Rajasthan High Court

Manoj Yadav S/O Badri Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                              (1 of 7)                [CW-15/2021]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15/2021

1.    Manoj Yadav S/o Badri Prasad Yadav, Aged About 27
      Years, R/o Dhani-Bankawali Post - Godawas, Tehsil-
      Neema Ka Thana, Dist. Sikar (Raj.)
2.    Gaurav Kumar Agrawal S/o Rajendra Prasad, Aged About
      31 Years, R/o Bazaza Bazaar, Kherli, Alwar (Raj.)
3.    Chanhal Kumar Meo S/o Bhagirath Singh, Aged About 25
      Years, R/o V.p.o. Desusar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu
      (Raj.)
4.    Kedar Mal Sharma S/o Bhanwar Lal Sharma, Aged About
      32 Years, R/o Siyawato Ka Bass, Deshnoke, Bikaner (Raj.)
5.    Rajeshwar Singh S/o Jagdish Singh, Aged About 22 Years,
      R/o Vpo Kukanwali, Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Nagaur
      (Raj.)
6.    Susheela Yadav D/o Ramkaran Yadav, Aged About 28
      Years, R/o Kashipuram Colony, Sector-A, Ward No-12,
      Dabla Road, Kotputali, Jaipur (Raj.)
7.    Shiv Raj Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
      R/o In Front Of Dad Banglow, Daulat Niwas Didwana,
      Nagaur (Raj.)
8.    Chandra Pal Singh S/o Rajpal Singh, Aged About 28
      Years, R/o Indra Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj.)
9.    Mahesh Swami S/o Sitaram Swami, Aged About 31 Years,
      R/o      Ward      No.      6,    Vpo       Phephana,       Tehsil   Nohar,
      Hanumangarh (Raj.)
10.   Shiv Kumar S/o Kishan Pal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
      Chak Rajasar, Tehsil Nohar, Hanumangarh (Raj.)
11.   Sumer Singh Bajra S/o Roor Singh Bajya, Aged About 29
      Years, R/o Vpo- Khejroli, Tehsil- Chofu, District Jaipur
      (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.    The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
      Department Of Secondary Education, Department Of
      Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.    The Chairman, Department Of Secondary Education,


                      (Downloaded on 18/01/2021 at 10:16:33 PM)
                                           (2 of 7)                  [CW-15/2021]


     Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.   Rajasthan State Staff Selection Board, Through Its
     Chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management
     Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur- 302018, Rajasthan.
                                                              ----Respondents

connected with

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 346/2021

1. Ravi Garhwal S/o Ramchandra Garhwal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o B-29, Basant Vihar, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

2. Hemant Suman S/o Latoorlal Suman, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Nayagaon Police Line, Baran Road, Distt. Kota (Raj.)

3. Deen Dayal Bairwa S/o Om Prakash Bairwa, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Gopal Pura, Post. Natinara, Tehsil Tonk, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)

4. Meena Dotaniya D/o Om Prakash Dotaniya, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Vpo Bilonchi, Via Morija, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education , Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director Of Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Rajasthan State Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur - 302018, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 171/2021

1. Susheela W/o Vishnu Choudhary D/o Dashrath, Aged About 25 Years, R/o A-19, Sharda Colony, Mahesh Nagar, 80Feet Road, Jaipur

2. Girish Vashishtha S/o Sita Ram Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o P No. 101, Dada Guru Dev Nagar, Sanganer,

(3 of 7) [CW-15/2021]

Jaipur (Raj)

3. Monika Panwar D/o Bajrang Panwar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Prem Pura, Kuchaman, Distt. Nagaur (Raj)

4. Ghanshyam Singh Shekhawat S/o Shimbhu Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Khori, Post Mandawara, Distt. Siakr (Raj)

5. Durgesh Kumar Yati S/o Dinesh Kumar Yati, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Sadar Bnazar Aguncha, Teh. Hurda, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj)

6. Vimal Kishor Swami S/o Kailash Chandra Swami, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Inside Of Jassuar Gate Behind Binnani Niwash, Bikaner (Raj)

7. Pooja Kumari W/o Rajesh Kumar D/o Babulal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Kolisiya, Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu (Raj)

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Chairman, Department Of Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. Rajasthan State Staff Selection Baord, Through Its Chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises Durgapura, Jaipur Rajasthan

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14118/2020

1. Mukesh Bairwa S/o Prahlad Bairwa, R/o Village Luhara, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Rajasthan)

2. Sunil Kumar Jangid S/o Ratan Lal Jangid, R/o 18, Near Hospita, Village Maulasal, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)

3. Mahipal Singh S/o Ganpat Singh, C-1116, Shankar Colony, New Loha Mandi Road No. 14, Harmada, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection

(4 of 7) [CW-15/2021]

Board (Rsmssb), Jaipur, Through Its Chairman State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur Rajasthan

2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,jaipur, Through Its Chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur Rajasthan

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14791/2020

1. Megh Raj Meena S/o Radheshyam Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 228, Nemi Nagar Vistar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Rajendra Meena S/o Mouji Ram Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o H. No. 5, Namarta Awas, Bajrang Nagar, Police Line, Kota, Rajasthan.

3. Ramsahay Meena S/o Durga Lal Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Cheeto Ki Jopdiya, Post Bhajneri, Tehsil Nainwan, District Bundi, Rajasthan

4. Varsha Gunawat D/o Ramesh Chandra Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Station Road, Kota, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary/chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur - 302018, Rajasthan, India.

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

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah Mr. Deepak Gupta Mr. Dheeraj Palia for Mr. R.P. Saini For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

15/01/2021

(5 of 7) [CW-15/2021]

The issue raised in these writ petitions relating to answer key

stands already decided by this Court in the case of Neha Salodia

Versus State of Rajasthan & Others, SBCWP No.15089/2020

decided on 7.1.2021, wherein this court held as under:-

"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.

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:

(6 of 7) [CW-15/2021]

"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 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 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."

(7 of 7) [CW-15/2021]

It may be noticed that revised answer key wherein questions

have been deleted by the examining authority which goes to show

that the examining authority has already consulted experts on the

objections raised by the candidates and have taken a decision. In

such event, this court would not substitute its opinion to that of

experts which was relied upon for issuing of revised answer key.

No case for appointing an expert committee again is thus made

out as it would amount to again raising questions to the opinion of

an expert which were relied upon for revising of the answer key.

There will be no end to such queries and no answer key can be