Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Praveen Senwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 September, 2022
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10276/2022
1. Praveen Senwar S/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years,
By Caste Jat, Resident Of Ratkudiya, Tehsil Bhopalgarh,
District Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. Lokendra Saran S/o Munni Ram, Aged About 23 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Nandwani, Post Raidhanu
Nagar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Gajendra Vishnoi S/o Ram Jas, Aged About 24 Years, By
Caste Vishnoi, Resident Of Village Bichpuri, Post Rajod,
Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.)
4. Govind Ram S/o Kunana Ram, Aged About 21 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Khushiya, Panchota, District
Nagaur (Raj.)
5. Harman Tarar S/o Lichaman Ram, Aged About 24 Years,
By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Meetha, Manjra, District
Nagaur (Raj.)
6. Rakesh Meghwal S/o Bishana Ram Meghwal, Aged About
23 Years, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Village Katar
Badi, Tehsil Bidasar, District Churu (Raj.)
7. Sitaram Godara S/o Madan Lal Godara, Aged About 20
Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Ward No. 08, Khokrana,
Tehsil Lunkaransar, District Bikaner (Raj.)
8. Om Prakash Punia S/o Prabhu Ram Punia, Aged About 24
Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of V.p.o. Kitasar, District
Bikaner (Raj.) 331803
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Employee Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its
Secretary At Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute
Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10156/2022
1. Manisha D/o Sata Ram, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of
Deramani, Sarano Ki Dhani, Panji, Tehsil Baytu, District
Barmer.
2. Ram Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/
o Vpo Gugriyal, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.
3. Rohitash Singh S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Thok Tiketa, Vpo Sinsini, Deeg, District Bharatpur.
4. Sandeep Kumar S/o Jile Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village Bighna, Post Gandala, Tehsil Behror, District
Alwar.
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM)
(2 of 14)
5. Ganpat Lal S/o Rava Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Village Sankariya, Post Khejariyali, District Jalore.
6. Rirmal Ram S/o Poora Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Mananiyon Ki Basti, Gangala, Ramsar, District Barmer.
7. Mahendra Rar S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Village Kutiyasani, Post Manjhi, Tehsil Degana, District
Nagaur.
8. Rakesh Goliya S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Vpo Roon, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur.
9. Kana Ram S/o Chena Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Janiyowala, Bachhrau, District Barmer.
10. Dinesh Maan S/o Ramkishor Maan, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o Village Murlipura, Post Raopura, Tehsil Shahpura,
District Jaipur.
11. Chutra Ram S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Meghwalo Ka Magara, Cherai, District Jodhpur.
12. Ramesh Kumar S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o Nawapura, Bawarala, Tehsil Sedwa, District Barmer.
13. Sunil Mehra S/o Ganpat Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Kerli Nadi, Pooniyon Ka Tala, District Barmer.
14. Harish Kumar S/o Kamal Kishor, Aged About 21 Years, R/
o Kerli Nadi, Pooniyon Ka Tala, Kerli Nadi, District
Barmer.
15. Manohar Singh S/o Koshal Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Vpo Koshiloo, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer.
16. Monika Choudhary D/o Hema Ram Khoja, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Khojo Ka Bas, Ratkuriya, Tehsil Bhopalgarh,
District Jodhpur.
17. Vikram S/o Prakash Patel., Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo
Kitnod, District Barmer.
18. Pramod Kumar Kuri S/o Shrimal Kuri, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Rajpura Nosal, Dataramgarh,
District Sikar.
19. Sunil Bhati S/o Sampat Raj Bhati, Aged About 21 Years,
Maliyo Ki Dhani, Padun Kallan, District Nagaur.
20. Narendra Kumar S/o Kishori Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o Paliwalo Ka Bas, Village Cherai, Tinwari, District
Jodhpur.
21. Hemant Kumar S/o Jassa Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Village Panji, Tehsil Baytu, District Barmer.
22. Sanjay Prajapat S/o Chela Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o Bhadruna, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.
23. Megha Ram S/o Khema Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Village Poonasar, Tehsil Bapini, District Jodhpur.
