Sudarshan Purohit Son Of Shri ... vs The Honble High Court For ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3414 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.106/2022

                                            In

                  D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1347/2022

   Sudarshan    Purohit      Son      Of     Shri     Shyam          Manohar    Purohit
   Advocate, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Bafno Ka Mohalla
   Old City, Kishangarh, District Ajmer 305 802.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
   1.     The Hon'ble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan,
          Through Registrar General, Jodhpur.
   2.     The   Registrar         (Examination),         Rajasthan       High   Court,
          Jodhpur.
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Lal Mathur, Advocate

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

28/04/2022

Heard on prayer for review of order dated 08.04.2022

passed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that

insofar as decision of the respondent examination agency and

expert body to alter the model answer of question no.A-66/B-

49/C-58/D-39, the same was palpably wrong because the

Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 was

published on 25.09.1987.

The next submission is that model answer once framed could

not be altered. It is further submitted that the petitioner having

(2 of 3) [WRW-106/2022]

answered the earlier model answer ought to have been benefited

with the marks as the very alteration of model answers was

incorrect.

In support of his submission, he has relied upon the

judgments in the case of Kanpur University, through Vice

Chancellor and Others Versus Samir Gupta and Others:

(1983) 4 SCC 309, Manish Ujwal and Others Versus

Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Others:

(2005) 13 SCC 744 and Ran Vijay Singh and Others Versus

State of U.P. and Others: (2018) 2 SCC 357.

The argument of learned counsel for the review petitioner is

utterly misconceived in law. This Court on the factual premise that

upon objection received on the correctness of the model answer

key of question no.A-66/B-49/C-58/D-39, the expert body had

considered objection and it opined that the question was with

regard to the date on which the Act was published and therefore

with reference to the question, the date of publication was

relevant not the date on which it was brought into force and effect

in exercise of powers under Section 1(1) of the Act. This decision

of the expert body, in our opinion, does not suffer from any

illegality or perversity. The judgments which have been relied

upon by the learned counsel for the review petitioner are with

regard to the scope of interference by the constitutional courts in

the matter of correctness of model answers. The procedure

adopted by the respondents to invite objections against proposed

answer keys, getting it examined by a body of experts and acting

according to the opinion of experts, has been found by this Court

to be in accordance with law calling for no interference.

                                                                              (3 of 3)                 [WRW-106/2022]



                                         The    review   petition      being       misconceived      is,   therefore,

                                   dismissed.



                                    (SAMEER JAIN),J               (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

                                   Karan/3









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)