Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nidhi Yadav, D/O Shri Daleep Singh ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 18 October, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11840/2019
1. Nidhi Yadav, D/o Shri Daleep Singh Yadav, W/o Shri
Vineet Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o F-80, Gandhi
Nagar, Government Quarters, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Avinash Kumar S/o Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o W. No. 16, Near Moga Stone, Taranagar, Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Govt. Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jln
Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.).
4. Brij Lal Bhadu S/o Shri Ghewaram Bhadu, R/o 28, Om
Nagar, D Sector, Mahamandir, Jodhpur (Raj.).
5. Seduram Rawat S/o Shri Laxman Rawat, R/o Village And
Post Maid, Tehsil Virat Nagar, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment / Order
18/10/2019 (Oral)
Reportable
The petitioners participated in the selection process
conducted by the RPSC for the purpose of appointment as College Lecturer (Geography) under the Advertisement issued by the RPSC on 04.03.2016 and 01.09.2016. The selection process was conducted by conducting written examination and interview. The petitioners were (D.B. SAW/1726/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:59:09 PM) (2 of 6) [CW-11840/2019] called for interview. After written examination, result was declared on 20.04.2017 and after the interview was conducted on 19.06.2018, final merit list was published on 24.08.2018, wherein, the petitioners find place in the waiting list. It is to be noticed that the RPSC published a model answer key on 24.07.2016 after the examination was conducted on 04.07.2016. However, as the petitioners have made representation for issuing another answer key dated 13.10.2016, the writ petition has been filed assailing the answer key dated 13.10.2016. Now after the final selection process is complete and merit list has already been published, learned counsel submits that the answer key at Anexure-15 issued on 13.10.2016 was published only on 16.04.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the key published now, there are discrepancies and certain questions have been deleted and answers have been changed erroneously. It is further submitted that the expert Committee on the basis of which the answer key has been published, must be produced before the court to assess whether the expert Committee correctly issued the answer key or not. The answer key published on 13.10.2016 was patently wrong and there was no occasion for deleting the questions.
Learned counsel further submits that on account of deletion, marks are provided to one, and all that particular question and the negative marking also goes and accordingly result is seriously affected. It is also submitted that as per the answer key earlier published on 26.07.2016, the petitioner has rightly answered the questions.
It is to be noticed that the answer key challenged by the petitioner dated 13.10.2016 was the basis for declaration of result of the written examination. In the written examination, the petitioners were declared successful and were called for interview. Now after having participated in this interview and having been placed in the (D.B. SAW/1726/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:59:09 PM) (3 of 6) [CW-11840/2019] waiting list, they cannot turn around and challenge the said answer key merely on the basis that it has been placed on the website of RPSC in the year 2019. Principle of approbate and reprobate will therefore apply on the petitioners.
I have also considered the submission as regard the scope of interference relating to the answer key of public body is concerned, a candidate has a right to object if an answer key is wrong. Such an objection has to be raised at the initial stage itself. The entire examination process stood concluded by issuing of the final merit list on 24.08.2018 wherein name of the petitioners found place in the reserved list. Merely because the RPSC has published the key issued on 24.07.2016 on its website on 16.04.2019, no right would accrue to the petitioners now after the entire selection process is over. It is to be noticed that the impugned answer key only relates to the written examination which was the basis for petitioners to participate in the interview whereas the selection process involves written examination as well as interview and the final result has been declared where petitioners have failed.
It is the case of the petitioners that they have already participated in the interview after they were found meritorious in the written examination. The selection process has been completed and, till that time, no objections were raised by the petitioners with regard to the answer key and once result is declared they cannot turn around and challenge it after more than one year of the declaration of the final select list. The same stands already concluded.
This court also notices that the controversy which has now been raised relating to selection process of the year 2016 would cause nothing but administrative chaos. None of the selected candidates who (D.B. SAW/1726/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:59:09 PM) (4 of 6) [CW-11840/2019] have already found place in the merit list would be able to contest the matter after already having been appointed and joined services.
Apart from above, the contention of the petitioner that this court should call for the report of the Expert Committee and examine the same is also wholly misconceived. This court does not have the expertise to examine the report of an Expert Committee. The RPSC has relied upon Expert Committee's report and revised its result on that basis for all candidates. That this court cannot convert itself to be an examining body and substitute its opinion to that of experts.
Candidates who participate in a Competitive Examination will have to have faith in the examining body. After having participated and failed they are estopped from assailing the result on the ground that Expert Committee which recommended its opinion, and the examining body declared the result on the said basis, was wrongful. A candidate who appears for exam cannot be the examiner in his own case. It is true that the petitioners have participated in the selection for the post of College Lecturer and are well versed. However, the basis of Competitive Examination is that the candidates have to appear in an exam conducted by the examining body. Their fate shall depend on the result as declared by the concerned examiner. The RPSC was formed under Article 320 of the Constitution of India an examining body for conducting examinations for selection to the posts in the Government services.
In view thereof, sanctity has to be given to such examination and such result are not required to be lightly interfered. In the case of HP Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Ors. rendered in AIR 2010 SC 2620 it was held:
(D.B. SAW/1726/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:59:09 PM) (5 of 6) [CW-11840/2019] "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."
In view of the above, this court does not find any reason to interfere in the selection process which has already been concluded. This court also finds that after the selection process having been concluded challenge made by the petitioner is also estopped and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court recently in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Surender Singh & Ors. rendered in (2019) 8 SCC 67 wherein it was held:
"18. From a perusal of the said Clause it is noticed that though under the very Clause there is no cut-off marks specified, Clause 25 would, however, provide the full discretion to the DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks for selection. In the instant case, keeping in view that the recruitment was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and also taking note of the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier petition requiring the maintenance of minimum standards, DSSSB while preparing the select list had stopped the selection at a point which was indicated as the (D.B. SAW/1726/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:59:09 PM) (6 of 6) [CW-11840/2019] cut-off percentage. In a circumstance where Clause 25 was depicted in the Advertisement No. 1/2006, when the private Respondents herein and the other Petitioners before the High Court were responding to the said Advertisement, if at all they had a grievance that the Clause is arbitrary and might affect their right ultimately since no minimum marks that is to be obtained have been indicated therein, they were required to assail the same at that stage. On the other hand, despite being aware of the Clause providing discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks, they have participated in the selection process by appearing for the qualifying examination without raising any protest. In that circumstance, the principle of approbate and reprobate would apply and the private Respondents herein or any other candidate who participated in the process cannot be heard to complain in that regard."
In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Sunita Kanwar /86 (D.B. SAW/1726/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:59:09 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)