Ramkishor Yadav Son Of Shri Suwa ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 683 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 705/2021

1.      Ramkishor Yadav Son Of Shri Suwa Lal Yadav, Aged About
        39 Years, Resident Of Dhani Sunarawali, Village Post
        Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.
2.      Champa Kumari Daughter Of Banwarilal Nitharwal, Aged
        About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Post Jassi Ka Bas,
        Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.      State   Of    Rajasthan,          Through           Principal     Secretary,
        Secondary      Education,          Govt.       Of        Rajasthan,   Govt.
        Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      Rajasthan    Public      Service        Commission,           Through    Its
        Secretary,     Rajasthan          Public        Service         Commission,
        Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment

22/01/2021

1. The petitioners by way of this writ petition challenge the

answer keys alleging that there are wrong answers for which

answer keys are required to be amended.

2. I have considered the submissions.

3. This Court has already taken a view in the case of Nidhi

Yadav & Another versus The State of Rajasthan & Others,

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11840/2019 decided on 18.10.2019

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

(2 of 2) [CW-705/2021]

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."

4. Keeping in view above, the present writ petition is found to

be without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

5. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

SAURABH YADAV 670/95

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)