Rajasthan High Court
Sunita Meena Daughter Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
(1 of 4) [CW-813/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 813/2021
1. Sunita Meena Daughter Of Shri Prabhu Lal Meena, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of 2-J-9, Rangbari Scheme,
Kota (Raj.)
2. Mithlesh Jogi Son Of Shri Ram Gopal Jogi, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Village Manchari, Tehsil Todabhim,
District Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Secondary Education Department,
Through Its Principle Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)
3. Dy. Secretary, Exam Rajasthan Public Service
Commissioner Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
27/01/2021
1. This Court has already held in the case of Neha Salodia
Versus State Of Rajasthan & Others, SBCWP No.15089/2020 as
under:-
(2 of 4) [CW-813/2021]
"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 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
(3 of 4) [CW-813/2021]
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."
2. The petitioners seek to challenge the second answer key
whereby after obtaining objections, the respondents published the
answer key and are proceeding with the selection.
(4 of 4) [CW-813/2021]
3. Keeping in view above, I am not inclined to entertain this
petition on the basis of the retrospective view of the Supreme
Court(supra).
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. All pending
applications shall stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Anu /204
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
