Rajasthan High Court
Indra Bhambhu D/O Shankar Lal ... vs Rajasthan Public Service ... on 22 February, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13968/2021
1. Ankit Sharma S/o Kalyan Prasad, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Ward No. 14, Opposite To Meena Temple, Chhabra,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. Sanjay Didal S/o Sagar Mal Didal, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 8-A, Bal Vihar Colony, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Rambabu Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 13, Behind The Temple, Village
Gudhawas, Post Newar, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Sharma Mradul Rakesh D/o Rakesh Sharma, Aged About
24 Years, R/o 10/a, Railway Colony, Gandhidham,
Kachchh, Gujrat.
5. Avinash Kumar S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Vpo Gajoowas, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
6. Sone Singh S/o Bijendra Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o P-42, Madhuvan Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Navin Tiwari S/o Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o 280, Near Durgapura Railway Station, Shanti Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Kailash Chand Verma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o P. No. 51, Jagdamba Nagar-B,
Behind Medicine Factory, Benar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Hansraj Meena S/o Nathu Ram Meena, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Plot No. 200, Ganesh Nagar, Main Niwaru
Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
10. Harphool Phagna S/o Kalyan Sahai Gurjar, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Village And Post Talwa, Bihajar,tehsil
Viratnagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
11. Siya Ram Gurjar S/o Ramgopal Gurjar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Shankerpura, Post Birasara, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
12. Shankar Lal Meena S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 37
Years, R/o T-2/76, Sahyog Apartment, Sector-6, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:50 AM)
(2 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
13. Dinesh Kumar Parsoya S/o Banna Ram Parsoya, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o 305-306, Parkwood Building, Sri
Gopal Nagar, Near To Somani Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
14. Harish Kumar Kumawat S/o Subhash Chand Kumawat,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o 150, Patel Colony, Bari Ka
Bas, Goner Mod, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
15. Mahendra Kumar Sindhu S/o Suwa Lal Sindhu, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Sindhu Farm, Beelwari, Tehsil Virat
Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
16. Ashutosh S/o Govind Prasad Sharma, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 200/9, Vikas Colony-3, Matches Factory,
Dadawara, Kota, Rajasthan.
17. Munkesh Kumar Pooniya S/o Tiku Ram, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Kishanpura, Tehsil Fatehpur, District
Sikar, Rajasthan.
18. Sher Singh S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Vpo Surana, Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
19. Rahul Sharma S/o Girish Chandra Sharma, Aged About
35 Years, R/o 14/387, Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
20. Kamlesh Kumar Jat S/o Dhanna Lal, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Vpo Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
21. Laxman Singh S/o Sawai Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Vpo Sankara, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
22. Javed Khan S/o Mohamed Shamim, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Near Police Sataion, Sarwar, District Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13689/2021
Suneel Kumar Sharma S/o Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Plot No. 23, Jain Enclave, Golyawas,
Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(3 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14018/2021
1. Bhagwan Sahay Jat S/o Shri Budha Ram Jat, Aged About
34 Years, R/o A-65, Friends Colony, Sirsi Road,
Panchyawala, Jaipur-302034 (Raj.) Roll No. 564969
2. Akash Bhardwaj S/o Shri Purshottam Bhardwaj, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 204 Muktanand Nagar, Gopalpura
Bye Pass, Jaipur-302018 (Raj.) Roll No. 741166
3. Ankita Bhatnagar D/o Shri P S Bhatnagar, Aged About 29
Years, R/o D 160 A, Siddharth Nagar,gaitore Road,
Jaipur-302017 (Raj.) Roll No. 388696
4. Ashish Choudhary S/o Shri Laxminarayan, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Vpo-Radawas, Via-Amarsar, Tehsil-
Shahpura, Jaipur-303601 (Raj.) Roll No. 344932
5. Ashish Pargi S/o Shri Kamlashanker Pargi, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Near Goshala, Noagama Road, Banswara-
327601 (Raj.) Roll No. 360261
6. Dharmendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ratan Lal Meena,
Aged About 38 Years, R/o H.no. 3, Block D, Suman
Enclave, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302025 (Raj.) Roll No.
251094
7. Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Jagmal Singh Rathore, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Plot No 387, New Colony B.j.s.,
Jodhpur-342010(Raj.) Roll No. 712244
8. Gaurav Rayzada S/o Shri Dinesh Rayzada, Aged About
32 Years, R/o 1505, Alakhnanda Colony , Vaishali Nagar,
Ajmer-305001 (Raj.) Roll No. 304118
9. Gaurav Satsangi S/o Shri Anand Satsangi, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Flat No. 1 And 2, 1St Floor, Windsor Court,
Suraj Nagar, Near C.h.b., Jodhpur-342008(Raj.) Roll No.
749926
10. Indu Kumari D/o Shri Rekha Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Rajiv Nagar, Sindhari Road, Barmer-344001 (Raj.)
Roll No. 198337
11. Jogendra Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 29
(4 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Years, R/o Gurukul Dairy, Jharno Ki Sarai, Debari,
Udaipur-313024 (Raj.) Roll No. 703157
12. Kalpesh Kumar Puniya S/o Shri Jaggu Ram Puniya, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Kalpesh Kumar Puniya Ward N0 13
Mohalla Kumawaton, Khatushyamji, Khatoo, Sikar-
332602 Teh Danta Ramgarh, (Raj.) Roll No. 293189
13. Kapila D/o Shri Birbal Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
B-60, Shri Ram Nagar-B, Khirni Phatak Road, Jhotwara,
Jaipur-302012 (Raj.) Roll No. 677560
14. Karmavati Meena D/o Shri Ram Chandra Meena, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 166 Vivek Vihar Behind Uco Bank,
Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017 (Raj.) Roll No. 442993
15. Karni Singh Nathawat S/o Shri Madan Singh Nathawat,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o 58, Sajjan Leela Vihar,
Ramjan Ka Hattha, Jodhpur (Raj.) Roll No. 727066
16. Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Yad Ram Yadav, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Puranbas, Neem Ka Thana,
Sikar-332713 (Raj.) Roll No. 138976
17. Mausam Jat D/o Shri Ganga Ram Jat, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Shyampura, Jaipur-303002 (Raj.) Roll No.
