Vivek Kumar Devesh And Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 October, 2018

[Cites 36, Cited by 2]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Vivek Kumar Devesh And Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 October, 2018

Author: Veerendr Singh Siradhana

Bench: Veerendr Singh Siradhana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writs No. 9603/2018

1. Vivek Kumar Devesh S/o Kishan Singh, R/o Village
Bharithal, Post Masari, Tehsil Kathumar, Distt. Alwar Raj..
2. Nemichand Meena S/o Hajari Lal Meena, R/o Ward No. 24,
Meeno Ka Mohalla, Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar Raj..
3. Praveen Kumar Jatolia S/o Sohan Lal Jatolia, R/o
Karnipura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, Distt. Sikar Raj..
4. Kailash Chand Gadri S/o Pana Chand Gadri, R/o Sahada,
Sahara, Distt. Bhilwara Raj..
5. Rinku Chaudhary D/o Ramdayan Chaudhary, R/o Atmja
Kheda, Distt. Tonk Raj..
6. Sushila Jat D/o Madan Lal Jat, R/o Bili Kohda ,borda,
Distt. Sawaimadhopur Raj..
7. Satish Kumar Dhawan S/o Kanhaiya Lal Dhawan, R/o
Village Rahimpur, Chandlai, Distt. Tonk Raj..
8. Gunjan Jain D/o Mukesh Jain, R/o Udaipur Margh, Bus
Stand Khondan, Banswara, Gadhi Raj..
9. Neeraj Trivedi S/o Jagdish Trivedi, Ansik Thikariya, Distt.
Banswara Raj..
10. Rachna Sharma D/o Gyanendra Kumar Sharma, R/o 29-A,
Indraprasth Nagar, Kesri Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Distt.
Ajmer Raj..
11. Himank Mehta S/o Kamlesh Mehta, R/o House No. 34,
Ward No. 06, Village Bhopanag, Behri, Banswara Raj..
12. Beena Sharma D/o Ramswaroop Sharma, R/o Village
Dholi Madhogarh, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
13. Khushi Ram S/o Sugga Ram, R/o Village Mousam, Post
Mohammadpur, Tehsil Behror, Distt. Alwar Raj..
14. Ranjeet Singh S/o Ishwar Singh, R/o Village And Post
Patapsatpura, Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
15. Raveena Kumari S/o Harish Chand, R/o Surauta, Post
Penghore, Tehsil Kumher, Distt.bharatpur.
16. Beena Meena D/o Prabhu Lal Meena, R/o Village Chajelo
Ka Kheda, Kuradiya, District Bhilawara Raj.
17. Shimla Jangid D/o Sh.gyarsi Lal Jangid, W/o Late Sh.
Birdhi Chand Jangid, R/o 98, Prahlad Colony, Tonk Road,
(2 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

Airport Sanganer, Jaipur Raj.
18. Bhagchand Jat S/o Hazari Lal Jat, R/o Village Devki
Nandanpura, Post Badapadampura, Tehsil Chaksu, Jaipur
Raj..
19. Seema Panwar D/o Vasudev, R/o Ward No. 34, Sutharon
Ki Badi Buwad, Distt. Bikaner Raj..
20. Manish Kumar S/o Mohmmadram, R/o Village And Post
Kiwrali, Distt. Sirohi Raj..
21. Sumer Meena S/o Babu Lal, R/o Dhanshipura Patan Neem
Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar Raj..
22. Pradeep Meena S/o Satyanarayan Meena, R/o Village
Bamboliya, Badbar, Tehsil Manoharghana, Distt. Jhalawar
Raj..
23. Sohan Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Village Pana, Post
Nagla, Terhiya, Tehsil Roopbas, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
24. Asha Kumari Nehra W/o Ranveer Singh, R/o Nizampura,
Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj..
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasth
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer
Through Its Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writs No. 9314/2018
1. Mahendra Kumar Jatolia S/o Shiv Bhagwan Jatolia, R/o
Shivam Villa, Village Karnipura, Post Kuli, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh, Distt. Sikar Raj.
2. Ashok Kumar Joshi S/o Ram Kumar, R/o Ward No. Jasana,
25 Jsn, Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
3. Vishnu Kumar S/o Kishan Singh, R/o Village Post
Singhada, Tehsil Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
4. Gaurav Sharma S/o Madan Lal Sharma, R/o Village Jaya,
Post Usrani, Tehsil Kumher Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
5. Archana Kumari D/o Samay Singh, R/o Village
Janhageerpur, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
(3 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

6. Ishwar Singh S/o Jaidev Singh, R/o Village And Post
Badamadi Thakuran, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
7. Hemant Kumar S/o Bholaram, R/o Village And Post Rareh,
Tehsil Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
8. Vishna Kumari D/o Harish Chandra Kuntal, R/o Village And
Post Rareh, Tehsil Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
9. Kusum D/o Rambharosi, R/o Village And Post Rareh,
Tehsil Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
10. Kushalpal Singh S/o Rambharosi, R/o Village And Post
Rareh, Tehsil Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
11. Satyendra Singh S/o Udayveer Singh, R/o Village And
Post Rareh, Tehsil Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
12. Munesh Kumar S/o Vijay Singh, R/o Village Katara, Tehsil
Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
13. Balwan S/o Krishan Kumar, R/o House No. 5, Bakariana
Gudiakhera, 29 Sirsa Gudiakhera Haryana.
14. Ravindra Singh S/o Satyapal, R/o Village Loki, Tehsil
Kumher, Post Therawat, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
15. Gaurav Singh Chaudhary S/o Birendra Singh Chaudhary,
R/o Village And Post Jharkhai, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt.
Bharatpur Raj..
16. Maheepal Gurjar S/o Lekhram Gurjar, R/o Village Post
Pingora, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
17. Ramdeen Paliyal S/o Jetha Ram, R/o Village And Post
Narwa Katla, Tehsil Khinwansar, Distt. Nagaur Raj..
18. Sunil Matawa S/o Hari Ram, Beniwalon Ka Bas, Modi
Kalan, Distt. Nagaur Raj..
19. Suresh Nehra S/o Badri Ram, R/o 116, Kumharon Ka
Mohalla, Degana Chossali, Distt. Nagaur Raj..
20. Rajendra Godara S/o Gordhan Godara, R/o Godara
Market, Behind Nagar Palika, Deedwana, Distt. Nagaur
Raj..
21. Hardeva Ram S/o Biwana Ram, R/o Indrapura, Ambpa,
Distt. Nagaur Raj..
22. Ramkishore Roj S/o Megha Ram, R/o Jayal, Distt. Nagaur
Raj..
23. Guru Prakash Kasana S/o Ramhet Singh Gurjar, R/o
Village Sumel Kalan, Post Khuntla, Tehsil Baswa, Distt.
Dausa Raj..
(4 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

24. Pawan Kumar S/o Chanan Mal, R/o Ward No. 9
Doongrana, Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
25. Rinky Yadav D/o Brij Kishore Yadav, R/o Village And Post
Chawandeda, Tehsil And Distt. Dausa Raj..
26. Renu Chhawari D/o Ranjeet Singh Chhawari, R/o Dhani
Kishanpura Bid, Kherli, Distt. Dausa Raj..
27. Rajesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Ghamman Singh Gujar, R/o
Village And Post Dighariya, Tehsil Lawan, Distt. Dausa
Raj..
28. Prakash Chand Meena S/o Kalu Ram Meena, R/o Village
Manpura, Post Salempura, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachewada,
Distt. Dausa Raj..
29. Bheek Narayan Saini S/o Revar Mal Saini, R/o Village And
Post Sainthal, Distt. Dausa Raj..
30. Bhavesh Kansal S/o Mukesh Chandra Kansal, R/o
Bayalpura, Hindauncity, Distt. Karauli Raj..
31. Jatashankar Sharma S/o Babu Lal Sharma, R/o Village
Post Gndarwa, Tehsil Shikari, Distt. Dausa Raj..
32. Manish Kumar Kaswa S/o Heera Lal Gujar, R/o Sumel
Kalan, Post Kuntala, Tehsil Baswa Distt. Dausa Raj..
33. Praveen Kumar Sharma S/o Lalu Ram Sharma, R/o Village
Delari, Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Dausa Raj..
34. Jagdish S/o Mota Ram, R/o Saran Nagar, Rajsagar, Chamu
Tehsil Balesar, Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
35. Shishpal S/o Mahaveer Prasad, R/o Ward No. 6,
Kishanpura Dikhanda 17 Ksp, Dikhanda, Distt.
Hanumangarh Raj..
36. Karna Ram S/o Phussa Ram, R/o Kanediya Mahasingh,
Tehsil Shergarh, Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
37. Prithvi Raj Meghwal S/o Mangi Lal, R/o Village Luna, Tehsil
Baap, Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
38. Sukha Ram S/o Chola Ram, R/o Village And Post
Dahikara, Via Benar, Tehsil And Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
39. Dagala Ram S/o Bhaga Ram, R/o Village Post Surchh
Bagoriya, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
40. Prem Singh S/o Gopal Singh, R/o Village Pachla Khurd,
Tehsil Tivri, Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
41. Khema Ram S/o Hema Ram, R/o Village Malasar And Post
Falsun, Tehsil Baniyana, Distt. Jaisalmer Raj..
(5 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

42. Naina Ram S/o Sona Ram, R/o Village Post Cherai, Tehsil
Tigri, Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
43. Bhagirath S/o Dhanna Ram, R/o Village And Post Sihda,
Tehsil Baap, Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
44. Mahaveer Singh S/o Durg Singh, R/o Village And Post
Shivdan Singh Nagar, Post Bengri Kalan, Tehsil Falaudi
Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
45. Kanhaiya Lal Sharma S/o Sohan Lal Sharma, R/o Village
Meghras, Post Bhunas, Tehsil Sahada, Distt. Bhilwara Raj..
46. Naresh Kumar S/o Sohan Lal, R/o 17 Ksp, Ward No. 7, 19
Ksp, Kishanpura Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
47. Lalit Kumar Jat S/o Roshan Lal Jat, R/o Village Ratanpura,
Post Salera, Tehsil Sahada, Distt. Bhilwara Raj..
48. Bheru Lal Kharol, S/o Champa Lal Kharol, R/o Village
Baghera, Post Bharak, Tehsil Sahada, Distt. Bhilwara Raj..
49. Shambhu Lal Gadri S/o Nandram Gadri, Village Baghera,
Post Bharak, Tehsil Sahada, Distt. Bhilwara Raj..
50. Ranjana Kumawat D/o Badri Lal Kumawat, R/o Village And
Post Bagoliya, Tehsil Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara Raj..
51. Anita Kumari Kumawat D/o Amba Lal Kumawat, R/o
Village Patiyon Ka Kheda Thala Tehsil Raipur, Distt.
Bhilwara Raj..
52. Kanhaiya Lal Sen S/o Sohan Lal Sen, R/o Ward No. 6,
Gangapur, Tehsil Sahada, Distt. Bhilwara Raj..
53. Karma Chaudhary S/o Harinarayan Chaudhary, R/o Village
Kunder, Tehsil Uniara, Distt. Tonk Raj..
54. Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o Purushottam Sharma, R/o
Village And Post Soda, Tehsil Malpura Distt. Tonk Raj..
55. Kapil Sharma S/o Govind Narayan Sharma, R/o 39 Kalyan
Nagar, Chhawni Tonk, Distt. Tonk Raj..
56. Ujjawal Singh Rajawat S/o Bhanwar Singh Rajawat, R/o
Priyanka Garments, Luharon Ki Maszid, Newai, Distt. Tonk
Raj..
57. Farsa Ram S/o Jaimal, R/o 17 Ksp, 19 Ksp, Kishanpura
Dikhanda, Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
58. Giriraj Sharma S/o Gordhan Sharmaz, R/o Village
Ambapura, Post Tordi Sagar, Tehsil Malpura Distt. Tonk
Raj..
59. Vinod Kumar Nagar S/o Ramnarayan Dhakar, R/o Village
(6 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

