Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satya Narayan Manmya vs Raj. Public Service Comm. Ajmer & Anr on 9 August, 2016
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9833/2009
Satya Narayan Manmya. VS. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9833/2009
Satya Narayan Manmya.
VS.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr.
Date of Order : 9.8.2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Mr.Usman Gani, for the petitioner.
Mr.Khet Singh, for the respondents.
<><><>
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner
Satya Narayan Manmya has approached this Court
challenging the suggested answer key proposed by
the respondent RPSC while conducting the written
examination for recruitment on the post of
Compounder/ Nurse Ayurved vide recruitment
notification dated 25.8.2008. The recruitment was
made through a written examination held on
29.6.2009. The petitioner participated therein. The
result of the written examination was declared on
19.8.2009 and an answer key was also published. The
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9833/2009
Satya Narayan Manmya. VS. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr.
2
petitioner did not make the cut off whereupon he, has
approached this Court through this writ petition
raising a grievance regarding 3 answers adopted by
the respondents for question nos.3, 11 and 46 in the
'C' series question paper which the petitioner
attempted.
In reply to the writ petition, the respondent
Commission has taken a stance that the entire answer
key was got revalidated through subject expert before
holding the examination. No candidate other than the
petitioner raised any objection regarding the answer
key adopted by the Commission. It is also asserted in
the reply that the cut off for the general category
wherein the petitioner applied was fixed at 106.76
marks. The petitioner secured 99.28 marks. Thus,
even if the petitioner's challenge is accepted and he is
given full marks for the three questions disputed by
him, then too, he would secure a total of 106.28
marks and thus, still would not make the cut off.
Thus, the respondents have submitted that the writ
petition should be dismissed. It has also been
asserted in the reply that the respondent Commission
made its recommendations to the State Government
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9833/2009
Satya Narayan Manmya. VS. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr.
3
pursuant to the declaration of result and all the
advertised posts have been filled in long back.
This Court, whilst considering the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
ordered on 30.10.2015 that the relevant material
including the consideration made by the expert
committee regarding the 3 questions in regards
whereto, the petitioner has raised a dispute by way of
this writ petition be placed for the Court's
consideration. Pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit
has been filed by the Secretary of RPSC attempting to
explain in detail the controversy raised by the
petitioner.
I have considered the arguments advanced at
the Bar and have perused the material available on
record and, so also, the material considered by the
subject experts while revalidating the answering key.
After considering the entire gamut of facts and the
instances cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner for challenging the answers adopted by the
respondent Commission for the disputed questions, I
am of the opinion that the petitioner has a valid
challenge as regards the question no.3. The question
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9833/2009
Satya Narayan Manmya. VS. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr.
4
deals with the normal rate of respiration of human
beings. The answer which was adopted by the
respondent Commission to the said question is option
(1) 18 to 20. In my opinion considering the medical
jurisprudence and principles of Physiology, the
question itself is very vague. Normal respiration rate
varies as per age of the human being. Whereas, a just
born baby has 30-40 respirations per minute, the rate
of a healthy adult person varies between 12-20
respirations per minute. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that any of the four options provided in the
answer key can be treated to be correct.
Consequently, the question itself being vague, should
have been discarded.
The second dispute has been raised regarding
question no.11. The correct answer which has been
adopted by the respondent Commission to this
question is option (1) Kala. After having examined the
material placed on record by the petitioner in support
of his protest against the option adopted by the
respondent Commission, I am of the opinion that the
option Kala which has been accepted as correct by the
respondent Commission cannot be questioned to be
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9833/2009
Satya Narayan Manmya. VS. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr.
5
wrong.
The third objection has been raised regarding
question no.46 which is regarding Sanskars of Parad
(Mercury). The correct answer which has been
adopted by the respondent Commission to this
question is option (3) 18. Upon verifying from the
material placed on record by the petitioner, this Court
is of the opinion that answer option (3) 18 Sanskars
adopted by the Commission is correct. The petitioner
has ofcourse tried to suggest that 8 Sanskars is the
correct answer. However, as per the petitioner's own
material, 8 sanskars are prescribed for Deh Sidhi.
Total number of Sanskars prescribed for Parad are 18.
Thus, the answer adopted by RPSC cannot be said to
be wrong.
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out
a case to challenge only the answers adopted by the
Commission for the question no.3 of the question
paper. Nonetheless even if 2 marks for the said
question are allotted to the petitioner, he would
secure only 101.28 marks and even in that event,
would not be able to make the cut off for his category.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9833/2009
Satya Narayan Manmya. VS. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr.
6
Thus, in any eventuality, the petitioner would fail to
secure the requisite cut off marks even while partially
accepting the challenge to the answer keys adopted
by the respondent Commission and thus would not
come in merit. Therefore he was not entitled to be
selected in the questioned recruitment process.
Resultantly, the instant writ petition being devoid
of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/S.Phophaliya/