Jagdish Kumar Choudhary vs Rajasthan Public Service ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15880 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 447/2020

1. Jagdish Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Karana Ram Choudhary, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ugroniyon Ki Dhani, Shahar, Gida, District Barmer.

2. Satya Veer Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Birmi Khalsa, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

3. Paras Lal S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Madpura Sari, Post Kawas, District Barmer.

4. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Tarachand Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 69, Shri Dev Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur.

5. Bagata Ram S/o Shri Rugnath Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Baitu Bhopji, District Barmer.

6. Veeram Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Bhalla Ram Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Charan Singh Colony, Baitu, District Barmer.

7. Moti Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Bori Kalla, District Jodhpur.

8. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ishavashyam, 124, Shyam Nagar, Iind Yojna, Pal Road, Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 365/2020 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Appellant Versus

1. Ajay Bhadu S/o Ram Ratan Bhadu, Aged About 35 Years, Ward No. 23, Dulmani Mandi, Pilibangan, Tehsil

(2 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Vinod Kumar Suthar S/o Shankar Lal Suthar, Aged About 41 Years, House No. 1/17, New Rajasthan Housing Board Colony, Manaksar Link Road, Ward No. 1, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 375/2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Appellant Versus

1. Poonama Ram S/o Shri Lala Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kerli, Adarsh Chawa, Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

2. Choona Ram S/o Shri Sadula Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Chadi, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

3. Kana Ram S/o Shri Narsha Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Tajaniyon Ka Tala, Post Kaprau, District Barmer.

4. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Secondary Education Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

5. Director, Secondary Education, District Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 412/2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Appellant Versus

1. Dhanraj S/o Purkha Ram, Aged About 31 Years, 173, Pipasar, Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

(3 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 413/2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Appellant Versus

1. Avinash S/o Khinya Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Mahavir Nagar, Barmer, Rajasthan.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 415/2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Appellant Versus

1. Jagdish Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Karana Ram Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ugroniyon Ki Dhani, Shahar, Gida, District Barmer.

2. Satya Veer Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Birmi Khalsa, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

3. Paras Lal S/o Shri Ratan Lal,, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Madpura Sari, Post Kawas, District Barmer.

4. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Tarachand Sharma,, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 69, Shri Dev Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur.

5. Bagata Ram S/o Shri Rugnath Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Baitu Bhopji, District Barmer.

6. Veeram Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Bhalla Ram Choudhary,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Charan Singh Colony, Baitu, District Barmer.

7. Moti Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh,, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bori Kalla, District Jodhpur.

8. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ishavashyam, 124, Shyam Nagar, Iind Yojna, Pal

(4 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

Road, Jodhpur.

9. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 497/2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Appellant Versus

1. Bal Veer Singh S/o Shri Raja Ram, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Sc, R/o Khedasari, Khoda, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

2. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Hadman Ram, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Obc, R/o Shekhchulia, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 498/2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Appellant Versus

1. Rajendra Singh Godara S/o Chatru Ram Godara, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Hairpura, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

2. Jaipal Singh S/o Balram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Dungersingh Pura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 46/2021

1. Poonama Ram S/o Shri Lala Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kerli, Adarsh Chawa, Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

(5 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

2. Choona Ram S/o Shri Sadula Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Chadi, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

3. Kana Ram S/o Shri Narsha Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Tajaniyon Ka Tala, Post Kaprau, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

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

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)-   :          Mr.   Mahaveer Bishnoi
Petitioners                    Mr.   Vijay Bisnoi
                               Mr.   Kailash Jangid
                               Mr.   Anil Bishnoi
For Appellant-RPSC:            Mr.   Tarun Joshi
                               Mr.   Khet Singh
For Respondent(s) :            Mr.   J.S. Bhaleria
                               Mr.   Mohan Singh Sekhawat
                               Mr.   Vikram Singh

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Judgment

21/10/2021

These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the

learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 15944/2019 and connected petitions. The appeals

being S.A.W. Nos. 365/2020, 375/2020, 412/2020, 413/2020,

415/2020, 497/2020 & 498/2020 are filed by the Rajasthan Public

Service Commission challenging the said judgment and the

appeals being S.A.W. Nos. 447/2020 & 46/2021 are filed by the

(6 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

original petitioners challenging the very same judgment to the

extent their petitions were dismissed.

