Rajasthan High Court
Neha Salodia Daughter Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15089/2020
Neha Salodia Daughter Of Shri Prabhu Dayal Saloda, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of 34, Mansnghpura, Raigar Basti, Tonk Road,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. President, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan
Parisar, Durgapura Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Dy. Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajya Krishi Prabandh
Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal Kumari Giri
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
07/01/2021
The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the
revised answer key which has been published after obtaining
objections from the concerned participants, alleging that
objections raised by the petitioner has not been considered
properly and the answer of question no.10 was wrongly left to be
corrected and another question was also not deleted while revising
the answer key.
(2 of 4) [CW-15089/2020]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the answer to
question no.10 ought to be deleted as none of the answers were
correct. Learned counsel submits that all options in the question
were incorrect and in support thereof, learned counsel has placed
some certain excerpts of the third Edition of Jodhrajkrat Hameer
Raso to submit that the name of Ranthambore as per Hameer
Raso was not Ranastambhapur which has been treated as correct
option by the respondents. Similarly another question answer
options were wrong and it should have been deleted.
I have considered the submissions.
This court finds that firstly this Court would not be in a
position to become a historian and correct answers at its own
level. Admittedly, the respondents have invited objections and
thereafter on the basis of recommendations have deleted several
questions--answers in the answer key. The view of the experts
cannot be substituted by this Court.
The aforesaid issue has already been decided by this court in
the case of Nidhi Yadav & Another Versus The State of
Rajasthan & Others, SBCWP No.11840/2019 decided on
18.10.2019 wherein this court has held as under:-
"In view thereof, sanctity has to be given to such
examination and such result are not required to be
lightly interfered. In the case of HP Public Service
Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Ors. rendered
in AIR 2010 SC 2620 it was held:
"19. In view of the above, it was not permissible
for the High Court to examine the question paper and
answer sheets itself, particularly, when the
Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the
candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the
question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all
(3 of 4) [CW-15089/2020]
the candidates appearing for the examination and not
for respondent No. 1 only. It is a matter of chance
that the High Court was examining the answer sheets
relating to law. Had it been other subjects like
physics, chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to
understand as to whether such a course could have
been adopted by the High Court."
The same view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another Versus The
State of Rajasthan & Others, Civil Appeal Nos.3649-3650 of
2020 decided vide judgment dated 7.12.2020 wherein it was held
as under:-
"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."
Even otherwise, prima facie, this Court finds that the
petitioner has placed the excerpts relating to the third Edition
which is not original edition as written by Hameer Rao known as
Hameer Raso. This third Edition as per the Editor is the revised
Edition written by Jodhraj and Shivnath thereto word used is
Ranthambh. Thus, the answer assessed by the Rajasthan
Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board cannot be said
(4 of 4) [CW-15089/2020]
to be in any manner incorrect. Similarly, the other questions which
the learned counsel relies to be incorrect also does not require to
be interfered with on the aforesaid ground.
The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same
is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Karan Bhutani /531/99
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