Sitarampura Dhakran, Post Rindiya, Rampura Tehsil
Todarisingh, Distt. Tonk Raj..
60. Mukesh Singh Nathawat S/o Hanuman Singh, R/o Village
And Post Chatubhujpura, Tehsil Newai, Distt. Tonk Raj..
61. Sanwar Singh Yadav S/o Ramkishor Yadav, R/o Village
And Post Ranoli, Tehsil Pipllu, Distt. Tonk Raj..
62. Himmat Singh Yadav S/o Banwari Lal Yadavz, R/o Village
And Post Ranoli, Tehsil Pipllu, Distt. Tonk Raj..
63. Babu Lal Jat S/o Madan Lal Jat, R/o Panchunokha, Distt.
Bikaner Raj..
64. Ramkishan Sain S/o Poonam Chand, R/o Lalu Ji Khedi,
Jorawarpura, Nokha Distt. Bikaner Raj..
65. Hema D/o Shre Lal, R/o Gadhi Jonawat, Distt. Dholpur
Raj..
66. Sushila Kanwar D/o Richpal Singh, R/o Ramnawali, Distt.
Ganganagar Raj..
67. Kishan Lal Dhaker S/o Phool Chand Dhaker, R/o Village
And Post Palka, Via Bassi, Tehsil And Distt. Chittorgarh
Raj..
68. Harbans Lal S/o Gopal Ram, R/o Ward No. 4, Dushara Bus
Adda, Vpo, Kishanpura Dikhanda, 20 Ksp Kishanpura
Dikhanda, Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
69. Shyam Lal Jatiya S/o Nana Lal Jatiya, R/o Purohiton Ka
Sanwata, Tehsil And Distt. Chittorgarh Raj..
70. Karan Singh Rathore S/o Udai Singh Rathore, R/o Village
Gurjaniya, Post Hasampura, Tehsil Rashmi, Distt.
Chittorgarh Raj..
71. Gaurishankar Suthar S/o Inder Lal Suthar, R/o Village And
Post Kashmor, Via Gosunda, Tehsil And Distt. Chittorgarh
Raj..
72. Babu Lal Regar S/o Moolchand Regar, R/o Village Raigar
Mohalla, Gosunda, Tehsil And Distt. Chittorgarh Raj..
73. Vikram Ahir S/o Panna Lal Ahir, R/o Village Maliya Khedi,
Phalwa, Distt. Chittorgarh Raj..
74. Seema Khandelwal D/o Jagdish Chand Khandelwal, R/o
Village Biloda, Distt. Chittorgarh Raj..
75. Sangeeta Sharma D/o Ratan Lal Sharma, R/o Village
Kunthana, Distt. Chittorgarh - 312024 Raj..
76. Roshan Raj Gurjar S/o Ganpat Ram Gurjar, R/o D-25,
(7 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

Police Line, Distt. Bhilwara Raj..
77. Chanda Dangi W/o Kanhaiya Lal, R/o 113 Natowali Ghati,
100 Ft. Circle, Shobhagpur, Udaipur Raj..
78. Mukesh Kumar Royal S/o Randheer Singh, R/o Village And
Post Khansoli, Tehsil And Distt. Churu Raj..
79. Sukh Dev S/o Jagdeesh, R/o Ward No. 4, 17 Ksp,
Kishanpura,dikhanda, 19 Ksp Kishanpura, Distt.
Hanumangarh Raj..
80. Balwan Singh S/o Sube Singh, R/o Village And Post
Mundital, Tehsil Ragrah, Distt. Churu - 331023 Raj..
81. Rohitashv Parashar S/o Harish Chand Sharma, R/o
Brahmanpada, Maysil, Distt. Dholpur Raj..
82. Jogendra Singh S/o Jagdish Prasad, Chitora, Distt.
Dholpura Raj..
83. Sunil Kumar S/o Ran Singh, R/o 328 Kushwaha Basti
Nagla, Tailaya Doongri, Distt. Dholpura Raj..
84. Purushottam Puri S/o Sobaran Puri, R/o Village Post
Singorai, Tehsil Bari, Distt. Dholpura Raj..31
85. Ram Avdhesh S/o Jagmohan Verma, R/o. 2/2 Type - 3,
Telephone Exchange Rambagh, Agra Up.
86. Rakesh Singh S/o Omveer Singh, R/o Fatehpur, Post
Bansuri, Janhagira Baisena, Bulandshahar Up.
87. Anita D/o Ajeet Singh, R/o Village Meerpur, Post Katopur,
Tehsil Kotkasim, Distt. Alwar Raj..
88. Rajpal S/o Jeevandas, R/o Village Chadigadh Ka Bas, Post
Nowgon, Tehsil Ramgarh, Distt. Alwar Raj..
89. Dharam Singh Saini S/o Begraj, R/o Village And Post
Nowgoan, Chandigarh Ka Bas, Tehsil Ramgarh Distt. Alwar
Raj..
90. Puneet Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar, R/o Ward No. 10, 17
Bgp, Bolanwali, Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
91. Gordhan S/o Jile Singh, R/o Berawas Kalan, Post Bhonker,
Tehsil Kotkasim Distt. Alwar Raj..
92. Himanshu Yadav S/o Mahesh Chand Yadav, R/o Village
Darbarpur, Post Ajraka, Mundwar, Distt. Alwar Raj..
93. Chandrabhan Yadav S/o Nihal Singh Yadav, R/o Village
Darbarpur, Post Ajraka, Mundwar, Distt. Alwar Raj..
94. Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Sheochand Sharma, R/o
(8 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

Renagiri, Post Shyopur, Tehsil Mundwar, Distt. Alwar Raj..
95. Firoz Khan S/o Subhan Ahmed, R/o Village And Post
Pinan, Tehsil Raini, Distt. Alwar Raj..
96. Girraj Prasad Meena S/o Matadeen Meena, R/o Village And
Post Agar Dudi Ki Dhani Tehsil Thanagazi Distt. Alwar Raj..
97. Rajbala Yadav D/o Shishram Yadav, R/o B 363, Rathnagar,
Near Pani Ki Tanki, Distt. Alwar Raj..
98. Narendra Kumar Patwa S/o Matadeen Patwa, R/o Village
And Post Pratapgarh, Tehsil Thanagazi, Distt. Alwar Raj..
99. Ram Lal Jat S/o Budhram Jat, R/o Village And Post
Beejwar Narukamal Kheda, Distt. Alwar Raj..
100. Rinku Chaudhary D/o Pappu Ram Chaudhary, R/o Village
And Post Bijwar Naruka, Tehsil Malakheda, Distt. Alwar
Raj..
101. Satpal S/o Shrikrishan, R/o Ward No. 13, 2 Ptp Nukera,
Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
102. Siya Ram Prajapat S/o Shri Narayana Prajapat, R/o Village
Irniya Iteda, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar Raj..
103. Rajesh Kumar Soni S/o Satyanarayan Soni, R/o Post Dag,
Tehsil Gangdhar, Distt. Jhalawar Raj..
104. Swarup Singh Bhati S/o Girdhar Singh Bhati, R/o Village
And Post Modha, Tehsil Fatehgarh, Distt. Jaisalmer Raj..
105. Mahaveer Singh Bhati S/o Narayan Singh Bhati, R/o
Village And Post Modha, Tehsil Fatehgarh, Distt. Jaisalmer
Raj..
106. Ranbir Singh S/o Rajbir Singh, R/o Village And Post
Suratpura, Distt. Churu Raj..
107. Kailash Chand Gurjar S/o Kishan Lal Gurjar, R/o Village
And Post Atalikpura, Post Dodwadi, Tehsil Piplu, Distt.
Tonk Raj..
108. Priya Narniya D/o Chhotu Lal Narniya, R/o Banjaro Ki
Basti, Pachipalaiya, Distt. Sawaimadhopur Raj..
109. Ramesh Kumar S/o Bhagirath Ram, R/o Village And Post
Saron Ki Dhani, Palina Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
110. Jyoti D/o Resham Lal, R/o Village And Post New Prem
Nagar, Gali No. 9, Distt. Sriganganagar Raj..
111. Om Prakash S/o Ram Chander, R/o Village And Post
Doongri, Post Chitalwana, Distt. Jalore Raj..
(9 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

112. Amrik Singh S/o Iqbal Singh, R/o Kishanpura Dikhanda,
17 K.s.p. 19 Ksp Kishanpura Dikhnada, Hanumangarh
Raj..
113. Sandeep Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, R/o Ward No. 8,
Bashir, Krishn Dukan Wali Gali, 4 Ftp Distt. Hanumangarh
Raj..
114. Anil Parmar S/o Harji Ram, R/o Village And Post Kelwa,
Tehsil And Distt.rajsamand Raj..
115. Hanuman Ram S/o Poornaram, R/o Village And Post Lorty
Height, Undkha, Distt. Barmer Raj..
116. Ameda Ram Saran S/o Goma Ram Saran, R/o Khume Ke
Bedi, Dhorimanna, Distt. Barmer Raj..
117. Gangaram S/o Thakra Ram, R/o Nehro Ki Dhani, Distt.
Barmer Raj..
118. Arjun Ram Dhaka S/o Ramchandra Dhaka, R/o Balaknath
Ki Kutiya Ke Pas, Ward No. 19, Balotra Distt. Barmer Raj..
119. Jagga Ram S/o Nethi Ram, R/o Amliyala Gudha Malani,
Distt. Barmer Raj..
120. Poonam Singh S/o Sri Malam Singh, R/o Village
Gangapura, Post Girab, Tehsil Gadra Road, Distt. Barmer
Raj..
121. Swati Sharma D/o Manoj Kumar Sharma, R/o 42, Balaji
Vihar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
122. Suman Yadav D/o Bhagwan Sahay Yadav, R/o Village And
Post Nindola, Jaipur Raj..
123. Om Prakash Yadav S/o Laxminarayan Yadav, R/o Thoth
Walon Ki Dhani, Nangal Koju, Distt. Jaipur
124. Madan Lal S/o Ram Swaroop, R/o Ward No. 2, 2 Ptp
Nukera, Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
125. Karan Singh Yadav S/o Arjun Lal Yadav, R/o Ward No. 28,
Nidola, Khejoli, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
126. Mamta Kumari D/o Nemichand Singh, R/o Ward No. 13,
Bisau, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj..
127. Pragya Sharma D/o Promod Kumar Sharma, R/o
Brahmpuri, Gaushala, Dholpur Raj.
128. Kapil Dev S/o Pratap Singh, R/o Kawai, Bharatpur Raj.
129. Punit Sharma S/o Dhaniram Sharma, R/o Vardhman
Nagar, Hindaun City, District Karauli Raj.
(10 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