24. Lokendra S/o Mahipal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Phardod, District Nagaur.
25. Oma Choudhary D/o Manroop Ram, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o Near Rajasthan Sr. Sec. School, Nagaur Road, Jayal,
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM)
(3 of 14)
District Nagaur.
26. Bablu Vishnoi D/o Virdha Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Shriman Sagar Krishi Farm, Solore, Tehsil Samdari,
Barmer.
27. Kailash S/o Ghinsa Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward
No. 03, Bairsar, District Churu.
28. Suresh Karwasra S/o Ramkaran, Aged About 26 Years, R/
o Karwasro Ka Bas, Jayal, District Nagaur.
29. Anil Kumar S/o Sultan Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Ward No. 3, Teachers Colony, Loonkaransar, Bikaner.
30. Rajesh Legha S/o Girdhari Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o Legha Ki Dhani, Village Toshina, Tehsil Didwana, District
Nagaur.
31. Sandeep Singh S/o Ramkrishan Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Poothpura Kalan, Dholpur, (Raj.)
32. Jitesh Kumar Sharma S/o Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Shyampura, Tehsil Bansuri, District
Alwar.
33. Rakesh Kataria S/o Sanwar Mal Saini, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Poonkh, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu.
34. Ajendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Rajveer Singh, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Vpo Jahota, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
35. Nisha D/o Balwant, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No.
03, Chak2 Mzw, Mirzawalimer, Tehsil Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh.
36. Navin D/o Hari Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ward No.
09, Thakur Ji Ke Mandir Ke Pass, 12 Ag, Hanumangarh.
37. Sarita Gurjur, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Phardod, District
Nagaur.
38. Sarita Karwasra D/o Jayram Karwasra, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Karwasro Ki Dhani, Dhatiyad, Vpo Rajod,
Tehsil Jayal, Nagaur.
39. Kaushal Dasora S/o Shambhu Lal, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o 1-G-10, Near Jhiri Temple, Udyog Puri, Kota.
40. Sharmila Tard D/o Mohan Lal Tard, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Ward No. 17 Birmeri Bass, Jasrasar, District Bikaner.
41. Madan Lal Kudi S/o Durga Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o Kalni Kumaran, Ladpura, Nagaur.
42. Bhanwar Das S/o Jagdish Das, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Simla, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu.
43. Narendra Potaliya S/o Dula Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Birjasar, Sardarsahar, District Churu.
44. Ashok, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Kusiya, Post
Dugastau, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.
45. Manish Saini S/o Shrawan Kumar Saini, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Jhajhar Pana Wali Dhani, Ward No. 19,
Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu.
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM)
(4 of 14)
46. Sunil Godara S/o Shivji Ram Godara, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Langod, Tehsil Degana, Nagaur.
47. Ramchandra S/o Nathu Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Dhadhota, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
48. Amit Choudhary S/o Hanuman Sahay Choudhary, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Govind House, Udaipuriya, Chandlai,
Chaksu, Jaipur.
49. Vikram Jyani S/o Pradeep Kumar, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Ward No. 09, Vpo Phephana, Tehsil Nohar,
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Through The Chairman Of The Board,
Jaipur.
3. The Secretary Of The Rajasthan Subordinate And
Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10241/2022
Jaihind Meghwal S/o Jeevanram, Aged About 33 Years, Ward
No.17, Thanwala Thawla, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through The
Secretary, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Jaipur Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10529/2022
Suman D/o Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Vpo Barwali,
Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, Jaipur
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM)
(5 of 14)
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13712/2022
1. Sumitra Badiyasar D/o Missa Ram, Aged About 21
Years, Resident Of Village Kheduli,tehsil Merta, District
Nagaur.
2. Mahendra Singh S/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Master Ki Dhani, Lamiya Road, Village Looniyawas,
District Jaipur.
3. Narendra Kumar S/o Dhanna Ram, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Ramderiya Talla, Khadeen, Tehsil
Ramsar, District Barmer.
4. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Kailash, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village Posani, Laxmangarh, Sikar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Animal Husbandry Department,
Rajasthan Through The Secretary Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Trough The Chairman Of The Board,
Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Of The Rajasthan Subordinate And
Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13992/2022
1. Suman D/o Durga Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
Bhambhuo Ki Dhani, Mansagar, Danwara, Tehsil Baori,
District Jodhpur.
