Rajasthan High Court
Meenakshi Rajoria Daughter Of ... 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. 15113/2020
Meenakshi Rajoria Daughter Of Shri Mohan Babu Rajoria, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of House No. 165/35, Sunahari Colony,
Nagra Bhatta, Ajmer (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
This Court in Nidhi Yadav & Another Versus The State of
Rajasthan & Others, SBCWP No.11840/2019 decided on
18.10.2019 has held that this Court would not substitute its own
opinion to the opinion of the experts who have taken into
consideration the objections and issued a final answer key wherein
several questions were deleted. Therein, it was 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
(2 of 3) [CW-15113/2020]
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
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 Apex Court in
the case 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 the Supreme
Court 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
(3 of 3) [CW-15113/2020]
from delayed appointments to public posts is the
serious damage caused to administration due to
lack of sufficient personnel."
In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SAURABH YADAV 670/108
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
