Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manisha Yadav And Anr vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Anr on 17 December, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14443/2012 (Asrar Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20345/2012 (Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16508/2012 (Sumitra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9450/2012 (Peeyush Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10756/2012 (Naveen Kumar Sain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15639/2012 (Mahesh Chand Bareth Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16007/2012 (Parsi Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16083/2012 (Manoj Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15239/2012 (Sarita Mehta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15240/2012 (Satyapal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13815/2012 (Ram Dayal Meena & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19606/2012 (Laxman Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16084/2012 (Manisha Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16209/2012 (Jogendra Kumar Saini & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15546/2012 (Amba Lal Bheet & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14763/2012 (Narendra Singh Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17367/2012 (Smt. Bharti Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17999/2012 (Vikram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17254/2012 (Indubala Kumawat & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17260/2012 (Vikash Kaswan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18990/2012 (Panna Lal Kumawat & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 17th December, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Ram Pratap Saini ] Mr.Vigyan Shah ] Mr.R.K.Saini ] Mr.Jyotish Kalathy ], Mr.Aditya Pareek ] Mr.S.S.Ola ] for the petitioner/s. Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG. By the Court:
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are heard finally.
These writ petitions pertain to selection to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level II) for different subjects. The allegation of the petitioners is that in few Zila Parishad/s, for one and the same subject, two different papers were distributed. It also happened that at one centre itself, two different papers were given. Few petitioners raised objections immediately thereupon and others made application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short Act of 2005). The petitioners were allowed inspection of their OMR sheet but without sufficient time. They were not provided different question papers given to others to make comparison of difficulty level. The information was further required to be furnished as to how many candidates could pass out in the paper given to the petitioners viz.-a-viz. others, who were given different paper. All these informations were required to find out as to why percentile method is not applied when two different papers were given, which may have different difficulty level.
Apart from the aforesaid, the respondents were under an obligation to check the copy of the petitioners from the papers given to them. After inspection of OMR sheet only for 15 minutes given by the respondents, it is realized that there copies were not checked with the paper given to them but is from the other paper given to candidates in same Zila Parishad. For the aforesaid purpose also, information is required to be provided by allowing inspection of question paper of the petitioners and its key with OMR sheet so that proper comparison may be made for satisfaction and to have transparency in the selection. If any discrepancy is found then direction be given to correct the same so that the petitioners are given proper marks, inasmuch as, one petitioner was expecting 85 percent marks whereas he has been awarded only 75 percent marks. The apparent mistake on that count is required to be rectified.
It is lastly urged that in few Zila Parishad, one and the same question is having different option of answer as correct. For illustration, one question in a particular Zila Parishad is having option 'A' as correct answer whereas in other Zila Parishad, same question is having option 'B' as correct. One and the same question cannot have two different answers, thus correction needs to be made on that score also. In view of above and looking to the fact that assessment of marks of the petitioners is not proper, rather it is a case where difficulty level of their paper may be more than of others, thus to apply percentile system, the respondents be directed to change the result. If the aforesaid prayer is not accepted then at least the respondents be directed to provide copy of different question papers of one Zila Parishad to find out difficulty level and to make out a case with the comparative result between them. The liberty may be given for filing a fresh writ petition thereupon.
Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.S.N.Kumawat, on the other hand submits that selection in question involves more than 10 lac applicants throughout State of Rajasthan. The selections were conducted in different Zila Parishad, thus around 200 different type of papers were printed for its distribution looking to the selection to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level - I & II) for different subjects. To maintain secrecy and proper mechanism, a decision was taken to get those papers printed somewhere in South India. It is to avoid any leakage of paper. With the proper mechanism, everything was going smoothly but in few areas, there was 'Bharat Band' and stoppage of movement of truck due to the aforesaid, papers could not move to certain centers, hence, to make a proper arrangement, without delay, a decision was taken to get papers of the nearby area, may be, of different districts. All these facts came in the knowledge immediately after filing reply. In para No.10 of the reply, it is further stated that even some mistakes were committed by the printers as different copies were to be packed for different districts, however, bundle of question papers of different districts were mixed up and thereby, for one and the same district, two papers were dispatched for one subject. The matter was thus referred to a Committee in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and that Committee send an opinion after making comparison and drawing the means of marks. It did not find measure difference between the marks. Accordingly, different papers for one subject in one district was due to bonafide reasons. The difficulty level of papers was same, thus grievance of the petitioners in regard to different papers for one subject in the same district has no consequence on their performance.
