Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Geeta Saini vs R P S C Ajmer And Ors on 15 December, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15638/2012 Suresh Kumar & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15609/2012 Bhagwati Lal Kumawat Versus RPSC & Ors. [3] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12886/2012 Sandeep Beniwal Versus RPSC [4] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15143/2012 Raj Kumar & Anr. Versus RPSC & Ors. [5] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15234/2012 Kamlesh Samria & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [6] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15646/2012 Anil Kumar Saini Versus RPSC & Ors. [7] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15647/2012 Rakesh Meena & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [8] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15684/2012 Amit Kumar & Anr. Versus State & Anr. [9] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15766/2012 Dileep Malav & Ors. Versus State & Ors. [10] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15910/2012 Subodh Kumar Meena & Anr. Versus RPSC & Ors. [11] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15911/2012 Bajran Singh Charan Versus RPSC & Ors. [12] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15941/2012 Sushila Bandhwal & Anr. Versus RPSC & Ors. [13] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15945/2012 Sooj Ram & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [14] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15987/2012 Rajesh Saini Versus State & Anr. [15] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16012/2012 Amit Kanwalia Versus State & Ors. [16] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16214/2012 Chanchal Sharma Versus State & Ors. [17] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16304/2012 Geeta Saini Versus RPSC & Ors. [18] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16348/2012 Sanjay Kumar & Anr. Versus RPSC & Ors. [19] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16445/2012 Vimal Bishnoi Versus RPSC & Ors. [20] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16472/2012 Sita Ram Versus State & Anr. [21] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16552/2012 Balweer Singh Versus State & Ors. [22] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16564/2012 Krishan Kumar & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [23] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16565/2012 Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [24] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16619/2012 Ashok Kumar Lodhwal Versus RPSC & Ors. [25] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16628/2012 Surendra Kumar & Anr. Versus RPSC & Ors. [26] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17052/2012 Sajna Kumari Versus State & Ors. [27] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17113/2012 Durgesh Khatri Versus RPSC [28] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17146/2012 Rinky Jain Versus State & Anr. [29] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17249/2012 Indra Raj Meena Versus RPSC & Ors. [30] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17509/2012 Devi Singh Versus State & Ors. [31] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17578/2012 Sudesh Kumar & Anr. Versus RPSC & Ors. [32] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18180/2012 Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Versus RPSC & Ors. [33] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18181/2012 Shiv Raj Choudhary Versus RPSC & Ors. [34] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18183/2012 Omveer & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [35] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18195/2012 Ved Kumar Chaturvedi & Ors. Versus State & Ors. [36] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18200/2012 Annu Dhabhai Versus RPSC & Ors. [37] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18205/2012 Chandra Prakash Meena & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [38] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18255/2012 Bhawani Ram Jat Versus State & Ors. [39] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18256/2012 Hari Mohan Sharma & Ors. Versus State & Ors. [40] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18350/2012 Dharameet Kour Versus State & Ors. [41] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18482/2012 Himanshu Singh & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [42] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18804/2012 Ravindra Mahla & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [43] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18808/2012 Bhunesh Jain Versus RPSC & Ors. [44] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18809/2012 Shashi Godara & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [45] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18810/2012 Dariya Singh Versus RPSC & Ors. [46] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18813/2012 Rahul Vyas & Anr. Versus RPSC & Ors. [47] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19383/2012 Mukesh Kumar Swami & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [48] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19459/2012 Mukesh Kumar Meghwal & Anr. Versus RPSC & Ors. [49] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19297/2012 Rohtash & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. [50] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19722/2012 Manohar Kaushik Versus State & Ors. [51] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20214/2012 Ramdev Agarwal Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 15/12/2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr. Vigyan Shah, Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Mr. Mukesh Bijarnia, Mr.Raj Kumar Goyal, Mr. Rajesh Godwal, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Mr.Mahesh Pareek, Mr. Naveen Dhuwan, Mr.Tanveer Ahmed Mr. Dilip Singh Kurka, Mr. Sanjay Khedar, Mr. R.K. Sharma, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Mr. Suresh Kumar, Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. M.K. Goyal, for Petitioners Mr. S.N. Kumawat, AAG, for respondent-RPSC Mr. S.K. Gupta & Mr. Rakesh Paliwal, for respondents
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, for applicant/s These writ petitions pertain to selection to the post of Teacher Gr.II (Social Science and Mathematics).
