Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhanwar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 January, 2021

Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Rameshwar Vyas

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1046/2019

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Rpsc Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Tarsaim Kumar S/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Kesarisinghpur, Teh. Srikaranpur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

2. Gopalkrishna S/o Indaram,, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo, Bhimda, Teh. Baitu, Dist Barmer (Raj.).

3. Natturam S/o Maniram,, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 6 Post- Raslana, Teh. New Civil Line, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

4. Ram Kumar Singh S/o Kanharam, Aged About 31 Years, R/o H.no. 160, H-Block, New Civil Line, Ward No. 01, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

5. Vinod Kumar S/o Babulal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Khajuna Khurd, Post Bijora, Teh. Anta Distt. Baran (Raj.).

6. Ravi Kumar Bagera S/o Shankar Lal Bagera, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Khatik, R/o Behind Of Dharmada Dharmshala, Ward No. 1, Atru Dist. Baran (Raj.).

7. Amra Ram Choudhary S/o Moola Ram Choudhary, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Choudhary, R/o Dungar Vidya Pith, Sindhari Road, Baldev Nagar, Barmer (Raj.).

8. Firoz Ali S/o Amim Mohammed, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Teli, R/o V/p Ajitpura, Tehsil Bhadara Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

9. Randheer Singh S/o Bhoop Singh Sihag, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Main Chok, Jhiloda, Bhangarh, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

10. Madanlal Khati S/o Maniram Khati, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Khati, R/o Village Rajpuria, Post Gudia, Tehsil Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

11. Indraj Kukana S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o

(2 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

8 SHPD Tehsil Suratgarh Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

12. Bhawani Singh S/o Sultan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o V/p Dodiyana, Tehsil Riyan Badi, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

13. Ranu Choudhary D/o Parsaram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 497 Gyan Vihar, Near Gilitez Cinema, Kotada, Dist. Ajmer (Raj.).

14. Manju Kumari D/o Rohitash Jhajariya, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dhani Lamba Ki Post Sirohi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Dist. Sikar (Raj.).

15. Sahiram Tholiya S/o Maluram Tholiya, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Manda, Basani, Tehsil Didwana Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

16. Premaram Dantusuriya S/o Madanlal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Piriyara, Post Malglod, Tehsil Jayal Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

17. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

18. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.

----Respondents Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 921/2019

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, RPSC Ajmer The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Sonam Choudhary D/o Shri Balwant Singh, Aged About 24 Years, B/c Choudhary, Ward No. 17, Near Shiv Mandir, Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1017/2019

1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Triloka Ram, Aged About 38 Years,

(3 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

Resident Of Village Nandoli Mertiya, Via-Besroli, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

2. Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Kodar Ji, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Akhepan Ji Ka Gara, District Banswara

3. Manorma Pankaj D/o Ramhet Pankaj, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Mahendra Photo Studio, Dcm Road, Ratpura, Kota.

4. Sharda Devi D/o Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Bhadawas, Tehsil Chaksu District Jaipur.b

5. Manju Bala W/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Goli Vali Factory, God Setia Colony, Gali N. 3, Sri Ganganagar, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

6. Bharat Kumar Darasari S/o Shri Sumer Mal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Near Meena Well, Ward No. 13, Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

7. Priyanka Joshi D/o Shri Dinesh Joshi, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of C-94, Punarwas Colony, Sagwara, District Dungarpur.

8. Manju D/o Banwari, Aged About 32 Years, W/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Resident Of Shakti Nagar, Ward No. 3, Gali No. 1, Old Abadi, Ganganagar

9. Shri Ishwar Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Helak, Tehsil Kumeher, District Bharatpur.

----Appellants Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Through Secretary, Ajmer.

3. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Rpsc), Ajmer.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner

5. Priti Rani Kumbhaj D/o Naresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Chobey Para, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.).