385479
18. Monika Sharma D/o Shri Kamal Nayan Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Shiv Colony, Near Dr. Rajmal
Chittora House, Baran-325205 (Raj.) Roll No. 189459
19. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Phool Singh, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Kasganj Road Katra, Nadbai, Bharatpur-
321602(Raj.) Roll No. 277663
20. Nitu Vishnoi D/o Shri Ramjas, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
96/4, Adarsh Nager, Phalodi, Jodhpur-342301 (Raj.) Roll
No. 538851
21. Pankaj Singh Charan S/o Shri Dhan Singh Charan, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Care Of Adv Sunil Ji Bohra, Old Post
Office Street, Rajnagar, Rajsamand-313326 (Raj.) Roll
No. 456719
22. Rachna Kumari D/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Peeplal Ka Bas, Malsisar, Jhunjhunun-333011
(Raj.) Roll No. 493272
23. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Dayanand Lamoriya, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Near Govt Sr Sec School, Vpo-Harsawa
Bara, Via-Fatehpur, Sikar-332301(Raj.) Roll No. 468381
(5 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
24. Ram Singh Bishnoi S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Vpo Vishnu Nagar, Teh Luni, Jodhpur-342802
(Raj.) Roll No. 297240
25. Sharwan Ratnu S/o Shri Om Prakas H Ratnu, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village-Ghoraran, Pos T-Untwaliya,
Nagaur-341001 (Raj.) Roll No. 410378
26. Sohan Singh Gaur S/o Shri Hari Singh Gaur, Aged About
29 Years, R/o 54 A, Amar Niwas, Near Rac Gate
Shivpura, Kota-324009 (Raj.) Roll No. 669409
27. Subhash Mann S/o Shri J Prasad, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o A-90 Monika Vihar 2Nd, Mangyawas Road,
Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020 (Raj.) Roll No. 573996
28. Vikas Palaria S/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Palaria, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Meghwalo Ka Vas, Vpo Chawandiya
Kallan, Teh Jaitaran, Pali-306305(Raj.) Roll No. 152693
29. Vikas Meena S/o Shri Prahalad Kumar Meena, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Plot No 62 Radhika Vihar, Jamdoli,
Agra Road, Jaipur-302031 (Raj.) Roll No. 286056
30. Krishna Dev Singh Rathore S/o Shri Gayad Singh
Rathore, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Mela Ground,
Village Kanji Ka Kheda, Village Amet, Distt. Rajsamand,
-313332 (Raj)-313332 Roll No. 524991.
31. Priyanka Yadav D/o Shri Nityanand Yadav, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Plot No 5, In Front Of Old Kamla Nursing
Home, Behind Police Line, Alwar-301001 (Raj) Roll
No.161477.
32. Sangeeta Kumar D/o Shri Dhanesh Kumar, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Village Kharagwas, Post Office Boria
Kamalpur, Rewari-123401(Haryana) Roll No. 454418
33. Ajay Prakash Biban S/o Shri Kishori Lal Biban, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Anoopshahar, The. Bhadra, Distt.
Hanumangarh-335501(Raj) Roll No. 487656.
34. Vikram Singh S/o Shri M S Shekhawat, Aged About 43
Years, R/o House No. 126, Ranjeet Nagar, Khatipura,
Jaipur-302012(Raj.) Roll No.532412
35. Nitin Saraswat S/o Shri Bhagwan Swaroop Saraswat,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o 2/117, Housing Board Colony,
Gupetshwar Road, Dausa-303303(Raj) Roll No. 347720.
----Petitioners
Versus
(6 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14175/2021
1. Saurabh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramdas Meena, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Liwali Road, Bamanwas Patti Khurd,
District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
2. Satyam Bisu S/o Shri Ram Ratan Bisu, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Vpo Mojas, Tehsil- Mandawa, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
3. Vandana Kumari D/o Ramniwas, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Mundo Ki Dhani, Chhau, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
4. Tarun Kumar Chheepa S/o Sh. Badri Prasad Chhipa,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Z/2, Mahaveer Nagar,
Sanganer, Jaipur.
5. Shadev Singh Meena S/o Ramjilal Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o A-79, Saraswati Nagar, Near Sector 6,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
6. Manorma Pathak D/o Shri Chandra Shekshar Pathak,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Nyotha Tehsil Nadbai
District Bharatpur.
7. Ajay Kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Ramdev Kumawat, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Dhani Gujjran Kachroda, Phulera,
District Jaipur.
8. Chintamani Yadav S/o Omprakash Yadav, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village And Post Gunta, Tehsil Bansur, Distt.
Alwar, Rajasthan.
9. Bhauri Lal Meena S/o Kalyan Sahay Meena, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Vpo Alooda, Dhani Golmanya, Tehsil
Nangal Rajwatan, Distt. Dausa.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer.
----Respondents
(7 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14184/2021
Bharatpal Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Das, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o 755, Mahaveer Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 302018 Roll No. 186066.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14185/2021
Mani Madhukar Sharma S/o Shri Kishan Lal Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o 109, Ganesh Nagar V, Nadi Ka Fatak, Murlipura,
Jaipur (Raj.)- 302039 Roll No. 183748.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14223/2021
1. Dharmpal Singh Rathore S/o Ram Singh Rathore, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Badu, Tehsil Parbatsar, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Dheeeraj Joshi S/o Vipin Kumar, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Hanuman Dhora Bas, Joshiyo Ka Mohalla, Momasar,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Surjeet Singh Dhakar S/o Prem Singh Dhakar, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 90, Poonam Vihar Colony,
Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Drishti Gandhi D/o Prem Chand Gandhi, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 220, Rama Heritage, Central Spine,
Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14266/2021
Chander Prakash S/o Shri Jagdish Narain Meena, Aged About 37
(8 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Years, R/o C-336, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Feet Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Administrative
Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14270/2021
1. Ajay Kumar Saini S/o Ram Dayal Saini, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Asthal, Post Tholai, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Stalin Siddharth Sachdeva S/o S.k. Sachdeva, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 5 C 27, Shakti Nagar, Near Udham
Singh Chowk, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan.
3. Deepak Kumar S/o Ranjeet Ram, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o 79-A, Saraswati Nagar, Near Uti Office,
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
4. Vikas Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Vpo Kaliyan, Ward No. 10, Bsnl Tower Ke Pass,
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
5. Surendra Kumar Dhaked S/o Bachchu Singh Dhaked,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o Near By Chopda Kua, Nakkar
Ki Devi, Hindauncity, District Karauli, Rajasthan.
6. Ravi Kumar Meena S/o Shiv Lal Meena, Aged About 35
Years, R/o A-70, Siddarth Nagar, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
7. Rashmi Choudhary D/o Subhash Singh Sepat, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Surmalikpur, Harsoil, Renwal,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Pankaj D/o Ram Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
Antroli, Post Karawali, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
9. Shubham Tiwari S/o Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Vpo Kachroli, Tehsil Hindauncity, District
(9 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Karauli, Rajasthan.
10. Manorma Pathak D/o Chandrashekshar Pathak, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Nyotha, Tehsil Nadbai, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
11. Nitin Sharma S/o Shrinidhi Sharma, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Indra Colony, Ajitgarh, Tehsil Srimadhopur,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.
12. Neetu Jangir D/o Subhash Chandra Jangir, Aged About
34 Years, R/o 26, Kalyan Colony, Barkat Nagar, Tonk
Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
13. Mohd. Shahdab Agwan S/o Mohd. Yakub Agwan, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Plot No. J-154, Near Shamshan
Choraha, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
14. Kantilal Ninama S/o Jokha Ninama, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Vpo Sagwa, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District
Banswara, Rajasthan.
15. Subhash Chandra Verma S/o Arjun Lal, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Udaipura, Post Govindpura, Via
Palsana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
16. Babu Lal Khati S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Ward No. 04, Village Dungarana, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
17. Rahul Sharma S/o Kailash Chandra Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, R/o 34/394, Sector-3, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
18. Preeti Yadav D/o Ramniwas Yadav, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Aryan B.ed. College, Dabla Road, Kotputli, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
19. Tribhuvan Singh S/o Jagdish Singh, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Vpo Raisar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
20. Rahul Gehlot S/o Dharma Ram Gehlot, Aged About 23
Years, R/o At Post Vasa, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
21. Hansa Kumari Jakhar D/o Shrawan Lal Jakhar, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village Deesa, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
22. Somil Dhakar S/o Birdhi Lal Nagar, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Dayanand Colony, Behind Govt. College, Baran,
Rajasthan.
