Sunil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 19404 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13493/2020

1. Dalip Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal, aged about 30 Years, Resident of Village 1 KSR, Post Bhagwansar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

2. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Mana Ram, aged about 28 Years, Resident of Village Ward No.1, VPO Khoda, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

3. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Sahab Ram, aged about 28 Years, Resident of Ward No. 4, VPO Rodawali, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

4. Vinod Kumar S/o Shrk Daleep Kumar, aged about 32 Years, Resident of VPO Netewala, Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, Jaipur, through its Chairman.

3. The Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, Jaipur, through its Secretary.

4. Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11410/2020

1. Madhu Chhangani W/o Shri Ramesh Chhangani, age about 44 Years, R/o B 288 Sukhram Nagar Soorsagar Road Jodhpur 342024.

2. Jogendra S/o Shri Ratna Ram, age about 29 Years, R/o Village Post Somesar Tehsil Shergarh District Jodhpur 342025.

3. Vikram Singh S/o Ram Singh, age about 25 Years, Resident of Balakabass Post District Sikar, Rajasthan.

4. Raju Ram S/o Shera Ram, age about 25 Years, R/o Village Post Somesar Tehsil Shergarh District Jodhpur 342025.

5. Devendra Kapuriya S/o Jagdish Prashad Kapuraiya, age about 24 Years, R/o Village Rajpura Post Bidara Tehsil

(2 of 14) [CW-13493/2020]

Shahpura District Jaipur 313103.

6. Madhu Yadav D/o Ram Niwas Yadav, age about 30 Years, R/o 565 Dabla Ki Dhani Med Virat Nagar Jaipur 303003.

7. Gulab Singh S/o Shri Ranchod, age about 30 Years, R/o Village Muniyakhunta Post Kasarwadi Tehsil Sajjangarh District Banswara Rajasthan 327602.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No. 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.

3. The Union of the India through its Principal Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs North Block New Delhi 110001 India.

4. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura Jaipur 302018 through its Chairman.

5. The Chairman, Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board, Government of Rajasthan Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13176/2020

1. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Madan Lal, aged about 37 Years, R/o VPO Kulchander, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Ravinder Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Bharat Singh, aged about 39 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Street No. 2, Ward No. 27, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur, through its Chairman.

4. The Secretary, the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur.

                                        (3 of 14)                 [CW-13493/2020]


                                                               ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13249/2020

1. Ramesh S/o Shri Manohar Lal, aged about 24 Years, R/o Dhaka Nagar, Dabar Lohawat, Vishnawas Lohawat, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.

2. Bhoor Mal Suthar S/o Shri Ram Lal, aged about 23 Years, R/o Vishwakarma Mandir Ki Gali, Village-Post Harji, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.

3. Parwat Singh S/o Shri Amar Lal, aged about 35 Years, R/o VPO Gadiya, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota.

4. Prithviraj Singh S/o Shri Pooran Singh, aged about 26 Years, R/o Kesua, Post Nimbaj, Tehsil Reaodar, District Sirohi.

5. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Manohar Singh, aged about 28 Years, R/o VPO Khiwandi, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali.

6. Norangi Bishnoi D/o Shri Shyam Sunder Bishnoi, aged about 20 Years, R/o Bishnoi Bass, VPO Jasrasar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

7. Manohar Singh S/o Trilok Singh, aged about 38 Years, R/o Gali No. 5, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Magra Punjla, Mandore, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, through its Chairman, State Institute of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. State of Rajasthan through Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1038/2021

1. Dinesh Tailor S/o Shri Satya Narayan, aged 31 Years, R/o Sunaro Ka Mohalla, Riya Badi, District Nagour.

2. Praveen Rajpurohit S/o Shri Hari Singh Rajpurohit, aged 27 Years, R/o Rajpurohit Mohalla, Near Kamal English School, District Nagour.

3. Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about 23 Years, R/o Village Kervi Pur, Post Pur, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.

                                           (4 of 14)                   [CW-13493/2020]


                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.   State      of     Rajasthan          through         Secretary,      Education
     Department,          Government            of     Rajasthan,       Secretariat,
     Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner

3. Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board, Jaipur through its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10118/2021

1. Anil Kumar S/o Subhash, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Gandhinagar, Post Gandhili, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Bharat Singh S/o Raju Singh, aged about 28 Years, R/o Ward N. 10, VPO Kalasar, Tehsil Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.).

3. Poonamchand S/o Chaukharam, aged about 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 4 VPO Kuchor Athoni, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).

4. Mukesh Kumar Bairwa S/o Ramji Lal Bairwa, aged about 33 Years, R/o Pachali, Pachala Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.).

5. Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/o Shyam Sunder Sharma, aged about 32 Years, R/o Village Thikariya Post Chala, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director (Secondary Education), Directorate Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.).

3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Officer Address Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus Durgapura, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10683/2021

1. Prakash S/o Bharat Ram, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Tilwasani Tehsil Pipar City District Jodhpur, (Raj.).