So far as inspection of OMR sheet is concerned, it has been permitted and sufficient time was given to the petitioners looking to the volume of such applications. The time to inspect OMR sheet cannot be at the sweet will of the petitioners. In any case, if a direction is given by this Court, the petitioners would be provided copies of different papers of their district followed by inspection of OMR sheet and answer key of their paper to find out as to whether their copies were checked with the answer key of the paper concerned or not. It would be for their satisfaction and without making it to be precedents because without any justification, every candidate will try to make such application, thus such exercise may be permitted only for the petitioners and not in general. A candidate having no grievance in regard to the selection in question should not be allowed now to wake-up and make an application. The direction, if any, should be restricted to the petitioners alone. With the aforesaid, grievance of the petitioners that copies/OMR sheet have been checked from different question papers/answer key would come to an end, however, if any, discrepancy is found, the respondents will immediately correct it with declaration of their result.
The last issue is regarding different answers for one question in different Zila Parishad.
Nothing has been placed on record to show that one and the same question is having two different options of answer in different Zila Parishad. In any case, if petitioners make a representation indicating that one and the same question is having different option of answer in different Zila Parsihad, their representation would not only be considered but necessary correction would be made in the Zila Parishad where a wrong answer is taken as correct. It may, however, be qua the petitioners and if representation is made immediately and not belated.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.
First issue is as to whether one and the same Zila Parishad can have two papers for one subject or not?
The reply of the respondents shows that different papers were given for one and the same subject in few Zila Parishads. The justification is given in para NO.10 of the reply, which shows mainly due to mistake of printer where for one Zila Parishad, different papers were dispatched for one subject. It is looking to the fact that selection in question is at the district level, as Zila Parishad concerned is appointing authority, thus different paper for different Zila Parishad can be set for one subject. It is not required to be a common paper fro entire State of Rajasthan. The justification given in para No.10 of reply is that printer committed mistake in dispatching papers for different Zila Parishad. It is due to their default that a paper set for particular district was dispatched to other district in part resulting in different paper for one subject in one Zila Parishad.
I find aforesaid reason to be justified so as the action of the respondents to be bonafide.
It is orally submitted that different papers were even outcome of 'Bharat Band' when in some parts of India, trucks were not allowed to move. In that situations, the respondents were left with no option but to get paper from nearby area, may be of different district. It again resulted in different papers for one and same district. The aforesaid oral submission also shows justification for different papers for one subject in one Zila Parishad. Accordingly, due to distribution of different papers of one subject, the selection involving more than 10 lac applicants cannot be nullified, moreso when, in few Zila Parishad, such situation is not even existing.
The fact, however, does not end here because petitioners are having grievance regarding difficulty level of two papers in one Zila Parishad. According to them, papers given to them was hard as comparison to others.
The aforesaid issue needs consideration but no material has been placed to substantiate it. The petitioners have given justification as they were not provided copies of different papers. I find that if the petitioners can prove difficulty level of two papers then their grievance can be considered to evolve percentile method.
For this purposes, I direct the respondents to provide copy of different question papers of the subject concerned to the petitioners of concern district. After going through the papers, if petitioners can make out a case of different difficulty level with the fact that their papers were hard with comparison to others, the respondents may get expert opinion on the aforesaid if a representation is made by the petitioners immediately. They may then proceed as per the expert report on the issue. In case of any grievance remains, the petitioners would be at liberty to take proper legal recourse.
So far as the grievance regarding OMR sheet of the petitioners are concerned, the allegation is that it has not been checked with the answer key of the paper given to them. I feel that for keeping transparency in the system and to rule out any doubt in the mind of the petitioners, proper way would be to allow inspection of the answer key of the paper given to the petitioners with the OMR sheet so that the grievance of the petitioners that they have not been properly awarded marks after checking the OMR sheet with the answer key of the paper is also ruled out.
The aforesaid may be allowed to the petitioners only, who make a representation to inspect the answer key, question papers and OMR sheet concerned and not for other candidates. If anything is found doubtful out after inspection, the respondents are directed to look into the matter and decide the same. In case, discrepancy is found, they are expected to correct it immediately.
The last issue is that one and the same question are having two different answers.
Nothing concrete has been given but petitioners are given liberty to make a representation for the aforesaid by illustrating questions and different answers in different Zila Parishad. In case of representation, it may be considered by the respondents expeditiously and if any substance is found in the representation then to correct the same. The exercise aforesaid may be undertaken by the respondents expeditiously so that grievances of the petitioners are redressed.
In SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14443/2012 in the case of Asrar Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., amount of Rs.5,000/- may be refunded to the petitioner. The Registry is directed to comply with the direction aforesaid.
Since number of petitions may be large not only decided by this order but previously decided to the extent of inspection of OMR sheet, hence, direction in this judgment would be restricted to the petitions preferred till today. It would not be applied for the petition/s now preferred because selection cannot be kept open for those, who are sleeping till date.
With the aforesaid, all these writ petitions are disposed of so as the stay applications.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.