Rajasthan High Court
Manisha Kumari Agarwal Daughter ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
(1 of 3) [CW-955/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 955/2021
Manisha Kumari Agarwal Daughter Of Shri Suresh Chand
Agarwal Wife Of Shri Rakesh Goyal, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of New Jawahar Colony, Mantown, Bajariya, Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Secondary Education Department,
Through Its Principal Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)
3. Dy. Secretary, Exam, Rajasthan Public Service
Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
29/01/2021
The petitioner assails the questions and answers options in
relation to the Question No.95 for the post of School Lecturer.
This Court has already held in the case of Neha Salodia
versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.15089 decided on 07.01.2021, 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.
(2 of 3) [CW-955/2021]
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:
"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-955/2021]
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."
In view of the above this writ petition is also accordingly
dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SAURABH YADAV 670/99
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