130. Sushil Kumar S/o Bhup Ram, R/o 12 Ksd Dhani Rasuwala,
Ward No. 2, Vpo Rasuwala, 7 Idg, Distt. Hanumangarh
Raj..
131. Vijender Singh S/o Baljeet Singh, Aged About 18 19
Years, R/o 6 Jgw, Ninan, Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
132. Monika D/o Parveen Kumar, R/o Village Bhangarh, Post
Bhangarh, Tehsil Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh Raj..
133. Poonam Baimad D/o Kailash Chand Baimad, R/o 45,
Vigyan Nagar, Ranthamboreroad, Sawaimadhopur Raj..
134. Choti Devi Dhayal D/o Bodu Ram Dhayal, Village Bichpadi,
Post Nangal, Via Jahota, Tehsil Amer Distt. Jaipur Raj..
135. Mohammad Aftab S/o Chand Mohammad, R/o 358/36
Mithe Kuwe Ki Gali, Lohakhana, Police Line, Ajmer Raj..
136. Narayan S/o Girraj Singh, R/o Village Tuhiya Pattipura,
Ucchain, Post Adhiyari, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur
Raj..
137. Satyanarayan Yadav S/o Ramprasad Yadav, R/o Village
Charanwas, Post Alisar, Via Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, Distt.
Jaipur Raj..
138. Subhash Chander S/o Ramswarup Kumar, R/o Ward No.
03, Mohan Magariya, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh
Raj..
139. Ashish Yadav S/o Prabhu Dayal Yadav, R/o Village
Sandarsar, Via Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
140. Shivlal Bairwa S/o Ramswaroop Bairwa, R/o Village And
Post Todadhekla, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa Raj..
141. Sunil Kumar Jat S/o Gopal Lal Jat, R/o Village Israwala,
Post Bilochi, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
142. Ramkhiladi Gurjar S/o Ramkishore Gurjar, R/o Village And
Post Golak, Teshil Boli, Distt. Sawaimadhopur Raj..
143. Sunil Kumar Koli S/o Suwa Lal Koli, R/o Village And Post
Thali, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
144. Pritam Chaudhary D/o Ramniwas Chaudhary, R/o B-6,
Bahubali Nagar, Mansarover, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
145. Manisha Khoiya D/o Jeetram, R/o Village Mathuraheda,
Post Indrawali, Tehsil Kathumar, Distt. Alwar Raj..
146. Varsha Kumari D/o Satish Kumari, R/o Village Kayampur
Jokha Bas, Post Budhibawal, Tehsil Kotkasim, Distt. Alwar
Raj..
(11 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

147. Monika D/o Sukhram Yadav, R/o Bilahedo, Post And Tehsil
Kotkasim, Distt. Alwarraj..
148. Shankar Lal S/o Surendra Singh, R/o Village Kulharion Ka
Bas, Tehsil Surajgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj..
149. Sunder Lal S/o Mohan Lal, R/o Ward No. 1, Barbirana,
Beerna, District Hanumangarh Raj..
150. Naveen Kumar S/o Satyaveer, R/o Village Dhandhar, Post
D.k. Bas, Tehsil Surajgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunuraj..
151. Govind Singh Rajawat S/o Amer Singh Rajawat, 18, Manu
Vihar Vistar, Near Kishan Vidyapeeth, Jamdoli, Distt.
Jaipur Raj..
152. Sumit Kumar Verma S/o Ummed Singh, R/o Behind Ajeet
Hospital, Gulal Ka Kua, Ward No. 13, Khetri, Distt.
Jhunjhunu Raj..
153. Rewant Kumar S/o Devaram, R/o Village Dhaniyo Ka Tala,
Dharasar, Teshil Chowhatan, Distt. Barmer Raj..
154. Suresh Kumar S/o Moti Ram, R/o Village Sortha, Tehsil
Roodar, Distt. Sirohi Raj..
155. Harshad Gaur S/o Pyare Lal Gaur, R/o Village Post
Ganeshpura, Garnaobadat, Tehsil Pathpad, Distt. Jhalawar
Raj..
156. Rajendra Kumar Chaudhary S/o Panchu Ram Jat, R/o
Village Naradpura,post Narena, Tehsil Phulera, Distt.
Jaipur Raj..
157. Dinesh Kumar S/o Daulat Ram, R/o Village Post Doongri,
Chitalbana, Distt. Jalore Raj..
158. Mohan Lal S/o Tikuram, R/o Birdo Ka Tala, Post Bisarniya,
Tehsil Chowhatan, Distt. Barmer Raj..
159. Imran Khan S/o Nabbi Khan, R/o Village Viyo Ka Goliya,
Tehsil Punasa, Distt. Jalore Raj..
160. Pawan Kumar S/o Ramswarup Kumhar, R/o Doongrana,
District Hanumangarh Raj..
161. Raju Singh S/o Ajab Singh, R/o Village Kanasi Moti, Tehsil
Jodhani, Tiputapu, Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
162. Sawai Singh S/o Narayan Singh, R/o Village And Post
Ghatiyalo, Distt. Jaisalmer Raj..
163. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Ramniwas Sharma, R/o
Paragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
164. Kheenya Ram S/o Ray Chand, R/o Village Gayaton Ki
(12 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

Dhani, Post Hemgudha, Tehsil Chitalbana, Distt. Jaloreraj..
165. Choth Mal Raidas S/o Shyam Lal, R/o Village And Post
Jabar, Tehsil Manohar Thana, Distt. Jhalawar Raj..
166. Rampratap Godora S/o Narayan Godara, R/o 8 Shpd, 8
Chak, Suratgarh, Distt. Ganganagar Raj..
167. Kiran Rani D/o Sohan Lal, R/o Village And Post Nirwana,
Tehsil Suratgarh, Distt. Sriganganagar Raj..
168. Hemant Paliwal S/o Narayan Lal, R/o House No. 117,
Rajendra Nagar, Near Sharda Bal School, Distt. Pali Raj..
169. Sunil Kumar S/o Megh Singh, R/o Village Jindpura, Post
Khanwa, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bhartpur Raj..
170. Shankar Kumar S/o Rameshwar Prasad, R/o Village
Ramchandrapura, Post Barijori, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt.
Raj..
171. Vinod Kumar S/o Rameshwar, R/o Ward No. 8 Madarpura
District Hanumangarh Raj..
172. Jeetendra Meena S/o Shreelal Meena, R/o Village Mereda,
Post Khedi, Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauliraj..
173. Vinod Kumar Meena S/o Ramratan Meena, R/o Village
Gadholi, Post Hansmahal, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
174. Suman Chaudhary D/o Dhura Ram Chaudhary, R/o Ward
No. 2, Tehsil Hansalsar, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj..
175. Sangeeta D/o Manak Ram, R/o Village Mandore, Tehsil
Baap, Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
176. Pratap Chaudhary S/o Chittar Mal Bagariya, R/o Village
And Post Umara, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, Distt. Sikar Raj..
177. Laxman La Mali S/o Bhanwar Lal Mali, R/o 52 Muradh,
Village Nichli Otan, Distt. Rajsamand Raj..
178. Anil Kumar S/o Sukhram, R/o Village And Post Doongry,
Tehsil Chitalwana, Distt. Jalore Raj..
179. Rahul Singh Rathore S/o Vashudev Rathore, R/o Village
Baroda Gaon, Distt. Jaisalmer Raj..
180. Ram Singh Yadav S/o Ganesh Yadav, R/o Village Tejaji Ki
Dhani, Post Nangalkoju, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
181. Pramod Kumar S/o Sewaram, R/o Village Dhana, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, Distt.sikar Raj..
182. Vijay Pal S/o Jagdish Prasad, R/o Ward No. 9, 33 Amp,
Kalwasiya, Distt. Ganganagar Raj..
(13 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

183. Sulochana D/o Manohar Ram, R/o Village Sarno Ki Dhani,
Tehsil Sarpura, Distt. Jodhpur Raj..
184. Sandeep S/o Ramotar Sharma, R/o Vpo Sangtera, Tehsil
Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
185. Narendra Naraniya S/o Pooran Mal Naraniya, R/o Village
Post Chanwadiya, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur Raj..
186. Mukesh Gurjar S/o Jagdish Prasad Gurjar, R/o Village And
Post Kadeela, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk Raj..
187. Mayank Kumar Sharma S/o Sita Ram Sharma, R/o Village
And Post Bhordon Ka Bas, Via Dantaramgarh, Distt. Sikar
Raj..
188. Ramesh Achara S/o Chhitar Mal Achara, , R/o Mau,
Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar Raj..
189. Narendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Bharat Singh, R/o Borki
Jhunjhunu Raj..
190. Harish Kumar Chandeliya S/o Mamchand Chandeliya, R/o
Chadeliya Ki Dhani, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj..
191. Sandeep Kumar S/o Ranveer Singh, R/o Doomra, Distt.
Jhunjhunu Raj..
192. Anil Saini S/o Sanwarmal Saini, R/o Kocchor, Distt.
Sikarraj..
193. Rakesh Kumar S/o Mani Ram, R/o Ward No. 27, Gali No.
1, Surya Nagar Vatika, Hanumangarh Town 8 Ssw,
Hanumangarh Raj.
194. Rajendra Kumar Meena S/o Dhanna Ram Meena, R/o
Fatehpur Shekhawati, Distt. Sikar Raj..
195. Ramniwas Saini S/o Jhabarmal Saini, R/o Bagora, Distt.
Jhunjhunu Raj..
196. Pankaj Dhariwal S/o Vijay Singh, R/o Dewas, Distt. Sikar
Raj..
197. Vikas Kumar S/o Rohtash, R/o Pratappura, Distt. Sikar
Raj..
198. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Surendra Kumar Sharma, R/o
Jajod, Tehsil Laxamangarh, Distt. Sikar Raj..
199. Kamlesh Kapuriya S/o Bhanwar Lal, R/o Hejampura, Distt.
Jhunjhunu Raj..
200. Jaiprakash Jhakhar S/o Sri Ram Jhakhar, R/o Neem Ka
Thana, Distt. Sikar Raj..
(14 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

201. Rakesh Kasotiya S/o Kishan Lal, R/o Village Andpost Shiv
Chhapri, Tehsil Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagur Raj..
202. Yogendra Singh S/o Maharaj Singh, R/o Village And Post
Katara, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
203. Bharat Singh S/o Ranveer Singh, R/o Village Jhorol, Post
Karata, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
204. Poonam D/o Balbir Singh, R/o Village Bhangarh Bhadra,
Distt.l Hanumangarh Raj..
205. Natwar Singh S/o Harsukh Singh, R/o Village Tohila, Post
Atari, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
206. Madhav Sharma S/o Khubi Ram, R/o Village Mukhena,
Post Butholi, Tehsil Weir, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
207. Lokendra Singh S/o Babu Singh, R/o Village Magren
Khurd, Tehsil Bayana Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
208. Lakhan Singh S/o Devi Singh, R/o Kamlapura, Ward No.
1, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
209. Rajkumar S/o Devi Singh, R/o Nagla Ajau, Post Sihi, Tehsil
Kumher Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
210. Sachin Kumar Sharma S/o Lal Chand Sharma, R/o Village
And Post Bolheda, Tehsil Kama, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
211. Kapil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh, R/o R/o Village And Post
Bolheda, Tehsil Kama, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
212. Balmukund Upadhyay S/o Hari Ram Sharma, R/o Village
And Post Bolheda, Tehsil Kama, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
213. Preeti D/o Laxman Singh, R/o Indra Nagar Nale Ke Pas,
Heeradas, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
214. Anuradha D/o Laxman, R/o Indra Nagar Nale Ke Pas,
Heeradas, Distt. Bharatpur Raj..
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Board Of Secodary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
(15 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Counsel with Mr.
Vigyan Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Counsel with
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta,
Mr. R.N. Sharma and Mr. Ram Pratap
Saini, for the respondents-applicants.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

Order

08/10/2018

1. The petitioners have instituted the above noted writ

applications praying for the following relief(s):

"i) That the impugned Clauses-13(2) of the impugned
advertisement dated 12.04.2018 prescribing marks
secured in Teachers Eligibility Examination as sole
criteria of selection on the post of Teacher Gr.III
(Level-I) may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary
and therefore same may kindly be quashed and set
aside.

ii) The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature
thereof:

(a) To adopt the process of normalizing the marks of
different examinations of RTET 2011, 2012 and REET
2015 & 2017 before making selection on the post of
Teacher Gr.III (Level-I);

(b) To make the selection on the post of Teacher
Gr.III (Level-I) by correcting the answer key of
REET 2017 in respect to following questions as
under:-

Sl. Question Subject Answer Petitioner Prayer
No No. of BSER
.

