Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prem Kumar Verma vs Rajasthan Subordinate And ... on 6 December, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14464/2022

Prem Kumar Verma S/o Rawat Ram Verma, aged about 36 Years, Resident of VPO Rampura Rang Mahal, Tehsil Pilibanga, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan (335803)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board through Secretary, having its Office at State Institute of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Rd, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018

2. State of Rajasthan through the Director and Joint Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan, Rajmahal Residential Area, C- Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur - 16, Rajasthan.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Narayan Yadav.
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Manvendra Singh Bhati.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                      Order

06/12/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning

the validity of final answer key pertaining to recruitment on the

post of Assistant Fire Officer pursuant to recruitment held under

Advertisement dated 10.08.2021.

The petitioner has questioned the validity of answer of

Question No.83 of master question paper and has sought deletion

of Question No.97 of master question paper from the final answer

key and sought recalculation of the marks, revision of the result

(2 of 6) [CW-14464/2022]

after awarding marks based on revision and consider his case as

per his merit in the general category.

Pursuant to advertisement, the examination was held by the

respondent Board in terms of the Scheme of the Examination

(Annex.2). After the examination was held, the preliminary

answer key was published by the respondents on 07.03.2022,

wherein for Questions No.83 and 97 the correct answer indicated

were 'D'. The petitioner raised objection qua Question No.83

claiming that the correct answer would be A'. For Question No.97,

no objection was raised by the petitioner.

After the objections raised by candidates were considered by

the Expert Committee, the respondent Board published the final

answer key on 18.04.2022 wherein the answers 'D' for both the

Questions No.83 and 97 were maintained.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the

action of the respondents, in maintaining the answer at 'D' for

Question No.83, and not deleting Question No.97 is perverse.

Submissions have been made that Question No.83, as the correct

answer is 'A', the determination made by the respondents

deserves to be set aside.

Further submissions were made qua Question No.97 that as

the question was not framed properly, the same couldn't have

been answered appropriately by the candidates and therefore, the

said question should have been deleted by the respondents.

Submissions were also made that as the other candidates raised

objections qua Question No.97, the petitioner thought it

appropriate not to raise objection qua the said question and,

therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seek deletion of Question

(3 of 6) [CW-14464/2022]

No.97 as well. Reference was made to material filed alongwith the

writ petition.

Counsel for the respondent Board made submissions that the

objections raised qua Question No.83 has been dealt with by the

Expert Committee and as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :

(2021) 2 SCC 309, the said determination made by the Expert

Committee is not open to interference under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition

deserves dismissal. Qua Question No.97 it was submitted that as

the petitioner has not raised any objection to the preliminary

answer key qua the said question, the challenge to final answer

key qua the said question is not maintainable.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and have perused the material available on record.

So far as Question No.97 is concerned, admittedly the

petitioner after publication of the preliminary answer key did not

raise any objection qua the said question and after the final

answer key has been published, the validity whereof has been

sought to be questioned. The objection raised by the learned

counsel for the respondent Board regarding right of the petitioner

to question the validity of the final answer key once he had not

raised any objection to the model answer key qua Question No.97

despite grant of opportunity, has substance.

The said aspect has to be examined in the context and no

straitjacket principle can be laid down. In case a particular option

is indicated in the model/preliminary answer key, which option

despite objection raised by other candidates, is reiterated in the

final answer key and thereafter if the candidate who has not

(4 of 6) [CW-14464/2022]

raised any objection to the model answer key, seeks to raise

objection, he is estopped from raising the issue having failed to

avail the opportunity provided.

However, in case the answer suggested in the model answer

is changed in the final answer key and the candidates who had

accepted the preliminary answer key, can always raise objection to

the changed final answer. In the present case, as admittedly qua

Question No.97, the petitioner has not raised any objection to the

preliminary objection key, the challenge now sought to be laid by

the petitioner with the spacious plea that objection was raised by

other candidates, cannot be countenanced.

Question No.83, inter-alia, reads under:

"83. Which statement is not true regarding fire drill?

(A) Fire drills should occur randomly during different times of the day and during different activities? (B) Drills should be conducted using the same procedures that would be followed in case of an actual fire.

(D) A fire drill should be scheduled once in every 6 months."

As noticed, the respondents indicated 'D' as the correct

answer, both in the preliminary answer key as well as the final

answer key. However, the petitioner claims that 'A' would be the

correct answer.

Submissions have been made that in the National Building

Code of India pertaining to fire and life safety, the guidelines for

fire drill and evacuation procedure for high rise buildings (above

15 meters in height) provided in Annexure-E, provides that fire

drill should be conducted in accordance with fire safety plan at

(5 of 6) [CW-14464/2022]

least once every three months for existing buildings during first

two years and thereafter the fire drill should be conducted at least

once every six months and therefore, the option 'D' indicated that

fire drill should be scheduled once in every six months, being in

consonance with the Building Code, it cannot be said that the

statement was not true and the option 'A', which provides that fire

drills should occur randomly during different times of the day and

during different activities being an incorrect statement, the said

option, is correct.

Learned counsel for the respondent Board has produced the

opinion of the Expert Committee, which rejected the objection

with reference to the provisions of the Rajasthan Factories Rules,

1951 which under Rule 13 (c) provides that fire fighting drill shall

be held at least once in every three months and therefore, the

option 'D' which provides that fire drill should be scheduled once in

every six months, being an incorrect statement was the correct

option and therefore, the plea raised in this regard by the

petitioner with reference to National Building Code of India, cannot

be accepted as in the said Code also, as noticed hereinbefore,

different periods i.e. both three/six for holding the fire drills have

been indicated.

Besides the above, the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction

of this Court qua the Expert Committee opinion have been

repeatedly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division

Bench of this Court. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the latest being in the case of Vikesh Kumar

Gupta (supra) as followed by the Division Bench in Rajkamal

Basitha vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.11347/2021 decide don 21.02.2022 at Jaipur Bench is

(6 of 6) [CW-14464/2022]

well settled. The Division Bench in the case of Rajkamal Basitha

(supra) observed as under:

"It is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court that the judicial review of the decision of the examining body be it in the filed of education or in the recruitment to the public employment, is extremely limited. Particularly when the examination is being conducted by an expert body and disputed questions are scanned by specially constituted expert committee, the Courts are extremely slow in interfering with the decisions of such bodies. Unless it is pointed out that there is a glaring error or an irrational decision has been rendered the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not interfere."

In view of above discussion, the plea raised by the petitioner

qua the final answer key in relation to Question Nos.83 and 97 has

no substance.

Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the

same is therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J DJ/-