Neki Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 8264 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5352/2021

1. Neki Ram S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Khedhro Ki Dhani, Post Gudha Gorji Ka , Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

2. Vedprakash Choudhary S/o Laxman Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Khedi, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hansraj Nimbar

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

25/03/2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an identical

controversy arose before the Jaipur Bench of this Court in SBCWP

No.638/2021 (Kamal Yadav & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.) and the said

writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2021,

directing the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to constitute an

Expert Committee.

2. Relevant part of the judgment in the case of Kamal Yadav

(supra) reads thus:-

"3. In the case Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2020) 13 SCALE 689

(2 of 2) [CW-5352/2021]

the Supreme Court has held that High Courts ought not interfere with the examination process generally and as the Courts cannot be said to be expert body however, this Court finds that candidates were not given an opportunity to put their objections relating to the final answer key although as per them, their answers were correct as per model answer key. This aspect requires to be examined at the level of RPSC.

4. Leaving it open for the RPSC to examine the aspect and allow them to form a special expert committee consisting of experts in the field relevant.

5. The present writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that if there are other writ petitions wherein other questions have been put to challenge, the RPSC at its own level may examine the said aspect and take decisions appropriately.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/s submits that complication relating to appointment may arise, if the result is revised. In the interest of justice in order to avoid any complications, the State would be well advised not to take decision to issue appointment orders for two weeks till the RPSC takes a decision as above.

7. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of."

3. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms

of the judgment rendered in the case of Kamal Yadav (supra) and

the petitioner shall also be given benefit of the judgment

aforesaid.

4. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 222-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)