(5 of 14) [CW-13493/2020]

2. Rameshwari D/o Amlu Ram, aged about 36 Years, R/o Village Umarlai Jageer, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Barmer, (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Education Department Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Education Department, through its Director, Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, through its Secretary, State Institute of Agricultural Management Premises Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13051/2021 Chandra Pal Singh Deora S/o Shri Chail Singh Deora, aged about 39 Years, Resident of Hanuman Ji Ki Gali, Paldi M, Palri, Sirohi, District Sirohi (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, through its Chairman, State Institute of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. State of Rajasthan through Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav, Mr. Ripudaman Singh, Mr. Jitender Singh Bhaleria with Mr. Deepak Pareek, Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, Mr. Shyam Sunder Ladrecha, Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, Mr. A.K.

Choudhary, Mr. Pritam Solanki.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya with Ms. Shalini Audichya, Mr. Vishal Jangid, Dy.G.C., Mr. Manvendra Singh Bhati, Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit for Dr. Sachin Acharya.

                                        (6 of 14)                   [CW-13493/2020]


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                   Order

20/12/2021

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against the final answer key issued by the respondents

in relation to the Examination held for the post of Librarian Grade

III pursuant to Advertisement dated 21.05.2018.

The advertisement in question was issued on 21.05.2018 by

the respondent Board inviting online applications for the post of

Librarian Grade III. Thereafter, amended advertisement was

issued on 01.11.2019 providing for reservation to MBC, EWS and

increased reservation to the Specially Abled/Physically

Handicapped candidates. Initially, the written examination was

held on 29.12.2019, however, the same came to be cancelled on

01.01.2020 on account of allegation of leakage of the examination

paper.

The written examination was again conducted on 19.09.2020

and the Model/Preliminary answer key was published on

28.09.2020 and a press-note was issued inviting online objections

from the aspirants with their respect supporting materials. The

respondent Board, based on the decision taken by the Expert

Committee over the objections raised by the candidates towards

the Model/Preliminary answer key, issued the final answer key on

11.11.2020. In the final answer key, the Board deleted ten

questions and changed the option of some questions. The list of

provisionally selected candidates was issued for the purpose of

document verification on the same day.

The present writ petitions have been filed by the candidates

seeking to challenge the determination made by the respondent

(7 of 14) [CW-13493/2020]

Board in the final answer key, objections have been raised

regarding deletions made, the answers indicated in the

Model/Preliminary answer key, which have not been modified as

desired by the petitioners and to the changes in the answers made

in the final answer key, regarding which objections have been

raised that it should not have been changed. The petitioners have

questioned the validity of the final answer key in relation to the

questions for which they had filed the objections pursuant to the

press-note. In several cases, even where no objection was raised

by the respective petitioners, the objections have been raised in

the present petitions.

Counsel for the petitioners, fairly made submissions that in

relation to the questions where the petitioners have not raised

objections to the Model/Preliminary answer key and the answers

have remained unchanged qua the same, the plea raised may not

be entertained, however, it was submitted that where the changes

have been made and/or deletions have taken place, the

petitioners are entitled to question their validity.

Combinedly put, the petitioners have challenged the final

answer key qua following questions:-

5, 10, 15, 23, 27, 29, 38, 55, 61, 62, 66, 75, 78, 81, 94,

102, 109, 120 121, 122, 124, 126, 131, 139, 142, 146 and 149.

However, during the course of submissions, the counsel for

the petitioners have made submissions qua questions No.5, 23,

27, 55, 75, 78, 81, 94, 102, 109, 121, 122, 124, 139 and 142 i.e.

fifteen in all.

Under the directions of the Court, the counsel for the

respondent Board has produced the determination made by the

Expert Committee pertaining to all the objections, as questioned.

(8 of 14) [CW-13493/2020]

Learned counsel for the respondent Board, pointed out that

once the objections have been called and the same have been

dealt with by the Expert Committee, the said determination made

is not open to challenge and that this Court should not dwell into

the correctness of the determination made, as laid down by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. : (2021) 2 SCC 309.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that

judgment in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra) does not

dilute the law laid down in several of the judgments dealing with

the determination of the objections by the Courts on the

parameters laid down in those cases and as such, merely based on

judgment in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), it cannot be

said that the issue does not require consideration of this Court.

In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), Hon'ble Supreme

Court in relation to the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of

the questions by the Courts, inter-alia, observed and laid down as

under: -

"14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re- evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.). Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations.

15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran

(9 of 14) [CW-13493/2020]

Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows: -

"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.

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

(10 of 14) [CW-13493/2020]

confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."

16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.

17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel."

Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that for lack

of the expertise in the academic matters, it is not permissible for

the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheet

itself and that the Court have to show deference and consideration

to the recommendation of the Expert Committee, who have the

expertise to evaluate and make recommendations. While

distinguishing the judgment in the case of Richal vs. RPSC :

(11 of 14) [CW-13493/2020]

(2018) 8 SCC 81, the Court further observed that it was not open

to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the

questions and the answer key to come to the conclusion different

from that of the Expert Committee. It was laid down that

assessment of the question by the Court itself to arrive at correct

answer is not permissible.

