Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pushpa Chouhan D/O Mohan Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 13 July, 2023
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19364/2022
1. Ashutosh Jangid S/o Shri Uttam Kumar Jangid, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Kanwarpura, Tehsil Ramghard, Pachwara
Nijampura, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
2. Babulal Chawla S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Chawla, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Khatikan Hathai, Bada Bazar, Sambhar Lake,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Munesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ashutosh Jangid Yadav, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Village Lalpur, Post Hastera, Govindgarh,
Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer,
Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil
Lines, Ajmer.
3. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers
(Reet)-2022, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer,
Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil
Lines, Ajmer.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15475/2022
1. Rahul Sharma S/o Fatehchand Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Katwan Mohalla, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Chandra Prakash Khinchi S/o Ratan Lal Khinchi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o A-154, Mandi Khatikan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teacher (Reet)-2022, Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15528/2022
1. Devendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Sua Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Chainpur Ka Pura Post Barriyia, District Karauli.
2. Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Kalyan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Kasganj Post Hinota Maniya, District Dholpur.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (2 of 26) [CW-19364/2022]
3. Roopa Ram S/o Shri Peera Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Kiwarli Teshil Abu Road, District Sirohi.
4. Durga Gurjar D/o Shri Gopal Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Balapura Post Baratha Tehsil Huda, Bhilwara.
5. Akshita Sahu D/o Kailash Sahu, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Madarse Ke Pass, Bhawani Nagar, Bhilwara.
6. Bindu Bala Kumawat D/o Satyanaran Kumawat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o H. No. 14 And 15, Near Petrol Pump, Shree Ram Colony, Borkheda, Kota.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksh A Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
3. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers (Reet)-2022, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15745/2022
1. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Tara Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 229, Choudhariyo Ka Bass, Keerwa Teshil Rani District Pali, Rajasthan.
2. Mukesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Mithlesh Kumar Jain, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Hanuman Mandir Ke Piche, Nagar Road, Deeg, District Bharatpur.
3. Ravita Meena D/o Shri Surgyan Meena, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Dantasuti Tehsil Bamanwas Ranila, District Sawai Madhopur.
4. Ravindra Chopra S/o Shri Lalaram Chopra, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Samtiyo Ki Dhani Rewat Langod, Nagaur.
5. Naresh Kumar S/o Chutra Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Shobhala Jetmal, Barmer.
6. Shriram Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Dilip Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Theekariya Tehsil Paota, Jaipur.
7. Balram Bairwa S/o Raghuveer Prasad Bairwa, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Bheempur, Tehsil Todabhim District Karauli.
8. Mohammad Ashraf S/o Shri Bhanvru Deen, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Chhaparo Ka Badiya, Chalisa Noondri Mehandratan Tehsil Beawar District Ajmer
9. Ram Prasad Choudhary S/o Shri Badri Lal Choudhary, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Choru, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk.
10. Asif Ali Kumhar S/o Shri Mohd. Yunash, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 27, Purane Police Thane Ke Piche, Post Office Nohar, Hanumangarh.
11. Ramesh Meena S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Jagsahaipura Post Khanwas Teshil Lawan District Dausa.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (3 of 26) [CW-19364/2022]
12. Sunita Bhamu D/o Shri Banna Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dhani Bajaran Via Sihot Bari, District Sikar.
13. Mandeep Singh S/o Shri Gurtej Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No.7, Chak 3, Snm Village Srinagar Hamunangarh Town, Ramsara Narain, District Hanumangarh.
14. Lalaram Meena S/o Shri Batasya Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Medkapura, Post Kheda Tehsil Hindaun City Kheda, District Karauli
15. Subash Chand Gurjar S/o Shri Lalaram Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Nathusar Tehsil Didwana Post Sewa, District Nagaur.
16. Dilraj Meena S/o Shri Bacchu Lal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Dhamaniya Teshil Chhipabarod Post Banjari, District Baran.
17. Pratipal Singh Rathod S/o Shri Chhatra Singh Rathod, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Bai Ka Gada, Metwala, District Banswara.