2. Sarjeet Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
Vpo Dayal, Teshil Didwana, District Nagaur.
3. Yajuvendra Singh S/o Keshar Singh Deora, Aged About
32 Years, Vo Dabani, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi.
4. Pramila Kumari D/o Manohar Singh, Aged About 28
Years, Village Dhoti, Post Kaldeh, Tehsil Bhim, District
Rajsamand.
5. Dhanna Ram Sangwa S/o Shivlal, Aged About 22 Years,
Village Dhorelaw, Post Netdiya, Tehsil Merta City,
District Nagaur.
6. Vijay Adoliya S/o Madan Lal Regar, Aged About 21
Years, Regar Mohalla, Kelwa, District Rajsamand.
7. Sonu Suwalka D/o Ramprasad Suwalka, Aged About 21
Years, In Front Of New Bus Stand, Shahpura, District
Bhilwara.
8. Mukesh Kumar S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 23 Years,
Bhartava Ka Bera, Village Daman, Post Kaleti, Tehsil
Bagoda, Distrit Jalore.
9. Monika Kumari D/o Adesh Kumar, Aged About 22 Years,
Village Bhainsali, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM)
(6 of 14)
10. Purba Ram S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 23 Years,
Kukano Ki Dhani, Village Alay, District Nagaur.
11. Shrawan Kumar S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 35 Years,
110 Ramdev Mohalla, Sadalwa, Post Kotbaliyan, Tehsil
Bali, District Pali.
12. Hari Ram S/o Peera Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Village
Mewra, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
13. Shivani Bhatt D/o Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt, Aged
About 22 Years, Rathore Gali, Vijaipur, District
Chittorgarh.
14. Pawan Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, Aged About 23 Years,
Vpo Janana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
15. Manisha D/o Bala Ram, Aged About 22 Years, Village
Anupsahar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Animal Husbandry Department,
Rajatshan, Through The Secretary, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Through The Chairman Of The Board,
Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Of The Rajasthan Subordinate And
Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Harish Purohit.
Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya.
Mr. G.R. Bhari.
Ms. Bharti Jangid for
Mr. D.S. Sodha.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG.
Mr. Vinit Sanadhya.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 28/09/2022 These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to question the final answer key to the extent, the same relates to question Nos. 6 and 38. Further direction has been sought to award bonus marks for question No. 6 and adopt (Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM) (7 of 14) option-(B) as correct answer for question No. 38 and to revise the result issued pursuant to the final answer key (Annex.-1).
It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.03.2022 (Annex.-2) for Livestock Assistant Recruitment-2022, the petitioners applied and were subjected to written examination, wherein the petitioners participated.
The written examination was in the form of multiple choice questions, wherein 120 questions were asked, all carrying equal marks, 1/3rd part of the mark was deducted for each wrong answer and if bubble of any question was left blank, the same was not to be considered as a wrong answer.
After the written examination was held, the respondents issued preliminary answer key, wherein for question No. 6, the correct answer was option-(A) and for question No. 38, the same was option-(B). Opportunity was granted to the candidates to raise objections, to which, the petitioners raised objections qua the question Nos. 6, inter alia, indicating 'answer is wrong, question is not clear/answer is wrong' and qua question No. 38, no objection was raised by the petitioners as the answer indicated was correct.
In the final answer key (Annex.-1) published by the respondents, while objection for question No. 6 raised by the petitioners, was not accepted, for question No. 38, the answer was changed from option-(B) to option-(A).
Learned counsel for the petitioners made submission that all the options for question No. 6 were incorrect and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for bonus mark.
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM)
(8 of 14) It is submitted that the Taragarh Fort, Bundi was constructed by Rao Bar Singh, whereas none of the options indicated his name and the option-(A), which indicated the name as Rao Raja Bair Singh, is wrong and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for a bonus mark qua the said question.