The issue raised by the petitioners before the learned Single

Judge pertains to a recruitment process initiated by the State

Government through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for

appointment to the post of Headmaster in Secondary Schools. The

examination consisted of two papers containing 150 multiple

choice questions. After completion of the examination and

publication of answer keys, objections were invited from the

concerned persons. The Public Service Commission thereupon

constituted an expert body to deal with all the objections received

from the various quarters. As a culmination of this exercise,

answer keys to few questions were shifted from the original

answers published and in some cases where the expert body

opined that the questions were either confusing or there was

possibility of more correct answers than one and accordingly the

questions were deleted altogether. The original petitioners were

aggrieved by these changes and/or publication of correct answers

with respect to as many as 29 of these questions. They

approached the Court and challenged the decision of the Public

Service Commission with respect to these 29 questions. The

learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to 17 of these

questions. The learned Single Judge referred 6 of these disputed

questions to an expert body to be constituted by the Public

Service Commission and for other 6 questions, the learned Single

Judge carried out detailed analysis of the nature of the questions,

the multiple choice answers printed in the question papers and the

conclusion of the Public Service Commission with respect to the

correct answers thereof and over-ruled the decision of the Public

(7 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

Service Commission regarding the correct answers or to delete the

question. Challenge to the remaining 17 questions was turned

down. The Public Service Commission has therefore filed the

appeals mainly with respect to 6 questions where the learned

Single Judge has over-ruled the opinion of the Public Service

Commission. During the pendency of these appeals, the Public

Service Commission has carried out the exercise of reviewing the

remaining 6 questions by the expert body and we are informed by

the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission that the

report of the committee has also been received.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

considerable length.

With respect to 6 questions, the learned Single Judge has

made a reference to the expert body. No dispute has been raised

by the Public Service Commission and as noted, already obtained

a report from the expert body. We are informed by the learned

counsel for the Commission that the expert body has

recommended no change in the original view of the Public Service

Commission. So far as these appeals are concerned, this issue

must therefore rest at that stage.

We may now address the grievances of the Public Service

Commission with respect to 6 questions where the learned Single

Judge has interfered. We will deal with these questions at

seriatim.

The first question with multiple choice in this context was as

follows:-

"Q.96- Which one of the following statements about Rajasthan is not correct?

(8 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

(1) Its East-West extent is more than North-South extent.

(2) Its East-West extent is less than North-South extent.

(3) Its total land boundary is less 6000 km. (4) Its latitudinal extent is more than 7° latitudes."

Initially, the answer key recognized answer no. (2) as the

correct answer but later on, upon scrutiny, the Public Service

Commission decided to delete the question. The reason cited was

that in answer no. (3), the word "than" should have been added

between the words 'less' and '6000 km'. This typographical error

rendered this answer also incorrect and therefore, the whole

question became vague. The learned Single Judge over-ruled this

decision by observing as under:-

"This Court is of the opinion that an option has to be contextually understood in the backdrop of the corresponding question. The question No.96 specifically asked that which of the given options was not correct. Option (3) even without the use of expression "than" was able to convey the meaning reasonably. True it is, that a typographical error has crept in, but such innocuous error did not warrant the question to be deleted."

In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have

interfered with the final conclusion of the expert body duly

constituted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission having

expertise in the field. It is not necessary to refer to large number

of decisions of this Court as well as of Supreme Court which

essentially lay down that the interference by the High Court in

matters of education and other technical fields should be kept to

the minimum. Short reference to the decision of the Supreme

Court in the case of Richal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public

(9 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

Service Commission & Ors. [2018 (8) SCC 81] would be

sufficient.

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Public Service

Commission that the typographical error by which the word "than"

was missing rendered the question itself confusing and therefore it

was decided to be deleted. Without strong reasons, such decision

should not have been over-ruled. May be, one view was that such

typographical error could have been ignored and correction could

have been automatically applied. However, this is not a ground on

which the decision of the Public Service Commission can be over-

ruled. This view of the learned Single Judge is therefore reversed.

The next question along with its multiple choice answers, in

which the learned Single Judge interfered, was as under:-

"Q.77- What is given in 'Gargi Puraskar' to the students passing tenth (10th) Board examination? (1) A total sum of ₹6000 and a certificate (2) A total sum of ₹10000 and a certificate (3) A total sum of ₹25000 and a certificate (4) A total sum of ₹5000 and a certificate"

Originally, the answer no. (1) was recognized as a correct

answer. This question was altogether deleted upon review on the

ground that the prize money (under 'Gargi Puraskar') is given to a

girl student when she continues to study in classes XI and XII. The

learned Single Judge over-ruled this decision of the Public Service

Commission by making following observations:-

"This Court is of the firm view that the opinion of the experts that question be deleted because the expression "girl" and further stipulation "she continues to study in class XI and XII" were absent, is untenable. Even in absence of these expressions, the question which focuses on the quantum of award, is complete. Thus, the answer originally given i.e. option (1) is the correct answer."

(10 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

In our view, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified

in arriving at this conclusion. The question was, what is given

under the "Gargi Puraskar". Even Public Service Commission

agrees that answer no. (1) i.e. a total sum of ₹ 6000 and a

certificate is given under the said "Puraskar", is the correct

answer. This was only correct choice out of the four choices given

in the question paper. Despite this clear position, this question was

deleted on the ground that said sum of money and the certificate

are given only if the qualified girl students continue to pursue their

education in XI and XII standard. This was never the part of the

question, nor part of additional answers. The plain question was

as to what was the reward under the "Gargi Puraskar" to the

qualified student. The fact that such reward would be available

only if the student continues to study beyond a certain standard

was not a part of the question or answer. Therefore, to declare the

question redundant was wholly incorrect. In view of such clear

position, the learned Single Judge correctly came to the conclusion

to set aside the decision of the Public Service Commission.