18. Ratti Ram Gurjar S/o Shri Vishram Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ramdhan Patel Ki Dhani, Khori Kalan, Kalipahadi, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
19. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Chander, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Giglana, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
20. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No-05, Vpo Mandarpura, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
21. Bal Kishan S/o Shri Gurdayal Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 4 Ratan Lal Colony, Firozpur, Jhirka, District Mewat, Haryana.
22. Narayan Lal Jat S/o Shri Soorajmal Jat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Netawl Maharaj, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
23. Pavan Kumar Dhaked S/o Hari Singh Dhaked, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Gothra, Post Ravpur, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur.
24. Man Mohan Parashar S/o Shri Ram Karan Parashar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vpo Bada Naya Gaon, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi.
25. Satyandra Singh S/o Shri Sawai Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Fadanpura Tehsil Laxmangarh Khirwa, District Sikar.
26. Ratan Dan S/o Shri Aidan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 53, Indo Ka Bas, Garwar Garwar, Rohat Pali.
27. Sushma Bishnoi D/o Shri Hanumanaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o6/a/15, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (4 of 26) [CW-19364/2022]
3. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers (Reet)-2022, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16028/2022 Suman Serawat D/o Ram Narayan Serawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Dehar Ki Dhani, Village Sanchoti, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teacher (Reet)-2022, Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16058/2022
1. Maina Meena D/o Laxman Ram Meena, W/o Ravi Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Bibasar, Via- Nua, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2. Laxmi Dhobi D/o Shri Ramchandra Dhobi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Masuda, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
3. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers (Reet)-2022, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16419/2022 Pushpa Chouhan D/o Mohan Singh Chouhan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Nedi Road, Bartu, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (5 of 26) [CW-19364/2022]
3. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teacher (Reet)-2022, Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16440/2022
1. Vishal Saini S/o Birdi Chand, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Lasadiya, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
2. Suman Saini D/o Laxman Ram Saini, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 20, Dhani Chhilawali, Gurha, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teacher (Reet)-2022, Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16692/2022 Deeplata Kumari Sharma W/o Ashish Kumar Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Tambe Ki Tori, Chor, Khidkiya Bahar, Karauli (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director Elementary, Directorate Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Convener Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers (Reet) Examination And Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17259/2022 Khem Chand Chauhan S/o Shyoram Chauhan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village - Dhani Chauhan, Nawalpura, Tehsil- Narayanpura, District Alwar, Rajasthan
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teacher (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (6 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] (Reet) 2022, Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17578/2022
1. Maina Kumari D/o Satyanarayan Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 36, Shashi Vihar, Buddhsinghpura, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Ramkishan Machara S/o Multan Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo Kheri Salwa, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Dasharath Singh Charan S/o Laxman Singh Charan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Belara, Tehsil Pratapgarh Kulthana, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
4. Abhishek Upadhayay S/o Shivraj Upadhayay, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Shikhrani, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
5. Rahul Kumar Sharma S/o Mahadev Prasad Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Katarwara, Post Badiyal Khurd, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
6. Mohammad Arif S/o Ayyub Khan, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Post Mahond, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teacher (Reet)-2022, Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 478/2023
1. Dhanraj Meena S/o Shri Hari Ram Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Asalgaon Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk.
2. Manraj Meena S/o Shri Hari Ram Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Asalgaon Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk.
3. Sanjay Kumar Bairwa S/o Shri Syonarayan Bairwa, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Baler Road, Bassi Mohalla, Village And Post Khandar, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (7 of 26) [CW-19364/2022]
3. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers (Reet)-2022, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 769/2023
1. Lokesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Saini, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Khadka Bhedoli Tehsil Dausa Kundal District Dausa, Rajasthan.
2. Gajendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Ganesh Singh Rathore, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Dabri Tehsil Ladnun Dabri District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
3. Sarup Bhakar D/o Arun Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Besroli, Makrana District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
4. Rajendra Kumar Bunker S/o Shri Hemraj Bunker, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Lambori, Rajasamand, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
3. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers (Reet)-2022, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 853/2023 Deeplata Kumari Sharma W/o Ashish Kumar Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Tambe Ki Tori, Chor, Khidkiya Bahar, Karauli (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Police Lines, Ajmer-305001.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Chairman/ Secretary, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1383/2023 Pankaj Sharma S/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (8 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] R/o Village Rojwadi, Post Bhoodla, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teacher (Reet)-2022, Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1391/2023
1. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ramuram Dudi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Burod, Agoona, Didwana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Swami Kokila D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No 13, Babai, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
3. Parwati Regar D/o Puran Mal Regar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Regar Mohalla, Rahar, Shahpura, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
4. Sunil Devraj S/o Shri Khairati Lal Bairwa, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Somnath Nagar, Ganeshpura Road, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
3. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers (Reet)-2022, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1523/2023 Vikram Singh Rathore S/o Shri Karan Singh Rathore, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Mansingh Ji Ka Kheda Post Dantra, Tehsil Asind Dantra, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (9 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
3. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers (Reet)-2022, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1524/2023 Ramdev Meena S/o Shri Kailash Chand Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ramnagar, Dhaturi, Newai, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
3. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers (Reet)-2022, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajeev Gandhi Vidya Bhawan, Shiksha Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1527/2023
1. Narsi Kuri S/o Suwa Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Kardka,via Thoi, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
2. Yudhisthir Sharma S/o Jagdish Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Talwas, Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teacher (Reet)-2022, Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (10 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma Mr. Abhinav Srivastava Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Aamir Khan Mr. Harshad Kapoor Mr. Sudhir Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG Mr. Nalin G. Narain Mr. Vigyan Shah Mr. Sandeep Tajena with Mr. Kartikeya Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment 13/07/2023
1. It has been stated that the State Government of Rajasthan has appointed the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer as a nodal agency to conduct the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) for Level I and Level II, which is only an eligibility test of candidates, in order to participate in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III, Level I-
Primary School (Class-I to VI) and Level II- Upper Primary School (Class-VI to VIII). The Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer through its coordinator (hereinafter referred as "the Board") issued advertisement No.01/2022 dated 12.04.2022 to conduct the test of REET-2022, scheduled on 23.07.2022 and 24.07.2022.
The test of REET- 2022 for Level I was conducted in one shift only i.e. morning shift on 23.07.2022 and test for REET Level II came to be conducted in three shifts i.e. in evening shift on 23.07.2022, in morning and evening shifts on 24.07.2022.
2. It has been stated that all petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions, appeared to qualify the test of REET-2022 for Level (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (11 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] II in different shifts. Question paper for REET- 2022 of Level II examination was comprising 150 questions of objective type with multiple choice answers carrying one mark for each question, for total 150 questions. A candidate of General category is required to secure minimum 60% marks and candidate of reserve category is required minimum 55% marks in order to declare pass in REET Examination and to issue the REET certificate by the Board. The Board declared provisional answer key on its website on 18.08.2022 and then invited objections in respect of answers to 150 questions suggested by the Board in the provisional answer key, till 25.08.2022. Thereafter, the Board issued final answer key as also the result of REET -2022 Level II on 29.09.2022.
3. It is not in dispute that any of the petitioner could not secure minimum qualifying marks in the REET-2022, Level II examination of which result came to be declared on 29.09.2022, hence, REET certificate has not been issued by the Board in favour of any of petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners have filed writ petitions, to question the correctness of final answer key dated 29.09.2022 in respect of objectionable questions as referred in writ petitions and have sought to revise the result dated 29.09.2022 in respect of REET-2022 Level II.
Since grievance of writ petitioners are similar and relief prayed for is common in nature and in these petitions, petitioners are assailing the different questions, out of REET Examination-
2022 Level II, in respect of correctness of answers, for deletion of questions due to declaring two correct answers and to claim bonus marks as also on the ground that few questions are out of syllabus, therefore, with consent of counsel for both parties, all (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (12 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] writ petitions were tagged together in order to hear and decide all petitions simultaneously. Counsel for both parties have been heard together at length and this common judgment would decide all writ petitions.
