Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jitendra Meena S/O Keshari Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 744/2021
1. Jitendra Meena S/o Keshari Lal, Aged 31 Years, R/o B-77,
Kirti Nagar, Jaipur
2. Ajay Kumar S/o Kana Ram, Aged 26 Years, R/o Dr.
Ambedkar Colony, Ward No. 15, Near New Sabzi Mandi,
Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj)
3. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Rameshwar Prasad Sharma,
Aged 34 Years, R/o Koliwara, Post Phutolav, Tehsil Jamwa
Ramgarh, District Jaipur
4. Ghan Shyam Pareek S/o Iswar Prasad Pareek, Aged 30
Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Sethiyon Ka Bas, Post Kalu, Tehsil
Lunkaransar, District Bikaner (Raj)
5. Ramesh Kumar Jangid, S/o Madan Lal Jangid, Aged 35
Years, R/o Gram Post Office Raidhana, Tehsil Ladnu,
District Nagaur
6. Girraj Kishore Verma, S/o Kishan Lal Verma, Aged 27
Years, R/o 119, Near Regran Hathai, V/p Thadoli,
Todarisingh, District Tonk
7. Mohd. Ijaj Khan, S/o Mahboob Khan, Aged 28 Years, R/o
Godiya Chhota, Post Godiya Bada, Tahsil Ramgarh
Shekhawati, District Sikar (Raj)
8. Gyan Prakash Bunkar, S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged 43 Years,
R/o Chimanpura, Post Bhatton Ki Gali, Tahsil Amer,
District Jaipur
9. Rais Mohammad, S/o Saddiq Mohammad, Aged 27 Years,
R/o Pachewar, Tahisl Malpura, District Tonk (Raj)
10. Dinesh Chand Sharma, S/o Vijay Shankar Sharma, Aged
30 Years, R/o H-13, Keshav Nagar, Man Town,
Sawaimadhopur (Raj)
11. Lokesh Kumar Mahawar, S/o Harendra Kumar, Aged 25
Years, R/o Village - Bhad Tatwada, Post Tatwada, Tahsil
Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur
12. Munsif Ali, S/o Ramjan Ali, Aged 30 Years, R/o Jaitpur,
Tehsil Lunkaransar, District Bikaner (Raj)
13. Rahul Bhargave, S/o Shimbhu Dayal Bhargave, Aged 26
Years, R/o 109, Janakpuri IInd, Imli Wala Phatak, Jaipur
14. Ramanna, D/o Prem Kumar, Aged 29 Years, R/o Ward No.
(Downloaded on 19/02/2021 at 09:54:00 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-744/2021]
15, Goluwala Nivadan, Tahsil Pillibanga, 24 Jrk, Goluwala
Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Secretary
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Dhand
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig
Mr. Saurabh Sharma for
Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 18/02/2021
1. The petitioners have pointed out the situation wherein the second final answer key has been published and the model answer key earlier published has been changed. Several questions whose answers are alleged to be correct as per the model answer key have been changed in the final answer key. The court was taking though question nos. 22, 32 and 43 to show that the new answers as mentioned in the revised final answer key are palpably wrong. The petitioners submit that as the model answer key was having corrected answer there was no occasion for petitioners to make objections to the said model answer key and the present final answer key which has been published has resulted in ousting the petitioners from merit.
2. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- RPSC submits that objections were sought from appearing (Downloaded on 19/02/2021 at 09:54:00 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-744/2021] candidates relating to the model answer key and after the objections were received, the RPSC formed a Committee and on the basis of the opinion of the experts, the revised answer key has been published. However, the answers which are being alleged to be wrong as per the petitioners, cannot be corrected by this court. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta Versus State of Rajasthan (2020) 13 Scale 689.
3. However, this court finds apparently that there appears some mistakes which cannot be ignored like in question no. 22 where the question is what matters exceeding the value can be taken up before the National Commission. As per Consumer Act it was Rs.1 crore on the day when the exam was held i.e. 10.1.2020 and the same has been later on increased to valuation of Rs.10 Crore on 23.7.2020. In the model answer key, option no. 3 was shown as a correct option while in the revised answer key, option no. 4 has been mentioned as the correct answer.
4. Ostensibly such option No. 4 could not have been opted as the exam was held on 10.1.2020 while the valuation has been increased only later on, therefore such aspect and other aspects need to be examined by the examining body alone as this court cannot be said to be as expert body and it is the examining body i.e. RPSC to take a decision in this regard. If an expert committee has been formed which was not having the proper acumen, it is for the RPSC to examine the same. In fact, the RPSC ought to frame rules relating to the qualifications required to be Member of the expert committee.
In this regard, the matter is left open for RPSC to take a decision so that further litigation of such nature may not arise. (Downloaded on 19/02/2021 at 09:54:00 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-744/2021]
5. In the present case, following the order passed by this court in the case of Kamal Yadav & Others versus State of Rajasthan & Ors, in SB CWP No. 638/2021 decided on 17.02.2021 this court leaves it open for the RPSC to examine the issues raised in the present petition afresh by placing it before the special expert committee consisting of the experts in the relevant field.
6. The present petition is accordingly disposed of.
7. It is made clear that if there are other writ petitions wherein some other questions have been put to challenge, learned counsel appearing for the RPSC shall inform the RPSC for getting the same examined by the said committee and a final result may be declared accordingly within a period of two weeks.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that complication relating to appointment may arise, if the result is revised. In the interest of justice, in order to avoid any complications, the State would be well advised not to take decision to issue appointment orders for two weeks till the RPSC takes a decision as above.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J ashu /150 (Downloaded on 19/02/2021 at 09:54:00 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)