6. Prakashi W/o Shri Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 30 Years,

(4 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

Resident Of Village Jagjiwanpur, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

7. Madhu Mangawa D/o Shri Shanakar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Simarla (Jugeer) Vaya Maharoli, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

8. Pawan Singh Rotrawal S/o Shri Atar Singh Rotrawal, Resident Of VPO, Sohan Pal Ka Pura, Tehsil Suroth District Karauli.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1044/2019

1. Rajasthan Public Services Commission, Through Secretary, Rpsc, Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Prahlad Kumawat S/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Kumawat, R/o Vpo Desalsar Teh. Nokha, Dist. Bikaner (Raj).

2. Laxman Prasad Bunkar S/o Chittar Mal Bunkar, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Bunkar, R/o Village Nopura, Post Hastera, Teh. Chomu, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.).

3. Subhash Chander S/o Dhanpat Ram, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Jat, R/o V-Joravarpura Post Soorpura Ward No. 09, Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

5. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1045/2019 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Rpsc Ajmer.

----Appellant Versus

1. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Prithvi Raj, Aged About 32 Years, Village Rampura Noyala, Teh. Suratgarh, Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj).

(5 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1047/2019 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Ajmer.

----Appellant Versus

1. Pinki Swami D/o Hanuman Sahay, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Swami, R/o Dhani Bori, Village Bhuri Baraj, Teh Kothputli, Dist. Jaipur (Raj).

2. Suresh Kumar S/o Purshottam Pal, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Saad, R/o Vpo Marwar Mundawa, Tehsil Mundawa, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1057/2019

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, RPSC Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Shreni Dan Charan S/o Hukami Dan, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Bawariya Teh. Dist. Barmer (Raj).

2. Anil Kumar S/o Sardar Singh,, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Khojawas, Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

3. Udai Singh S/o Hukam Singh,, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Tamrer Mohalla, Tarer Dist Bharatpur

4. Shivalika D/o Sh Ashok Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No 21 Hsariya Market, Regar Mohhalla, Hanumangarh Town. At Ssw Kohalan, Dist Hanumangarh.

5. Khushal Singh Meena S/o Roop Narayan,, Aged About 31

(6 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

Years, R/o Gram Ahemedpura Chouki, Post Harchandera, Dist Tonk.

6. Girdhari Lal S/o Sh Kheta Ram Sen,, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Post Doongari, Tehsil Chitalwana, Dist Jalore.

7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

8. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1064/2019 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, RPSC Ajmer.

----Appellant Versus

1. Vijendra Kumar S/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o Vpo Bari Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist. Churu (Raj).

2. Amita D/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 33 Years, Ward No.10, Kolshiya, Nawalgarh, Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj).

3. Lalita Meena D/o Ram Kishan Meena, Aged About 27 Years, V/p Thanawali, Teh. Rajgarh, Dist. Alwar (Raj)

4. Aman Kumar Yadav S/o Baldev Sahay Yadav, Aged About 33 Years, V/p Jonaycha Khurd, Teh Neemrana, Dist. Alwar (Raj)

5. Suraj Kanwar Chundawat D/o Girdhari Singh Chundawat, Aged About 29 Years, F337, New Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj)

6. Prem Lata D/o Rupa Ram Choudhary, Aged About 37 Years, Village Parmanpura, Gulabbary, Via Samod, Dist. Jaipur (Raj)

7. Kirti Nagar D/o Bajrang Lal Nagar, Aged About 26 Years, Vpo Malanwasa, Tehsil Khanpur, Dist. Jhalawar (Raj)

8. Shivraj Daroga S/o Bholu Ram Daroga, Aged About 41 Years, Village Mandiyavar Kalan, Post Dasuk, Tehsil Arai Dist. Ajmer (Raj)

9. Sunita Sharma D/o Rajkumar Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, Village Bhuri Braj, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur (Raj)

10. Pannaram S/o Roooparam, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Ahoni Beniwali Ki Dhani, Madasar, Panchayat Samiti,

(7 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

Baytu, Dist. Barmer (Raj)

11. Ramesh Kumar Saini S/o Birbal Ram Saini, Aged About 30 Years, Dhani Nadiwala, Gura Dehar, Tehsil Udaipur Vati, Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj)

12. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajashtan, Bikaner.

13. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1066/2019

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, RPSC Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Village-Post Karda, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

2. Prakash S/o Shri Hari Ram,, Aged About 32 Years, Village

- Post Sanked, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

3. Ramdhan Dhakar S/o Shri Ghasi Dhakar,, Aged About 29 Years, Village Post Lallai, Tehsil Sarwar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Galba Ram,, Aged About 29 Years, Village Post Bhavri, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

5. Gopal Ram S/o Shri Ram Singh,, Aged About 28 Years, Village Post Royal Nagar, Todas, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

6. Sunil Kumar Darji S/o Shri Om Prakash Darji,, Aged About 26 Years, Village Post Madhorajpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

7. Shanker Lal Saini S/o Shri Sitaram Saini,, Aged About 30 Years, Village Mandha-Madani, Via-Palsana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

8. Subhash Kumar S/o Shri Sukhdeva Ram,, Aged About 29 Years, Village Madhopura, Post Mangloona, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan

(8 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

9. Ghanshyam Lodha S/o Shri Lal Chand,, Aged About 28 Years, Village-Post Karlgaon, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.

10. Sharwan Lamror S/o Shri Thakur Ram,, Aged About 29 Years, Khajawan, Tehsil Mandwa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

11. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

12. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1103/2019

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, RPSC Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Gopi Chand S/o Mahendra Kumar Pareek, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Pareek, R/o Village Gadana, Post Gajuwas, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

2. Ghanshyam Dan Ratanu S/o Sitaram Ratanu, Aged About 33 Years, Village Post Dasori, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Vijay Kumar S/o Panna Lal Prajapat, Aged About 29 Years, Village Karanpur, Post Dhaniasha, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

4. Lokesh Chopra S/o Raja Ram Chopra, Aged About 26 Years, Village Paldi, Post Darda Hind, District Tok, Rajasthan.

5. Rishi Raj S/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Sharma, R/o Village Post Bolkhera, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

6. Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Village Post Didawata, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

7. Daljeet Singh S/o Ramesh Gurjar, Aged About 26 Years, Village Khedla Janedpur, Post Rendayal Gurjar, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

8. Prahlad Sahai Dewat S/o Hanuman Sahai Dewat, Aged About 31 Years, Village Post Bhainsawa, Tehsil Kishangart

(9 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

9. Kuldeep Patidar S/o Narayan Patidar, Aged About 30 Years, Village Post Karji, Tehsil Bagidora, District Baswara, Rajasthan.

10. Mamta Joshi D/o Heera Lal Paneri, Aged About 34 Years, Road No.4, Mohan Colony, District Baswara, Rajasthan.

11. Saroj D/o Sant Lal, Aged About 38 Years, Ward No.7, Deeplana, Baran, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

12. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

13. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1199/2019 Sunita D/o Kheta Ram Suthar, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o V/p Tamkor, Tehsil- Malasisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj)

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, Ajmer.

3. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1258/2019

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, RPSC Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Ajmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Triloka Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Village Nandoli Mertiya, Via-Besroli, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)

2. Bharat Kumar S/o Kodar Ji, Aged About 28 Years, Village

(10 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

And Post Akhepan Ji Ka Gara, District Banswara

3. Manorma Pankaj D/o Ramhet Pankaj, Aged About 32 Years, Mahendra Photo Studio, Dcm Road, Ratpura, Kota.

4. Sharda Devi D/o Bajrang Lal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Village Bhadawas, Tehsil Chaksu District Jaipur.

5. Priti Rani Kumbhaj D/o Naresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Chobey Para, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.)

6. Prakashi Spouse/o Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 30 Years, Village Jagjiwanpur, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

7. Madhu Mangawa D/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, Simarla (Jageer) Vaya Maharoli, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

8. Manju Bala Spouse/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, Goli Vali Factory, God Setia Colony, Gali No.3 Sri Ganganagar, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

9. Bharat Kumar Derasari S/o Sumer Mal, Aged About 34 Years, Near Meena Well, Ward No.13, Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

10. Priyanka Joshi D/o Dinesh Joshi, Aged About 29 Years, C-

94, Punarwas Colony, Sagwara, District Dungarpur.

