Rohit Kumar Swami S/O Shri Madan ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7688 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10660/2019

Rohit Kumar Swami S/o Shri Madan Lal Swami, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Near Ramdev Temple, Tara Nagar, Churu
(Rajasthan)-331304.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
       Higher Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.     Department Of College Education, Through Commissioner,
       Block-IV, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar
       Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015.
3.     Rajasthan    Public      Service        Commission,        Through     Its
       Secretary, Ghooghara Gati, Ajmer.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Tanveer Ahamad
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. M.F. Baig


         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
                       Order
16/12/2021

Present petition has been filed on the facts that the

petitioner had applied for the post of College Lecturer in

pursuance to advertisement dated 12.01.2015 and was declared

qualified in the screening test. He had also been called for the

interview but was not offered appointment.

The case of the petitioner is that the answer key as

published by the Department was a faulty one which contained

wrong answers and the answers which had been submitted by the

petitioner have been held to be incorrect whereas they were

correct. The petitioner has raised dispute about certain questions,

the same being question numbers 19, 25, 30, 35, 49, 76, 79, 88,

93 and 149 (question paper-I) and question numbers 7, 93, 129

(2 of 3) [CW-10660/2019]

and 135 (question paper-II). Therefore, the petitioner has prayed

for quashing of the answer key and for direction for constitution of

an Expert Committee for verification of the answers to the

disputed questions.

Counsel for the respondent has argued that after the

issuance of answer key, objections were invited by the RPSC and

after receipt of the objections, an Expert Committee was

constituted which gave its report qua all the questions. On the

basis of the report as submitted by the Expert Committee, the

final result was declared and those who were found eligible were

appointed.

Counsel for the petitioner has tried to potray that the report

of Expert Committee pertaining to certain questions is also not

correct as the Expert Committee has relied on the material which

should not have been relied upon.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on

record.

At the request of counsel for the petitioner this Court

perused question number 30 and 49 qua which there were specific

objections of the petitioner and prima facie found the answers to

be correct. Moreover the Expert Committee report qua all the

questions have been perused by this Court and it has been found

that the same is based on specific reasoning and logic. Moreover

as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta &

Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors; Civil Appeal No. 3649-

3650/2020 decided on 07.12.2020 this Court would not sit over

the report of the Expert Committee and cannot assess the

questions on its own so as to arrive at the probable answers.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar's case held as under:-

(3 of 3) [CW-10660/2019]

"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 & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. 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.

13. 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."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Vijay Singh &

Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2018 (2) SCC 357 held as under:-

"In the event of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. "

The court further held as under:-

"When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts, Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their justification to upset the opinion of the experts"

In view of the ratio as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and

in view of observation as made above, this Court is not inclined to

interfere and therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J

Ashu /105

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)