4. In SBCWP No.17259/2022 (Khem Chand Chauhan Vs. The State of Rajasthan), petitioner has also challenged the normalization procedure adopted by the Board to equalize candidates appeared in three different shift for the same examination of REET- 2022, apart from assailing final answer key in respect of two questions but the prayer to revise the final result dated 29.09.2022 is same like other writ petitioners.
5. Counsel for both parties are consensus that only, total 13 questions out of question papers of three shifts of Teacher Grade III Level II are objectionable in the present batch of writ petitions which have been identified from the shift-wise question papers as under:
(i) From question paper of shift 2, questions No.15, 17, 24, 29, 30, 70 and 96.
(ii) From question paper of shift 3, questions No.18 and 107.
(iii) From question paper of shift 4, questions No.35, 111, 133 and 147.
All objectionable questions have been narrated hereinafter in foregoing paras.
6. Counsel for petitioners argued that question No.15, 17, 24, 29, 30, 70 of shift 2, question No.18 of shift 3 and questions No.35, 133 and 147 of shift 4, have wrongly been answered by the Board and answer given by the Board is different from text books/materials produced by petitioners, therefore, such questions either be ordered to be answered correctly by the Board (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (13 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] according to the text book material or be referred to the Committee of Experts of subject concerned, to re-assess the correct answer.
7. Question No.96 of shift 2 and question No.111 of shift 4, have been objected that both questions are out of syllabus, hence, same deserve to be deleted.
8. Question No.107 of shift 3, has been objected that the Board declared two answers as correct answers, hence, same deserves to be deleted.
9. The normalization formula adopted by the Board has been sought to be challenged on the ground that the Board should use the normalization formula to equalize candidates shift-wise as well as subject-wise, whereas the Board has applied normalization formula to equalize candidates shift-wise only.
10. E-converso, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-
Board vehemently argued that initially provisional answer key was published by the Board on 18.08.2022 and objections in respect of answers to 150 questions, were invited till 25.08.2022. After receipt of objections, the Committee of Experts have analyzed all objections, which received from candidates, wherein objection as raised by petitioners in present writ petitions are included and after dealing with objections coupled with the prevailing text material have finalized the answer to the objectionable questions and then final answer key on 29.09.2022 was issued and on the basis of final answer key, the result of REET-2022 Level II has been declared on 29.09.2022 itself. It has also been argued that the text material relied upon by petitioners is not only the sole authentic material and even the Expert Committee of respondent-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (14 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] Board has taken into consideration text material as relied upon by petitioners as well, while analyzing objections, guided by the other relevant, authentic and reliable material/text books.
11. Learned counsel for respondents argued that since the Expert Committee has already examined correctness of answers to objectionable questions, therefore, the prayer of petitioners to change the finally corrected answers suggested by the Expert Committee or to refer objectionable questions again to the Expert Committee, is misconceived as much as beyond the scope of judicial review in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In respect of applying normalization formula, it has been contended that since the examination was conducted in three different shifts scheduled in two different shifts, therefore, to ensure an equal level playing field, respondents applied normalization formula in accordance with clause 7.10 of the advertisement dated 12.04.2022. It has further been contended that normalization formula does not affect candidates in any manner, since raw marks of any of the candidate have not been reduced after normalization and the formula has been applied uniformly for all the candidates, hence, no particular candidate has been adversely affected or discriminated. Thus, all writ petitions are devoid of substance and deserve to be dismissed.
12. Heard. Considered.
13. It is worthy to note that counsel for Board, during course of arguments, made available copy of consideration made by the Expert Committee to objections raised by candidates in respect of objectionable questions and the photocopy of such consideration (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (15 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] by the Expert Committee have also been made available to counsel for petitioners. One set of photocopy has been taken on record in the file of SBCWP No.19364/2022 (Ashutosh Jangid Vs. State of Rajasthan).