(10 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
23. Sunita Mehra D/o Ram Lal Mehra, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Post Gogasar, Athuna Bas, Meghwalo Ka
Mohalla, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
24. Mukesh Kumar Poswal S/o Sharwan Lal Gurjar, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Village Syari, Via Achrol, Tehsil
Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
25. Ajay Kumar Kumawat S/o Ramdev Kumawat, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Dhani Gujjran Kachroda, Tehsil
Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
26. Sohan Singh Gaur S/o Hari Singh Gaur, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 54A, Amar Niwas, Near Rac Gate, Shivpura,
Kota, Rajasthan.
27. Shilpa Karwa D/o Jeevan Ram Karwa, Aged About 28
Years, R/o B-55, Shri Ram Nagar, Street No. 4, Near P.f.
Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
28. Umraw Mal Meena S/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Vpo Malyawas, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
29. Bajarang Lal Meena S/o Laxman Ram Meena, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Malyawas, Tehsil Phulera,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
30. Sanjeev Didel S/o Rameshwar Didel, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Ward No.14, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
31. Jajpal Singh Rathod S/o Dalapat Singh Rathod, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Village Rampur, Post Tokar, Tehsil
Semari, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
32. Naveen Suman S/o Mangi Lal Suman, Aged About 26
Years, R/o C-18, In Front Of Kunhari Police Station,
Kunhari, Kota, Rajasthan.
33. Kamlesh Kumar Jangid S/o Banshi Lal Jangid, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Quarter No. 4, Near Govt. Hospital,
Ajmer Road, Kekri, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
34. Radheshyam Kumawat S/o Bhairu Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Village Udalpura, Post Ganglas,
Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
35. Somil Dhakar S/o Birdhi Lal Nagar, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Dayanand Colony, Behind Govt. College, Baran,
Rajasthan.
36. Girish Kumar Tyagi S/o Ramji Lal, Aged About 30 Years,
(11 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
R/o Kurendha, Dholpur, Rajasthan.
37. Manoj Kumar Meena S/o Girraj Prasad Meena, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Village And Post Hurla, Tehsil
Mahwa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
38. Girdhari Lal Yadav S/o Laxman Ram Yadav, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Village Singod Khurd, Via Khejroli, Tehsil
Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
39. Hari Om Meena S/o Girraj Prasad Meena, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 6-H-184, Sector-6, Indra Gandhi Nagar,
Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
40. Ashutosh Saidawat S/o Rameshwar Saidawat, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Reni, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
41. Sangita D/o Shyam Lal Riyar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Sogawas, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
42. Gireesh Chand Meena S/o Pukhraj Meena, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Vpo Piloda, Tehsil Wazeerpur, District
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
43. Piyush Kumar Sharma S/o Chheetar Mal Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Badagaon, Tehsil Nadoti,
District Karauli, Rajasthan.
44. Mahesh Kumar S/o Jhumar Ram Jat, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Vpo Badu, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
45. Hanuman Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Sdm Office Ke Pass, Manasar, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
46. Pooja Kanwar D/o Moti Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Vpo Kalru, Tehsil Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
47. Divya D/o Dhir Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 597,
Subhri (232), Ambala, Harayana.
48. Ayushi Tyagi D/o Mangat Tyagi, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o 1184, Street No. 1, Shivpuri, Sector-9, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
49. Surendra Paliwal S/o Jagdish Paliwal, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Vpo Lathi, Tehsil Pokaran, Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
50. Priya Saini D/o Ram Bhajan Saini, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Saini Public School, Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur,
(12 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Rajasthan.
51. Arvind Kumar Verma S/o Makkhan Lal Bunkar, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o C-8, Takshshila Nagar, Seupura, Vpo
Amer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
52. Prema Ram Kaswan S/o Begaram Kaswan, Aged About
31 Years, R/o 177, Purane Kve Ke Pass, Ramsar, Vaya
Napasar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
53. Seema Kumari D/o Radhey Shyam, W/o Sitaram, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o 483, Bairwo Ki Dhani, Shop, Tonk,
Rajasthan.
54. Aslam Khan Rajarh S/o Nisar Khan Rajarh, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Goriyo Ki Gali, Dhan Mandi, Siwanchi
Gate, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
55. Gaurav Agrawal S/o Har Govind Singhal, Aged About 33
Years, R/o 904-C, Shrinathpuram, Sector-C, Engineering
College, Kota, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14287/2021
1. Indra Bhambhu D/o Shankar Lal Bhambhu, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Jato Ka Mohalla, Manyana, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
2. Divakar Baresa S/o Subhash Chandra Baresa, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o 107, Shiv Shankar Colony, Janta
Colony Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Mohit Baresa S/o Subhash Baresa, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o 107- Shiv Shankar Colony, Janta Colony Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
4. Raichand Dewasi S/o Sona Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Vpo Sarnau, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore,
Rajasthan.
5. Sanwla Ram S/o Roopa Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Village Paladi Deoran, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore,
Rajasthan.
6. Krishan Prasad Yadav S/o Gowardhan Yadav, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Village Gandhi Nagar, Post And Tehsil
(13 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
7. Ashok Kumar S/o Radhey Shyam, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village Loyati, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
8. Rahul Jangid S/o Liladhar Jangid, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Shiv Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Ajit Singh Meena S/o Lal Chand Meena, Aged About 33
Years, R/o B-199 Vigyan Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14391/2021
Kirti Pareek D/o Dileep Pareek, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 172,
Ramnagar Basti, Ward No. 1, Sardarsahar, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14396/2021
1. Divya Aswal D/o Ramesh Aswal, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o 189, Pratap Nagar, Khatipura Road, Vashishtha
Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Neha Dhayal D/o Mahesh Kumar Dhayal, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Behind Jangir Agro Industry, Pilani Road,
Vidhayak Nagar, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
3. Arti Paliwal D/o Suresh Chandra Paliwal, Aged About 29
Years, R/o C-115, Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
4. Sumit Kumar Meena S/o Battu Lal Meena, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Noviswa, Todabhim, District Karauli,
Rajasthan.
5. Ganesh Bairwa S/o Shankar Lal Bairwa, Aged About 29
Years, R/o S-127, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Feet Road, Near
(14 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Jitendra Kumar Meena S/o Laxmi Narayan Meena, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o 17, Shiv Vihar Colony, Bassi,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Mahaveer Singh S/o Chain Singh, Aged About 43 Years,
R/o Near Schol, Nathwari, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
8. Neha Muhania D/o Prakash Chandra, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Vpo Khelna, Paota, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14398/2021
1. Hari Om Prakash Meena S/o Lallu Ram Meena, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o 89K, Bad Ki Dhani, Village
Biharipura, Post Manser Kheri, Bassi, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Manish Kumar Gurjar S/o Mittu Lal Gurjar, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Shivpuri B, Gangapurcity, District
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
3. Shiv Kumar Meena S/o Brij Bihari Meena, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Bahadurpur, Post Bhopur, Tehsil
Todabhim, District Karauli, Rajasthan.
4. Manoj Singh Meena S/o Rambharosi Meena, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Munapura, Post Kot, Dausa, Rajasthan.
5. Prem Singh S/o Gaje Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Near Forest Department Office, Sardarpura, Barmer,
Rajasthan.
