Rajasthan High Court
Roopkala Yadav D/O Sh. Kailash ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14809/2020
Roopkala Yadav D/o Sh. Kailash Chand Yadav, W/o Sh. Mohit
Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Mukam Post Guna, Tehsil
Bansur, District Alwar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Lal
Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghoogra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.).
----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
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.
(2 of 3) [CW-14809/2020]
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:-
"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."
(3 of 3) [CW-14809/2020]
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/114
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