14. In order to deal with objectionable questions raised by and on behalf of petitioners and in order to see the discussion made by the Expert Committee to such objections, it would be apposite to reproduce all objectionable questions along with consideration by the Expert Committee to such objections made by candidates.
"Level II, Shift 2 Question No.15. Which level of measurement is least used in educational psychology?
(A) Ordinal Scale
(B) Nominal Scale
(C) Ratio Scale
(D) Equal interval Scale
श क मन श ज न म क स स र म पन न न मप गक ज ह?
(A) कमसच म पनप (B) न शम म पनप
(C) आनुप श म पनप (D) सम न अं र ल म पनप
Consideration:
" श रण:-
आपश% &ओ द र पस ु आपश% ) शनर ध र ह आपश% & द र पस ु
संलग उप ुक नहप ह आपश%ओ म न शम म पनप म पन शनचल स र ह
जबक पछ ग पश म पनप श क म शनम उप ग स समबशनध ह3 इसशलए मटप द र आपश% ख ररज 9 ज प ह3 ब र& उ%र सप C (Ration scale) सहप सन्र& सलग ह3 सुरन= र स र, ब ल श स ए ं श क मन श ज न पज न० 408-409 ** श ष श षज शनण& :- C Question No.17. Which method is NOT valid to study the role of heredity?
(A) Twin Study (B) Parent-Child analysis
(C) Adoption Study (D) Peer group Study
आनु ंश 9 रशम अध न शल कन सप श शध ध नहह ह
(A) जुड ) बचच अध न
(B) अशरर ब ल श शषण
(C) ्% गहण अध न
(D) सम स समह अध न
Consideration
श रण-
Board answer remained correct that is options D of question no. 17.(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)
[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (16 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] Reference from** Arun Kumar Singh has been attached.
Objection raised by the candidate is rejected. (documents provided by the candidate is not relevant to the query raised.) Reference.:- Arun Kumar Singh Shiksha Manovigyan Pg. 77,78,79,80,81,82, Arun Kumar Singh+Aashish Kumar Singh = Pratiyogita Manovigyan Pg. 249 * श ष श षज शनण& :- D Question No.24. Which factor is NOT related to growth of a child?
(A) Nutrition (B)Health
(C) Sleep (D) Domicile
ए बल 9 HशI स कन स र समबशनध नहह ह
(A) प षण (B) स सस
(C) शन= (D) अशध स
Consideration
श रण:-
The answer raised by board is absolutely correct that is option D of question no. 24.
The query raised with supportive document is not relevant at all by the student. Therefore objection raised is rejected.
Reference: Dr. Surendra Bhaskar Shiksha Manovigyan Pg-124-125.
श ष श षज शनण& :- D Question No.29. Which of the following is NOT true for the theoretical concept of personality?
(A) Stable (B) Normal
(C) Enduring (D) Unique
वशकत 9 सI शन अ ध रण शल शनम म स कन स सत नहह ह
(A) शसथर (B) स म न
(C) सथ प (D) अनठ
Consideration
"श रण:-
Board answer remained correct i.e. option B of question No. 29.
Relevant reference to support the answer is from book Shiksha ManoVigyan, by Arun Kumar Singh,Pg No. 467.
Therefore the Objection raised is Rejected. NCERT Psychology XII Page no. 28-29 ** श ष श षज शनण& :- B Question No.30. Which test is culture free Non verbal test of Intelligence?
(A) Group test of Intelligence (B) Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (C) Bhatia Battery (D) Standard Progressive Matrices कन स परपकण बुशIम% संस H श मुक अ शच परपकण ह (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (17 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] (A) बुशIम% समह परपकण (B) लर स बुशIम% म पनप (C) र रट बटरप (D) सटणरर& प गशस मरससज Consideration Based raised option is correct that option D of question no. 30 (reference: Pg-5 Arun Kumar Singh) The objection raised stays rejected is not relevant provided b the student is not relevant. The documents provided by the students itself says the options D is correct as SPM is a part of RPM. Objection raised stays Rejected.