6. Sourav Charan S/o Sawai Singh Charan, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 83, Vikas Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14431/2021
(15 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Tanushree Srivastava D/o Ashutosh Srivastava, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 104-B, Tagore Nagar, Ajmer Raod, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14446/2021
Saket Kumar Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o G-1, Cd-48,
Dadu Dayal Nagar, Muhana Mandi Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road,
Ajmer Through Its Secretary
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14514/2021
Gargi Gupta D/o Shri Balkishan Gupta, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
11, Shanti Niketan Colony, Kishan Marg, Barkat Nagar, Tonk
Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14559/2021
1. Yogendra Singh Baisala S/o Ravindra Singh, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Village Jungeenpura, Tehsil And District
Karauli, Rajasthan.
2. Manoj Kumar Meena S/o Madhav Ram Meena, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Natata Dhani, Bagda Ki Via
Amer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Surendra Kumar S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Vpo Tatarpur, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
4. Arti Paliwal D/o Suresh Chandra Paliwal, Aged About 29
(16 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Years, R/o C-115, Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. Bhuvneshwar Singh Khiriya S/o Maniraj Singh Khiriya,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Kharadi, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali, Rajasthan.
6. Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 67, Basant Vihar, Agra
Road, Jamdoli, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Abhishek Kumar Sharma S/o Gyan Chand Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o B-39, Shri Ganpati Nagar, Near
Sanganer Civil Court, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Shyam Lal Darji S/o Rameshwar Lal Darji, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Village Mandeli, Post Jodhiyasi, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
9. Praveen Kumar Meena S/o Prithvi Lal Meena, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village Kalakhana, Post Palanpur,
Tehsil Hindauncity, District Karauli, Rajasthan.
10. Govind Ram S/o Kabira Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Vpo Lanela, Tehsil Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
11. Rajpal Singh S/o Paras Dan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Mehreri, Dangara, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
12. Mohit Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
525, Tankri (48), Tankri, Rewari, Bawal, Harayana.
13. Surendra Singh S/o Ishwar Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Gali No. 4, Laxmi Vihar Colony, Jaipur Road, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
14. Manvender Singh S/o Abhay Singh, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Kankar Dopa, Alwar, Rajasthan.
15. Hitendra Pal Singh S/o Prithvi Raj Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Ajit Sagar Farm House, Dabani, Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
16. Chakravir Singh S/o Kailash Jat, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Vpo Jahangeerpur, Karauli, Rajasthan.
17. Sweta Kain D/o Rajendra Singh Kain, Aged About 26
Years, R/o A-148, Jda Colony, Ramnagariya, Jagatpura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
18. Pinky Jangid D/o Hanuman Sahay Jangid, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Plot No. 16, Shanti Nagar, Benar Road,
(17 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Jhotwara,
19. Dheeraj Solanki S/o Babulal Solanki, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Near Floor Mill, Ward No. 5, Chirawa, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
20. Nalini Singh D/o Devendra Kumar Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o P. No. 204,galaxy Enclave Mangalam
Complex, Shobhagpura, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
21. Kamal Deep Meena S/o Raja Ram Meena, Aged About 33
Years, R/o P. No.20, Civil Line, Nayapura, Kota, District
Kota, Rajasthan.
22. Bharat Maniraj Sharma S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About
32 Years, R/o P. No. 76, Ram Vihar, Opp. Tilak Hospital,
Meena Paldi, Agra Road , Jaipur, Rajasthan.
23. Vineeta Rani D/o Shriphal Meena, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o 2 B, 34, Housing Board, Akrabhatta, Abu Road,
District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14585/2021
Aishwarya Bainada S/o Shri Laxman Meena, Aged About 24
Years, R/o 122, Prajapati Vihar, Goliyawas, Mansarovar, The.
Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.) - 302020 Roll No. 410155
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14655/2021
1. Khinvraj Singh S/o Sujan Singh, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Village Bhinyad, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
2. Jagat Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
3. Sandeep S/o Shankar Dan, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Gavad Ke Daxin Ke Taraf, Dhadhariya Khurd, Poost
(18 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Nimbari Chandawata, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
4. Satish Bainsla S/o Jagram Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o III/89, Behind J.k.k. Nyay Path, Gandhi Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Ramakant Parashar S/o Raj Kumar Parashar, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Pokhara Mohalla, Baseri, District Dholpur,
Rajasthan.
6. Anand Kumar Meena S/o Shiv Charan Meena, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o 5 Mb 32, Indra Gandhi Nagar,
Khatipura Railway Station, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Rashmi D/o Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
8. Deepak Jain S/o Rajababu Jain, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
9. Sunita Meena D/o Kalyan Sahai Meena, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Shiv Sagar Ka Mohalla, Kanariyawala, Jaipur
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
10. Garima Meena D/o Satyanarayan Meena, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Radha Bagh Colony, Behind Gayatri Mandir,
Chomu, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
11. Manju D/o Bachan Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Via
Haripura, Post Alipur, Via Bagar, Tehsil Chirawa, District
Jhunjhunhu, Rajasthan.
12. Kirti Meena D/o K C Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o C-
509, Sidhharth Nagar, Near Malviya Nagar, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
13. Suman Moond D/o Sharwan Kumar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Pipla Ki Dhani, Tehsil And District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
14. Arvind Vaishnav S/o Kan Das, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Plot No. 164, K No.49, Bhagwan Mahaveer Nagar, Near
Kheteshwar School, Nandri, Saran Nagar, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
15. Arun Kumar Meena S/o Prem Chand Meena, Aged About
36 Years, R/o 277- Brij Vihar, Jagatpura Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
(19 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14888/2021
1. Ash Pal Janwa S/o Mangi Lal Janwa, Aged About 37
Years, R/o II-88, Ag Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Mamta Sharma D/o Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Niwaru, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Mahipal Singh S/o Prithvi Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o 186, Laxmi Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Kailash Prasad Mali S/o Lal Chand Mali, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Village Todaganga, Post Digo, Tehsil Lalsot,
District Dausa, Rajasthan.
5. Paylat Mahawar S/o Omprakash Mahawar, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Village Lakhanpur, Post Choundiyawas,
Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
6. Sourabh Dubey S/o Surendra Kumar Dubey, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Villa No. 403, Omaxe City-I, Mayakheri,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
7. Tarun Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, R/o A-57, Kirti Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14993/2021
Sumit Kumar Bansal S/o Shri Banwari Lal Bansal, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 114 K, Bai Pas Road Ke Niche, Haud, Bari Dholpur
(328021) Rajasthan Roll No. 381966
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15010/2021
1. Sunita Jeph D/o Shri Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 34
(20 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Years, R/o C 12 B, Ojha Ji Ka Bagh, Near Nehru Garden,
Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur-302015 (Raj.) Roll No. 210993.
2. Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal Yadav,
Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sgt Rk Yadav Iaf Police,
Security Section Air Force Station Adampur, Jalandhar-
144103 (Punjab) Roll No. 343866
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15017/2021
Chen Kanwar D/o Sh. Manohar Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
119, Mitra Niwas Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Ward No. 30, Madanganj,
Kishangarh, Ajmer- Rajasthan- 305801.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Chairman, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305001.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15353/2021
1. Khushboo Bansal D/o Hari Kishan Bansal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o A-7, Bansal Bhawan, Khetri House,
Vivekanand Colony, Outside Chandpole Gate, Shastri
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Jay Narayan S/o Hira Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Vpo Rohini, Tehsil And District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
3. Ashutosh Parashar S/o Shyam Sunder Parashar, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Parashar Niwas, Pandey Mohalla,
Deeg, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
4. Narendra Jakhar S/o Purkha Ram Jakhar, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Vpo Kalau Dechu, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Teekama Ram S/o Bala Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Vpo Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. Pooja Bishnoi D/o Ramniwas Bishnoi, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Alai, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
7. Dharmendra Jajra S/o Baldev Ram, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Senani, Tehsil Mundwa, District
(21 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
8. Sajjan Kumar Jangu S/o Ramlal Jangu, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village Jaisa, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
9. Daula Ram Jakhar S/o Hardev Ram, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Sutharon Ki Dhani, Thob, Tehsil Osian,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
10. Sandeep Kumar S/o Umrav Singh, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o Vandh Dudi, Bajna, Tehsil Bayana, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
11. Ravi Datt S/o Vijay Pal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Po
Mainana, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
12. Prakash Shou S/o Kanwara Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Vishaniyo Ki Dhani, Hinganiya Kood, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
13. Lekha Choudhary D/o Ganpat Lal Choudhary, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Kanwarpura, Tehsil
Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 172/2022
1. Mitali Sen d/o Dr. Vishnu Kumar Sen, aged about 25
years, R/o 7-D, Gayatri Nagar, Ajmer Road, Sodala,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Ashutosh Ameta S/o Madal Lal Ameta, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Jhadol, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Jai Kishan Meena S/o Ramawtar Meena, Aged About 26
Years, R/o B-84, Gandhi Colony, Pawanpuri, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
4. Gargi Bunas D/o Bajrang Lal Meena, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 53/3, V.t. Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
5. Raju Ram S/o Mala Ram Sirvi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village Dhakri, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
(22 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 179/2022
1. Gyanendra Sharma S/o Chandra Prakash Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o 152, Officers Enclave, Rawan Gate,
Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Surendra Meena S/o Sitarm Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 115, Tirupati Balaji Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Amit Kumar Shrimali S/o Dileep Kumar Shrimali, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o 1 K 20 , Brahmakumari Ashram Ke
Piche, Brahmasthali Colony, Ashok Nagar, District
Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 295/2022
1. Gauri Shankar Yadav S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal Yadav, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o V/p Jhag, Mozmabad, Dudu, Jaipur-
303009 (Raj.) Roll No. 240133
2. Aashita Gulabwani D/o Shri Rajkumar Gulabwani, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o 1/91 Housing Board Colony, Sirohi,
Rajasthan -307001 Roll No. 688212
3. Surbhi D/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
75-76, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Tausar Road, Nagaur,
Rajasthan-341001 Roll No. 532930
4. Abhay Singh S/o Shri Vijayveer Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 32, Behind Br Oil Mill, Rundhiya Nagar,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001 Roll No. 545049
5. Madhu Singh Balot S/o Shri Ladu Singh, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Vpo-Ravli Seri, Madadi, Jalore, Rajasthan-
307030 Roll No. 733121
6. Gajendra Singh Yadav S/o Shri Subeh Singh Yadav, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o V/p - Kankar Dopa, Alwar,
Rajasthan-301701 Roll No. 736306
7. Abhijeet Balhara S/o Shri Ramavtar, Aged About 29
(23 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Years, R/o V/p - Bahu, Akberpur(94), Rohtak, Haryana-
124001 Roll No. 487583
8. Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Hazari Lal Sharma,
Aged About 37 Years, R/o Tara Takiz Ke Saamne, Kherli
Ganj, Alwar-321606 Roll No. 474623
9. Ramjeevan Sepat S/o Shri Ramdev Sepat, Aged About
31 Years, R/o 321, Sepato Ki Dhani, Joshiwas, Phulera,
Kalakh, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303328 (Raj.) Roll No. 687956
10. Gaurav Pareek S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Pareek, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Near Saraswati School, Jamwa
Ramgarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303109 Roll No. 528919
11. Divanshu Goyal S/o Shri Dinesh Chand Goyal, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 66/161, Heera Path, Mansarovar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020, Roll No. 718141
12. Ankit Hawa S/o Shri Bhagirath, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o 881, Mahavir Nagar, Near Durgapura Railway
Station, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018 Roll No. 600376
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 360/2022
Umesh Yadav S/o Veni Prasad, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ahiro Ki
Dhani, Post Dada Fatehpura, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 734/2022
1. Rohit Khandelwal S/o Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o 105/50, Kumbha Marg, Pratap
Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Pradeep Kumar S/o Kamal Kumar, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Chand Gothi, Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
(24 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1303/2022
Cheitanya Prakash S/o Shri Vasu Dev Sharma, Resident Of 8C-
59, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur Roll No. 405356
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate
throught VC with
Shri Shovit Jhajharia
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with
Mr. Aamir Khan &
Mr. Giriraj Rajoria)
Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
Mr. R.D. Meena with
Mr. Siddhant Jain
Mr. Akash Gaur with
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal with
Mr. Pradhuman Singh Rathore
Mr. Ajatshatru Mina with
Mr. Anish Sharma
Mr. Manish Kumar Meena for
Mr. Mahendra Shandilya)
Mr. Vishesh Sharma with
Mr. Rajesh Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Lubhaya through VC with
Mr. Rupesh Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
22/02/2022
Being dissatisfied with the answer key published by the
respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short-`the
RPSC')), this batch of writ petitions has been filed by the
(25 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
candidates who have failed to secure position in the list of
candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination of RAS/RTS
Combined Competitive Examination-2021.
Although, the matters came up on an application filed in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.13968/2021, on the joint request of the
learned counsels for the respective parties, the same were heard
finally at this stage on their merit and are being decided vide this
common order.
To appreciate the factual matrix, S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.14655/2021, Khinvraj Singh & Ors. vs. RPSC is taken as the
lead case. The petitioners applied for appointment in pursuance of
advertisement dated 20.7.2021 in the State Services as well as
Subordinate Services. The scheme of examination provides for
preliminary (screening) examination, mains examination and
interview. The screening test consists of one paper of General
Knowledge and General Science comprised of 150 multiple choice
questions of total 200 marks with a provision for deduction of one
third mark for each wrong answer. The preliminary examination
was conducted on 27.10.2021 and the RPSC uploaded model
answer key on 3.11.2021 inviting objections thereto. The
petitioners filed objections to some of the answers whereafter, the
respondent has issued final answer key on 22.11.2021 which is
subject matter of challenge qua some of the answers. A prayer
has been made to direct the respondent to revise the result and
permit the petitioners to participate in the mains examination on
the strength of their merit position.
The respondent in its reply submitted that since the final
answer key is based on expert opinion, the same does not warrant
any interference.
(26 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Learned counsels for the petitioners assailing the validity of
the final answer key qua the answers to questions no.1, 7, 31, 41,
42, 43, 45, 62, 84, 98, 105 and 122, contended that since
answers to these questions are demonstrably and palpably wrong,
this Court should intervene in the matter and direct the RPSC to
issue revised answer key with correct answers to these questions.
Per contra, Mr. Amit Lubhaya, learned counsel for the RPSC
reiterating the averments of the reply, contended that since the
final answer key is based on expert opinion, no interference is
warranted by this Court under its very limited jurisdiction.
Before entering into the factual vortex, this Court examines
the contour of the judicial review of the expert opinion in the
academic matters.
Their Lordships have held in the case of UPPSC & Ors. vs.
Rahul Singh & Ors.-(2018) 7 SCC 254, as under:
"8. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in
matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a
number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited
before us.
9. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others
vs. Samir Gupta and Others-(1983) 4 SCC 309, 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 3 of
the key answers were wrong. 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
(27 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
and that it should not be held to be wrong by an
inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalization. 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 and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others-(2018) 2 SCC 357, this Court after referring to a
catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the legal
position in the following terms:-
"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
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."
(28 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
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:-
"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
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
(29 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
in confusion being worse confounded. The overall
and larger impact of all this is that public interest
suffers."
14. In the present case we find that all the 3 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 text books. 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."
In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Anr. vs. the State of
Rajasthan and Ors., Civil Appeal No.3649-3650/2020, vide
judgement dated 7.12.2020, their Lordships held as under:
"11. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit,
this Court has deprecated the practice of re- evaluation and
scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise
in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court
to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself,
particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se
merit of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.-(2010) 6 SCC 759
Courts have to show deference and consideration to the
recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the
expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [See-
Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.)-(2010) 8 SCC
372. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to
re- evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay
Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.-(2018) 2 SCC
357 held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the
matters and the academic matters are best left to
(30 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as
follows:
"31. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
32. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Already quoted in Rahul Singh & Ors. (supra)
12. 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 & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission & Ors.-(2018) 8 SCC 81. 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.
13. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear
that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert
opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of
the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers
is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments
to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases
challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of
time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the
continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their
claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting
from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious
damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient
personnel."
A coordinate bench of this Court in Jagdish Kumar Choudhary
& Ors. vs. RPSC & Ors.-MANU/RH/0332/2020 vide its judgement
dated 9.3.2020, held as under:
(31 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
"11. True it is that a candidate cannot use the writ jurisdiction
as an appeal in disguise over the experts' opinion. But taking
cue from the established principles of judicial review, this
Court feels that of late it has become imperative for the
Courts to be satisfied at least about the decision making
process of the experts, if not the outcome. The Court may or
may not pronounce upon the ultimate decision of the experts,
but it can certainly examine as to whether the experts have
relied upon the relevant material or not; Court can also see
as to whether on the basis of the material so relied by the
experts, no other view was possible. The Court needs to be
satisfied that the experts have given brief reasons for taking
a particular view. In case, the Court finds that the material
relied and reasoning given by the experts is not acceptable to
a man of reasonable prudence, it will not keep its hands tied.
12. For the purpose of enabling the Court to have a proper
judicial review, it is expected from the expert committee to
bear in mind the following:-
(i) In case the answer to a question is direct and is
not dependent upon reasoning or analysis, the
experts may avoid giving reasons. In such cases, a
reference to relevant material is imperative.
(ii) In case where the answer to a particular
question is not direct - it is to be deduced or the
same is subservient to reasoning, the experts
should give brief reasons for holding such opinion,
while enclosing the authentic book/relevant
material, which they have relied upon.
(iii) The experts are supposed to rely upon
authentic material and direct evidence so far as
practicable instead of referring to the text books
prescribed for the schools/colleges.
(iv) If a question relates to work/report of some
Scientist, Economist, survey etc. they should
invariably refer to the original work, rather than
referring to the text books or some other author's
interpretation or reproduction of such work."
(32 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
From the conspectus of the aforesaid judgements, the scope
of judicial review in such matters can very broadly be summarised
as under:
(1) The answer key should be assumed to be correct unless
it is shown to be demonstrably and palpably wrong without
any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation.
(2) The expert opinion must reflect reasons behind it, if the
answer is based on reasoning.
(3) The experts are supposed to rely upon
authentic/standard and impeccable material.
Now, the Court ventures into the arena of the respective
claim of the parties with regard to correctness of the answer key
published by the RPSC qua the disputed answers.
Question no.1:
1. Which of the following statement regarding Ruma Devi is not
true?
(1) She is known in the field of Handicrafts.
(2) She was brought-up in the village Jasrapur (Khetari).
(3) She was felicitated with `Nari Shakti Award' by the President
of India in 2018.
(4) She played a major role in providing employment to
Thousands of Woman.
RPSC has chosen the option no.2 as the correct answer
whereas, as per the petitioners, option no.2 as also option no.3
represents the correct answer.
Drawing attention of this Court towards the excerpt
downloaded from the official YouTube channel website of the
President of India, learned counsels submitted that Ruma Devi
was presented Nari Shakti Puraskar-2018 on the International
(33 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Women's Day, i.e., on 8.3.2019. They submit that though the
award was for the year 2018; but, it was awarded in the year
2019. They, therefore, prayed that the question needs to be
deleted.
Mr. Amit Lubhaya submits that the expert opinion is based on
press release dated 7.9.2018 issued by the Ministry of Women and
Child Development on its official website as also an information
contained in the book in the name of "Rajasthan Ka Itihas,
Sanskriti, Parampara and Virasat" edited by Dr. Hukam Chand Jain
and Dr. Narayan Lal Mali published by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth
Academy. With regard to information available on the official
YouTube channel website of the President of India, he submits that
it reflects presentation of award on 8.3.2019 and not in 2019, a
vital difference which, as per the counsel, goes to the root of the
matter.
The official YouTube channel of the President of India reflects
that Nari Shakti Puraskar was presented to Ruma Devi on
8.3.2019, i.e., on International Women's Day. The contention
raised by the learned counsel for the Commission that the official
website of the President of India shows presentation of the award
on 8.3.2019 and not in 2019, deserves to be rejected being
absurd. No reason has been assigned by the expert committee to
disagree with the objections raised by the candidates based on
official YouTube website of the President of India. However, since
the experts have also relied upon a press release issued by the
Ministry of Women and Child Development on its official website
as also an information available in the book published by the
Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, this Court, instead of directing
(34 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
deletion of the question, deems it just and proper to remit the
matter back to the expert committee to consider it afresh vide
reasoned opinion.
Question no.7:
The Rajamundri Social Reform Association to encourage widow re-
marriage was founded in 1871 by-
(1) Veeresalingam
(2) K. Ramakrishan Pillai
(3) K.T. Telang
(4) Gopalachariar
As per RPSC, option no.1 is the correct answer whereas, as
per the petitioners, the question itself is wrong.
Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that since the
Rajamundry Social Reform Association to encourage the widow re-
marriage was founded in the year 1878 and not in the year 1871,
the question itself was wrongly formulated which created
confusion in the mind of the candidates. Hence, the question
requires to be deleted.
Shri Amit submitted that mere error in the year of foundation
of the Association does not go to the root of the matter and does
not change tenor of the question whereby, name of its founder
was asked. He submitted that even otherwise also, only 9
objections were raised against it reflecting that it did not create
any confusion in the mind of the candidates.
True that Rajamundry Social Reform Association to
encourage widow re-marriage was founded in the year 1878; but,
this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for
the Commission that mere error in the year of foundation of
Association would not change colour of the question or its
fundamental characteristic whereby, name of its founder was
(35 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
asked which, indisputably was option no.1. Therefore, the Court
does not find any error in the expert opinion.
Question no.31:
Which one of the following is not basic element of the citizen
charter?
(1) Description of services being provided by department or the
agency.
(2) Promotion of various methods to get benefit from the service
available.
(3) To expect any public record.
(4) Provision for the inspection of the agency's work.