1 1 Child Development and Pedalogy C A and B

2 11 Child Development and Pedalogy C Delete and Bonus

3 17 Child Development and Pedalogy D Delete and Bonus

4 21 Child Development and Pedalogy B C
(16 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

5 37 Language-I C Delete and Bonus
Hindi

6 99 Mathematics B Delete and Bonus

7 107 Mathematics C A

8 137 Environment Studies C Delete and Bonus

(d) To produce before this Hon'ble Court Result
analysis sheet for REET 2015 & REET 2017 and the
record of the no. of candidates selected on the basis
of REET 2015 marks in Teacher Grade III (Level-I)
Recruitment, 2016;

(e) Or in the alternative to conduct written
examination for selection on the post of Teacher
Gr.III (Level-I) or to make selection solely on the
basis of marks in REET 2017 and with weightage of
marks in qualifying examinations

(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of this case may kindly also be
passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material

facts are that the Respondents conducted Rajasthan Teacher

Eligibility Test (for short, RTET), for recruitment on the post of

Teacher Grade III (Level-1) for the year of 2011 and 2012.

Thereafter, an amendment was made in the Rajasthan Panchayati

Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, Rules of 1996) vide notification dated

15 October 2015, wherein the candidates in possession of the

qualifications as per National Council for Teacher Education (for

short, NCTE) Notification dated 29 July 2011, were only to be

eligible to apply for the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for
(17 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

Teachers (for short, REET), earlier known as Rajasthan Teachers

Eligibility Test (for short, 'RTET'), for the subsequent

examinations. After the amendment of the Rules of 1996, as

aforesaid, the respondents advertised for REET-2015, wherein the

conditions of eligibility were as per the amendment and result of

REET-2015, was declared by the respondent no. 3 on 19 May

2016. The respondents issued advertisement dated 06 July 2016,

as Advertisement No. 1/2016, inviting applications from eligible

candidates for Rajasthan Primary and Upper Primary School

Teachers Direct Recruitment Examination-2016, and the result for

the same was declared on dated 27 May 2017. The petitioners are

the candidates who acquired their two years Diploma in

Elementary Education after 2015 and became eligible to appear in

REET-2017. And they appeared in the REET - 2017 Examination,

conducted by the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3, issued

model answer key dated 11 April 2018 under the advertisement

dated 12 April 2018, for the eligibility examination and invited

objections from participating candidates on the same model

answer key. The petitioners submitted objections on several

questions of different subjects including compulsory subjects as

well. The list of the disputed questions of REET-2017, is as under:

Sl. No. Question Subject Answer Petitioner Prayer
No. of BSER

1 1 Child Development and C A and B
Pedalogy

2 11 Child Development and C Delete and Bonus
Pedalogy

3 17 Child Development and D Delete and Bonus
Pedalogy

4 21 Child Development and B C
(18 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

Pedalogy

5 37 Language-I C Delete and Bonus
Hindi

6 99 Mathematics B Delete and Bonus

7 107 Mathematics C A

8 137 Environment Studies C Delete and Bonus

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that National

Council for Teacher Education (for short, 'NCTE'), has been

designated as 'Nodal Agency' to prescribe minimum qualifications

for a candidate to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

Further, NCTE vide its notification dated 23 August 2010, in the

Gazette of India contemplated that it would be compulsory for a

candidate to pass a Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted

by the appropriate government in accordance with the guidelines

framed by the NCTE. The Panchayati Raj Department vide

notification dated 15 October, 2015, amended the Rules 1996,

contemplating that the authorized agency shall invite applications

by advertising vacancies and shall prepare a category wise select

list of the candidates declared successful on the basis of criteria of

selection laid down by the State Government from time to time.

The Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), has been conducted only four

times since 2011 i.e. RTET (Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test)

2011, RTET 2012 and REET (Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for

Teachers) 2015 and REET 2017. After the amendment under the

Rules of 1996, vide notification dated 15 th October, 2015, the

respondents issued advertised for REET-2015, wherein the

condition of eligibility was as per the amendment and the result of
(19 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

the REET-2015, was declared by the respondent no. 3 on 19 th May,

2016. Thereafter, the State-respondents issued advertisement

dated 06th July, 2016, as Advertisement No. 1/2016, for Rajasthan

Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Direct Recruitment

Examination-2016, and the result for the same was declared on

dated 27th May 2017. The petitioners are the candidates who

acquired their two years Diploma in Elementary Education after

2015, and became eligible to appear in REET-2017. And the

petitioners did appear in REET-2017 Examination conducted by the

respondent No. 3. The model answer key dated 11 th April, 2018,

was issued under the advertisement dated 12 th April, 2018, for the

eligibility examination and invited objections from the participating

candidates. The petitioners submitted objections on several

questions of different subjects including compulsory subjects as

well, which reads thus:

I) Question No.1, Section - 1, Child Development and Pedagogy:

Ques.No.1. In Paiget's theory a process which is the balancing act

between the "old" and the "new" between the perception and

experience known as

(A) Assimilation (B) Accommodation

Correct answer according to the respondents is-(C) Equilibration.

And according to the petitioners-(B) Accommodation

II) Question No.11, Section-1, Child Development and Pedagogy:-

Ques. No.11. Howard Gardner says that there many specific types

of intelligence or frames of mind. Which one is a category of the

intelligence as suggested by him?
(20 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

(A) Analytical intelligence (B) Creative intelligence

Correct answer according to the respondents is- (C) Naturalist

skills. And according to the petitioners- (B) or ought to have been

deleted.

III) Question No. 17, Section-1, Child Development and

Pedagogy:-

Ques. 17. Psychoanalysts believe that there is a primary means by

which the ego "keeps the lid on the id". It is called

(A) Super Ego (B) Pleasure Principle

Correct answer according to the respondents is- (D) Repression.

And according to the petitioners-or ought to have been deleted.

Ques.22 One of the adjustment mechanism involves thinking

logically and socially, in approved reason of past, present and

proposed behaviour is called

(A) Compensation (B) Rationalization

Correct answer according to the respondents is- (D) Repression.

And according to the petitioners or ought to have been deleted.

IV) Question No. 21, Section - 1, Child Development and

Pedagogy:-

Ques.21 A systematic science which provides Rules, Laws and

Principles for achieving adjustment within self and the

environment is called
(21 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

(A) Motivation (B) Mental Hygiene

Correct answer according to the respondents is (B) Mental

Hygiene

And according to the petitioners - (C) Learning

V) Question No. 37, Language-1, Hindi:-

iz'u la[;k 37 ^Qy dks [kwc idk gksuk pkfg,^ okD; esa v'kqf) gS

(A) opu laca/kh (B) inØe laca/kh

Correct answer according to the respondents is (C) dkjd laca/kh

Respondent

And according to the petitioners or ought to have been deleted.

VI) Question No. 99, Subject- Mathematics:-

Ques.99 3 litre mixture of water and sugar has 40% sugar. If a

litre water is added in this mixture, then sugar percentage in new

mixture is equal to

(A) 25% (B) 30%

Correct answer according to the respondents is-(B) 30%. And

according to the petitioners or ought to have been deleted.

VII) Question No. 107, Subject- Mathematics:-

Ques.107 A device for finding out what pupils understand and can

do with a purpose of adapting future teaching to the needs of the

individual or the class is known as
(22 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

(A) Summative Assessment (B) Informative Assessment

Correct answer according to the respondents is- (C) Diagnostic

Assessment. And according to the petitioners- (A) Summative

Assessment

VIII) Question No. 137, Subject - Environmental Studies:-

Ques. 137 Minamata disease is related to which of the following

(A) Cd pollution (B) SO2 pollution

Correct answer according to the respondents is-(C) Hg pollution.

And according to the petitioners or question ought to have been

deleted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vociferously argued that

the result was declared based upon the impugned final answer key

due to which the petitioners could not secure minimum 60 %

marks to 'pass' the Teachers Eligibility Test. And the respondents

now have issued advertisement dated 12th April 2018, for selection

on 20497 posts of Teachers Grade III (Level-1). According to the

counsel the petitioners are the candidates who would have been

eligible to apply in pursuance to advertisement dated 12 th April

2018, if their REET-2017 result, been declared as per the correct

answer key.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further asserted that the

recruitment of primary teachers, by selection, solely based upon

RTET/REET marks in RTET-2011, RTET-2012, REET-2015 and
(23 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

REET-2017; is illegal and arbitrary in the face of judgment

rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHER

SINGH V/S DINESH SINGH: D.B. SAW NO. 1464/ 2016

decided on 27th April, 2017. Hence, the State-respondents ought

to have followed the same criteria for the recruitment process

involved herein for teachers grade-III (Level-1).

6. Furthermore, the impugned advertisement dated 12 th April

2018, inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Teacher

Grade III (Level-1), as per the marks obtained by the candidates

in RTET-2011, RTET-2012, REET-2015 and REET-2017; is also

illegal and arbitrary for the State-respondents ought to have

adopted the process of normalization and equalization of the

marks secured by the candidates appearing in different TET

Examination of 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2017; as the level of

examination for different years (supra), was different which is

evident from the difference of pass percentage in the TET

Examinations with minimum 60%, passing marks, as indicated

hereunder:

Particular of Exam Pass Relevant Document
Percentage

RTET, 2011 33.94% Annex.-26 Pg. 315-321

RTET, 2012 36.97% Annex.-27 Pg. 322-328

REET, 2015 48.02% Annex.-07 Pg. 105

REET, 2017 35.31% Annex.-37 Pg 509
Rejoinder Inward No.
31584 dated 15.05.2018

7. Per contra: Learned senior counsel for the respondents

vehemently asserted that the writ petition (SBCWP (24 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] No.9603/2018), has been filed by 24 candidates jointly but mark sheets of only 17, were annexed to the writ petition. Further, the objections raised by the petitioners are not supported by any material on record to show whether the remaining 7 candidates have any cause of action for filing the writ petition. The objections of only one candidate namely, Kanhiya Lal Sharma, have been annexed with the writ petition, who is not even one of the petitioners in the writ petition. That apart, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 970/2017 GOPAL SINGH V/S RAJASTHAN & ORS., decided on 25th July 2017, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal seat, Jodhpur, directed to Re-appraisal Committee comprising of three experts who would review the answer key and view of the objections ensuring the process to be more transparent and to ward off possible errors and to avoid uncalled for and repeated revision of result. The directions, reads thus:

"(i) The Board shall constitute a committee of three experts as 'Reappraisal Committee'. As soon as the examinations are over, the answer key prepared by the paper setter shall be forwarded to such Committee, which would review the answers suggested by the paper setter;

(ii) The answer key duly reviewed by the 'Reappraisal Committee' shall alone be published as 'final answer key';

(iii) Cut off marks or list of select candidates shall not be announced at the time of the publication of the 'final answer key';

(iv) With the publication of the final answer key, the Board shall give at least 15 days' notice to the candidates to lodge their objections regarding the questions and answers;

(v) Such objections shall be decided by an expert committee, which would be comprised of minimum one and maximum two members out of the members of the 'Reappraisal Committee';

(25 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

(vi) After the resolution of the grievance by the aforesaid expert committee, the revised result, 'revised answer key' or 'final result' shall be published and the 'cut off' shall be declared.