11. Manju D/o D/o Banwari W/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, Shakti Nagar, Ward No.3, Gali No.1, Old Abadi, Ganganagar.

12. Pawan Singh Rotrawal S/o Atar Singh Rotrawal, Aged About 31 Years, Vpo, Sohan Pal Ka Pura, Tehsil Suroth District Karauli.

13. Ishwar Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Helak, Tehsil Kumeher, District Bharatpur.

14. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

15. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1382/2019

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, RPSC Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

                                         (11 of 17)                [SAW-1046/2019]


                                                                  ----Appellants
                                   Versus

1. Kshama Siyag D/o Mallaram W/o Bhinwaram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sunari, Teh. Ladanu Dist. Nagaur (Raj)

2. Reena Kumari D/o Vijay Singh,, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V/p Kheri Hewant, Tehsil Hindon, Dist. Karoli (Raj)

3. Sangita D/o Madan Singh,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Aakwa, Via Kudi Badi, Dist. Sikar (Raj).

4. Sanwarmal Devanda S/o Hanuman Sahay Devenda,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Dabari Rampura Tehsil Aamer, Dist. Jaipur (Raj)

5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

6. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner

----Respondents

D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ No.1384/19

Ankita Kumari Jain D/o Shri Anand Lal Jain, aged about 31 years, resident of near Jain Temple, Village-Post Chitari, Tehsil Galoakot, District Dungarpur (Rajasthan)

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) through Secretary, Ajmer.

3. The State of Rajasthan through Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajsthan.

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Tarun Joshi
                               Mr. Manoj Bhandari in Appeals
                               Nos.1017/19 & 1384/19
                               Mr. S.L.Kumawat in Appeal
                               No.1199/19
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr.Manoj Bhandari with Mr. Aniket
                               Tated
                               Mr. Hemant Bhati
                               Mr. Bharat Devasi



                                        (12 of 17)                 [SAW-1046/2019]


                              Mr. S.L. Kumawat
                              Mr. J.S.Bhaleriya



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                   Order

28/01/2021

1. These intra-Court appeals arise out of orders dated 29.5.19,

16.7.19 & 13.8.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court, whereby the writ petitions preferred by the respondents

aggrieved by the action of the appellant-Rajasthan Public Service

Commission ('RPSC') in reiterating the final answer as correct,

after directions by the learned Single Judge in Rameshvri Kumari

vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B.C.Writ Petition No.3083/18, decided on

5.5.18 to get the same re-examine by experts, seeking directions

that the answers suggested by them, is/are correct, have been

partly allowed. The Appeals Nos. 1017/19,1199/19 & 1384/19 are

filed by the appellants Bhanwar Lal, Sunita and Ankita Kumari Jain

respectively aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge

dated 29.5.19 and 13.8.19, to the extent the relief prayed for

regarding the correctness of the answers of certain questions, has

been denied.

2. The controversy raised in the matters relate to the selection

process undertaken by the RPSC pursuant to the advertisement

dated 13.7.16 for recruitment to the post of Senior

Teacher/Teacher Gr.II for various subjects.

3. The writ petitioners in the Writ Petitions Nos.18570/18,

6026/19, 6174/19, 6183/19, 6523/19, 6559/19 and 6991/19 had

(13 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

challenged the validity of the determination made qua the

question No.37 of paper pertaining to subject- General Knowledge

('G.K.') and the petitioners in S.B.C.Writ Petitions Nos. 6167/19,

6172/19,6483/19 and 6891/18 had also challenged besides the

above, the validity of the determination made qua the questions

Nos. 43 and 109 of paper pertaining to subject - Sanskrit.