As per RPSC, the correct answer is option no.4 whereas, as
per petitioners', the option no.3 represents the correct answer.
Learned counsels relying upon a book published by the
Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy approved by the Education
Ministry, Central Government in the name of Rajasthan:
Prashasnik Avem Rajnitik Vyavastha (Administrative and Political
System) by Dr. Janak Singh Meena wherein, option no.3, i.e., "To
expect any public record", has not been shown to be part of basic
element of the citizen charter, submitted that expert opinion is
erroneous.
Per contra, Shri Amit submitted that the expert opinion is
based on "citizen charter", a handbook by the Government of
India wherein, "Details of Business Transacted by the
Organisation", is stated to be a component of citizen charter which
is co-related to option no.3. He submitted that in support of their
opinion, the experts have also relied upon an excerpt from the
"Vividh Adhikar and Nagarik Adhikar Patra" wherein, it has been
stated that "fdlh yksd vfHkys[k dh vis{+kk djuk" (To expect any public
record) is not part of the basic element which is co-related to
option no.4, i.e., provision for the inspection of agency's work. He,
(36 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
therefore, submitted that option chosen by the RPSC is the correct
answer.
As per the book in the name of Rajasthan: Prashasnik Avem
Rajnitik Vyavastha (Administrative and Political System) published
by the Rajasthan Granth Academy, all other options except option
no.3 are part of the basic element of the citizen charter. The
expert opinion neither sounds to be logical nor, based on authentic
material. By no yardstick, the right of "Details of Business
Transacted by the Organisation" as enumerated as one of the
basic component of citizen charter in the hand book can be related
with option no.3, i.e., To expect any public record. Rather, as per
excerpt relied upon by experts, a part of "Vividh Adhikar and
Nagarik Adhikar Patra", the option "fdlh yksd vfHkys[k dh vis{+kk djuk"
(To expect any public record) has been treated to be part of Right
to Information Act and not as the basic element as Mr. Amit has
admitted during the course of arguments that the note endorsed
against clause 4 of the excerpt is in the handwriting of the expert.
The note reads as under:
^^¼4½fdlh yksd vfHkys[k dh vis{+kk djuk; ¼lquokbZ vf/kdkj
vf/kfu;e ds rgr] ewy rRo esa 'kkfey ugha½**
Thus, the expert opinion suffers from an error apparent on
its face.
In view thereof, this Court thinks it just and proper to remit
the matter back to the expert committee to consider it afresh in
the light of aforesaid observations and the material available on
record/fresh material.
Question no.41:
(37 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Which feature of Chief Minister Chiranjeevi Health Insurance
Scheme is correct?
1. Under the scheme for different ailments 1576 types of packages
and procedures will be available.
2. The disease for which a patient is admitted to a hospital, 5 days
prior to that and 10 days after the discharge from the hospital all
expenditure on investigation, medicines and consultation fee in
the hospital will be included in the package.
3. It was started on May 1, 2021.
4. Under this scheme an insurance cover of Rs.4.50 lakhs is
payable per year per family for serious ailments.
As per RPSC, option no.2 is the correct answer whereas, as
per petitioners, it has two options, i.e. (1) and (2) as the correct
answer.
Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that by the
time the screening examination was conducted, the number of
packages and procedures under the Scheme was increased to
1579 from 1576 and hence, their option is correct. They rely upon
the information available on the official website of the State of
Rajasthan, i.e., https://chiranjeevi.rajasthan.gov.in as also
"Rajasthan Sujas", a monthly publication by the Government of
Rajasthan, in support of their submissions.
Shri Amit submits that the experts have opined that since
the number of packages/procedures keep on updating and on Jan
Kalyan and various Government Portals, number of such
packages/procedures was still reflected as 1576, their answer is
correct. He also referred to information available on the
Government of India website in this regard.
The information available on the official website of the State
of Rajasthan as also in the "Rajasthan Sujas", a monthly
publication by the Government of Rajasthan, establishes that
(38 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
number of packages and procedures under the C.M.C.H.I. Scheme
was increased to 1579 from 1576 by the time the screening
examination was conducted. The respondent has not disputed the
genuineness of the number of packages/procedures available on
the Government of Rajasthan website as also in its publication
"Rajasthan Sujas". Even the experts have observed that number of
packages/procedures keeps on updating. While supporting their
answer to the question no.30 wherein, the maximum number of
persons that could be nominated by the State Government in a
Municipal Council as per provisions of Rajasthan Municipal Act,
2009, was asked, the expert committee has relied upon the
Rajasthan Municipality (Amendment) Act, 2021 which was
published in the gazette dated 8.4.2021 to support their answer.
Although, the petitioners did not press their objections to the
answer to the question no.30 in view of the amendment; but, it
reflects the double standards adopted by the experts to support
their opinion. In any case, once it is established that number of
packages/procedures was increased to 1579 prior to conducting
the preliminary examination, the objections raised by the
petitioners merit acceptance. Since, the question has two options,
i.e., (1) and (2) as correct answer, it needs to be deleted.
Question no.42:
Consider the following statements regarding State Election
Commission, Rajasthan-
(i) The State Election Commission, Rajasthan was constituted in
December, 1994.
(ii) It has a Secretary who is also the Chief Electoral Officer for the
State.
Code:
(1) Only (i) is correct
(2) Only (ii) is correct
(39 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
(3) Both (i) and (ii) are correct
(4) Neither (i) nor (ii) is correct
As per RPSC, option no.2 is the correct answer whereas, as
per petitioners, option no.4 is the correct answer.
Relying upon an information obtained from the official
website of the State Government viz.
https://sec.rajasthan.gov.in/officecontacts.aspx, learned counsels
submitted that office of the State Election Commission, Rajasthan
and office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan are different and
distinct offices and in the office of State Election Commission,
Rajasthan, no post with designation of Chief Electoral Officer
exists.
Shri Amit, relying upon the official website of the State
Election Commission, Rajasthan, wherein it has been stated that it
has a Secretary who is also the Chief Electoral Officer for the State
as also the order dated 8.12.2020 issued by the Commissioner,
State Election Commission, Rajasthan whereby, the Secretary of
the Commission has been designated as Chief Electoral Officer,
submitted that the expert committee has rightly found the option
no.2 to be the correct answer.
This court does not find any force in the submission of the
learned counsels for the petitioners as it is not substantiated from
the information relied upon by them. The information relied upon
by the RPSC establishes beyond an iota of doubt that Secretary of
the State Election Commission, Rajasthan, also happens to be its
Chief Electoral Officer. Therefore, the objections are rejected.
Question no.43:
Identify the incorrect feature of the recently declared 'UDAN'
scheme of the Government of Rajasthan-
(40 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
(1) Under this scheme all women in the State will get free sanitary
napkins from 19th November, 2021.
(2) The scheme will come into operation from 19 th November,
2021.
(3) For effective implementation of the scheme 2 Brand
Ambassadors at state level and 1 at district level will be engaged.
(4) The scheme aims to make women aware about better health
and individual physical hygiene.
RPSC has deleted this question. As per petitioners, option
no.1 is the correct answer.
Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that the RPSC
erred in deleting the question finding none of the options to be
incorrect feature of the UDAN scheme whereas, option no.1
represented the correct answer. Relying upon the Government of
Rajasthan publication of the scheme through Women
Empowerment Directorate, Women and Child Development
Department, Jaipur which provides that the UDAN scheme is for
the age group of 10-45 years, they contended that it does not
apply to all the women in the State.