(vii) The list of selected candidates will thereafter be published or notified in tune with the revised result."

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further asserted that the respondents constituted subject wise 'Re-appraisal Committee' of minimum three experts and the committees have reviewed the answers suggested by the paper setters and the answer keys have been suggested by the said 'Re-appraisal committees' only. It is also pointed out that 15 days' time to was allowed to submit objections as to the questions and answers in compliance of the directions by this court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra).

Objections to 226 questions out of 510 submitted by the participating candidates, including those objected by the petitioners, were duly considered by the 'Re-appraisal Committee' and the Committee has suggested either bonus marks for more than one correct answer in respect of 9 questions only. Complying with the suggestions of the 'Re-appraisal Committee', the respondents prepared the final answer keys and declared the result of the Teacher Grade III (Level-1) examination on 11 th April, 2018.

9. Referring the plea of normalization of all the RTET/REET Examinations, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently argued that REET-2017 Examination and the previous examinations, were conducted on the same syllabus as prescribed (26 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] and no question of the REET-2017 Examination is out of that syllabus. Further, the RTE Act, 2009, does not require any such normalization or equalization and the power to decide the issue of clubbing the TETs of different years is a matter of policy, for which the policy maker is the State. It is also contended that NCTE under Section 23 of RTE Act, 2009, provides for clubbing, without any such equalization, and Clause 11 prescribes TET pass certificate valid for appointment upto 7 years.

10. It is pointed out that opinion in the case of Sher Singh (supra), would reflect that the Division Bench dealt with the selection of teachers for the post of Teacher Grade-III-Level-2 (Class VI-VIII) and not the teachers post of Level - 1 (Class I - V).

The criteria for the Level - 2 is subject wise whereas for Level - 1 its not as so. And thus, there is no requirement of academic consideration in the matter of selection for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level - 1).

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

12. In view of the conspicuous facts of the matters at hand as noted hereinabove; it is evident that in the case of Sher Singh And Ors vs Dinesh Singh And Ors, decided on 27 April, 2017, the Division Bench of this Court dealt with the selection of Teacher Grade-III (Level-2) while the present matters deal with the (27 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] selection of Teacher Grade-III (Level-1). Here, it will be relevant to take note of the text of para 35 of the judgement in the case of Sher Singh (supra), which reads thus:

35. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, as noted above, is limited to as to how the merit is to be prepared. We find that as per the advertisement, which requires a candidate to have a particular minimum educational qualification and also to have REET eligibility, has decided to prepare merit only on the basis of the marks obtained in the REET which has resulted in (37 of

38) [ SAW-1464/2016] causing ambiguity, confusion and administrative chaotic situation where a candidate may be able to secure appointment as a Teacher in a particular subject, even though he may not have studied that subject at all. Such cannot be the purpose of selection and we, therefore, hold that the advertisement condition of preparation of merit itself being vague and contrary to the purpose sought to be achieved, deserves to be set aside and we accordingly do so. It may also be noted that a subject Teacher of level-2 is also entitled for further promotion under the relevant educational service rules in that subject to the level of Teacher Gr. II in order to teach higher classes. If a candidate enters on the lower post, even without having the minimum qualifications in that subject, would amount to resulting in a chaotic situation.

13. A glance of para 35 (supra), would reflect that the Division Bench in no uncertain terms clarified the need of academic consideration in the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-2), for the candidate may be selected for a particular subject even though he might not have studied that subject at all which would indeed be adverse to the quality and education system. Thus, academics are required to be considered for appointing a Teacher Grade-III (Level-2), along with the TET examination of the candidate. While in the matters at hand, selection for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-1), the applications are not filed for the TET Examination subject wise as the post involved herein is for classes I - V. Hence, there is no (28 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] requirement of considering academic qualification of the candidate for the said post.

14. The question whether the High Court can go into the issue of correctness of model key answers; has been examined by the Apex Court of the land in a catena of judgments. At this juncture, it will be profitable to take note of the opinions referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the parties in this reference.

15. In the case of Kanpur University, through Vice-

Chancellor and Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta and Ors.:(1983) 4 SCC 309, the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms held that the Government in order to avoid a recurrence of lapses, of the nature one at hand, in the system of examinations, should compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the relevant combined test. In this reference, the relevant text of the judgment reads thus:

"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 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 (29 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] 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.

17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.

18. If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a text- book which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has more than its fair share of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problem are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants will come forward for doing the job and forces and counter- forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which is prescribed for the test is not the correct answer.

(30 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system of 'Multiple Choice Objective-type test', care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer, It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it.

20. Twenty-seven students in all were concerned with these proceedings, out of whom 8 were admitted to the B.D.S. course, 3 were admitted to the M.B.B.S. course last year itself in place of the students who dropped out and 5 have succeeded in getting admission this year. Omitting 8 of the respondents who have been already admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, the remaining 19 shall have to be given admission as directed by the High Court. If the key answer was not wrong as it has turned out to be, they would have succeeded in getting admission. In view of the findings of the High Court, -the question naturally arose as to how the marks were to be allotted to the respondents for the three questions answered by them and which were wrongly assessed by the University. The High Court has held that the respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very questions, since 1 mark was deducted from their total for each of the questions wrongly answered by them. Putting it briefly, such of the respondents as are found to have attempted the three questions or any of them would be entitled to an addition of 4 marks per question. If the answer-books are reassessed in accordance with this formula, the respondents would be entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, about which there is no dispute. Accordingly, we confirm the directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and the admission of the respondents to the M.B.B.S. course."

(31 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

16. In the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak:AIR 2017 SC 3612, the Apex Court of the land in no uncertain terms observed that Appropriate Government may in its own wisdom decide as to the eligibility of the candidates on the basis of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). Here, it will be relevant to take note of the text of paragraph 12 to 17, which reads thus:

12. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Main contention raised on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh is that while it was permissible for the Central Government to lay down eligibility qualifications for appointment of a teacher for elementary education by virtue of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the NCTE could not lay down any guideline so as to affect the power of a State to prescribe norms for selection of a teacher consistent with the qualifications Under Section 23 of the RTE Act.

13. On the other hand, the stand of the original writ Petitioners is that the subject of education falls under Entry 25 of List III of 7th Schedule of the Constitution after the 42nd Amendment. Thus, by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution, the law made by the Parliament prevails over any law made by the State. It was submitted that The NCTE Act has been enacted by the Parliament to achieve 'planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system'. The Council constituted under the Act is empowered to issue guidelines Under Sections 12 and 12A for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and also to lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher. Further, vide Notification dated 31st March, 2010 Under Section 23 of the RTE Act, the Central Government has authorized the NCTE as the 'academic authority' to lay down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

14. Learned Counsel for the NCTE submitted that notification dated 11th February, 2011 suggesting weightage to TET marks was merely a guideline and was not intended to be binding on the States. While TET was a mandatory requirement, weightage to the marks in the (32 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] TET was merely a suggestion. This stand has also been taken by some of the learned Counsel in connected matters. Reliance was placed on the stand of the NCTE in its affidavit dated 1st May, 2014 in CWP 346 of 2013 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court as follows:

That in view of the said recommendations of the Committee, it is stated that the guidelines contained in Clause 10 and 11 of NCTE guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 are directory in nature. Appropriate Government may in its own wisdom decide as to the eligible candidates on the basis of having qualified the Central Teachers Eligibility Test. However, education being the subject matter of concurrent list of the power to frame appropriate legislation/Regulations/rules works with the appropriate legislature of the State Government and as such State Government is well within as rights to prescribe the qualification of eligibility in the form that the candidates wanting to apply for the said post must necessarily qualify the Teachers Eligibility Test of said State. There would be no legality in the same and merely because a state government had failed to conduct the State Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) in a given year would not amount to taking a decision not to hold the exams and to hold the candidates having qualified Central Teacher Eligibility Test as eligible.

15. Reliance was also placed on clarification dated 2nd September, 2016 by NCTE in reply to a question under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (at page No. 733 of the SLP paper book in SLP(Civil) No. 1121 of 2017) as follows:

1. CTET/TET is an examination to qualify to become eligible for appointment as a teacher from classes I to VIII.

2. There is no binding to State/Central Government to select the candidate as a teacher basis on TET marks.

TET is just eligibility for the appointment of teachers.

16. There is no manner of doubt that the NCTE, acting as an 'academic authority' Under Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Central Government as well as Under Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, was competent to issue Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 and 11th (33 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] February, 2011. The State Government was under

obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. However, since NCTE itself has taken the stand that notification dated 11th February, 2011 with regard to the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the view of the High Court in quashing the 15th Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be interfered with. Accordingly, while we uphold the view that qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are binding, requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement.

17. As a result of above, in normal course the State would have been at liberty to proceed with the selection in terms of advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 in accordance with the amended Rules by way of 15th amendment, in view of developments which have taken place during pendency of these appeals, the said advertisement cannot proceed and while upholding the said advertisement, relief has to be moulded in the light of developments that have taken place in the interregnum.