श ष श षज शनण& :- D Question No.70. The communicative approach in teaching of English has been practiced and developed in?
(A) India and England (B) Indonesia and Japan (C) England and America (D) China and Japan Consideration:
According to candidates objection Brita & America are discussion and researching on CLT but the methods were practised and developed in China & Japan. Hence Board's answer *D* is correct (1) Reference:- Pedology of English Language by Praveen (2) Reference:- Teaching of English -Hena Siddiqui Page No. 106.
** श ष श षज शनण& :- D Question No.96. When was Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act came in for in India ?
(A) 2010 (B) 2011
(C) 2013 (D) 2014
र र म पथ श क (जपश संरकण और पथ श क श शन मन)
अशधशन म ब ल ग हआ ?
(A) 2010 (B) 2011
(C) 2013 (D) 2014
Consideration:
श रण:-
अभ थर द र अपनप आपश% म पश संख 110 म सरप श लपच गल
ब ग ह। जबक ह अशधशन म 01.05.2014 स ल ग हआ ह।
अभ थर द र लग ग स क शजसम श शथ 20.03.2015 ् & प ग प ह. स म ह शहन्प अनु ् 9 प न श शथ ह। ह अशधशन म 2014 स हप ल ग ह।
अ ः अभ थर 9 आपश% ख ररज क ज न ग ह ब र& द र ज रप श लप D पण& सहप ह। अभ थर पश प ठकम स ब हर ह न 9 आपश% रप र रह ह। जबक श शध शनम &ण संस् & ह। ज क प ठ कम शहसस ह। अ ह आपश% रप ख ररज क ए ज न ग ह।
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)
[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (18 of 26) [CW-19364/2022]
** श ष श षज शनण& - D
Level II, Shift 3
Question No.18. Main objective of action research is_______ ?
(A) Activity (B) Diagnostic
(C) Descriptive (D) Transformative
कक तम अनुसंध न पमुख उदश _________ह
(A) कक श शध (B)
(C) श रण तम (D) रप न र रप
Consideration:
श रण:-
आपश% &ओ द र उपर क पश समबनध म ्ज& 9 गई आपश% ) शनर ध र
ह। प रथ& च द र पस ु क ग सन्र& सन्रम& नहप ह क अनुसंध न
पमुख उदश श द ल व सथ संगठन, अशधगम श कण पण लप म रप न रण / सुध र ल न ह।
ब र& उ%र D रप न रण सहप ह।
सहप सन्र& सलग ह।
woolfolka Mishra & Jha fundamentals of education psychology. page no.-21 सुरन= र र र, ब ल श स ए ं श क मन श ज न पज नं0 4.
** श ष श षज शनण& :- D Question No.107. Vardhman Mahavir belonged to which dynasty?
(A) Lichhavis (B) Haryank
(C) Shakya (D) Satavahan
ध&म न मह पर क स ं स संबंशध थ?
(A) शलचछ प (B) ह ्
(C) क (D) स हन
Consideration:
श रण:- 107 अभ थर द र LEVEL-II SHIFT-2) Series-D पश संख 98 सन्र& म अभ रथ& च 9 अन आपश% च प प हई ह पस ु आपश% च अ ल न उपर न ु छ आपश% च सहप प ई गई ह पस ु पश ब र& द र शनध &रर उ%र श लप "A" शलचछ प) ज रप क ग ह। अभ रथ& च द र पस ु पम ण म शलचछ प ह & ं शन ट संबंधप ह न रप ब ग ह उन द र पस ु स क सहप प म शण ह।
अ ः पस ु पश ् श लप - "A * (शलचछ प) ओर - "B* (ह & ) ् नच सहप ह3 ** श ष श षज शनण& :- A & B Level II Shift 4:-
Question No.35. म त र र ष ओ श कण 9 प चपन श शध च म स शरन श शध ह (A) र ष संसग& श शध (B) अपत क श शध (C) खल श शध (D) प ठ-पुस पण लप Consideration:(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)
[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (19 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] श रणः-
आपश% & द र ज आपश% 9 गई ह ह स प र ग नहप ह3 आपश% &
उ%र D हप सहप ह क क म Hर ष स इ र र ष पढ न म
प ठपुस च न प चपन ह3
अ ः आपश% & 9 आपश% अस प र 9 ज प ह3 ब र& उ%र C सहप ह3
** श ष श षज शनण& - C
Question No.111. In 1947, he was then Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India.