A dispute is raised regarding correctness of certain answers of the questions of Social Science, Mathematic and General Knowledge subjects. To cut short the controversy, a direction was earlier issued to the RPSC to seek expert report and pursuant to which, report was sought. The said report has been challenged by maintaining these writ petitions. Some of the questions for which expert report was sought, were looked into by the court to find correctness of the report with reasons given therein. After going through the reasons of the experts, report was not found to be logical, thus, as agreed by the parties, RPSC and petitioners suggested names of some experts to get their opinion in regard to disputed questions of three subjects named above and a specific order in that regard was passed by this court in the preceding dates. Names of experts have been suggested by the parties to seek their opinion and be treated it final so as to end litigation for finalization of selection.
Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Shri S.N. Kumawat, has produced the opinion of the experts, which shows that out of 22 questions, there exists change in regard to 12 questions. As per expert report either question is to be deleted being wrongly formulated or the answer is to be changed as options earlier given were not correct. 10 questions out of 22 needs no change. The petitioners have shown their satisfaction and prayed for declaration of result afresh.
Learned Counsel for petitioners at this stage submits that hard copy of OMR sheet has been destroyed by the respondents, thus, they are not in a position to inspect it to find out as to whether marking has been correctly made in their OMR sheet or not.
Learned AAG submits that OMR sheets are weeded out after specific period and in the instant case, the OMR sheets are available, but due to heavy rain and flooding of the basement during rain, where OMR sheets were kept, it is not readable. In any case, RPSC is having soft copy in the computer and if any change is effected in view of expert report, with command to the computer, change result will come, thus, even if hard copies of OMR sheets are not available, result can be declared with the change in regard to 12 questions.
Learned Counsel felt satisfaction with the aforesaid, but prayed to allow inspection of soft copy of the OMR sheet to which learned Counsel for respondents has not opposed.
In view of the facts narrated above and as agreed by the parties, respondent-RPSC is now directed to declare the result afresh after taking into consideration the expert report for the question in dispute. The result may, accordingly, be declared at the earliest so that appointment may be made as a consequence thereof. It is noticed that change in the paper of General Knowledge also exists which is common for the post of Teacher Gr.II for different subjects also. Accordingly, RPSC has agreed to change the result for other subjects also with a copy of select list to the State Government for appropriate action. It is informed that appointments to the post of Teacher Gr.II for other posts have already been made, thus, I am of the opinion that change in the marks in General Knowledge should not affect those persons who have already been appointed. However, if any of the petitioners get more marks than the candidates lastly appointed in their category then those would get appointment, if vacancies are available now or against the future vacancies.
Before parting with the judgment, it would necessary to make certain observations in regard to selection held by RPSC and other authorities. The litigation is coming before the court for framing of wrong questions or incorrect option of the answer. This Court is not interfering in those questions directly, but referring the matter to the RPSC or the authorities to get an expert report. In the case in hand, earlier expert report was taken, but was found with incorrect reasoning, thus, this court had to refer the matter to the second expert committee. This type of litigation is required to be curtailed and for that purpose, I am of the opinion that RPSC or the appointing authorities may evolve following mechanism for selection:
(i) After examination, they should publish answer key so that individual candidate may assess his performance and also to see as to whether answer key contains correct answer or not. It would be subject to rules, if it does not caste a bar for that purposes. Thereafter, call for objections in regard to answer key by giving reasonable time. If objections are received then for those questions having dispute, should be first got examined from the paper setter to find out the basis of the answer or even correctness of the question. The aforesaid should be taken in writing from paper setter so as to justify the question or the answer. If it is felt that report is required from the expert, they should send it to the independent expert of the subject.
(ii) In case of calling expert report, it should be with direction and indication that if question is wrongly set or answer is not correct then he should specify the reasons with supporting material. It should be after going through the reasons and material supplied by the paper setter to justify the question and answer. The exercise aforesaid may be applied, if there is no bar in the rules, thus, directions aforesaid would be applicable subject to rules. It is only to avoid litigation of the nature coming to the court every day and even looking to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court wherein correctness of the question and answer cannot be adjudged by the court, but has to be by the expert.
(iii) If the directions aforesaid are complied with by the RPSC or the authorities then litigation of nature coming before this court may be minimized, thus, it would in the larger interest of public. The RPSC may accordingly issue instructions of the nature indicated above and while doing so, they may also take note of the direction of this court in the case Rewant Dan Vs. RPSC & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8786/2011 & five others, decided on 4th July, 2012.
It is with the assistance of the learned counsel for petitioner, the disputed questions were taken and sent for expert report, thus, it is agreed that further litigation in regard to the issue raised herein would not be raised and entertained. It is to end litigation and to finalize the selection.
With the aforesaid, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Stay applications are also disposed of.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA/15638CWP2012.doc Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A