Qua the question No. 38, it was submitted that question related to the place in Rajasthan having largest thermal power station, for which, the correct option was '(B) Suratgarh', however, the respondents changed the same in the final answer key to option-'(A) Chhabra', which is incorrect and, therefore, the option needs to be again changed to option-(B). For the said purpose, a reference has been made to the progress report for 2021-22 issued by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Limited ('RRVUNL'), indicating the installed capacity of various power stations, wherein for Suratgarh, the same is indicated as 2820 MW, whereas for Chhabra, the same is indicated as 2320 MW and, therefore, option is required to be corrected again to option-(B) and giving effect to the above changes, the merit needs to be re-determined by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Staff Selection Board submitted that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, have no substance and the same deserve to be dismissed. It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeated laid down that it is not open for the courts to examine the correctness of the options and come to a conclusion different from that of the expert committee.
In the present case, after the preliminary answer key was published and objections were received, the same were thoroughly (Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM) (9 of 14) examined by the expert committee and based on the opinion of the expert committee, the final answer key has been issued and marks have been awarded to the candidates based on the final answer key, which, do not call for any interference.
With respect to the questions for which objections have been raised, it is submitted that insofar as question No. 6 is concerned, the option-(A) has rightly been held to be correct, inasmuch as, when the name of the King, who constructed the Fort is 'Bar Singh' as per the petitioners themselves, the mere fact that while indicating his name, there is a purported spelling mistake, the same cannot be a reason enough to hold that the answer was ambiguous and, therefore, the candidates are not entitled to any bonus mark for the said question.
For question No. 38, submissions have been made that the expert committee on examining the objections raised, came to the conclusion that as the textbooks indicated 'Chhabra' as having the largest thermal power station, based on which, objections were raised by candidates and, therefore, the expert committee, changed the option from (B) Suratgarh to (A) Chhabra.
It is submitted that the objection raised based on the progress report of the RRVUNL, cannot be countenanced as the indications made therein, cannot be made the basis for determining the correctness of the view taken by the expert committee, when the textbooks indicate otherwise.
Further submissions have been made that even based on the said progress report in fact even today insofar as the production is concerned, it is the Chhabra Power Station, which is producing more power compared to Suratgarh Power Station, despite the (Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM) (10 of 14) installed capacity of Suratgarh being higher and, therefore, the petitions deserve dismissal.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Question No. 6 reads as under:-
"6. Taragarh Fort of Bundi was constructed by______.
(A) Rao Raja Bair Singh (B) Rao Raja Ajay Singh (C) Rao Raja Vishnu Singh (D) None of these Ckwanh ds rkjkx<+ fdys dk fuekZ.k _______}kjk fd;k x;k FkkA (A) jko jktk cSj flag (B) jko jktk vt; flag (C) jko jktk fo".kq flag (D) buesa ls dksbZ ugha"
A perusal of the above would reveal that in the question paper, in option-(A) the name of the person, who constructed the Taragarh Fort, 'Bair Singh' has been indicated, the claim of the petitioners is that the option is incorrect as the correct spelling would be 'Bar Singh' and, therefore, the option as reflected in the question paper, cannot be accepted.
The expert committee while referring to literature issued by the Ministry of Tourism, wherein the name of the personality who constructed the Taragarh Fort has been indicated as 'Rao Raja Bair Singh', has come to the conclusion that 'question is not factually wrong and the English version is correct'.
It would be seen that even if it is accepted that there is a typographical error in indicating the name at option-(A) i.e. instead of 'Bar Singh', 'Bair Singh' has been indicated, in the opinion of this Court, the error is not to the extent that it will (Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM) (11 of 14) change the meaning of the answer or has led to ambiguity or contradiction in its meaning, so as to claim otherwise.
Further, mere misspelling in the options unless such misspelling is shown to have created confusion, say for example a Raja/Rao with such misspelt name as given in the option was in existence, apparently cannot be a reason enough for holding an answer/option to be incorrect merely because it has been misspelt.
Further, the other two options, which have been indicated in the answer, are nowhere near the correct answer and, therefore, the attempt made by the petitioners seeking to take advantage of the purported mistake, cannot be countenanced.
In view thereof, the submissions made qua the question No. 6, cannot be accepted.
Question No. 38 reads as under:-
"38. Which of the following places has Rajasthan's largest thermal power station?