17. In the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana and Ors.: (1979) 1 SCC 572, Supreme Court held that Article 14, is not a voodoo which visits with invalidation every executive or legislative fusion of things or categories where there are no pronounced inequalities. In this reference, the relevant text, reads thus:

7. The Malabar area has been regarded as notoriously backward from the point of view of collegiate education so much so, the number of colleges which provide pre-

degree courses necessary by way of qualification for entrance into the medical colleges, are relatively fewer and, on the contrary, the remaining part of the State thanks to many factors, has been on a higher level, with colleges more numerous and pre-degree students more prolific. Geographic justice, a component of social justice, has to take note of these comparative imbalances. Rightly, therefore, the State Government, based on certain reports of Commissions, considered the (34 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] two territorial divisions as separate units and regulated seat allocations to medical colleges in the State on an equitable basis. The social thrust of the classification, based on geographical dissimilarities, was the core factor in formulation of that scheme of admissions. This principle found favour with the High Court in its Full Bench ruling in Rafia Rahim's State of Kerala v. Rafia Rahim, 1978 KLT 369 case. While over the years, amelioration produced by State Plans has reduced the degree of backwardness, the fact remains that substantial equalisation of opportunities between the two areas is a "consummation devoutly to be wished." We agree with the High Court that in considering the question of the educational backwardness of a particular class of people, or a particular tract of territory of this State, we cannot forget that the evolution of human society and its march from backwardness to progress must essentially be a slow and gradual process. It is not as if, by a Government or executive fiat, a class of people or a bit of territory has been condemned to backwardness, and with the lifting of the ban by efflux of time or otherwise, they automatically spring back into a progressive or forward class of people or tract. It is useful to recall the observations made by this Court in State of Kerala v. Jacob Mathew:

11. The principle of reservation with weightage for the geographical area of the Malabar District has our approval in endorsement of the view of the High Court. An earlier decision of the Kerala High Court 1964 KLT 298 gave rise to a Commission appointed to recommend which sections of the people required special treatment under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, having regard to their social and educational conditions. That Commission, inter alia accepted the educational backwardness of the Malabar area and recommended equitable allocation of seats on that footing. Substantially founding itself on these recommendations but modifying them in some measure Government hammered out a formula, a basic feature of which was pooling together the applications for admission to the four medical colleges in the State in one consolidated list and selecting students for medical courses strictly according to the marl secured-

of course, making allowance for seats reserved for a limit percentage of students from outside and the (35 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] customary bonus of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes. This part of the 'selection calculus' is beyond cavil before u as the nation with all its social engineering boasts and all its tumultuous bungling, is distances away from human justice through human lav The rough and tumble of academic life, based on the Pooling System seemed to run smooth for some years when a new attack was mounted on it in the High Court with constitutional artillery from the in exhaust able armoury of Article 14. A Full Bench hit the scheme fatally this time not with the familiar but fruitless archery of geographical discrimination but with the weaponry of 'reverse discrimination' in a different manifestation.

12. The strategy of attack was neatly expressed by the learned Single Judge whose judgment on this point was endorsed by the Full Bench Discrimination was discovered by the Court in attributing parity to the marks of examinees in pre-degree and degree courses of the Calicut University with those of the candidates of the Kerala University. The Full Bench framed the question, tell-tale fashion:

"The question is not whether one University is superior to the other or maintains higher standards in the matter of syllabus, examination and evaluation than the other, but whether the operation of different Universities with varying standards of their own is productive of inequality.

13. The descriptive presentation of this discriminatory facet was given by the learned single Judge in the same case:

To compare the marks obtained by students of two different Universities valued by different examiners on answer papers of different patterns may not be the proper mode of determining comparative merit. Even in the case of candidates appearing for the same examination in the same university there may be a cause for complaint in the matter of marks awarded to the candidates. Quite often revaluation has shown that at least in some cases there is justification for the plea for such revaluation. Different examiners value the answer papers and though there is a Chief Examiner his role is quite limited. But these are inevitable and the marginal errors may have to be ignored. By and large the comparative merits of the (36 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] candidates will be reflected in the marks they obtain in the examination to which all candidates are uniformly subjected to. But the same could not be said in the case of examinations conducted by two or more Universities. It is well-known that sometimes question papers are tough and sometimes valuation is liberal. Quite often valuation is guided by the percentage of pass expected in an examination. Moderation is also resorted to. While all these may work uniformly on all the candidates appearing for the same examination in the same University that could not be the case with regard to the Candidates appearing for the same qualifying examination from another University writing different papers, which are valued by a different set of examiners. When comparison is between two candidates passing out from two Universities taking respective examinations of the Universities the equation of candidates in matters where near-accuracy is called for becomes difficult. May be the examinations are similar and the valuation also is similar, but the other factors cannot be ruled out. If admissions to courses like medicine and engineering is to be on the basis that the best talent is to be preferred, where students from more than one University passing the qualifying examination have to compete some method other than comparing their marks should be devised to determine their comparative talent.

The Full Bench agreed with this anathematization of equal treatment of 'unequals' and voided the Selection Process. The Court, with helpful realism, concluded by adding a positive guideline to the declaration of nullification:

As a result of our discussion, we are of the opinion, that the scheme of selection for admission to the Medical Colleges on an assessment of merit of students drawn from different Universities with no uniformity of standards is objectionable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We grant a declaration to the writ-petitioner to that effect. We deny effective relief to the writ-petitioner on account of non-joinder of the selected candidates, and the futility and ineffectiveness of upsetting the selections and directing fresh admission at this stage. We consider that the best scheme of selection in the circumstances would be the method of selection of (37 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] candidates by holding a uniform Entrance Examination to secure uniformity of standards, as recommended by the Indian Medical Council-vide Exts. P5 and P8-and as endorsed by the University authorities (vide Ex. P7). We direct the State Government to forthwith devise a scheme of selection by holding such an Entrance Examination and publish the same within three months from today so that the candidates wishing to apply for selection to the Medical Colleges of this State for the next academic year, have due notice of the scheme of selection. The object being to secure uniformity of standards for assessment and evaluation of students drawn from different Universities, our direction should not be understood as unalterably and inelastically fixing the limits for Governmental action. Methods for securing uniformity of syllabus, pattern of examination, and mode of evaluation in the different Universities, would well be within the province of the Government to undertake. We allow this writ appeal to the limited extent indicated above.

14. In the end, the writ petitioner won the battle but lost the war, for she got an abstract declaration that her exclusion was invalid but was denied the concrete direction to be admitted into the college.

15. We are not impressed much with the surmise which colours the reasoning of the Full Bench and the learned Single Judge that there is such substantial difference in the pre-degree courses and evaluations between the sister universities within the same State that the breach of Article 14 by equal treatment of the marks unequally secured by examinees in the two universities may be spelt out. It is trite law that every inconsequential differentiation between two things does not constitute the vice of discrimination, if law clubs them together ignoring venial variances. Article 14 is not a voodoo which visits with invalidation every executive or legislative fusion of things or categories where there are no pronounced inequalities. Mathematical equality is not the touchstone of constitutionality.

Mini-classifications based on micro-distinctions are false to our egalitarian faith and only substantial and straightforward cassifications plainly promoting relevant goals can have constitutional validity. To overdo classification is to undo equality.

(38 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] In the same ruling there was a caveat entered by Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) against "a charter for making minute and microcosmic classifications." What is more, a large latitude is allowed in this area to the State to classify or declassify based on diverse considerations of relevant pragmatism, and the judiciary should not "rush in" where the executive warily treads. The core question is whether there is such substantial differentiation between the two universities in regard to the pre-degree or degree courses and system of examinations as too glaring to imperil the equal protection clause. The presumption is in favour of the vires of legislative and executive action where Article 14 is the basis of challenge. We see no factual disparities disclosed in the Full Bench ruling to reach the result of substantial difference in the syllabi, in the pattern of examinations, in the marking systems or in the choice of the examiners so as to warrant invalidation on account of equal regard being accorded to the marks secured by the examinees from the two universities. We cannot forget that many colleges are run by the State or institutional managements where pre-degree or degree courses are undertaken. The teachers move from one university jurisdiction to the other, the teaching material is inevitably of a like nature; the subjects taught must ordinarily be alike. The examiners are usually drawn from within the State or neighbouring States. Even the composition of the academic bodies in the two universities may have common members. The University Acts themselves are substantially similar. To surmise discrimination from possibilities is alien to the forensic process in the absence of hard facts. We are aware that there are Universities and Universities, that gross divergences among them exist affecting the quality of the teaching and the marking, the anomalies of grading and the absurdity or equating the end products on the blind assumption that the same marks mean the same excellence. But not glib surmises but solid facts supply the sinews of discriminatory inequality or equality. Going by vague reports, some backward universities and colleges have degenerated into degree-dealers bringing rapid discredit to Indian academic status.

(39 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

16. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has constituted the Medical Council of India as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. Obviously, this high-powered Council has power to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. Thus there is an overall invigilation by the Medical Council to prevent sub- standard entrance qualifications for medical courses.

17. The vagarious element in marking and moderation of marks may be a fact of life, but too marginal to qualify for substantial difference unless otherwise made out. Indeed, there may be differences among the colleges under the same University, among the examiners in the same university. Such fleeting factors or ephemeral differences cannot be the solid foundation for a substantial differentiation which is the necessary pre-condition for quashing an executive or legislative act as too discriminatory to satisfy the egalitarian essence of Article 14. The functional validation of the writ jurisdiction is an appropriate examination of the substantiality of the alleged disparity. We do not, however, proceed finally to pronounce on this point with reference to the two universities since nothing is available before us, or, for that matter, was before the High Court to warrant a fair conclusion on the issue. We are persuaded to make these observations for future guidance, so that academic schemes may not be struck down as arbitrary or irrational save where some sound basis has been laid."

18. In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Ors. Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors.: (1984) 4 SCC 27, dealing with the issue of public interest and fair play, it has been held thus:

16. In our opinion, the aforesaid approach made by the High Court is wholly incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate (40 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-

making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case and hence there was no scope at all for the High Court to invalidate the provision contained in Clause (3) of Regulation 104 as ultra vires on the grounds of its being in excess of the regulation-making power conferred on the Board. Equally untenable, in our opinion is the next and last ground by the High Court for striking down Clause (3) of Regulation 104 as unreasonable, namely, that it is in the nature of a bye-law and is ultra vires on the ground of its being an unreasonable provision. It is clear from the scheme of the Act and more particularly, Section 18, 19 and 34 that the legislature has laid down in broad terms its policy to provide for the establishment of a State Board and Divisional Boards to regulate matters pertaining to secondary and higher secondary education and it has authorised the State Government in the first instance and subsequently the Board to enunciate the details for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act by framing regulations. It is a common legislative practice that the legislature may choose to lay down only the general policy and leave to its delegate to make detailed provisions for carrying into effect the said policy and effectuate the purposes of the Statute by framing rules/regulations which are in the nature of subordinate legislation. Section 3(39) of the (41 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which defines the 'rule' states: Rule shall mean a rule made in exercise of the power under any enactment and shall include any regulation made under a rule or under any enactment." It is important to notice that a distinct power of making bye-laws has been conferred by the Act on the State Board Under Section 38. The legislature has thus maintained in the Statute in question a clear distinction between 'bye-laws' and 'regulations'. The bye-laws to be framed Under Section 38 are to relate only to procedural matters concerning the holding of meetings of State Board, Divisional Boards and the Committee, the quorum required, etc More important matters affecting the rights of parties and laying down the manner in which the provisions of the Act are to be carried into effect have been reserved to be provided for by regulations made Under Section 36. The legislature, while enacting Sections 36 and 38, must be assumed to have been fully aware of the niceties of the legal position governing the distinction between rules/regulations properly so called and bye-laws. When the statute contains a clear indication that the distinct regulation-making power conferred Under Section 36 was not intended as a power merely to frame bye-laws, it is not open to the Court to ignore the same and treat the regulations made Under Section 36 as mere bye-laws in order to bring them within the scope of justiciability by applying the test of reasonableness.

