09.2023. Doing so, shall inadvertently elongate and prolong the process of appointment on crucial public posts.
32.6 That by way of the interim order dated 30.11.2023, this Court in order to prevent the creation of third party rights, directed the respondent-State to maintain the status quo with regards to the process of appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level I). In essence, no appointment letters were permitted to be issued to the successful candidates. As on date, approximately one year has lapsed since the declaration of the result of the said examination and on account of the said interim order, appointments on the crucial posts of teachers are halted, which cannot be permitted especially when the grievance of the petitioners has already been assessed by the experts.
32.7 An unending litigation for employment in public posts, in connection with which, the career trajectory of so many young individuals is coherently tied up with, cannot be permitted to be in abeyance for so long, that the end result subsumes and overshadows the duress and hardship faced by the litigants.
Moreover, delayed appointments on account of the operative stay (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25504] (28 of 31) [CW-10358/2023] order, also adversely affects the public at large, as non- appointment of teachers timely, nullifies the need for conducting the said examination periodically by the State. 32.8 That the record reflects that all the candidates who sat in the examination, were treated equally viz-a-viz the system of evaluation in place, sans discrimination. No malafides are alleged against any specific officials of the RSSB. Therefore, it can be said that due procedure was followed whilst administering the examination for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I).
33. Accordingly, placing cumulative reliance upon the observations made herein-above, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant batch of writ petitions.
34. As a result, the instant batch of writ petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (29 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
Schedule-I
Sr. No. SBCWP No. Reserved Date
1. 8893/2023
2. 8928/2023
3. 9115/2023
4. 9192/2023
5. 9286/2023
6. 9289/2023
7. 9295/2023
8. 9297/2023
9. 9307/2023
10. 9308/2023
11. 9315/2023
12. 9325/2023
13. 9326/2023
14. 9328/2023
15. 9329/2023
16. 9382/2023
17. 9384/2023
18. 9386/2023
19. 9392/2023
20. 9397/2023
21. 9441/2023
22. 9443/2023
23. 9446/2023
24. 9493/2023
25. 9521/2023
26. 9526/2023
27. 9527/2023
28. 9583/2023
29. 9638/2023
30. 9658/2023
31. 9675/2023
32. 9677/2023
33. 9691/2023
34. 9705/2023
35. 9773/2023
36. 9817/2023
37. 9819/2023
38. 10000/2023
39. 10017/2023
40 10019/2023
41. 10022/2023
42. 10023/2023
43. 10042/2023
44. 10073/2023
45. 10082/2023
46. 10171/2023
47. 10179/2023
48. 10192/2023
49. 10213/2023
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (30 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
50. 10232/2023
51. 10460/2023
52. 10517/2023
53. 10520/2023
54. 10525/2023
55. 10560/2023
56. 10564/2023
57. 10612/2023
58. 10617/2023
59. 10625/2023
60. 10636/2023
61. 10642/2023
62. 10691/2023
63. 10694/2023
64. 10816/2023
65. 10842/2023
66. 10932/2023
67. 11026/2023
68. 11084/2023
69. 11412/2023
70. 11810/2023
71. 11824/2023
72. 11967/2023
73. 12403/2023
74. 12460/2023
75. 12514/2023
76. 12593/2023
77. 12634/2023
78. 12763/2023
79. 12878/2023
80. 13345/2023
81. 13387/2023
82. 13476/2023
83. 13962/2023
84. 14224/2023
85. 14240/2023
86. 14246/2023
87. 14335/2023
88. 14418/2023
89. 14430/2023
90. 14516/2023
91. 14618/2023
92. 14682/2023
93. 14691/2023
94. 14701/2023
95. 14862/2023
96. 14898/2023
97. 14963/2023
98. 14990/2023 07.03.2024
99. 15195/2023
100. 15383/2023
101. 15508/2023
102. 15524/2023
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (31 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
103. 15669/2023
104. 15712/2023
105. 15762/2023
106. 15863/2023
107. 15889/2023
108. 16209/2023
109. 16360/2023
110. 16381/2023
111. 16650/2023
112. 16703/2023
113. 17080/2023
114. 17463/2023
115. 17534/2023
116. 17640/2023
117. 17972/2023
118. 18234/2023
119. 18349/2023
120. 18369/2023
121. 20180/2023
122. 20226/2023
123. 20292/2023
124. 20465/2023
125. 20687/2023
126. 678/2024
127. 1824/2024
128. 2005/2024
129. 2668/2024
130. 18764/2023
131. 14163/2023
132. 14793/2023
134. 15115/2023 11.03.2024
135. 16595/2023
136. 20632/2023
137. 5539/2024 15.04.2024
138. 3084/2024
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)