Mahipal Singh S/O Amar Singh ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 169 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11818/2020

1.     Mahipal Singh S/o Amar Singh Rathore, Aged About 34
       Years, R/o Quarter No. F-4, Lohakhan, Ajmer, Rajasthan
2.     Madhav Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Kalu Ram Gurjar, Aged
       About 27 Years, R/o Village Chatarpura, Post Khori, Tehsil
       Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 303103.
3.     Sonu Sharma D/o Bhanwar Lal Sharma W/o Rahul
       Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Hardattpura,
       Post Kishanpura, Via Jhotwada, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur,
       Rajasthan Pin Code 302012.
4.     Bhairu Khoji S/o Jairam Khoji, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
       Village   Post   Sakhoon,         Tehsil     Dudum       District   Jaipur,
       Rajasthan Pin Code 303008.
5.     Bheru Lal Sen S/o Mitu Lal Sen, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
       Village Post Potla, Tehsil Sahada, District Bhilwada,
       Rajasthan-311806.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
       Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
       Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The Director General             Of Police, Police Headquarter,
       Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3.     The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
       Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer (Rajasthan)
                                                                ----Respondents

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

08/01/2021 This Court, in similar matters, where answers of questions

were challenged in relation to another post has observed that the

(2 of 3) [CW-11818/2020]

revised answer key which is published after having obtained

objections from the various parties is not liable to be challenged

as this Court cannot be said to be having any expertise in relation

to the questions and answers thereto nor an observation can be

made contrary to the observations already made by the experts

which has been relied upon by the examining body for declaration

of the final result.

This Court in the case of Neha Salodia Vs. State of Raj

and Ors.: SBCWP No. 15089/2020, decided on 07.01.2021 has

held as under:

"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 on18.10.2019 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 belightly 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 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 similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another Versus TheState of Rajasthan

& Others, Civil Appeal Nos.3649-3650 of2020 decided vide judgment dated

7.12.2020 wherein it was held as under:-

(3 of 3) [CW-11818/2020]

"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 along 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."

In view of the above, this writ petition is found to be

devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

Pcg/111

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)