22. As already noticed, one of the principal factors which appears to have weighed with the High Court is that in certain stray instances (specific instances referred to in the Judgment are only about three in number), errors or irregularities had gone unnoticed in the past even after verification of the concerned answer books had been conducted according to the existing procedure and it was only after further scrutiny made either on orders of court or in the wake of contentions raised in petitions filed before a court that such errors or irregularities were ultimately discovered. In this connection we consider it necessary to recall the observations made by Krishna Iyer, J in R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills that "a law has to be adjudged for its constitutionality by the generality of cases it covers, not by the freaks and exceptions it martyrs". It is seen from the affidavits (42 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] that form part of the record of this case that the three Divisional Boards conduct the H.S.C. examinations twice every year, i.e. in March and October every year. The number of candidates who appeared for the H.S.C. examination in March 1980 was 1, 15, 364. Likewise, the S.S.C. Public examination is also conducted by the Divisional Boards twice during the year, and the number of candidates appearing in the said examination is very much larger than the number appearing in the H.S.C. examination. From the figures furnished by the Board, it is seen that there is a progressive increase from year to year in the number of candidates appearing in both these public examinations. In March 1980, a total number of 2, 99, 267 had appeared in the S.S.C. examination. Considering the enormity of the task of evaluation discharged by the Board through the examiners appointed by it, it is really a matter for satisfaction that proved instances of errors and irregularities have been so few as to be counted on one's fingers. Instead of viewing the matter from this correct perspective, we regret to find the fact that the High Court laid undue and exaggerated stress on some stray instance and made it a basis for reaching the conclusion that reasonable fair play to the candidates can be assured only if the right of disclosure and personal inspection is allowed to the candidates as part of the process of verification. This approach does not appeal to us as legally correct or soud. We do not find it possible to uphold the view expressed by the High Court that Clause (3) of Regulation 104 which disentitles the examinees to claim disclosure and inspection of the answer books and declares those documents to be confidential is "defeasive of the corrective powers of the Board under Regulations 102 and 104 and the right of verification under Regulation 104 (1) as also destructive of the confidence of public in the efficacy of the system." The reasons which prompted the High Court to reach the afore-mentioned conclusion are to be found in the following observations occurring in para 33 of the Judgment of Deshpande, J :

29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defensive of the same. As has been repeatedly (43 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] pointed out by this court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-

law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.

31. In the result, both the Judgments of the High Court are set aside and the two groups of Writ Petitions which were allowed under those judgments will now stand dismissed. These appeals are accordingly allowed. The appellant will get its costs from the respondents."

19. In the case of V. Lavanya and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu: (2017) 1 SCC 332, dealing with the issue of equivalence and normalization, the Apex Court of the land, held thus:

"40. The Appellants have maintained that while prescribing the marks for performance in Higher Secondary Examination, the Respondents have failed to take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, ICSE, State Boards etc.) conducting Higher Secondary Examination and difference in their marks awarding patterns. As also, the Appellants have alleged that Respondents failed to consider different streams of education while formulating the grading pattern. It is submitted that unless and until the Respondents take note of difference in marking scheme of Education boards, as also the marking scheme of different streams such as Arts, Science etc. a valid grading system cannot be formulated. Equivalence of (44 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] academic qualifications is a matter for experts and courts normally do not interfere with the decisions of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts (vide University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao and Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India. We hold that it is the prerogative of State-Authorities to formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the Respondents, in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the Respondent-State. Moreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the Appellants have completed their High Secondary examination from the State Boards.

41. The contention that different Boards of Examination have different standards and the examiners who evaluate the scripts are in some places more liberal than others and that the candidates who acquired qualifications decades back had to suffer strict evaluation as compared to the candidates who have qualified in the recent past facing liberal evaluation criteria, are all hypothetical arguments without any pleading and supporting material disclosed in the Writ Petitions. As noted earlier, weightage of marks for academic performance and TET fixed vide G.O.(Ms.) No. 252 dated 05.10.2012 continues to be the same even after issuing G.O.(Ms.) No. 71 dated 30.05.2014. Having taken up the examination as per G.O.(Ms.) No. 252, the Appellants cannot challenge the award of weightage for the distribution of marks for academic performance with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. The Appellants are not justified in challenging every rational decision taken by the Respondents to make the selection process more fair and reasonable merely because the outcome does not favour the limited individual interests of the Appellants."

20. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.: (2018) 2 SCC 357, while dealing with the issue of re-

evaluation and holding that it is not permissible for High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, observed thus:

(45 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

3. More than 36,000 candidates took the written examination held pursuant to the advertisement and the result of the written examination was declared by the Board on 18th June, 2010. It may be mentioned that the written examination was based on multiple choice answers which were to be scanned on OMR sheets.

5. Some candidates who were not successful in the written examination or in the interview filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court between 2010 and 2011. All these writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The reasons for dismissal of these writ petitions were that there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 or the Rules framed thereunder. Reliance was also placed by the learned Single Judge for dismissing writ petitions on the decision of this Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur in which this Court considered a large number of its earlier decisions and held:

"26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation."

8. In must be recorded that the learned Single Judge did refer to and cite several decisions of this Court on the subject or re-evaluation but unfortunately did not appreciate the law laid down. The learned Single Judge relied on Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University but failed to appreciate that the six disputed answers under consideration in that case were demonstrably wrong and this was not in dispute and even the learned Counsel appearing for the University did not question this fact. The decision is clearly distinguishable on facts.

16. We are pained that an examination for recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers advertised in January, 2009 has still not attained finality even after the passage of more than eight years. The system of holding public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and reviewed so that selected candidates are not drawn into litigation which could go on for several years. Be that as it may, we have still to tackle the issues before us.

(46 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

17. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder do not provide for any re- evaluation of the answer sheets and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have undertaken that exercise at all. Reference was made to the following passage from Mukesh Thakur which considered several decisions on the subject and held:

"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers 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 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. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.

18. A complete hands-off or no-interference approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur nor has it been suggested in any other decision of this Court-the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent.

19. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, this Court took the view that "16.... 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."

In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in (47 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key answer. To prevent such challenges, this Court recommended a few steps to be taken by the examination authorities and among them are: (i) Establishing a system of moderation; (ii) Avoid any ambiguity in the questions, including those that might be caused by translation; and (iii) Prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect question and no marks be assigned to it.

24. On the validity of the Regulations, this Court held that they were not illegal or unreasonable or ultra vires the Rule making power conferred by statute. It was then said:

"16....The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate Regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a Rule or Regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the Regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case.....

It was also noted by this Court that:

"22........the High Court has ignored the cardinal principle that it is not within the legitimate domain of the Court to determine whether the purpose of a statute can be served better by adopting any policy different from what has been laid down by the Legislature or its delegate and to strike down as unreasonable a bye-law (assuming for the purpose of discussion that the impugned Regulation is a bye-law) (48 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] merely on the ground that the policy enunciated therein does not meet with the approval of the Court in regard to its efficaciousness for implementation of the object and purposes of the Act."

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;

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."

(49 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

21. In the case of U.P.P.S.C., Through its Chairman & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr.:Civil Appeal No. 5838/18, while considering the ambit of jurisdiction and scope of judicial review available in such cases, held thus:

3. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad on 30.03.2018.

6. It is not disputed before us that the Commission initially constituted two separate expert committees; one comprising of 15 experts and the other comprising of 18 experts. This was done even before the key answers were displayed on the official website of the Commission. After these two committees gave their expert opinion the key answers were uploaded on the official website of the Commission during the period 18.11.2017 to 23.11.2017. Objections to the key answers were to be submitted by 24.11.2017.

8. In the appeal filed by the Commission it has been urged that the High Court transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of judicial review available in such cases and it should not have overruled the view of the Commission which was based on the report of two committees of experts. On the other hand one of the original writ Petitioners in his appeal claims that as far as the question where the High Court has held more than one answer is correct, the same should be deleted and in respect of another question it is urged that the High Court wrongly accepted the answer of the Commission.

9. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us.

11. In Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms:

(50 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

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 scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

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.

We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in such matters:

"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.

(51 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

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 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.

12. 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.

(52 of 65) [CW-9603/2018]

13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct."

22. In the case of Manish Ujwal and Others Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraawati University and Others.:

(2005) 13 SCC 744, applying the principles enunciated in the case of Kanpur University (supra), the Apex Court of the land, observed that once the key answer(s) being demonstrably wrong, the participating candidates cannot be made suffer for the fault and negligence of the University. Here, it will be relevant to take note of the text relevant, which reads thus:

5. On the aforesaid three dates, examinations were held for Physics, Chemistry and Biology subjects respectively. The results were declared on 2nd May, 2005 on internet and published in the newspapers on 23rd May, 2005. The total marks allotted to each subject were 300, i.e., 900 in total. Each paper had 100 questions of trade marks each. The marking system provided for reducing one mark for each wrong answer, which means that negative marking system was adopted.

The answers were objective giving multiple choices to the students, i.e., A/B/C/D. The controversy before the High Court and again agitated before this Court by the students after being unsuccessful before the High Court is the wrong key answers pertaining to various answers in all the three subjects of Physics, Chemistry (53 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] and Biology. The learned Single Judge sought for the expert opinion of Jodhpur University and Udaipur University. For the present purpose, we are not noticing and considering those key answers in respect/whereof there is a difference of opinion. We are considering only those key answers or which there is unanimity. Admittedly, six key answers; one in relation to Physics; two in relation to Chemistry; and three in relation to Biology were incorrect and erroneous. The opinion of the experts of both Jodhpur and Udaipur Universities as regards the said questions was same, according to which the key answers, as provided by the respondent- University, were erroneous. The question as to whether in respect of these questions, the key answers provided by the University were erroneous and wrong has not presented any difficulty to this Court in view of a fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the University before us. The learned counsel, has admitted that the key answers Were wrong. The said six questions and the key answer's, as provided, and the correct answers are as under:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

S.No.          Question       Subject     Answer as per         Correct
                                          University key        answer
1.      P54, Q 18, R7, S82    Physics     A                     D
2.      P39, Q 26, R92, S27   Chemistry   A                     B
3.      P40, Q 27, R93, S28   Chemistry   C                     B
4.      P6, Q 26, R46, S31    Biology     D                     B
5.      P80, Q 90, R85, S55   Biology     B                     D
6.      P81, Q 91, R86, S56   Biology     A                     D

6. We are not referring to the answers given by the experts from the Jodhpur and Udaipur Universities in respect of other questions in view of the difference of opinion and are proceeding only on the basis of the erroneous key answers in relation of the aforesaid six questions. As to the impact of evaluating answers by feeding incorrect keys, at present, it may not be exactly possible to comment, also keeping in view the adopting of negative marking system and a very tough cut-throat competition amongst the students.

9. In Kanpur University, through vice-Chancellor and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors., considering similar problem, this Court held that there is an assumption about the key answers being correct and in case of doubt, the court would unquestionably prefer the key answer. It as for this reason that we have not referred to those key answers in respect whereof there is a (54 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] doubt as a result of difference of opinion between experts. Regarding the key answers in respect whereof the matter, is beyond the realm of doubt, this. Court has held that it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. There is No dispute about the aforesaid six key answers being demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not been questioned by the learned counsel for the University. In this view, students cannot be made to suffer for the fault and negligence of the University.

10. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that "it cannot be said with certainty that answers to six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect". As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or interveners or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be mace to suffer on account of errors committed by the University.

For the present, we say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reasons. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student and a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answer; the second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in education matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answer is adopted by concerned persons, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including the disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong (55 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] and demonstrably erroneous key answers but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case."

Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta and Ors. (no mention of paragraph but I take 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 according to judgment) "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 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, (56 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] 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.

17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.

18. If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has more than its fair share of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problem are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants will come forward for doing the job and forces and counter- forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which is prescribed for the test is not the correct answer. Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system of 'Multiple Choice Objective-type test', care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer, It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a (57 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it.