Next question with multiple choice answers, which the

learned Single Judge objected to, was as under:-

"Q.87- Child Care Leave for mothers has been announced for those mothers who have children upto the maximum age of-

(1) 12 years (2) 14 years (3) 16 years (4) 18 years"

Originally, answer no. (4) was declared as correct answer.

Subsequently, upon review, the question was deleted altogether.

(11 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

This was on the basis that in case of a child with disability of

prescribed percentage, the child care leave to the mother is given

upto the age of 22 years of the child. The learned Single Judge,

however, was of the opinion that this was only an exception and

normal rule was that the child care leave is available for a child

upto the age of 18 years. When even in exceptional cases, it was

possible to avail the child care leave for the mother upto the age

of 22 years of the child, the multiple choices contained in the

question paper were not complete and no clear answer was

emerging and therefore the decision to delete the question cannot

be faulted.

The next disputed question where the learned Single Judge

interfered was as under:-

"Q.120 Consumer Protection Act was enforced in- (1) 1984 (2) 1982 (3) 1986 (4) 1989"

Originally, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

recognized answer no. (3) as correct answer. Later on, this was

deleted. Upon review, this answer was retained. The original

petitioners' submission was that the question should be deleted

because it does not present correct and clear answer. In this

context, the learned Single Judge ordered deletion of question on

the ground that the correct answer should have been the year

1987, which did not form part of the choices. The learned counsel

for the Public Service Commission is not in a position to seriously

controvert this conclusion of the learned Single Judge and it is

therefore affirmed.

(12 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

The next question which the learned Single Judge interfered

was as under:-

"Q.122- 'Agricultural shot' is associated with- (1) Hockey (2) Cricket (3) Basketball (4) Chess"

The correct answer published was answer no. (2) i.e. game

of Cricket. However, the learned Single Judge ordered deletion of

this question making following observations:-

"Objection raised by the petitioners qua this question is sustained. It is surprising to note that when it comes to Penicillin, RPSC opines it to be out of syllabus, but with respect to agricultural shot it says that it is included in current events - without even mentioning that when such shot was played recently. RPSC's stand that it is within syllabus is rejected. Consequently, question No.122 is ordered to be deleted."

Here again, going by the narrow scope of review against the

decision of the expert body in the field of education and

examination, we think that the learned Single Judge should have

refrained from interfering with the decision of the Public Service

Commission. It may be that the term "Agricultural Shot" is not a

recognized terminology in the English dictionary, nevertheless, if it

is considered to be a term which has come to be recognized

through the innovation of cricket commentators, it should not

have been seen as a question not within the syllabus.

The last surviving question in which the learned Single Judge

has caused interference was as under:-

"Q. 125- Recently Hima Das won a gold medal. The sports event in which she won was-

(1) Asian Games-2018 (2) World Atheletics Championship-2018 (3) World Junior Atheletics Championship-2018 (4) Commonwealth Games-2018"

(13 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

Originally, answer no. (3) was declared as the correct

answer. On review, the question was deleted because in the

opinion of the expert body, the multiple choice question presented

two possible answers, namely, Asian Games-2018 as well as World

Junior Atheletics Championship-2018. The learned Single Judge

objected to this view on the ground that in the Asian Games-2018,

the Athelete Hema Das has won Gold Medal in a team event.

In this context, the Public Service Commission was of the

opinion that since Hima Das won gold medal in Asian Games-2018

and World Junior Athletics Championship-2018, two answers i.e.

answer no. (1) and (3) were correct and thus, the question was

deleted. Further, the question did not specify as to which

individual Gold Medal, the athelete had won. Therefore, the

decision of the Public Service Commission to delete the question

should not be disturbed.

So far as appeals of the original petitioners are concerned,

hardly any arguments are advanced to reverse the decision of the

learned Single Judge upholding the view of the Public Service

Commission. It is therefore not necessary to address these

questions individually and to refer to the reasons cited by the

learned Single Judge for upholding the questions and answers.

Under the circumstances, the final picture that emerges is

that out of 6 questions, where the learned Single Judge has

caused interference, we are in a position to uphold only 2 of them

namely, with respect to the question no. 77 and question no. 120.

The rest of the declarations of the learned Single Judge with

respect to the remaining 4 questions are hereby reversed.

(14 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

The Public Service Commission would thus have to re-assess

the total tally of the marks of the petitioners by applying the

conclusions of the learned Single Judge with respect to the

question no. 77 and 120. If the petitioners or any of them, by

virtue of this exercise, get revised marks so as to be included in

the select list, they would be offered appointment prospectively

and they would draw salary from the date of joining the service

and their seniority will be counted from such date. It is clarified

that this exercise would be confined only to the petitioners and

will not apply to any other candidates.

The direction of the learned Single Judge with respect to

payment of cost is deleted.

With these observations, all the appeals are disposed of

accordingly.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

41to49-jayesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)