4. The learned Single Judge while relying upon a Bench decision

of this Court in Bhunda Ram vs. State of Rajasthan : D.B.Special

Appeal (Writ) No.922/18, decided on 12.3.19, arising out of the

decision of the learned Single Judge in Rameshvri Kumari's case

(supra), allowed the writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioners

qua Question No.37 of subject -G.K., declared that the correct

answer of the said question would be option (3) and accordingly,

directed that on re-appraisal of the result in light of the above

directions, if writ petitioners secure more marks than the last

selected candidates, they shall be accorded appointment subject

to their being otherwise eligible. The relief granted as aforesaid

was made confined to the writ petitioners before the Court.

However, the writ petitions preferred qua the Questions Nos.43 &

109 of paper pertaining to subject - Sanskrit, were disallowed.

5. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the RPSC

submitted that the controversy involved in the present appeals

stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

dated 7.12.20 rendered in Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: Civil Appeal Nos. 3649-3650 of 2020 and other

connected appeals, whereby the special leave petitions preferred

by the appellants therein against the decision of Jaipur Bench of

this Court rendered in Vikesh Kumar Gupta, decided while relying

upon the Bench decision of this Court in Bhunda Ram's case

(14 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

(supra) and the appeals arising out of Bench decision in Bhunda

Ram's case being Civil Appeal No.3658-3659 of 2020, have been

disposed of holding that the Bench decision of this Court in

Bhunda Ram's case recording the finding on correctness of 5

questions by holding the opinion of the experts to be wrong, is

erroneous. Further, the Select List dated 21.5.19 and the Wait List

dated 22.5.19 prepared on the basis of second answer key

published by the RPSC, have been upheld.

6. In Bhunda Ram's case, the intra-Court appeals preferred

were allowed by a Bench of this Court with observations and

directions as under:

"Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having come to a definite conclusion that the Respondent Commission lacked professionalism and requisite proficiency while dealing with some of the questions, we feel that the appellants fate cannot be left in lurch, merely because the list of selected candidates has been sent. This is more so, because by way of interim order, this court had already observed that the selection shall remain subject matter of decision of these appeals.

Hence, with a view to give quitus to the dispute and to give finality to the selections already made, we hold that adjudication made by us will be confined to the appellants involved in the present appeals only. Their assessment shall be carried out in line with the adjudication made by us in the present appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are setting out the particulars of question(s) cataloging the question(s) and corresponding answer/direction which need to be rechecked:

Subject Q.No. Direction Reasons set out in para

Knowledge

Knowledge

Group-II Paper-

     II

     Knowledge-I



                                        (15 of 17)              [SAW-1046/2019]

As a result, all the appeals are allowed, as indicated above.

Needless to observe that after re-appraisal of their result in the light of the findings given by us, if the appellants march ahead of the last selected candidate, they shall be given appointment, subject of course, to their other eligibilities. The respondents Commission shall carry out the requisite exercise and declare the result of the appellants within a period of three weeks from today."

7. The Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta's case (supra),

relying upon various earlier decisions of the Court observed that it

is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question

papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission

has assessed inter se merit of the candidates. In view of the law

already laid down, the Supreme Court observed that it was not

open for the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of

questions and answer key to come to a conclusion different from

that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.3.19. The

Court held :

"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.

14. The submission made by the Respondents that the Appellants are not entitled to any relief as there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court is not necessary to be adjudicated upon in view of the findings in the preceding paragraphs. It is clear from the statement filed by the RPSC

(16 of 17) [SAW-1046/2019]

that there are vacancies existing which can be utilized for appointing the Appellants. We are not inclined to give any direction except leaving it open to the RPSC and the State Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the Wait List in accordance with the merits of the candidates. The selection process which was stalled in view of the interim order passed by this Court should be completed within a period of 8 weeks from today. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 12.03.2019 committed an error in recording findings on the correctness of 05 questions by holding the opinion of the experts to be wrong. We are not setting aside the judgment as we are informed that 05 out of 21 appellants-therein have already been appointed and we are not inclined to upset their appointments.