(A) Alexander Cunningham
(B) R.C. Banerjee
(C) R.E.M. Wheeler (D) Sir Jhon Marshal
1947 म र र प पुर त स kकण त लपन र रकटर जनरल
(A) अलकज3रर ननंघम (B) आर. सप.
(C) आर.ई. एम. वहपलर (D) सर जॉन म &ल
Consideration;
श रण:-
अभ थर द र LEVEL-II (SHIFT-4) series-D पश संख 95 | सन्र& म पश प ठ कम स ब हर ह न समबशनध आपश% 9 गई ह3 अ ल न उपर न सपष ह क पश शनध &रर प ठकम स समबशनध ह3 ज प ठकम पष& "शसनधु घ टप 9 सभ हप ए र ग ह।" पम ण शनरस रन ग ह।
** श ष श षज शनण& - C Question No.133. Which one of the following is not the aim of Social Science ?
(A) Intellectual and Mental development.
(B) Utilization of leisure time (C) Helpful in bringing social changes (D) Teaching etiquettes शनम म स कन स स म शज श ज न लक नहह ह ?
(A) बकशI म नशस श स
(B) अ सम स्ुप ग रन
(C) स म शज परर &न ल न म सह बनन
(D) श कण श ष च र
Consideration;
" श रण:-
ब र& द र उपलबध D series- पश संख 146 म ब र& उ%र श लप D सहप ह3 इस समथ&न म S.K. Mangal 9 पुस Pedagogy of Social science पHष संख 40,41,42, संलग ह3 आपश% &दर क ग स क शनरथ& ह।
** श ष श षज शनण& :-D Question No.147. In August, at which latitude does the Subtropical Easterly Jet Stream blow in India (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (20 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] (A) 8° North (B) 15° North (C) 27° North (D) 37° अगस म ह म र र म उप षण रटबंधप प र जट ससपम ध र क स अक ं पर प शह ह प ह (A) 8° उ%र (B) 15° उ%र (C) 27° उ%र (D) 37° उ%र Consideration;
• श रण- candidate ref. Is not relevant, hence overruled.
Board's answer (B) is correct.
Reference: India-Physical Environment NCERT Class
-XI-Sem -II-2003 pg.-40 ** श ष श षज शनण& - B"
15. From perusal of consideration/discussion made by the Expert Committee dealing with objections raised by candidates in respect of objectionable questions, it appears that all objections raised by petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions have already been dealt with by the Expert Committee extensively and reasons have also been assigned to reject objections as well as to justify correct answer of questions No.15, 17, 24, 29, 30, 70 of shift 2, question No.18 of shift 3 and questions No.35, 133 and 147 of shift 4, the declaration of dual correct answer of question No.107 of shift 3 and question No.96 & 111 have been observed to be within scope of syllabus.
16. Counsel for petitioners are not able to point out that objections raised or the text material relied upon by them, have not been taken into consideration by the Expert Committee while dealing with objections received against the provisional answer key. Though, counsel for petitioner sought to rely upon the text material produced with writ petitions to justify answers chosen by petitioners in respect of objectionable question but it is settled proposition of law that this Court is not supposed to sit over the decision of the Expert Committee, to check/verify the correctness (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (21 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] of answer to objectionable questions with the aid of text material produced by petitioners with writ petitions. The scope of judicial review to interfere in the opinion/decision of the Expert Committee more particularly in respect of academic matters, is very very narrow and none of objectionable questions calls for any interference within the that limited scope.