20. Twenty-seven students in all were concerned with these proceedings, out of whom 8 were admitted to the B.D.S. course, 3 were admitted to the M.B.B.S. course last year itself in place of the students who dropped out and 5 have succeeded in getting admission this year. Omitting 8 of the respondents who have been already admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, the remaining 19 shall have to be given admission as directed by the High Court. If the key answer was not wrong as it has turned out to be, they would have succeeded in getting admission. In view of the findings of the High Court,

-the question naturally arose as to how the marks were to be allotted to the respondents for the three questions answered by them and which were wrongly assessed by the University. The High Court has held that the respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very questions, since 1 mark was deducted from their total for each of the questions wrongly answered by them. Putting it briefly, such of the respondents as are found to have attempted the three questions or any of them would be entitled to an addition of 4 marks per question. If the answer-books are reassessed in accordance with this formula, the respondents would be entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, about which there is no dispute. Accordingly, we confirm the directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and the admission of the respondents to the M.B.B.S. course."

23. In the case of Sanjay Singh and Ors. vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors. :(2007) 3 SCC 720, the Apex Court of the land, observed thus:

"23. When a large number of candidates appear for an examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of the answer- scripts. Where (58 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] the number of candidates taking the examination are limited and only one examiner (preferably the paper- setter himself) evaluates the answer-scripts, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in the valuation. But where a large number of candidates take the examination, it will not be possible to get all the answer- scripts evaluated by the same examiner. It, therefore, becomes necessary to distribute the answer-scripts among several examiners for valuation with the paper- setter (or other senior person) acting as the Head Examiner. When more than one examiner evaluate the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of the respective examiner will creep into the marks awarded by him to the answer- scripts allotted to him for valuation. Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the answer-scripts. Inevitably therefore, even when experienced examiners receive equal batches of answer scripts, there is difference in average marks and the range of marks awarded, thereby affecting the merit of individual candidates. This apart, there is 'Hawk- Dove' effect. Some examiners are liberal in valuation and tend to award more marks. Some examiners are strict and tend to give less marks. Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who are strict, there may be variance in the degree of strictness or liberality. This means that if the same answer-script is given to different examiners, there is all likelihood of different marks being assigned. If a very well written answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre answer-script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre answer-script may be awarded more marks than the excellent answer-script. In other words, there is 'reduced valuation' by a strict examiner and 'enhanced valuation' by a liberal examiner. This is known as 'examiner variability' or 'Hawk-Dove effect'. Therefore, there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the Examiners so that the effect of 'examiner subjectivity' or 'examiner variability' is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic method of moderation is as follows:

(i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the Head Examiner for the subject. He is selected from amongst senior academicians/scholars/senior civil servants/Judges. Where the case of a large number of candidates, more than one examiner is appointed and each (59 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] of them is allotted around 300 answer-scripts for valuation.

(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the examiners is held soon after the examination.

They discuss thoroughly the question paper, the possible answers and the weightage to be given to various aspects of the answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions. The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed by the Head Examiner and variations in assigning marks are further discussed. After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the examiners are required to complete the valuation of answer scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about uniformity of assessment inter se the examiners. In spite of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to deviate from the expected or agreed norms, as their caution is overtaken by their propensity for strictness or liberality or eroticism or carelessness during the course of valuation. Therefore, certain further corrective steps become necessary.

(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the Head Examiner conducts a random sample survey of the corrected answer scripts to verify whether the norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually been followed by the examiners. The process of random sampling usually consists of scrutiny of some top level answer scripts and some answer books selected at random from the batches of answer scripts valued by each examiner. The top level answer books of each examiner are revalued by the Head Examiner who carries out such corrections or alterations in the award of marks as he, in his judgment, considers best, to achieve uniformity. (For this purpose, if necessary certain statistics like distribution of candidates in various marks ranges, the average percentage of marks, the highest and lowest award of marks etc. may also be prepared in respect of the valuation of each examiner.)

(iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted by each examiner, the Head Examiner may confirm the award of marks without any change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms, or suggest upward or downward moderation, the quantum of moderation varying according to the degree of liberality or strictness in marking. In regard to the top level answer (60 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] books revalued by the Head Examiner, his award of marks is accepted as final. As regards the other answer books below the top level, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the awards are moderated as per the recommendations made by the Head Examiner.

(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasible to have any standard moderation, the answer scripts valued by such examiner are revalued either by the Head Examiner or any other Examiner who is found to have followed the agreed norms.

(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examiner to assess the work of all the Examiners. In such a situation, one more level of Examiners is introduced. For every ten or twenty examiners, there will be a Head Examiner who checks the random samples as above. The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief Examiner to ensure proper results.

The above procedure of 'moderation' would bring in considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity.

24. In the Judicial Service Examination, the candidates were required to take the examination in respect of the all five subjects and the candidates did not have any option in regard to the subjects. In such a situation, moderation appears to be an ideal solution. But there are examinations which have a competitive situation where candidates have the option of selecting one or few among a variety of heterogeneous subjects and the number of students taking different options also vary and it becomes necessary to prepare a common merit list in respect of such candidates. Let us assume that some candidates take Mathematics as an optional subject and some take English as the optional subject. It is well- recognised that a mark of 70 out of 100 in mathematics does not mean the same thing as 70 out of 100 in English. In English 70 out of 100 may indicate to an outstanding student whereas in Mathematics, 70 out of 100 may merely indicate an average student. Some optional subjects may be very easy, when compared to others, (61 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] resulting in wide disparity in the marks secured by equally capable students. In such a situation, candidates who have opted for the easier subjects may steal an advantage over those who opted for difficult subjects. There is another possibility. The paper setters in regard to some optional subjects may set questions which are comparatively easier to answer when compared some paper setters in other subjects who set tougher questions difficult to answer. This may happens when for example, in a Civil Service examination, where Physics and Chemistry are optional papers, examiner 'A' sets a paper in Physics appropriate to a degree level and examiner 'B' sets a paper in Chemistry appropriate for matriculate level. In view of these peculiarities, there is a need to bring the assessment or valuation to a common scale so that the inter se merit of candidates who have opted for different subjects, can be ascertained. The moderation procedure referred to in the earlier para will solve only the problem of examiner variability, where the examiners are many, but valuation of answer scripts is in respect of a single subject. Moderation is no answer where the problem is to find inter se merit across several subjects, that is, where candidates take examination in different subjects. To solve the problem of inter se merit across different subjects, statistical experts have evolved a method known as scaling, that is creation of scaled score. Scaling places the scores from different tests or test forms on to a common scale. There are different methods of statistical scoring. Standard score method, linear standard score method, normalized equipercentile method are some of the recognized methods for scaling.

24. In the case of Mahinder Kumar and Ors. vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh through Registrar General and Ors.: (2013) 11 SCC 83, the Apex Court of the land, held thus:

"38. In a situation like this, where nearly 3000 candidates appeared for the written examination and the answer papers were evaluated by several District Judges, it cannot be held that there was even' scope for variation in the assessment of the answers and the award of marks valued by different valuers. The High Court in exercise of its authority under Rule 7, read along with para 9(iv) adopted a fair procedure to normalize the marks of the (62 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] candidates in order to asses their respective merits. Therefore, the expression evaluation used in para 9(iv), should be held to fully empower the High Court to even resort to such a step in a case like this, where more number of District Judges evaluated the answer sheets and thereby, it required the intervention of the High Court in its administrative side, to find a fair method by which the normalization of the marks could be worked out."

25. In the case of Dr. Naveen Agarwal and Ors. vs. State and Ors.:2012 (4) WLC (Raj.), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, observed thus:

"16. To obtain expert opinion, assistance of eminent Professor Dr. V. Natarajan was solicited on the methodology of statistical equivalence percentile procedure be examined to equalize the score marks of the students appeared on 11th & 14th February, 2012. It was suggested by Dr. Natarajan that using statistical equivalence percentile procedure in the result of such competitive/common entrance tests is universally acceptable and accordingly the score marks of candidates appeared on 11th & 14th February, 2012 can be equalized by adopting percentile method. However, the Academic Council, Core Committee and Grievance committee consisted of experts considered all the grievances of individual candidate relating to their apprehension of inequality of question papers for one & the same entrance test & allocation of marks thereof; and after due deliberations & interactions on the issues and the expert opinion solicited from Dr. V. Natrajan and taking note of methodology & process of applying statistical equivalence percentile (for short, "SEP") procedure finally approved the same for determination of merit of the candidates appeared on two dates 11th & 14th February, 2012 at eight centres, and to avoid advantage & disadvantage to any of the candidates, keeping in view fairness & transparency in the revised result so prepared based on experts report.

17. From the expert's opinion made available for perusal of the Court, it depicts that equating is a statistical process to make test scores across different forms of the same test interchangeable and this methodology of (63 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] equating is being used in numerous standardized assessments/tests like GRE, GMAT, SAT, and further by Indian Exam bodies/Exams like CAT, SCC, LSAT, NMAT & ICAR. However, for outcome of process, after equating of marks, all scores are placed on the same scale and any given equated score has the same meaning across any of the test forms that were equated. Equating is used where many examinations are often held in batches and equi- percentile equating is one of the tested methods for applying statistical equivalence percentile procedure."

26. From a survey of the opinions (supra), it would be evident that High Court will be justified to interfere with the key answers supplied by the paper setter, if it is clearly demonstrated that answers are wrong. Further, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well worsed in the particular subject would record it as correct for it would be unfair to punish the candidates for which accords as such wrong key answers. For the purpose of such determination reliance can be placed on the text book from which students/candidates derived the knowledge of the subject.

The State Government in order to avoid recurrence of such lapses, is required to compile under its on auspices a text book which should be prescribed for candidates desirous to participate in the combined test (vide Kanpur University).

27. With reference to the claim of the petitioners for normalizing marks of different examination of RTET-2011, RTET-2012 and REET-2015 and REET-2017, before proceedings with the selection on the teacher grade-III (Level-I), suffice it to say that certificate issued by the State (64 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] Respondents in the process of RTET/REET has a validity period of seven years. A candidate, therefore, who participated in the year 2011, is eligible on the strength of that certificate, to participate in the recruitment process for next seven years.

Thus, a candidate who wrote the same examination thereafter until 2017 and/or 2018, will not be justified in claiming in normalization/equivalization for equivalence of academic qualification is a matter for experts and Courts normally do not interfere with the decision of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts as has been held by the apex court of the land in the case of V. Lavanya and Ors.

(supra), on a survey of earlier opinions.

28. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a critical examination of the materials available on the record so also applying the principles deducible from the opinions referred to and relied; the writ applications seeking a direction for normalization/equalization of marks of different examinations of RTET/REET for the year 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2017, in the selection process involved herein, cannot be accepted.

29. The grievance raised as to the disputed questions, suffice it to say that the objections submitted earlier with reference to 226 questions only out of 510 questions, included these very questions. The respondents placed the disputed (65 of 65) [CW-9603/2018] questions, including those which are subject matter of the instant writ applications and "Expert Committee" examined and furnished its opinion. Hence, the challenge for the second time on inferential basis, contrary to the opinion of the "Expert Committee"; is not open for further interference in the factual matrix of the case at hand. That apart, the recruitment process cannot be made in never ending process.

Moreover, there is a presumption as to the correctness of the key-answers and even in the event of doubt, if any, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

30. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in view of the materials available on record so also in the factual matrix of the matters at hand; the writ applications, are devoid of any substance.

31. In the result, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.

32. No costs.

33. A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. Pcg/18-19 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur