Rajasthan High Court
Chandra Kant Chauhan S/O Shri ... vs High Court Of Judicature For ... on 8 April, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2253/2022
Kavita Bhargava D/o Shri Devkinandan Bhargava, aged about 35
years, R/o 30, Surya Sadan, Shortiya Mohalla, Akhaigah,
Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
Connected With
(2) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 928/2022
1. Vichitr Son of Shri Ramji Lal, aged about 27 years, Resident
of Village and Post Lalana Bass, Uttradha, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh, at Present Resident of No. Villa No.
19, Near Puja Haveli, Girdhar Vatika, Muhana, Jaipur.
2. Meena Kanwar Daughter of Shri Prahlad Singh Shekhawat,
aged about 28 years, Resident Navrangpura, Tehsil Virat
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(3) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1114/2022
1. Sagar Agrawal Son of Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, aged about
23 years, Resident of 96, Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Nagar,
Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Asmita Sharma Daughter of Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma,
aged about 28 years, Resident of 16, Sundar Nagar, Near
Girdhar Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Khushboo Joshi Daughter of Kailash Joshi, aged about 27
years, Resident of 57, Joshi Sadan, Sheopur Pratap Nagar,
Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(2 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
(4) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1115/2022
Shyam Sundar Meena Son of Shri Ram Khiladi Meena, aged about
37 years, Resident of B-89, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(5) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1119/2022
Hemank Vaishnav Son of Laxmikant Vaishnav, aged about 25
years, Resident of Vaishnav Colony, Village and Post Ghatol,
District Banswara (Rajasthan) (Roll No. 120465)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through Registrar
General, Rajasthan High Court Building, Jodhpur.
2. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through Registrar
(Examination), Rajasthan High Court Building, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(6) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1143/2022
1. Rekha Choudhary D/o Shri Bhava Ram, aged about 27
years, Resident of 706, Bali Road, Near Government
Hospital, Khudala, Falna, Pali, Rajasthan. Presently Residing
at C-65, RICCO Housing Colony Road No. 1D, Malhota
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 138185)
2. Noori Maondia D/o Shri Kamal Kumar Maondia, aged about
28 years, Resident of C-65, RICCO Housing Colony Road No.
1D, Malhota Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 131611).
3. Kratika Verma D/o Shri Om Prakash Verma, aged about 27
years, Resident of 77/ 100-B, Arawali Marg, Mansarover,
Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 124542).
4. Sita Kumari D/o Shri Chander Singh, aged about 36 years,
Resident of 7-G-26, Pawanpuri, South Extension, Bikaner,
Rajasthan. Presently Residing at B-19-A, Vedh Villa Colony,
Ram Nagar Vistar, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No.
145400).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through its Registrar
General.
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(3 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(7) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1199/2022
Vijay Laxmi Charan D/o Shri Mahendra Singh Charan, aged about
25 years, R/o Plot No. B-29, Sudamapuri IInd, Harmara, Sikar
Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through
Registrar General, Principal Seat, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Principal Seat, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(8) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1203/2022
Jyoti Verma Daughter of Shri Vishan Swaroop Verma, aged about
33 years, Resident of Sunar Gali, Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(9) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1205/2022
1. Suman Yadav Daughter of Shri Shravan Yadav, aged about
22 years, Resident of 34/501, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Vikram Swami Son of Shri Ram Niwas Swami, aged about
24 years, Resident of Village and Post 15 Z Karanpur Road,
Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) at present Resident of Mansarovar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Manjoor Khan Son of Shri Lal Mohammed, aged about 26
years, Resident of Village Miya Ki Dhani, Ajabpura, District
Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(10) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1215/2022
Meha Bhushan D/o Bhibhuti Bhushan, aged about 30 years,
Resident of Flat No. 806, Okay Plus Green Height Apartment,
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(4 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
Pachyawala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Examination Cell through Registrar
(Examination), Jodhpur.
----Respondent
(11) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1243/2022
Pallavi Pareek D/o Shri Ram Kumar Pareek, aged about 26 years,
Resident of Pareek Mohalla, Near Laxminath Temple, Sirsi, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(12) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1271/2022
Praveen Kumar Saini S/o Suresh Chandra Saini, aged about 35
years, R/o K-53, Narayan Vihar, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, through the Registrar,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(13) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1308/2022
Ved Prakash Chokdayat Son of Shri Govind Lal Chokdayat, aged
about 44 years, Resident of Chokdayat Bhawan, Ward No. 20,
Lalsot, Dausa, Rajasthan, Presently Residing at Q,74 Raj Aangan,
Sec-24, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Rajasthan, through Registrar General, New
High Court Building, Jodhpur.
2. High Court of Rajasthan, through Registrar (Examination),
New High Court Building, Jodhpur.
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(5 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
----Respondents
(14) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1313/2022
Anokhi Jat D/o Nanuram Jat, aged about 29 years, R/o Village
Kanwar Ka Bnass, Kalwar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(15) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1345/2022
1. Priyanka Gaur Daughter of Shri Pramod Gaur, aged about
32 years, Resident of 3-G-7, Jawahar Nagar, Shri
Ganganagar (Raj.) at present Resident of Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Sonam Chauhan Daughter of Shri Ashok Kumar Chauhan,
aged about 29 years, Resident of 21 AB Ghoda Nikas Road,
Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Ehsaas Bhadhoria Son of Shri Suresh Kumar Bhadhoria,
aged about 23 years, Resident of 283 A, Model Town, C-
Block, Jagatpura Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(16) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1346/2022
Jeetendra Naruka Son of Shri Umrao Singh Naruka, aged about 29
years, Resident of Plot No. 44, Pawanpuri East, Benar Road,
Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(17) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1347/2022
Sudarshan Purohit Son of Shri Shyam Manohar Purohit Advocate,
aged about 29 years, Resident of Bafno Ka Mohalla Old City,
Kishangarh, District Ajmer 305802
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(6 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
Versus
1. The Honble High Court for Judicature of Rajasthan, through
Registrar General, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(18) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1457/2022
Nikhil Bansal S/o Dinesh Chandra Bansal, aged about 29 years, R/o
21, Patel Nagar, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, through the Registrar,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(19) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1598/2022
Shikhar Moolchandani S/o Shri Radhakrishan Moolchandani, aged
about 27 years, Resident of 233 Jasoli Dr. Sindhi Marg, District
Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. Present Resident of 213 Taruchhaya Nagar,
Tonk Road, Jaipur (Pin 302029) (Roll No. 143266)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur through
Registrar General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(20) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1611/2022
Saurabh Singh S/o Mukesh, aged about 22 years, R/o JA-4,
Nyaydeep, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through the
Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(7 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
(21) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/2022
Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Gyarsi Ram, aged about 28 years (D.O.B.
04.07.1993), Category- EWS, R/o VPO Moroli Dang, Tehsil
Roopbas, District Bharatpur, VPO Moroli Dang, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
150031).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through Registrar
General, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
2. Registrar (Examination) Cum Recruiting Authority,
Examination Cell, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Office at Rajasthan High Court Building, Bhagwandas Road,
C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
(22) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1626/2022
Diksha Bansal D/o Shri Vijay Bansal, aged about 26 years (D.O.B.
18.07.1995), Category - General, R/o Kandoi Saree Center, Main
Bazaar, Nohar, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, Presently Residing at
Rented Premise - D-4, Gali No. 20, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur (Roll No.
117619)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through Registrar
General, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
2. Registrar (Examination) Cum Recruiting Authority,
Examination Cell, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Office at Rajasthan High Court Building, Bhagwandas Road,
C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
(23) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1628/2022
Chandra Kant Chauhan S/o Shri Rameshwar Singh, aged about 36
years (D.O.B. 25.02.1986), Category- EWS, R/o VPO Maloni
Panwar Tehsil- Saipau, District- Dholpur, Rajasthan-328023 (Roll
No. 115822)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through Registrar
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(8 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
General, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
2. Registrar (Examination) Cum Recruiting Authority,
Examination Cell, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Office at Rajasthan High Court Building, Bhagwandas Road,
C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
(24) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1631/2022
Rajesh Swami S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Swami, aged about 36 years
(D.O.B. 07.03.1985), Category OBC- NCL, R/o Ramawat Nagar,
Ramawat Dharam Kanta, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar, Rajasthan (Roll
No. 136810)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through Registrar
General, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
2. Registrar (Examination) Cum Recruiting Authority,
Examination Cell, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Office at Rajasthan High Court Building, Bhagwandas Road,
C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
(25) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1633/2022
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Bharat Singh, aged about 32 years (D.O.B.
01.05.1989), Category OBC-NCL, R/o Bajrang Nagar, Kumher
Gate, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001 (Roll No. 113909).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through Registrar
General, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
2. Registrar (Examination) Cum Recruiting Authority,
Examination Cell, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Office at Rajasthan High Court Building, Bhagwandas Road,
C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
(26) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1648/2022
1. Anurag Choudhary S/o Shri Ummed Singh, aged about 33
years, R/o 156, Girnar Colony South, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(9 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
Rajasthan.
2. Nida Siddiqui D/o Shri Khushnood Ahmed, aged about 28
years, R/o 25-A, Vikas Vihar Colony, Near Depot, Deoli
Road, Tonk, Rajasthan.
3. Mahaveer Sihag S/o Shri Nand Ram Sihag, aged about 39
years, R/o VPO Thakri, Tehsil Raisingh Nagar,
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, through the Registrar,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Examination Committe, Exam Cell, High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342001
3. Registrar (Examination), High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Bhagwandas Road, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
----Respondents
(27) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1654/2022
Pooja Tank D/o Sh. Prakash Tank, aged about 41 years, R/o 1296,
Tank Bhawan, Opposite Celebration Bakery, Fatehpura Circle,
Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, through its Registrar
General
2. Registrar (Examination) Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
----Respondents
(28) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1657/2022
Shubham Meena Son of Shri Bharat Lal Meena, aged about 29
years, Resident of 3, Durdarshan Colony, Getor Road, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur through
Registrar General.
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(10 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
2. The Registrar (Examination), High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(29) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1663/2022
Komal Singh Daughter of Shri Ashok Choudhary, aged about 22
years, Resident of Nalanda Vihar, Maharani Farm, Durgapura,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(30) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1733/2022
1. Neha Rani Daughter of Shri Ashok Kumar, aged about 32
years, Resident of G-2, 1-40, Shree Balaji Residency
Amrapali Nagar, Dhawas, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Arvind Kumar Son of Shri Suresh Chand, aged about 28
years, Resident of Village Nagla Sogariya, Ward No. 10,
Tehsil Nadbail, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(31) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1811/2022
1. Priyanka Swami D/o Shri Sanwar Mal Swami, aged about 25
years (D.O.B. 08.03.1997), Category- OBC-NCL, R/o Behind
Head Post Office, Ward No. 19, Nayabas, District Churu,
Rajasthan-331001, Presently Residing at C/o Manoj Kumar
Shukla, 410-B, Katewa Nagar, Devi Nagar Jaipur Rajasthan-
302016 (Roll No. 135399)
2. Gazala Parveen D/o Shri Liyakat Ali, aged about 27 years
(D.O.B. 28.09.1995), Category-General R/o Near Panchayat
Samiti Aligarh, District Tonk, Rajasthan-304023. (Roll No.
119220)
3. Rekha Rathore D/o Anop Singh Rathore, aged about 32
years (D.O.B. 01.09.1990), Category-General R/o Village
Chainpura, Post Chainpura Chota, Tehsil Rajgarh, District
Churu, Rajasthan-331023. (Roll No. 138229)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(11 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
4. Preeti Vyas D/o Late Roop Kishor, aged about 28 years
(D.O.B. 06.11.1994), Category-EWS, R/o Bassi Mohalla,
Pisangan, District Ajmer, Rajasthan-305204. (Roll No.
134590)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through Registrar
General, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
2. Registrar (Examination) Cum Recruiting Authority,
Examination Cell, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Office at Rajasthan High Court Building, Bhagwandas Road,
C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
(32) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1975/2022
Ms. Anjana Sharma D/o Mr. Rajendra Sharma, Resident of Kamla
Sadan, Bramahano Ka Mohalla, Village-Mandi, Tehsil- Phagi, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (303005)
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(33) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2050/2022
Babita Sharma D/o Shri Satya Narayan Sharma, aged about 31
years (D.O.B. 13.03.1991), Category-EWS, R/o Village Rukansar,
Post Ramgarh Shekhawati, District Sikar, Rajasthan-331024. (Roll
No. 114727)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through Registrar
General, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
2. Registrar (Examination) Cum Recruiting Authority,
Examination Cell, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Office at Rajasthan High Court Building, Bhagwandas Road,
C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
(34) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2051/2022
1. Prasannta Sharma D/o Shri Govind Ram Sharma, aged
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(12 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
about 36 years (D.O.B. 10.04.1986), Category General, R/o
S-1, Plot No. 197-198, Swastik Residency, Jamanapuri,
Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302039 (Roll No.
133950)
2. Vinny Sharma D/o Naresh Sharma, aged about 29 years
(D.O.B. 09.09.1993), Category - General, R/o 982, C-Block,
Ranjit Avenue, District Amritsar, Punjab-143001 (Roll No.
150740)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through Registrar
General, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
2. Registrar (Examination) Cum Recruiting Authority,
Examination Cell, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Office at Rajasthan High Court Building, Bhagwandas Road,
C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
(35) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2052/2022
Shweta Sheheria D/o Shri Surendra Kumar Meena, aged about 26
years (D.O.B. 10.08.1996), Category - ST, R/o Village Viloj Nagar,
Post Salempur, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karouli, Rajasthan-322202
(Roll No. 145030)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through Registrar
General, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
2. Registrar (Examination) Cum Recruiting Authority,
Examination Cell, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Office at Rajasthan High Court Building, Bhagwandas Road,
C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
(36) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2059/2022
Ravi Gupta S/o Shri Kedar Mal Gupta, aged about 29 years (D.O.B.
29.04.1992), Category General, R/o Nosadar Bhawan, Ajeetgarh,
District Sikar, Rajasthan-332701 (Roll No. 137793)
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(13 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, through Registrar
General, Office at Rajasthan High Court Building,
Dongriyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
2. Registrar (Examination) Cum Recruiting Authority,
Examination Cell, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Office at Rajasthan High Court Building, Bhagwandas Road,
C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
(37) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2423/2022
Akhil Saraswat S/o Sh. Ravi Kishore Sharma, aged about 30 years,
R/o A-38, Behind SBI, Ashok Vihar, Alwar, 301001, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, through its Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(38) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2492/2022
Trilok Chand Sharma S/o. Shri Rajkumar Sharma, aged about 34
years, R/o. Village Harsana Patel Mohalla, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Hon'ble High Court for Judicature of Rajasthan, through
Registrar General, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination Cell), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(39) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2867/2022
Neha Jain D/o Suresh Kumar Nahata, Resident of D-9/40, Shyam
Marg, Aditya Apartment 1St Floor, Chitakoot Yojna, Jaipur Roll No.
130300
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur through
Registrar General
2. Registrar (Examination), High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:12:26 PM)
(14 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
For Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Joshi, Advocate with
Ms. Preeti Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora, Advocate with
Ms. Komal Kumari Giri, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, Advocate
Mr. Girraj P. Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Adv.
With Ms. Priya Pareek, Advocate
Mr. Mahendra Singh Rathore, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal, Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jain, Advocate
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Advocate,
Mr. Aamir Khan, Advocate and
Mr. Giriraj Rajoriya, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate with
Ms. Gyamlani Neha, Advocate
Ms. Bhavya Golecha, Advocate
Mr. Vinodi Lal Mathur, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Balwada, Advocate with
Ms. Gayatri, Advocate
Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal,
Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi, Advocate
Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda, Advocate
with Mr. Hemraj Rodiya, Advocate
Mr. Bajrang Lal Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal, Advocate with
Mr. Vinod Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Kant Chauhan, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate with
Ms. Shivali Katara, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. Vishesh Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Gupta, petitioner in person
For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma, Advocate
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
REPORTABLE
8/04/2022
By the Court:(Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Acting CJ.)
Petitioners, in this batch of petitions, call in question the
correctness and validity of the merit list prepared after Preliminary
(15 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
Examination in the matter of selection to the post of Civil Judge
Cadre. The petitioners had appeared in Preliminary Examination.
After declaration of the result of Preliminary Examination on
11.01.2022 in the matter of recruitment to 120 posts of Civil Judge
Cadre, notified vide Advertisement dated 22.07.2021, when model
answer keys were published, inviting objections, the petitioners, as
claimed by them, submitted objections. A Committee of Experts
was constituted to examine various objections. The objections were
with regard to either questions itself being vague, incorrect and
misleading or answer keys alleged to be incorrect. In some cases,
objection was raised that more than one answer keys are correct,
yet there were cases where objection was to the effect that none of
the answer keys are correct. All these objections were considered
by the Committee of Experts constituted by the official respondents.
While the Committee decided to delete four questions, objections
with regard to other questions were overruled. Aggrieved by
deletion of four questions as also rejection of objections with regard
to other questions, the petitions have been filed by unsuccessful
candidates, which are being disposed off by this common order.
2. The respondents issued an Advertisement on 22.07.2021 under
the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (As Amended)
[hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2010'] for direct recruitment
to the posts of Civil Judge Cadre. The advertisement invited
applications from eligible candidates. Under the Rules of 2010 read
with the advertisement, the process of selection compromised of two
stages, i.e., Preliminary Examination and Main Examination as
specified in Schedule IV appended to the Rules of 2010. The marks
obtained in Preliminary Examination by the candidates, declared
(16 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
qualified for admission to Main Examination, were not to be counted
for determining their final merit.
Under the Rules of 2010 and the advertisement, the number of
candidates to be admitted to the main examination was 15 times the
total number of vacancies (category wise) to be filled in the year, but
in the said range, all those candidates, who secure the same
percentage of marks, as may be fixed by the Recruiting Authority for
any lower range, were to be admitted to Main Examination. Main
Examination comprised of written examination as well as interview.
The Rules of 2010 and the advertisement further provided that on
the basis of marks secured in Main Examination, candidates to the
extent of three times of total number of vancancies (category wise)
shall be declared qualified to be called for interview.
3. The petitioners and large number of candidates submitted their
applications. All the candidates including the petitioners were
screened through Preliminary Examination on the pattern of multiple
choice for every question. Preliminary Examination did not comprise
of any question requiring writing of answer, but was confined only to
options by way of multiple choice. The question papers were
prepared in four different sets described as A, B, C and D Series.
Preliminary Examination was held on 28.11.2021. Thereafter,
provisional answer key/model answer key of question papers of all
the series, i.e., A, B, C and D Series was published on 29.11.2021.
A notice was published inviting objections from the candidates, who
had objections regarding answers mentioned in the model answer
key by uploading those objections with the authentic proof, on the
official website of the High Court, between the period from
04.12.2021 (from 01:00 P.M.) to 11.12.2021 (up to 05:00 P.M.).
(17 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
It also stated that objections received or submitted after the
stipulated period or by any other mode or without paying requisite
fee, shall not be entertained. The notice further declared that after
due consideration of the objections received, if any, the final answer
key (if required) and result of Preliminary Examination shall be
published on the official website of the High Court.
4. In response, various objections were received. The
respondents, thereafter, constituted a Committee of Experts. After
examining the objections, the Committee was of the view that out of
all the objections, four questions be itself deleted or any other
appropriate decision be taken in the interest of examinees. All other
objections were rejected. Pursuant to the recommendations made
by the Committee of Experts, the respondents decided to delete four
questions and vide notification dated 11.01.2022, final answer key
of question papers of all the series, i.e., A, B, C and D Series of
Preliminary Examination was published indicating the questions
deleted. Copy of that notification has been placed on record as
Annexure-6 in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2253/2022 (Kavita
Bhargava Vs. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur). Based on the aforesaid exercise, after getting objections
decided and finalising the model answer key, a merit list (category
wise) was also published. As the petitioners did not find place in the
merit list, they have approached this Court by filing aforesaid writ
petitions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective writ
petitioners in elaborate details. The challenge made to correctness
and validity of deletion of four questions, rejection of representation
for deleting more questions on various grounds and some other
(18 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
common grounds of challenge to the process of selection in these
petitions is as below:
(i) Question No. A-44/B-44/C-53/D-47 has been wrongly deleted as
it cannot be said to be vague inasmuch as Hindi version being right.
Merely because English version was vague, the deletion could not
have been made as in that eventuality, it could work injustice and
unfair treatment to those candidates, who correctly attempted and
gave correct answer on the basis of Hindi version.
(ii) Question No. A-79/B-74/C-84/D-84 has been wrongly deleted as
option (3) is correct but the Committee has wrongly treated as
incorrect and therefore, arbitrarily deleted the question.
(iii) Question No. A-81/B-81/C-74/D-75 has been wrongly deleted by
wrongly treating the same as being out of syllabus. The question
was well within the syllabus, therefore, the decision of the
Committee is wrong.
(iv) Question No. A-84/B-71/C-80/D-74 has been wrongly deleted.
Even though option (3) is the correct answer, the Committee has
wrongly deleted the question. In this regard reliance has been
placed on certain texts.
(v) Question No. A-47/B-51/C-57/D-62 ought to be deleted as in
view of Amendment Act, all the given options were wrong.
(vi) Question No. A-78/B-76/C-82/D-77 gave four options out of
which, option (1) and (2) both are correct. Therefore, it being a
case of more than one correct answer, it ought to be deleted. This is
sought to be supported on the basis of certain texts.
(vii) Question No. A-100/B-89/C-88/D-94 ought to be deleted as it
was out of syllabus. Referring to the contents of syllabus for the
subject (English Proficiency), the question was with regard to correct
(19 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
spelling of the word with multiple choices. This was not included as
per syllabus of English Proficiency as specified in the advertisement.
(viii) Question No. A-66/B-49/C-58/D-39 provided four options. The
key answer was rightly marked as option (3) [25 September 1987]
but later on it was wrongly changed as option (1) [23 December
1986].
(ix) Question No. A-95/B-88/C-95/D-98 ought to be deleted because
both options (1) and (3) were correct and it was a case of multiple
correct answers.
(x) Question No. A-21/B-33/C-22/D-28 is highly vague and all the
options are possibly correct answers. Therefore, the question was
required to be deleted.
(xi) In respect of Question No. A-80/B-77/C-73/D-81, the
respondents have wrongly provided option (2) as the correct answer.
Therefore, evaluation of the candidates and award of marks to
those, who have opted for option (2) is illegal, arbitrary and unfair.
(xii) For every deletion, bonus marks ought to be awarded to those
who had correctly answered the deleted questions.
(xiii) Action of the respondents in inviting objections and referring
the disputed questions/answer keys to the Committee of Experts is
de-hors the governing rules, i.e., Rules of 2010 and otherwise not
envisaged under Rule 20 thereof and Schedule IV B thereof.
(xiv) Schedule IV B inasmuch as under the scheme of Preliminary
Examination, it has been provided that 70% weightage would be
given to the subjects prescribed in syllabus for Law Paper-I and Law
Paper-II and 30% weightage would be given to test proficiency in
Hindi and English Language. The result/effect of deletion of four
(20 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
questions would be that the aforesaid ratio was disturbed and thus,
the entire examination is vitiated.
(xv) Even though, the respondents upon consideration of objections,
decided to delete four questions, the mechanism adopted after
deletion was not legally permissible in law. Instead of evaluating the
merits of candidates on the basis of answers against 96 questions,
pro-rata distribution of marks of deleted questions ought to be
worked out.
(xvi) Question No. A-83/B-79/C-73/D-76 was required to be deleted
as out of four options, three options, i.e. option (1), (2) and (3) are
correct answers to the question. Therefore, it being a case of
multiple correct answer keys, the only option was deletion of the
question.
An additional ground has been taken that all those candidates,
who had attempted any of the three options, i.e. option (1), (2) and
(3), were entitled to grace marks.
(xvii) As exercise of deletion of questions affected the cut off marks,
the preparation of the merit list based on cut off marks itself renders
the select list illegal and, therefore, the merit list calling the
candidates for Main Examination is bad in law.
(xviii) Question No. A-59/B-66/C-46/D-69 with four multiple choices
had more than one correct answer as option (1) and option (3).
Therefore, it was required to be deleted.
(xix) Question No. A-46/B-59/C-68/D-40 was also required to be
deleted as according to the petitioners-candidates, it had two correct
multiple choice answers as option (1) as well as option (4).
(xx) In the examination hall, the restriction with regard to watch
was also arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the advertisement.
(21 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
While according to the advertisement, the prohibition so imposed
was with regard to bringing smart watch, there being no objection to
normal watch, even then the same was also not allowed. This
prejudicially affected time management and in that regard,
representation was also made.
(xxi) Question No. A-41/B-40/C-59/D-54 was liable to be deleted as
option (1) was not correct answer and remaining all three options
are correct.
In support of contention that bonus marks/grace marks ought
to be awarded as a result of deletion of questions, learned counsel
for the petitioners have placed reliance upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University, through
Vice-Chancellor & Others Vs. Samir Gupta & Others, (1983) 4
SCC 309 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Arti Meena Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (D. B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 10022/2019 and batch of petitions decided vide
order dated 18.07.2019).
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents would argue that the respondents have acted not only
with utmost transparency, but also in accordance with the rules and
constitutional requirement of fair procedure. He would submit that
model answer keys prepared by the respondents were first published
by inviting objections from the candidates. Upon receipt of
objections, a Committee of Experts was constituted. It meticulously
examined the objections and after close scrutiny thereof, decided to
delete four questions, i.e., Question Nos. A-44, A-79, A-81 and A-84.
As far as Question No. A-66 is concerned, the Committee
opined that the correct answer be changed to option (1) or any
(22 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
other appropriate decision be taken in the interest of examinees.
Accordingly, option of that question was changed as option (1) being
the correct answer key and the candidates were evaluated on the
basis of the answers given by them, taking upon option (1) as the
correct answer.
7. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that once the
objections were considered by the Committee of Experts, it was not
open for the petitioners to seek further review/revaluation of the
answer keys through judicial process except in very rare
circumstances where the answer keys as finalised by the
respondents or the decision taken by the respondents with regard to
deletion of questions or refusing to delete the questions or even
changing answer keys is demonstrably and palpably wrong and
without involving any inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalisation. He would further argue that it has been
held in various decisions that once the questions are found to be
wrong or incorrect, one of the proper course of action would be
deletion of those questions and evaluating the merit of the
candidates on the basis of answers provided by them against
deleted disputed questions. Further contention of learned Senior
Counsel is that claim of bonus marks is not permissible as such
directions in the cases of Kanpur University, through Vice-
Chancellor & Others (supra) and Arti Meena (supra) were
given in different factual context.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would
further argue that it had become necessary to evolve a just and fair
procedure to ensure that examinees are not subjected to any unfair
process of evaluation of merit on the basis of questions which itself
(23 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
were vague or incorrect. It had, therefore, become necessary to
accord fairness by deleting four questions and if in that process,
slight deviation results insofar as Law subjects and Language
subjects are concerned, as provided in Schedule IV (B) appended to
the Rules of 2010, that would not give any candidate a right to
question the process of selection as the effect of deletion has
percolated to all the examinees alike.
9. Next submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is
that objection with regard to cut off marks is also liable to be
rejected because it does not affect inter se merit of the candidates
as the merit list has been prepared strictly in accordance with the
marks obtained by the candidates keeping in view the provisions
contained in Rule 20 of the Rules of 2010. Replying further, it has
been argued that even though the Rules do not clearly envisage
course of action to be adopted where some of the questions are
found incorrect and therefore, requiring deletion, rules of fairness
and procedure have to be read into the rules and the permissible
course of action in such cases, as has been laid down in plethora of
decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been followed by
the respondents in letter and spirit.
10. As regards the argument that after deletion, pro-rata
distributions of marks was required to be adopted and such course
having not been adopted, selection process has rendered illegal, it is
contended that whether or not pro-rata distribution of marks takes
place, as was directed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case of Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor & Others
(supra), it does not affect the inter se merit of the candidates
including the petitioners as even if, pro-rata distribution of marks
(24 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
takes place, inclusion of the candidates would depend only upon
their comparative merit and the marks obtained by them in
Preliminary Examination.
11. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the objection
raised by one of the petitioner regarding not allowing the normal
watch during examination does not deal with the petitioner in any
discriminatory manner because all the candidates were subjected to
examination under the same restriction and there are no pleadings
in the petition that different treatment was given in the sense that at
some places facility of keeping normal watch was provided and at
some other places, such facility of keeping normal watch was not
allowed. He would further submit that as far as Question No. A-
21/B-33/C-22/D-28 is concerned, no objection was received,
therefore, the Committee had no occasion to examine the same.
However, the petitioners have failed to establish that the question
was demonstrably and palpably wrong, vague and incorrect, so as to
require its deletion. He would submit that the petitioners have
sought to question the correctness of the aforesaid question for the
first time before this Court and, therefore, only on that count, it is
required to be rejected.
12. As far as challenge to decision of the Committee with regard to
Question No. A-81/B-81/C-74/D-75 and Question No. A-80/B-77/C-
73/D-81 is concerned, the challenge to the action of the respondents
has already been repelled and petition filed by one Ashwini
Chaturvedi has been dismissed by Division Bench of this Court at
Principal Seat, Jodhpur in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.
1226/2022 (Ashwini Chaturvedi Vs. High of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jodhpur) decided on 28.01.2022.
(25 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
13. In support of various submissions made before us, learned
Senior Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ran Vijay
Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
(2018) 2 SCC 357; Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission,
through its Chairman and Another Vs. Rahul Singh and
Another (2018) 7 SCC 254; Richal and Others Vs. Rajasthan
Public Service Commission and Others, (2018) 8 SCC 81;
Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor & Others (supra);
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanhya Lal
Sain Vs. Registrar Examination, R.H.C. 2016 (2) RLW 1370
(Raj.) and order dated 21.02.2022 passed by Division Bench of this
Court in Rajkamal Basitha Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
and Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11347/2021 and
batch of petitions).
14. We have heard extensive and elaborate arguments and
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have taken
into consideration the pleadings made by the parties in the writ
petitions, return of the respondents, rejoinder and legal submissions
with reference to several decisions cited at the Bar.
15. At the outset, insofar as challenge to decision of the respondents
with regard to Question No. A-81/B-81/C-74/D-75 and Question No.
A-80/B-77/C-73/D-81 is concerned, the same is liable to be
dismissed because the correctness of the decision of the
respondents with regard to aforesaid two questions has already
been repelled by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashwini
Chaturvedi (supra).
(26 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
16. Before adverting to various factual submissions and the grounds
urged by the petitioners, we consider it apposite to first deal with
the settled legal position in the matter of challenge to the
correctness of the process of revaluation of answer keys and the
scope of judicial review in such cases.
17. To begin with, it is well settled legal position that in absence of
there being a provision of revaluation, revaluation of answers is not
permissible in law, as held in plethora of decisions.
18. The settled legal position in this regard was reiterated by the
Supreme Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission Versus Mukesh Thakur & Another, (2010) 6 SCC
759 and it was held as below:-
"24. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is
no more res integra. This issue was considered at length
by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh
Kurmarsheth, wherein this Court rejected the contention
that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a
direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The
Court further held that even the policy decision
incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for
rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be
challenged unless there are grounds to show that the
policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision.
The Court held as under: (SCC pp.39-40 & 42, paras 14
& 16)
"14...It is exclusively within the province of the
legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of
policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be
implemented and what measures, substantive as well as
procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or
regulations for the efficacious achievement of the
objects and purposes of the Act...
16...The Court cannot sit in judgment over the
wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the
subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise
policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the
enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and
hence calling for revision and improvement. But any
draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or
(27 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court
cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion,
it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish
one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the
purposes of the Act...."
25. This view has been approved and relied upon
and re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission observing
as under:(SCC pp.717-18, para7)
"7. ... Under the relevant rules of the Commission,
there is no provision wherein a candidate may be
entitled to ask for re- evaluation of his answer-book.
There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the
answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking
whether all the answers given by a candidate have been
examined and whether there has been any mistake in
the totalling of marks of each question and noting them
correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book.
There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was
found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the
General Science paper. In the absence of any provision
for re- evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules,
no candidate in an examination has got any right
whatsoever to claim or ask for re- evaluation of his
marks.
(emphasis added)
A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb Ul
Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Government of J & K State,
Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda,
Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar, West
Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan
Das and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health
Sciences.
26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the
effect that in absence of any provision under the statute
or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not
generally direct revaluation."
19. The aforesaid legal position has been further affirmed in the
cases of Ran Vijay Singh & Others (supra) and High Court of
Tripura through The Registrar General Versus Tirtha Sarathi
Mukherjee & Others, (2019) 16 SCC 663.
(28 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
20. However, a situation where key answers itself are found to be
incorrect, requiring necessary course correction has also been
considered by the Supreme Court.
In the case of Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor
& Others (supra), controversy arose with regard to some
questions that the key answers for those questions were not correct.
On facts, upon examination of authentic texts, it was held that the
key answers itself were not correct. The High Court issued direction
for re-assessment of particular questions. Such direction was
affirmed. It was held that if there is a case of doubt, key answers
already provided have to be adhered to but if the matter is beyond
the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to panelize the students for
not giving an answer which accords with the key answer which is
demonstrated to be wrong. It was importantly observed:-
"15. The findings of the High Court raise a
question of great importance to the student community.
Normally, one would be inclined to the view, especially if
one has been a paper setter and an examiner, that the
key answer furnished be the paper setter and accepted
by the University as correct, should not be allowed to be
challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the
key answer at all. If the University had not published
the key answer along with the result of the test, no
controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is
not a correct way of looking at these matters which
involve the future of hundreds of students who are
aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the
key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy
would have been worse than the disease because, so
many students would have had to suffer the injustice in
silence. The publication of the key answer has
unravelled an unhappy state of affairs to which the
University and the State Government must find a
solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the key
answer has given them an opportunity to have a closer
look at the system of examinations which they conduct.
What has failed is not the computer but the human
system.
(29 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the
University, contended that no challenge should be
allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer
unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the
key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is
proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be
wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalisation. It must be clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be
such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the
particular subject would regard as correct. The
contention of the University is falsified in this case by a
large number of acknowledged text-books, which are
commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books
leave, no room for doubt that the answer given by the
students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
17. Students who have passed their Intermediate
Board Examination are eligible to appear for the
entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in
U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate
Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects
as the students have is derived from what is contained
in those text-books. Those text-books support the case
of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we
would have unquestionably preferred the key answer.
But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would
be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an
answer which accords with the key answer, that is to
say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be
wrong."
21. In another case of Manish Ujwal & Others Versus
Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Others, (2005)
13 SCC 744, similar challenge was raised where student community
filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging ranking in the
entrance tests conducted by the University for admission to medical
and dental courses with the grievance that various key answers on
the basis whereof, answer sheets were evaluated, itself were wrong
and consequently wrong and erroneous ranking was prepared.
(30 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
22. The opinion of the experts was sought. The opinion of experts
was unanimous that key answers of disputed questions were
erroneous. The Supreme Court in Para 8 of its order observed as
below:-
"8. xxxxxxxxxxxx. It is possible that the fresh
evaluation by feeding correct key answers to the six
questions may have adverse impact also on those who
may have already secured admission on the basis of the
results declared and ranking given by feeding incorrect
keys in relation to these questions. Though we are of
the view that the appellants in particular and the
student community in general, whether one has
approached the court or not, should not suffer on
account of demonstrably incorrect key answers but, at
the same time, if the admissions already granted as a
result of first counselling are disturbed, it is possible
that the very commencement of the course may be
delayed and the admission process for the courses may
go beyond 30-09-2005, which is the cut-off date,
according to the time schedule in the Regulations and as
per the Law laid down by this Court in Mridul Dhar
(Minor) v. Union of India. In this view, we make it clear
that fresh evaluation of the papers by feeding correct
key answers would not affect the students who have
secured admissions as a result of the first counselling on
the basis of ranking given with reference to the results
already declared."
Considering that the matter related to admission of students
and many admissions had already been granted, in peculiar facts of
that case, it was made clear that fresh evaluation of the papers by
feeding correct answers would not affect students who have secured
admission as a result of first counseling on the basis of ranking
given with reference to the results already declared. However, the
exercise of examination of disputed key answers by a committee of
experts was upheld.
23. The decision in the case of Kanpur University through Vice
Chancellor & Others (supra) was also relied upon, principle was
(31 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
restated as above and the permissible course of action was
reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ujwal &
Others (supra) as below:-
"9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta
considering a similar problem, this Court held that
there is an assumption about the key answers being
correct and in case of doubt, the court would
unquestionably prefer the key answer. It is for this
reason that we have not referred to those key answers
in respect whereof there is a doubt as a result of
difference of opinion between the experts. Regarding
the key answers in respect whereof the matter is
beyond the realm of doubt, this Court has held that it
would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving
an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to
say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be
wrong. There is no dispute about the aforesaid six key
answers being demonstrably wrong and this fact has
rightly not been questioned by the learned counsel for
the University. In this view, students cannot be made to
suffer for the fault and negligence of the University."
In a subsequent decision in the case of Ran Vijay Singh &
Others (supra), the law on the subject was propounded as below:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite
clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are:
30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer
sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of
right, then the authority conducting the examination
may permit it;
30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of
an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then
the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it
is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation"
and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material
error has been committed;
30.3 The Court should not at all re-evaluate or
scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no
expertise in the matter and academic matters are best
left to academics;
(32 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
30.4 The Court should presume the correctness of the
key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to
the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
In one of the latest decisions in the case of High Court of
Tripura through The Registrar General (supra) while re-
iterating and re-affirming settled legal position that in the absence of
there being a provision for re-evaluation, re-evaluation could not be
done or ordered, cases of exceptional nature as noticed earlier in the
case of Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor & Others
(supra), Manish Ujwal & Others (supra) & Ran Vijay Singh &
Others (supra), were taken into consideration and permissible
course of action to deal with such exceptional cases, even though
there was no provision for re-evaluation as such, was evolved.
"19. We have noticed the decisions of this Court.
Undoubtedly, a three Judge Bench has laid down that
there is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in
the absence of any provision for revaluation.
Undoubtedly, there is no provision. In fact, the High
Court in the impugned judgment has also proceeded on
the said basis. The first question which we would have
to answer is whether despite the absence of any
provision, are the courts completely denuded of power
in the exercise of the jurisdiction Under Article 226 of
the Constitution to direct revaluation? It is true that the
right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the
existence of a legal right and the corresponding duty
with the answering respondent to carry out the public
duty. Thus, as of right, it is clear that the first
respondent could not maintain either writ petition or the
review petition demanding holding of revaluation.
20. The question however arises whether even if
there is no legal right to demand revaluation as of right
could there arise circumstances which leave the Court in
any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to
a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may
arise where even though there is no provision for
revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct
answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be
(33 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
confined to a case where there is no dispute about the
correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt,
the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining
body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide
power Under Article 226 may continue to be available
even though there is no provision for revaluation in a
situation where a candidate despite having giving
correct answer and about which there cannot be even
slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given
the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is
found disentitled to any marks.
21. Should the second circumstance be
demonstrated to be present before the writ court, can
the writ court become helpless despite the vast
reservoir of power which it possesses? It is one thing to
say that the absence of provision for revaluation will not
enable the candidate to claim the right of evaluation as
a matter of right and another to say that in no
circumstances whatsoever where there is no provision
for revaluation will the writ court exercise its undoubted
constitutional powers? We reiterate that the situation
can only be rare and exceptional.
22. We would understand therefore the conclusion
in paragraph 30.2 which we have extracted from the
judgment in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. only in the
aforesaid light. We have already noticed that in H.P.
Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, a two
Judge Bench in paragraph 26 after survey of the entire
case law has also understood the law to be that in the
absence of any provision the Court should not generally
direct revaluation.
23. xxxxxxxxx. Even in the judgment of this Court
in Ran Vijay Singh v. Rahul Singh which according to
the first respondent forms the basis of the High Court's
interference though does not expressly stated so, what
the Court has laid down is that the Court may permit
revaluation inter alia only if it is demonstrated very
clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or
by a process of rationalization and only in rare or
exceptional cases on the commission of material error.
xxxxxxxx."
24. In the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission,
through its Chairman and Another Vs. Rahul Singh and
Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examining the extent
(34 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
and power of the Court to interfere in the matter of academic
nature, relying upon the decisions in the cases of Kanpur
University, through Vice-Chancellor & Others (supra) and Ran
Vijay Singh and Others (supra), held as below:
"9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, this Court was
dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre-Medical
Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had
provided the key answers and there were no committees
to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers
provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of
the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved
that three of the key answers were wrong. The following
observations of the Court are pertinent:
"16...........We agree that the key answer should be
assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong
and that it should not be held to be wrong by an
inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be
wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable
body of men well versed in the particular subject would
regard as correct."
The Court gave further directions but we are concerned
mainly with one that the State Government should
devise a system for moderating the key answers
furnished by the paper setters.
10. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., this Court after
referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements
summarised the legal position in the following terms:
(SCC pp. 368-69, para 30)
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and
we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer
sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of
right, then the authority conducting the examination
may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of
an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the
court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is
demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation"
and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material
error has been committed;
(35 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or
scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no
expertise in the matter and academic matters are best
left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the
key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to
the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court then referred to observations
made in para 31 and 32 in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and
Others (supra) to demonstrate and highlight why the constitutional
Courts must exercise restraint in such matters and held as below:
"11. We may also refer to the following observations in
paras 31 and 32 which show why the constitutional
courts must exercise restraint in such matters:(Ran
Vijay Singh case, SCC p.369)
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or
compassion does not play any role in the matter of
directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer
sheet. If an error is committed by the examination
authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The
entire examination process does not deserve to be
derailed only because some candidates are disappointed
or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been
caused to them by an erroneous question or an
erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though
some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since
mathematical precision is not always possible. This
Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude
the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several
decisions of this Court, some of which have been
discussed above, there is interference by the courts in
the result of examinations. This places the examination
authorities in an unenviable position where they are
under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a
massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise
concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no
doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in
preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten
that even the examination authorities put in equally
great efforts to successfully conduct an examination.
The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a
later stage, but the court must consider the internal
checks and balances put in place by the examination
authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by
the candidates who have successfully participated in the
(36 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
examination and the examination authorities. The
present appeals are a classic example of the
consequence of such interference where there is no
finality to the result of the examinations even after a
lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination
authorities even the candidates are left wondering about
the certainty or otherwise of the result of the
examination -- whether they have passed or not;
whether their result will be approved or disapproved by
the court; whether they will get admission in a college
or university or not; and whether they will get recruited
or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty
results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall
and larger impact of all this is that public interest
suffers."
Finally, the principles as propounded in earlier decisions were
reiterated as below:
"12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the
candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer
is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is
totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning
is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The
constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in
such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea
challenging the correctness of the key answers. In
Kanpur University case, the Court recommended a
system of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected
questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.
13. As far as the present case is concerned, even before
publishing the first list of key answers the Commission
had got the key answers moderated by two Expert
Committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a
26-member Committee was constituted to verify the
objections and after this exercise the Committee
recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2
questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed
that these Committees consisted of experts in various
subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges
cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters.
Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key
answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts
cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and
cons of the arguments given by both sides and then
come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is
better or more correct."
(37 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
Further it was noticed that the challenge pertained to three
questions which noted a long process of reasoning and it was
noticed that the stand taken by the Commission was supported by
certain text books. In that factual scenario, it was held that in case
of conflicting views, the Court must bow down to the opinion of the
experts. It was held as below:
"14. In the present case, we find that all the three
questions needed a long process of reasoning and the
High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the
Commission is also supported by certain textbooks.
When there are conflicting views, then the court must
bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not
and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they
must exercise great restraint and should not overstep
their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts."
25. In the case of Richal and Others (supra), principles stated
and restated time and again were reaffirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dealing with correctness of final key answers
as decided by the Expert Committee after taking into consideration
the objections received. While placing reliance upon the judgments
in the cases of Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor &
Others (supra), Manish Ujwal & Others (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court also relied upon its earlier decisions in the cases of
Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Saumil Garg and Others
(2005) 13 SCC 749 and Rajesh Kumar & Others Vs. State of
Bihar & Others (2013) 4 SCC 690 and held as below:
"17. To the same effect, this Court in Guru Nanak Dev
University v. Saumil Garg, had directed the University to
revaluate the answers of 8 questions with reference to
key answers provided by CBSE. This Court also
disapproved the course adopted by the University which
has given the marks to all the students who had
participated in the entrance test irrespective of whether
someone had answered questions or not.
18. Another judgment which is referred to is Rajesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar, where this Court had occasion
to consider the case pertaining to erroneous evaluation
(38 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
using the wrong answer key. The Bihar Staff Selection
Commission invited applications against the posts of
Junior Engineer (Civil). Selection process comprised of a
written objective type examination. Unsuccessful
candidates assailed the selection. The Single Judge of
the High Court referred the "model answer key" to
experts. Based on the report of the experts, the Single
Judge held that 41 model answers out of 100 are wrong.
The Single Judge held that the entire examination was
liable to be cancelled and so also the appointments so
made on the basis thereof. The letters patent appeal
was filed by certain candidates which was partly allowed
by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench modified the order passed by the Single Judge
and declared that the entire examination need not be
cancelled. The order of the Division Bench was
challenged wherein this Court in para 19 has held:(SCC
p.697)
"19. The submissions made by Mr Rao are not without
merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key
the most natural and logical way of correcting the
evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get
the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof.
There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason
for directing a fresh examination to be held by the
Commission especially when there was no allegation
about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that
could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a
fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-
evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the
correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from
being quicker. The process would also not give any
unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account
of the time lag between the examination earlier held and
the one that may have been held pursuant to the
direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the re-
evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
While holding that the key answers prepared by the paper-
setter or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared
after due deliberations, publication of key answers and grant of
opportunity to assess correctness of answers by receiving objections
to be considered by the examining body was considered as a step to
achieve transparency. It was observed thus:
"19. The key answers prepared by the paper-setter or
the examining body is presumed to have been prepared
after due deliberations. To err is human. There are
(39 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
various factors which may lead to framing of the
incorrect key answers. The publication of key answers is
a step to achieve transparency and to give an
opportunity to candidates to assess the correctness of
their answers. An opportunity to file objections against
the key answers uploaded by examining body is a step
to achieve fairness and perfection in the process. The
objections to the key answers are to be examined by the
experts and thereafter corrective measures, if any,
should be taken by the examining body. In the present
case, we have noted that after considering the objections
final key answers were published by the Commission
thereafter several writ petitions were filed challenging
the correctness of the key answers adopted by the
Commission. The High Court repelled the challenge
accepting the views of the experts. The candidates still
unsatisfied, have come up in this Court by filing these
appeals."
26. The principles propounded and the legal position settled in the
aforesaid decisions were reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
recent judicial pronouncements in the cases of Bihar Staff
Selection Commission and Others Vs. Arun Kumar and
Others, (2020) 6 SCC 362 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta and
Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (2021) 2 SCC 309.
In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another (supra), once
again there was reference to the decision in the case of Ran Vijay
Singh and Others (supra). It was observed as under:
"16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it
was not open to the Division Bench to have examined
the correctness of the questions and the answer key to
come to a conclusion different from that of the expert
committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance
was placed by the Appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan
Public Service Commission. In the said judgment, this
Court interfered with the selection process only after
obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not
enter into the correctness of the questions and answers
by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for
adjudication of the dispute in this case."
27. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it, therefore, emerges as
settled legal position that though re-evaluation in the absence of
there being any rule/scheme governing the examination is not
(40 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
permissible in law except in exceptional cases where the answers
are found to be demonstrably wrong, the injustice caused to the
candidates has to be undone. The course of action adopted in many
cases referred to above, which was approved by the Courts, was
that the complaints with regard to key answers or disputed
questions have to be examined by a Committee of Experts and if the
opinion of the Committee of Experts reflects that model answers are
demonstrably wrong and some other option is correct, the answers
given by the candidates is required to be reassessed with reference
to the correct key answer. Where the questions itself were vague
and wrong or where it is a case of multiple correct answers out of
options given, the questions are required to be deleted and the
candidates have to be evaluated on the basis of the answers given
by them to the questions remaining after deletion. Scope of judicial
review is limited, but in exceptional cases where the Court finds that
model answer keys are demonstrably wrong on the face of it without
involving inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation.
28. Keeping in forefront the aforesaid settled legal position as
adumbrated in plethora of decisions, we shall now proceed to
examine the submissions with reference to various questions and
issues noted point wise from point (i) to point (xxi) except the issue
with regard to questions, which have already been dealt with in the
case of Ashwini Chaturvedi (supra).
29. In the Advertisement dated 22.07.2021, Instruction (1) in
Clause 22 provided that after Preliminary Examination is conducted,
model answer key would be published on the official website of the
High Court and objections would be allowed to be submitted within
(41 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
prescribed period. It further stated that objections received after
the prescribed period or without payment of necessary charges or by
a mode other than one prescribed would not be taken into
consideration. It also stated that competent Committee would
examine the objections and if necessary, revise the model answer
key and the same may be published and result of Preliminary
Examination would also be declared accordingly.
None of the petitioners objected to the aforesaid prescription,
long drawn process of selection and the manner in which the
objections to model answer key were to be examined.
The petitions as well as return filed by the respondents clearly
show that after conduct of Preliminary Examination on 28.11.2021,
consistent with the scheme of examination, model answer keys were
published and objections were invited vide notification dated
29.11.2021. The return of the respondents further reveals that after
receipt of objections against twenty questions, the Committee
meticulously and thoroughly examined various objections and
recommended deletion of four questions or such other action as may
be taken. Acting on the recommendations of the Committee, the
respondents deleted the following four questions:
(1) Question No. A-44/B-44/C-53/D-47
(2) Question No. A-79/B-74/C-84/D-84
(3) Question No. A-81/B-81/C-74/D-75
(4) Question No. A-84/B-71/C-80/D-74
As far as Question No. A-66/B-49/C-58/D-39 is concerned, the
Expert Committee recommended that correct answer key be
changed as option (1) which was accepted by the respondents and
the same was changed accordingly.
(42 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
So far as all other disputed questions are concerned, as is
revealed from the return, the Committee, after examination,
rejected the objections whether it be with regard to the correctness
of the questions or regarding correctness of model answer keys.
The Committee also dealt with objections in various cases in respect
of various questions that the questions offered more than one
correct answer as option. The objections were, however, found
baseless and rejected. After getting objections scrutinised and
examined through the Committee of Experts, the respondents
notified revised and final answer key vide notification dated
11.01.2022. It clearly stated that some of the questions as stated
above have been deleted and OMR answer sheets have been
evaluated on the basis of remaining 96 questions with maximum 96
marks. This procedure followed by the respondents was strictly in
accordance with the selection process as embodied in Clause 22(1)
of the advertisement. It is also noteworthy that the procedure of
inviting objections by publishing model answer keys, getting a
Committee of Experts constituted to examine the objections and
then publishing revised model answer keys clearly stating the
questions which were deleted, constitutes a fair and transparent
procedure apart from being in accordance with the process of
selection contained in the advertisement.
Challenge to the action of the respondents in inviting
objections, referring the disputed questions/answer keys to the
Committee of Experts has been made as de hors the governing
rules, i.e., the Rules of 2010. It has been contended that such a
procedure was neither envisaged under the Rules of 2010, nor in
Schedule IV B thereof. This argument is liable to be rejected. True it
(43 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
is that consideration of objections with regard to model answer keys
by constitution of the Committee of Experts is not stated in the
Rules of 2010, nevertheless, this was clearly stated as one of the
instructions in Clause 22(1) of the advertisement. None of the
petitioners ever objected to such a procedure, but they all
participated in the process of selection. Even after invitation of
objections vide notification dated 29.11.2021, none of the
petitioners raised any objection that the action of the respondents in
inviting objections against published model answer keys was not
permissible. The petitioners took somersault raising dispute with
regard to the correctness of the procedure which they never
objected to while participating in the process of selection.
Therefore, the petitioners are barred from raising such objection
that the process of inviting objections and revising model answer
keys was illegal or opposed to law. Furthermore, such a process can
neither be said to be in violation of the Rules of 2010, much less
unfair or arbitrary. The instructions and the procedure devised to
publish the model answer keys, obtaining objections and getting it
examined by a Committee of Experts only intended to ensure that
the examinees are not subjected to an arbitrary and unfair process
of selection. The object was to ensure that the merit of the
candidates is tested on the basis of correct questions and correct
answer keys. The rules in this regard are silent. Therefore, the
objection in this regard cannot be sustained and is rejected.
One of the arguments raised is that the effect of deletion of
four questions disturbed the ratio of 70% weightage for Law
subjects and 30% weightage for Language subjects. True it is that
the process of revising the answer keys and deletion of four
(44 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
questions may have effect on the ratio of cases belonging to Law
subjects to that of Language subjects, but it has to be seen that all
the examinees were tested on their merit only with reference to 96
questions. This procedure and testing of merit of the candidates at
the stage of Preliminary Examination with reference to 96 questions,
does not, in any manner, rendered the process of selection vitiated.
True it is that in Clause B of Schedule IV referable to Rule 20 of
the Rules of 2010, it was prescribed that 70% weightage shall be
given to the subjects prescribed in syllabus for Law Paper-I and Law
Paper-II and 30% weightage shall be given to test proficiency in
Hindi and English language, but unavoidable circumstances leading
to deletion of defective questions were required to be taken care of
to ensure just and fair process of selection. If in that process, there
is slight variation, no fault could be found in the process of selection
only on that ground. Once some of the questions were found to be
defective, the only course open for the respondents was to delete
the questions, rather than subjecting the candidates to examination
to test their merit by putting defective questions to them. Moreover,
Instruction No. 22, Clause (1) of the advertisement, which
prescribed process of inviting objections and likelihood of revision of
model answer keys, clearly indicated that such a situation could
arise. No one challenged the same.
It is well settled legal position that where the process of
selection is not challenged, unsuccessful candidates cannot be
permitted to question the process of selection, if they have remained
unsuccessful. This is no longer res-integra and has been settled in
plethora of decisions, some of them are; K. A. Nagmani Vs. Indian
Airlines and Others (2009) 5 SCC 515; Manish Kumar Shahi
(45 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
Vs. State of Bihar and Others (2010) 12 SCC 576; Ramesh
Chandra Shah and Others Vs. Anil Joshi and Others (2013) 11
SCC 309 and Ramjit Singh Kardam and Others Vs. Sanjeev
Kumar and Others AIR 2020 SC 2060.
30. Another argument is that exercise of deletion of questions
resulted in alteration of cut off marks and as the preparation of
merit list was based on cut off marks, which were disturbed, the
preparation of merit list for the purpose of screening itself is
vitiated. This argument has been raised by petitioner in D. B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 2059/2022 (Ravi Gupta Vs. High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan). True it is that for General Category, cut
off marks were fixed as 72. It has to be kept in view that number of
candidates to be selected for Main Examination could be only 15
times the number of vacancies in a particular category. This clearly
means that all those candidates, who are in the list of the size of 15
times the number of vacancies in the General category, have
obtained 72 or more marks. Further, it has to be noted that they
have been awarded these marks on they having attempted, like the
petitioner, 96 questions only because 4 questions were already
deleted. We fail to comprehend as to how it has adversely affected
the petitioner in the matter of preparation of merit list based on the
marks obtained by the candidates. It was a competitive
examination. The list of selected candidates in Preliminary
Examination is based on merit of the candidates. Those, who
obtained more marks than the petitioner, were kept in merit list of
Preliminary Examination, which was 15 times the number of
vacancies in the General category. The petitioner and all other
candidates were tested on level playing field as they all were tested
(46 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
only against 96 questions. Therefore, there is no prejudice caused
to the petitioner, much less any discrimination. The contention of
the petitioner is on a fallacious premise that if he had given correct
answers against deleted questions, he would have obtained 72
marks. This cannot be countenanced because as many as four
questions itself have been found to be defective for one or the other
reason and, therefore, deleted. No candidate can claim award of
marks on the ground that he had given correct answer to a wrong
question. Where the question, being wrong and defective, has been
deleted, unless it is found that the deletion itself was not permissible
in law, a candidate cannot claim marks against such deleted
question on the ground that he had correctly answered the question.
Therefore, petitioner's contention in this regard deserves to be
rejected.
31. The aforesaid petitioner, Ravi Gupta has taken another curious
objection that he was not permitted to use normal watch even
though under the instructions there was prohibition to bring smart
watch in the examination hall. According to him, this affected time
management. Firstly, this is in the realm of disputed question of
fact and secondly, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was
discriminated and that he was not allowed to use normal watch and
all other candidates or many of them were given this benefit. Not
only the petitioner, but all the candidates were subjected to the
same situation in the examination hall where no one was permitted
to carry watch. The argument that at least a wall clock ought to
have been provided by itself, without anything more, could not be
made basis to declare entire examination vitiated. These arguments
(47 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
are arguments in despair as the petitioner could not succeed in the
examination. All objections in this regard are accordingly rejected.
32. So far as deletion of four questions is concerned, the
consideration on which deletion had taken place, as stated in the
return filed by the respondents, is as below:
"Question No. A-44/B-44/C-53/D-47
Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, who may not be designated as a Child
Welfare Officer?
(1) Head Constable
(2)Assistant Sub-Inspector
(3) Sub-Inspector
(4) All of the above.
fd'kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 2015 ds vUrxZr cky
dY;k.k iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds :i esa dkSu vfHkfgr ugha fd;k tk ldsxk &
¼1½ gsM dkaLVscy
¼2½ lgk;d mi&fujh{kd
¼3½ mi&fujh{kd
¼4½ mijksDr lHkh
Model Answer-(1)
It is submitted that English version of the question asks
about "Child Welfare Officer" and then, all the options are
wrong answer. Whereas, Hindi version asks about "Child
Welfare Police Officer" and then, as per section 107 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, the correct answer will be option (1). Hence, the
candidates who had opted English medium would be at
disadvantageous position as there is no correct answer
available in any of four options. The discrepancy occurred
in the Hindi and English language of aforesaid question
does not fall within the ambit of instruction no. 10 given in
the Question Paper Booklet. Therefore, the Committee was
of unanimous opinion that objection was sustainable and
either the question itself be deleted or any other
appropriate decision be taken in the interest of examinees.
Question No. A-79/B-74/C-84/D-84
**fu"ks/k** 'kCn dk laf/k foPNsn gS %&
¼1½ fu%+$"ks/k
¼2½ fu%$ls/k
¼3½ fu+$"ks/k
¼4½ fu"k$+,s/k
ekWMy mRrj && ¼2½
(48 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
**fu"ks/k** 'kCn dk laf/k foPNsn gS %& fu++ ls/kA blesa O;atu laf/k gSA O;kdj.k
ds fu;ekuqlkj *l* ls iwoZ v vk ls fHkUu dksbZ Loj gks rks *l* dk *"k* gks tkrk
gSA bl iz'u ds mRrj esa fn;s x;s fodYiksa esa lHkh fodYi lgh ugha gSA
Question No. A-81/B-81/C-74/D-75
vuqizkl vyadkj dk dkSu&lk mnkgj.k gS \
¼1½ fuf/k;ksa U;kjh
¼2½ eksy djsxk
¼3½ ygjdj ;fn pwes
¼4½ lc xtjs
ekWMy mRrj && ¼ 1 ½
bl iz'u ds lEcU/k esa vyadkj fu/kkZfjr ikB~;Øe esa lekfgr ugha gksuk crkrs
gq, vkifRr;ka izLrqr gqbZA lfefr dh jk; esa vyadkj fu/kkZfjr ikB~;Øe esa
lekfgr ugha gS vr% vkifRr;ka Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ikbZ tkdj iz'u dks
fujLr fd;k x;kA
Question No. A-84/B-71/C-80/D-74
fuEu okD; dh iwfrZ LFkkuokpd fØ;kfo'ks"k.k ls dhft,%&&
eSa-------------------------------pyk x;k FkkA
¼1½ dy
¼2½ nl cts
¼3½ fnYyh
¼4½ vdsys
ekWMy mRrj && ¼ 3 ½
bl iz'u ds lEcU/k esa ekWMy mRrj ¼ 3 ½ dks xyr crkrs gq, dqy 3 vkifRr;ka
izLrqr dh xbZA O;kdj.k ds fu;ekuqlkj LFkkuokpd fØ;k fo'ks"k.k esa
fØ;kfo'ks"k.k ds LFkku vkSj fn'kk dk cks/k gksrk gS tSls% ;gka&ogka] Åij&uhpsA
ftl 'kCn ls LFkku dk cks/k gks mls LFkkuokpd fØ;kfo'ks"k.k dgrs gSaA ;Fkk&
ikl] nwj] uhps] Åij] vkxs] ihNs] ;gha] ogha] b/kj] m/kj] vkeus] lkeus] ;gk¡] ogk¡]
dgk¡ vkfnA iz'u esa fn;s x;s lHkh fodYi lgh ugha gS D;ksafd **dy**] **nl
cts** rFkk **vdsys** LFkkuokpd ugha gS vkSj **fnYyh** laKk 'kCn tks fØ;k dh
fo'ks"krk ugha crkrk gSA vr% vkifRr;ka Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ikbZ o bl iz'u
dks fujLr fd;k x;kA**
33. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid consideration had taken
place by a Committee of Experts as constituted by the respondents
to consider various objections. The considerations, which have
weighed in the mind of the experts to delete the aforesaid questions,
cannot be said to be so irrational, demonstrably and palpably wrong
that this Court should interfere with the exercise undertaken by the
Committee of Experts while resolving and recommending to delete
four questions, which was accepted and acted upon by the
(49 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
respondents. We have referred to various decisions hereinabove
which delineated the scope of judicial review in such matters. It is
for the experts to decide which question is to be deleted. Once the
reasons, which have been assigned by the experts, are plausible and
cannot be said to be based on extraneous considerations or clearly
irrational, arbitrary or demonstrably and palpably incorrect, there is
no scope of judicial review. An interference with the decision, in the
absence of there being any defect in the decision making process,
would amount to substituting the view as propounded and projected
by the petitioners in place of the view which has been taken by the
body of experts.
34. As far as Question No. A-47/B-51/C-57/D-62 is concerned, it
has been argued that this question was required to be deleted as all
the given options are wrong. Reply of the respondents clearly shows
that objection has been raised on the basis that Section 86 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 had
been amended by Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Amendment Act, 2021 and hence, in view of Amendment Act, all the
given options were wrong. This aspect was examined by the
Committee and the Committee found that Section 1, sub-section (2)
of the Amendment Act provided that the Amendment Act, 2021 shall
come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. However, in exercise of
the powers conferred by Section 1 (2) of the amendment Act, 2021,
no notification was published by the Central Government till that
day. Even, no objector uploaded such a notification in support of
his/her claim, therefore, the objection clearly is misconceived in law
(50 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
and decision of the respondents to reject the objection does not call
for any interference.
35. With regard to Question No. A-78/B-76/C-82/D-77, it has been
contended that model answer no. 1 is not correct or in any case,
both the options, i.e. option (1) and option (2) are correct. In this
regard, the respondents have stated in their reply that upon
consideration of the objection by reference to various texts on Hindi
Grammar, the Committee unanimously resolved that option (1)
alone is the correct answer. On the other hand, some other text
books have been referred to suggest that option (2) would possibly
be correct answer. This exercise would involve inferential process
through rationalisation and certainly does not fall in the category of
"demonstrably wrong". Moreover, at the most, it could be treated to
be a case of doubt and in view of various decisions, which have been
referred hereinabove, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that in case of doubt, the benefit would always go to the examiner.
36. Objection with regard to Question No. A-100/B-89/C-88/D-94
has been taken on the ground that it ought to be deleted as it was
out of syllabus. Referring to contents of syllabus of English
Proficiency, it has been vehemently argued that testing knowledge of
the candidate by requiring them to give correct spelling of the word
does not form part of the syllabus of English Proficiency. At the
threshold, this argument cannot be accepted. Subject English
Proficiency, without even being specifically mentioned, would
obviously include the knowledge of the candidates regarding correct
spelling of a word in English. This does not require any specific
mention in the syllabus. The question required the candidates to
choose correctly spelled word and four options of the word
(51 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
'Monotonous' were given. Such a question cannot be said to be out
of syllabus when test is regarding proficiency in English. The
Committee of Experts unanimously resolved that aspirants are
supposed to have awareness/knowledge of spelling of common
words. The said recommendation of the Committee was accepted
by the respondents and objection was rejected and rightly so.
Therefore, objection in this regard is liable to be rejected.
37. As far as Question No. A-66/B-49/C-58/D-39 is concerned,
initially model answer was marked as option (3) being 25
September, 1987 as the date of publication of the Indecent
Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 in the Gazette of
India. Upon consideration of the objections, the Committee found
that as a matter of fact, the said Act was actually published in the
Gazette of India on 23 December, 1986. Upon perusal of material
on record including Gazette of India dated 23 December, 1986 and
25 September, 1987, the Committee found that the Act of 1986 was
published in the Gazette of India on 23 December, 1986, whereas it
was brought into force by issuance of another notification as
contemplated under Section 1, sub-section (3) of the Act on the
appointed date, i.e., 2 October, 1987. Thus, the date of publication
of the Act and the date on which the Act came into force were
different. The objection raised in this regard was therefore, rightly
upheld by the Committee and accepted by the respondents.
38. As far as Question No. A-95/B-88/C-95/D-98 is concerned, for
choosing correct synonym of the word, "Lethargy", four options were
given. The model answer chosen by the respondents was option
(3), "Listlessness". The objection was that "Laxity" is also a
synonym of "Lethargy". The Committee involving experts examined
(52 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
the objection, but was of the view that "Lethargy" is inaction but
"Laxity" also has some degree of negligence attached to it. "Laxity"
means lack of strictness whereas "Lethargy" means the state of not
having any energy or enthusiasm for doing things and "Listlessness"
means the state of being without energy or enthusiasm. Thus, the
experts opined that the word, "Lethargy" and "Listlessness" have the
same meaning and interchangeable whereas "Laxity" and "Lethargy"
are not interchangeable. The Committee reported that option (3)
alone is the correct answer and the objections were rejected. The
view which has been taken by the experts could not be shaken by
the petitioners by referring to any authentic and universal
acceptance of the view in this regard to the view taken by the
experts, so as to constitute the same as demonstrably wrong answer
key. No material has been placed by the petitioners. Accordingly,
no ground is made out to interfere with the decision of the experts
and the argument in this regard is liable to be rejected.
39. As far as Question No. A-21/B-33/C-22/D-28 is concerned, it
has been argued that the same is highly vague and all the options
are possibly correct answers and therefore, the question ought to be
deleted. In this regard, emphatic reply has been given by the
respondents that no objection was submitted by any candidate
including any of the petitioners. We have also verified and found
that none of the petitioners has filed any document along with their
petitions or rejoinder or any other supplementary affidavit to prove
that any objection with regard to Question No. A-21/B-33/C-22/D-
28 was ever taken. We have verified from the original records
placed before us in sealed cover, which contained minutes of
meetings, deliberations and resolution of the Committee of Experts.
(53 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
There also, there is no mention of any objection received from any
candidate with regard to the correctness or otherwise of Question
No. A-21/B-33/C-22/D-28.
The instructions, which were binding on all the candidates
including the petitioners, particularly, Instruction 22(1) as contained
in the advertisement that only those objections, which are filed
within the prescribed period in the prescribed manner with requisite
fee as per direction, would be considered. The notification
publishing model answer keys and inviting objections clearly states
that any candidate may submit objections. But none of the
petitioners raised any objection with regard to correctness or
otherwise of Question No. A-21/B-33/C-22/D-28. Not only this, the
records placed before us also do not reflect that any candidate other
than the petitioners submitted any such objection. Therefore, the
Committee of Experts had no occasion to examine the correctness of
the same.
40. Otherwise also, we find that in order to satisfy this Court that
there could be more than one possible correct answer, the
petitioners have virtually submitted their case in argumentative
form. Thus, what the petitioners seek to do is to satisfy the Court
by a long drawn inferential process of reasoning and rationalisation,
which cannot be categorized as demonstrably or palpably wrong.
Question No. A-21/B-33/C-22/D-28 gave four options with regard to
requisite for a valid ratification under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Section 198 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 under the heading
"Knowledge requisite for valid ratification" reads that no valid
ratification can be made by a person whose knowledge of the facts
of the case is materially defective. It was in the context of the
(54 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
provisions contained in Section 198 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
that the question was set up requiring the examinees to give correct
answer. First option was knowledge of the correct facts of the case.
The long drawn process of argumentative nature as contained in the
submissions made by the petitioners does not constitute a case of
demonstrably wrong question, wrong answer and not even that all
other options are possibly correct. The petitioners in this regard
have failed to understand the context in which Question No. A-21/B-
33/C-22/D-28 was set up. An attempt has been made to create
confusion. Therefore, this Court in the absence of there being any
opinion expressed by the Committee of Experts, for which the
petitioners alone have to be faulted, finds that it is beyond the scope
of judicial review as adumbrated in catena of decisions. At the
most, even if it could be a case of doubt as per settled legal position,
the benefit of doubt would always go in favour of the examiner and
not in favour of the candidates and the same does not warrant any
interference by the Court.
41. So far as Question No. A-41/B-40/C-59/D-54 is concerned, the
objection is completely misconceived. The question was while
releasing the offender after admonition under the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, which of the act (given under four options)
need not be taken into consideration by the Court? Argument of
learned counsel for the petitioners that option (1) is incorrect and all
other options are correct is based on complete misreading and
understanding of the question itself. Experts after taking into
consideration the provisions of Section 3 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 have held that while releasing the offender after
admonition, the Court is required to consider the facts, i.e., nature
(55 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
of offence, character of offender and punishment provided for the
offence. It does not include consideration of number of previously
registered cases against the accused. Thus, what is not required to
be taken into consideration was obviously option (1). The objection
is simply frivolous being based upon misreading of the question itself
and has no legs to stand.
42. As far as Question No. A-83/B-79/C-73/D-76 is concerned,
objection is that Option (1), (2) and (3) all are correct answers.
Therefore, the question itself was required to be deleted. This
objection was considered by the Committee and the same has been
rejected holding that only option (1) is the correct answer. The view
of the Expert Committee in this regard was accepted and the
objection was rejected by the respondents. No emphatic and
specific material has been placed on record by the petitioners to
satisfy the legal requirement of the answer key being demonstrably
that options other than option (1) were apparently, with reference to
specific texts, were also covered in the category of " deZokP;". The
objection, therefore, is without any basis falling short of it being
demonstrably and clearly wrong without any inferential process of
reasoning or by process of rationalisation. Therefore, the action of
the respondents acting upon the recommendation of the Committee
of Experts which included Professor in Hindi, warrants no
interference.
43. In so far as Question No. A-59/B-66/C-46/D-69 is concerned,
objection raised was that both option (1) and (3) are correct. In this
regard, the Committee of Experts was of the view that as the
question was with specific reference of Section 41 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which speaks of commission of offence in
(56 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
the presence of a police officer, therefore, in the context of the
question and specific reference of the provision of law, with
reference to which options were given, it was only option (1), which
was held to be correct. The petitioners have failed to make out a
case of interference because the reasoning adopted by the body of
experts does not appear to be so irrational or outrageous as to hold
that the decision was palpably wrong and patently arbitrary.
Therefore, no interference is called for within the limited scope of
judicial review on settled legal position.
44. As far as Question No. A-46/B-59/C-68/D-40 is concerned, the
objection was that it had not only one but two correct multiple
choice answers both as option (1) as well as (4). The Committee of
Experts was of the view that the objection, which was based on the
premise that Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 had been amended by Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, therefore, in view
of the Amendment Act, both options (2) and (4) were correct, was
misconceived as the Committee after perusal of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021 found that
Section 1, sub-section (2) provides that the Amendment Act, 2021
shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may,
by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. However, in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 1, sub-section (2) of the Amendment
Act, 2021, no notification has been published by the Central
Government till the day, objection was considered. Even no
objectors uploaded such notification in respect of his/her claim.
Therefore, after due deliberations and thoughtful consideration, the
Committee was unanimously of the opinion that Juvenile Justice
(57 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
(Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021 has not
come into force. Accordingly, option (1) alone was treated to be
correct and objection rejected. Therefore, there is no merit in this
argument.
45. There are two more objections to the procedure adopted after
deletion. One of the arguments is that when the questions were
deleted, bonus marks ought to be awarded. This submission has
been made on the basis of judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in Arti Meena (supra). In that case, no direction was given for
award of bonus marks. The respondent-examiner therein were
directed to delete three questions from the question paper and
keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pallav Mongia Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court
Civil Appeal No.4794/2012 decided on 28.05.2012, directions
were issued to recompute the marks, so as to prepare fresh list of
eligible candidates by including all such candidates therein, who
secured more marks than the last candidate originally allowed to
appear in the main examination and apart from originally allowed
candidates, also permit the candidates newly included in the
eligibility list to appear in the main examination, for recruitment to
Civil Judge Cadre. Petitioners seems to rely upon the said judgment
where the Court dealt with the judgment of Delhi High Court in the
case of Anjali Goswami and Others Vs. Registrar General,
Delhi High Court, Writ Petition (C) No.963/2019. On facts,
that was a case where the Court, while deciding writ petition, found
that there were two correct answers to a question; one which was
accepted as correct by the Examination Committee. In such a
situation, direction was issued to award one mark to the candidate,
(58 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
who had opted for the other option as the correct answer. Present is
not a case where the petitioners have succeeded in demonstrating in
any of the cases that there was more than one correct answer out of
multiple choice answers to any particular disputed question.
Therefore, the prayer for grant of bonus marks cannot be accepted.
Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University, through
Vice-Chancellor & Others (supra). On facts, that was a case
where the key answers as supplied by the paper setter to the
University were wrong. The version of the examinees that it were
not the key answers which were the correct options but the options
chosen by them were the correct answers. On facts, it was not a
case where finding that key answers were wrong, the question was
deleted. The examinees were put to test with reference to wrong
key answers. It was in this background that the High Court held
that the examinees would be entitled to be given three marks for
each of the questions correctly ticked by them and in addition they
were entitled to one mark for those very questions, since one mark
was deducted from their total for each of the questions wrongly
answered by them. It was observed as below:
"20. Twenty-seven students in all were concerned with
these proceedings, out of whom 8 were admitted to the
B.D.S. course, 3 were admitted to the M.B.B.S. course last
year itself in place of the students who dropped out and 5
have succeeded in getting admission this year. Omitting 8
of the respondents who have been already admitted to the
M.B.B.S. course, the remaining 19 shall have to be given
admission as directed by the High Court. If the key answer
was not wrong as it has turned out to be, they would have
succeeded in getting admission. In view of the findings of
the High Court, the question naturally arose as to how the
marks were to be allotted to the respondents for the three
questions answered by them and which were wrongly
assessed by the University. The High Court has held that
the respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks for
each of the questions correctly ticked by them, and in
(59 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
addition they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very
questions, since 1 mark was deducted from their total for
each of the questions wrongly answered by them. Putting
it briefly, such of the respondents as are found to have
attempted the three questions or any of them would be
entitled to an addition of 4 marks per question. If the
answer-books are reassessed in accordance with this
formula, the respondents would be entitled to be admitted
to the M.B.B.S. course, about which there is no dispute.
Accordingly, we confirm the directions given by the High
Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular
questions and the admission of the respondents to the
M.B.B.S. course."
On principles, in that case also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was of the view that if attention of the University is drawn to any
defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the
examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the
University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from
the paper and no marks assigned to it. That is what has been done
in the present case. The suspect questions have been excluded,
which action has been found just and proper in view of our
discussion and no marks have been assigned for those deleted
questions.
46. Such a course of action has been held to be legally permissible
in the event questions are required to be deleted being defective for
one reason or the other in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission, through its Chairman and Another Vs.
Rahul Singh and Another (supra) as is clear from observations
made in Para 13 of the said judgment, already referred to and
reproduced hereinabove.
In the case of Richal and Others (supra), redistribution of
marks with regard to deleted questions was upheld on the principles
that the Commission had adopted uniform method to deal with all
the candidates looking to the number of the candidates and that the
(60 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
questions having been deleted from the answers, question paper has
to be treated as containing the questions less the deleted questions.
In above referred cases, a uniform treatment to all the candidates
by deleting questions and no marks assigned has been upheld and
another mode of giving uniform treatment to all the candidates by
redistributing the marks of the deleted questions equally to all the
candidates has also been upheld. Hence, the treatment to all the
candidates is uniform and both the modes have been upheld.
Therefore, only on the ground that pro-rata distribution of marks
was not adopted even though some questions were deleted, cannot
have any vitiating effect on the process of selection.
47. In the case of Subhash Chandra Verma and Others Vs.
State of Bihar and Others 1995 Supp (1) SCC 325, in Para 25
of the report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"25. We will now examine, whether these grounds had
been made out by those candidates who took the objective
test as well as the viva voce and yet could qualify for
selection.
(1) xxxxxxxxxx
2. xxxxxxxxxxx
3. Several controversial questions were set and in relation
to some questions, there could be more than one answer:
In an objective type of test, more than one answer are
given. The candidates are required to tick mark the
answer which is the most appropriate out of the plurality
of answers. The questions and answers were prescribed by
the experts in the field with reference to standard books.
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a question will have
more than one correct answer. Even if the answers could
be more than one, the candidates will have to select the
one which is more correct out of the alternative answers.
In any event, this is a difficulty felt by all the candidates."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, clearly emphasised that
in an objective type test where more than one answers are given,
the candidates are required to tick mark the answer which is the
most appropriate out of the plurality of answers. It was further
highlighted that the questions and answers were prescribed by the
(61 of 61) [CW-2253/2022]
experts in the field with reference to standard books. Therefore, it
is incorrect to say that the question will have more than one correct
answer. Even if the answer could be more than one, the candidates
will have to select the one which is more correct out of the
alternative answers, though in the present case, on facts, no case of
there being more than one option being correct answer is found.
48. Having dealt with all the issues as raised in these petitions and
relying upon dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of
decisions cited hereinabove which restrict the scope of judicial
review and interference is warranted only in exceptional cases of the
nature as stated and restated in various judicial pronouncements,
we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the body
of experts as it was acted upon by the respondents. We have
carefully examined the original records which contained deliberations
of subject experts and discussions, as also the conclusion arrived at
by the experts of the subjects in the Expert Committee. All the
recommendations made by the Committee of Experts have been
acted upon and the decision to delete four questions and alter option
in one of the question was taken while rejecting all other objections.
49. In the result, all the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.
50. A copy of this order be placed on record of each connected writ
petition.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
MANOJ NARWANI.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