Following the judgment in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta

(supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan Public Service

Commission & Anr. vs. Tarsaim Kumar & Ors. : D.B. Special

Appeal (W) No.1046/2019 and other connected appeals, decided

on 28.01.2021 reversed the judgment of this Court regarding

correct answer and consequential directions for revision of the

result qua the writ-petitioners and allowed the appeals preferred

by the RPSC.

From the above categoric determination made by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), as

followed in the case of Tarsaim Kumar (supra) by the Division

Bench of this Court, though it is true that earlier judgments laying

down the parameters for interference by this Court, though have

not been reversed, the same to a great extent, have been

circumscribed.

This Court, has gone through the objections raised qua

fifteen questions and has heard learned counsel for the petitioners

at length regarding objections raised alongwith material relied on

and has also examined the expert's opinion alongwith supporting

material for reaching a particular conclusion pertaining to each

objection, as produced for perusal of the Court by the learned

counsel for the Board and submissions made by him.

(12 of 14) [CW-13493/2020]

The Experts have thoroughly considered each objection and

have come to a categoric finding for their decision whether the

question needs to be deleted and/or the model answer needs a

change and/or the answer as indicated in the Model/Preliminary

answer key, needs to be maintained.

The objections, now raised are essentially based on text

books and material, wherein observations as sought to be

canvassed by the petitioners, have been indicated, but the

material which has been considered by the Experts and which has

found their approval/formed the basis for their decision, supports

the decision taken by them on various objections. Once the

Experts after considering the material produced by the candidates

have reached to a particular conclusion, the determination made

by the Expert Committee after going through the objections raised

by the petitioners and/or other candidates, do not call for any

interference by this Court.

The only aspect, which, appears to have escaped the

attention of the Expert Committee is pertaining to Question

No.102, wherein the objection raised by the candidates is that the

questions in English and Hindi, on account of incomplete

translation, are different questions and have different answers and

as such, the same should have been deleted.

It may also be noticed that objection regarding Question

No.102 was raised by petitioners, Bhoor Mal Suthar and Prithviraj

Singh in CWP No.13249/2020 as is reflected from the receipts of

the objections produced as Annex.8 and petitioner, Ravinder Singh

Shekhawat in CWP No.13176/2020, and by none other petitioners.

(13 of 14) [CW-13493/2020]

The Question No.102, in both versions, reads as under: -

"102. The ordinal number which fixes the position of a document in a library, relative to the other document belonging to the same class is known as:

           (A) Class number                (B) Call number
           (C) Book number                 (D) Collection number

iqLrdky; esa ,d izys[k dh vU; izys[kksa ds e/; lqfuf'pr lkisf{kd fLFkfr dks n'kkZus okyh la[;k dks D;k dgrs gS\ (A) oxkZad (B) dzked la[;k (C) xzaFkkad (D) laxzgkad"

(Underline is of the Court)

A perusal of above would reveal that while the English

version contains the phrase 'belonging to same class', however,

the same is missing in the Hindi version, and it is the contention of

the counsel for the petitioners that while the answer for the

English version as 'B' may be correct; for Hindi version, wherein

the portion 'belonging to same class' is missing, answer 'B' is not

correct.

Learned counsel for the respondent Board fairly conceded

that though objection of this nature regarding question being

different in both languages was raised, the said aspect has not

been decided by the Expert Committee, however, relied on

instruction 10 indicated on the question booklet. It was submitted

that the instruction clearly provides that 'if there is any sort of

ambiguity/mistake either of printing or factual nature in Hindi and

English version of the question, the English version will be treated

as standard', therefore as the model answer as per the English

version is correct, irrespective of the fact that the issue has not

been examined by the Expert Committee, nothing turns on it.

(14 of 14) [CW-13493/2020]

The submissions made based on instruction 10 cannot be

accepted. The said instruction would be applicable in case of

ambiguity/ mistake in printing or factual nature. However, as

noticed, the incomplete translation, it is claimed has resulted in

two independent different questions having different answers and

as there was no occasion for the candidates to even look into the

English version to find out the difference between the two

questions and take the English version as correct, the plea based

on instruction 10 is unavailable.

In view of above fact situation, while the determination made

by the Expert Committee on all the questions, as made, do not

call for any interference. Insofar as the Question No.102 is

concerned, the fact that there is difference in the translated

version, resulting in different answers for both versions has not

been adverted to by the Expert Committee, which aspect is

required to be considered by the Expert Committee and

consequence has to be provided for the same.

In view of above discussion, the writ petitions

No.13249/2020 and 13176/2020 to the extent of petitioners,

namely, Bhoor Mal Suthar, Prithvi Raj Singh and Ravinder Singh

Shekhawat only, are partly allowed qua Question No.102 only. The

respondent Board is directed to get the expert opinion on the

above aspect of the matter regarding translation being different

and give effect to the opinion of the Expert Committee qua the

above three petitioners. The rest of writ petitions and CWP

Nos.13249/2020 and 13176/2020 qua the other petitioners are

dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)