(A) Chhabra (B) Suratgarh
(C) Kota (D) Kalisindh
fuEufyf[kr esa ls fdl LFkku ij jktLFkku dk lcls cM+k FkeZy ikoj LVs'ku gS\ (A) NkcM+k (B) lwjrx<+ (C) dksVk (D) dkyhfla/k"
As noticed hereinbefore, the preliminary answer key indicated the correct option-(B), which came to be changed to option-(A) by the expert committee in the final answer key.
The petitioners have simply relied on the Progress Report- 2021-22 issued by RRVUNL, wherein in table relating to 'installed capacity' for Suratgarh, the same has been indicated as 2820 MW and for Chhabra, the same has been indicated as 2320 MW. It is (Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM) (12 of 14) further indicated that the commercial production of the two units 7 & 8 at Suratgarh having capacity of 1320 MW started on 01.12.2020 & 07.10.2021.
Learned counsel for the Selection Board has produced another part of the same progress report, wherein the production and transmission of the power at various power stations have been indicated, wherein for Suratgarh, the production indicated is 5085.12 million units and at Chhabra, the same is 6862.9 million units during the period 2021-22 (upto 31.12.2021).
The expert committee while deciding the objections raised in this regard, referred to a Book - jktLFkku dk Hkwxksy by Dr. Hari Mohan Saxena, wherein the capacity of Suratgarh Thermal Power Project was indicated as 1500 MW and that of Chhabra has been indicated as 2320 MW. The book apparently could not take into consideration the fact of units 7 & 8 at Suratgarh starting commercial production.
It would be seen that alongwith the writ petition, none of the candidates have referred to any textbook in support of their contention, rather in SBCW No. 10241/2022, extract from the same book by Dr. Hari Mohan Saxena has been filed, which indicates 'Chhabra' as the place having the biggest power station. All the petitioners have raised the objection by merely referring to the part of the progress report of the RRVUNL, wherein under different parameters i.e. installed capacity and the production, different places would be having the largest thermal power stations.
The material sought to be relied on by the petitioners i.e. the progress report of the RRVUNL essentially indicates a post facto (Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM) (13 of 14) collection of material seeking to question the validity of the answer, this is not the case of the petitioners that they had studied the aspect pertaining to thermal power plants from the said progress report of the RRVUNL and, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the Board that as the information contained in the textbooks indicated 'Chhabra' as having the Largest Thermal Power Plant, which essentially was the basis from which the candidates had raised objection to option-(B), has rightly been accepted by the expert committee, deserves acceptance.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPPSC through its Chairman & Anr. v. Rahul Singh & Anr.: (2018) 7 SCC 254, has held that 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.
Further, it may be observed that in questions pertaining to 'General Knowledge', some leeway has to be given to the expert committee in coming to a particular conclusion while choosing between the two available options. As in the present scenario, wherein there is a blast of information available through various mediums, which at times is conflicting, may be based on different parameters adopted by authors of such information, as and when the said conflict is before the expert committee, the expert committee on reasonable parameters can always choose between the two options and the candidates, based on the other opinion, cannot claim the determination made by the expert committee as (Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM) (14 of 14) wholly incorrect in terms of the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Singh (supra).
Besides the above, The parameters for exercise of the jurisdiction by this Court, qua the expert committee opinion, have been repeatedly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court.
The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the latest being in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : (2021) 2 SCC 309 as followed by the Division Bench in Rajkamal Basitha v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors.: D.B.C.W.P. No.11347/2021, decided on 21.02.2022 (at Jaipur Bench) is well settled. The Division Bench in the case of Rajkamal Basitha (supra) observed as under:-
"It is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court that the judicial review of the decision of the examining body be it in the filed of education or in the recruitment to the public employment, is extremely limited. Particularly when the examination is being conducted by an expert body and disputed questions are scanned by specially constituted expert committee, the Courts are extremely slow in interfering with the decisions of such bodies. Unless it is pointed out that there is a glaring error or an irrational decision has been rendered the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not interfere."
In view of the above discussion, the plea raised by the petitioners qua the final answer key in relation to question Nos. 6 and 38 has no substance.
Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petitions, the same are, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J PKS/-
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 12:01:35 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)