17. In order to emphasize the scope of judicial review to interfere in the matter of academic questions in the qualifying/recruitment examination conducted by the public body and it would not be out of place to refer few of decisions rendered by the Apex Court:
(i) In the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh And Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [(2018) 2 SCC 357], a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred to large number of earlier decisions and culled out the broad principles applicable in such situations. Following observations may be noted:-
30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. 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;
30.2. 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 rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. 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 academics;
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (22 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] 30.4. The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (23 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.
(ii) More recently in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan and Ors., [(2021) 2 SCC 309], the Supreme Court after referring to decision in case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) had observed as under:-
"16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.
17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel."(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)
[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (24 of 26) [CW-19364/2022]
18. Having considered the limited scope of judicial review and after going through the analysis made by the Expert Committee to objections in respect of objectionable questions as referred hereinabove, this Court is of the unequivocal opinion that there is no scope to interfere with the final answer key dated 29.09.2022 in respect of objectionable questions and to revise the result dated 29.09.2022 to the examination of REET -2022 Level II. Counsel for petitioners have not been able to point out any such gross infirmity or glaring error/illegality on the part of Expert Committee to finalize final answer key dated 29.09.2022 published by the Board in respect of REET- 2022 Level II, which is apparent and can be gathered without detained and through examination of entire text material or without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the final answer key in respect of objectionable 13 questions as well as with the final result dated 29.09.2022.
19. In addition, it would also be worthwhile to refer that final answer key and the result dated 29.09.2022 in respect of REET-
2022 Level II was also challenged and sought to be revised, on the ground of assailing answers of few questions before the Coordinate Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur by way of SBCWP No.19079/2022 (Gena Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan). In that writ petition, the Coordinate Bench came to same conclusion, as has been opined by this Court and finally the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2023. This Court finds concurrence to its view with the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench in case of Gena Ram (Supra).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM)[ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (25 of 26) [CW-19364/2022]
20. As far as challenge to the formula of normalization is concerned, it is suffice to observe that the formula of normalization has been adopted by the Board to bring all candidates on equal level playing field, that too in conformity to clause 7.10 of the advertisement dated 12.04.2022, since the examination of REET - 2022 Level II was undisputedly conducted in three different shifts on 23.07.2022 and 24.07.2022, wherein lakhs number of candidates participated. It has been contended on behalf of respondent that by application of normalization, raw marks of any of the candidate have not been reduced and the formula has been applied uniformly, none of candidate has been individually affected adversely or has been discriminated. There is no allegations of malafides or arbitrariness in applying normalization formula. It is not in dispute that the normalization formula has been applied uniformly. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 973], while dealing with the examination of the post of Sub-
Inspector Police, in respect of scaling of marks by adopting process of normalization, has been observed in para 53 of the judgment as under:-
"In conclusion, the exercise undertaken by the Board in adopting the process of normalization at the initial stage, that is to say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules was quite consistent with the requirements of law. The power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasized by the High Court there were no allegations of mala fides or absence of bona fides at any juncture of the process. One more facet of the matter is the note of caution expressed by this Court in paragraph 20 of its decision in Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others. As observed by this Court, the decisions made by (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) [ 2023:RJ-JP:14746 ] (26 of 26) [CW-19364/2022] expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out."
Therefore, in absence of allegations of mala fide or non-
application of the normalization formula uniformly, this Court does not find any force in challenge made by petitioners in SBCWP No.17259/2022 the normalization procedure adopted by respondents and hence, such ground to assail the final result dated 29.09.2022 is also rejected.
21. No other arguments except which have been dealt with by this Court hereinabove, have been urged from either of the side.
22. As a final result, writ petitions do not have any substance on merits and accordingly same are hereby dismissed. No Costs.
23. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /30-49 Except 34 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:18:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)