Rajasthan High Court
Mukesh Saini S/O Shri Panchu Mal ... vs The Chairman on 19 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 32/2021
Mukesh Saini S/o Shri Panchu Mal Saini, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o 678, Sumer Nagar, Agarwal Farm Mansarovar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura,
Jaipur - 302018.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura,
Jaipur - 302018.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Kant Rawat
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
19/01/2021
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revised
answer key which was published has wrongly treated answer of
question No.41 as correct whereas none of the answers can be
said to be correct.
Learned counsel further submits that similarly the revised
answer key has deleted the question Nos.78 and 81 although in
the original answer key, the answer published was correct. Thus,
learned counsel submits that the revised answer key published
deserves to be set aside and as per the submission, the said
question ought to be included with their original answers as
published in the first answer key while question No.41 be deleted.
Learned counsel relies on study material which he has placed
along with this writ petition.
I have considered the submissions.
(2 of 3) [CW-32/2021]
In the case of Neha Salodia Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15089/2020, allegations
relating to another question in relation to the same answer key
were raised. In Nidhi Yadav & Another Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.11840/2019, again same
answer key relating to the same examination was challenged.
The writ petition as above Neha Salodia (supra) was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2021. This Court
observed as under:-
"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:
"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
(3 of 3) [CW-32/2021]
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."
Keeping in view above, the present writ petition which raises
similar questions relating to the answer key is liable to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN /75
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