Per contra, learned counsel for RPSC submitted that earlier
they have found option no.1 to be correct answer, i.e., the
incorrect feature of the UDAN scheme; however, from the
announcement from the Chief Minister office, it transpired that
scheme was implemented for all the women in the State and
hence, it also being a correct feature of the UDAN scheme, they
decided to delete the question.
From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Government of
Rajasthan has issued conflicting information as to applicability of
the Udan scheme. As per publication of the scheme by the Women
Empowerment Directorate, Women and Child Development
Department, Jaipur, it applies to the girls and women in the age
(41 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
group of 10-45 years whereas, as per the announcement from the
Chief Minister office, it is applicable for all the women in the State.
Therefore, this Court upholds the expert opinion albeit for different
reason.
Question no.45
Gurumukh Nihal Singh was appointed as the first Governor of
Rajasthan on -
(1) 2nd November, 1956
(2) 25th October, 1956
(3) 1st November, 1956
(4) 26th October, 1956.
As per RPSC, option no.2 is the correct answer whereas,
petitioners' stress is on the option no.3.
Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that as per Article
1 of the Constitution of India, `The India', i.e. Bharat, shall be a
Union of States. They submitted that Article 3 provides that
Parliament may by law form a new State in the manner
enumerated therein. Learned counsels submitted that the State of
Rajasthan came into picture w.e.f. 1.11.1956, the "appointed day"
as per Section 2 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. It was
contended that since the State of Rajasthan itself was formed
w.e.f. 1.11.1956, there could not have been its Governor prior to
it. They submit that even otherwise also, as Shri Gurumukh Nihal
Singh was holding the position of the Chief Minister of the State of
Delhi till 31.10.1956, he could not have been appointed as first
Governor of Rajasthan on 25.10.1956.
Shri Amit submitted that the objections pertain to the date of
oath by Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh as Governor of Rajasthan
whereas, in the question, his date of appointment was asked
(42 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
which, as per the official website of the Raj Bhawan, Rajasthan, is
25.10.1956.
This Court is in agreement with the expert opinion. The
official website of the Raj Bhawan, Rajasthan reflects date of
appointment of Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh as the first Governor
of Rajasthan as 25.10.1956. True that he took oath of the office
on 1.11.1956; but, in the question the date of his appointment
was asked and not the date on which he assumed office.
Undoubtedly, the same could have on different date. It has not
been case of the petitioners that Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh was
also appointed on the day he assumed office. Therefore, the
objections are rejected.
Question no.62:
The second highest percentage of Scheduled tribe population in
Rajasthan is found in (2011)-
(1) Banswara District
(2) Pratapgarh District
(3) Dungarpur District
(4) Dausa District
As per RPSC, option no.3 is the correct answer whereas,
petitioners' rely on option no.1.
Learned counsels for petitioners, drawing attention of this
Court towards chart 1.14 of the Statistical Year Book, Rajasthan-
2020 published by the Directorate of Economic and Statistics,
Statistics Department, submitted that the highest percentage of
total State Scheduled Tribe population by residence in Udaipur is
16.5%, in Banswara 14.9% and at third place, in Dungarpur
10.6%. Referring to Table 17.16 of the Geography of Rajasthan by
Shri H.M. Saxena, learned counsels submitted that therein the
(43 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
`Banswara', has been shown to have highest Scheduled Tribe
population percentage in its total population, i.e., District wise,
Dungarpur appears at no.2 with Pratapgarh at no.3 and Udaipur at
no.4. They submitted that since the question related to the second
highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population in Rajasthan,
the option chosen by the RPSC, i.e., Dungarpur is incorrect as it
has second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population
District wise and not State wise.
Shri Amit submitted that relying on the Scheduled Tribe
population and decadal change as also percentage of Scheduled
Tribes to total population : 2011-2012 by residence as per
Census-2011, the expert committee has found that Dungarpur has
second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population in
Rajasthan.
The Court finds merit in the objections raised by the
petitioners as the expert committee has relied upon the data
which reflects percentage of the Scheduled Tribes in a district out
of its total population, i.e., District wise whereas, in the question,
the second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population in
Rajasthan was asked which, as per the Census-2011, is option
no.1, i.e. Banswara District. The learned counsel for the
Commission failed to meet the reasoning assigned by the learned
counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments. The
objections raised by the petitioners are duly supported by the data
of Census-2011 which requires no inferential process of reasoning.
In view thereof, while rejecting expert opinion, the Court accepts
the objections. Option no.1 is held to be the correct answer.
Question no.84:
(44 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
Which of the following district is not a part of `Desert Triangle' in
Rajasthan?
(1) Jodhpur (2) Bikaner
(3) Barmer (4) Jaisalmer
As per RPSC, option no.3 is correct, whereas, as per
petitioners, all options are incorrect.
Learned counsels for petitioners, relying upon a publication
in the name of "20 Year Perceptive Plan for Sustainable Tourism in
India" by the Department of Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Art and
Culture, Government of India, canvassed that the desert circuit in
the State of Rajasthan comprises of four Districts, i.e., Jodhpur,
Jaisalmer, Bikaner and Barmer and hence, the answer by the RPSC
ousting the District Barmer is incorrect.
Per contra, learned counsel for RPSC submitted that as per
information available on the official website of Department of
Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture, Government of
India, the Desert circuit of Rajasthan comprises of three Districts
only, i.e., Jodhpur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer.
As per the information available on the official website of the
Department of Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture,
Government of India, the desert circuit of Rajasthan comprises of
three Districts only, i.e., Jodhpur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer. In the
tourist map of the Rajasthan appended, the Desert Triangle has
been shown to be consisting of these three Districts only. The
publication relied upon by the petitioners reveals Barmer to be a
prospective part of Desert circuit in the State of Rajasthan. Even
otherwise also, since, in the question, a District not part of "Desert
Triangle" was asked, there could not have been fourth component
(45 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
in the triangle. Therefore, the Court does not find merit in the
objections.
Question no.98:
How much has the global average temperature risen in the last
century?
(1) 3.0 degree F (2) 1.8 degree F
(3) 3.4 degree F (4) 2.4 degree F
As per RPSC, option no.2 is correct one whereas, as per
petitioners, the question itself is required to be deleted as none of
the options is correct.
Learned counsels for petitioners, in support of their
submission, relied upon `Biology' book for Class-XII published by
the National Council of Educational Research and Training which
states that in last century, there has been an increase in global
average temperature to 0.6 degree centigrade. They contended
that the expert committee has relied upon unauthenticated
material including NOAA Climate.gov, a private NGO website.
Shri Amit submitted that as per Columbia University Press,
Newyork Publication in the name of `Climate Change', in the last
century, the global average temperature has risen by about 1
degree centigrade (1.8 degree Fahrenheit). He also relied upon an
article in the name of "Climate Change: Global Temperature"
available on the NOAA Climate.gov website which, as per the
learned counsel, is a website of international repute. He submitted
that since the question pertains to global average rise in the
temperature, the expert committee has rightly relied upon an
international publication.
As per the NCERT Biology book for Class-XII, the increase in
global average temperature in the last century has been 0.6
(46 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
degree centigrade which, in Fahrenheit comes to 1.08 degree. The
material relied upon by the expert committee does not
categorically state about average increase in global temperature in
the last century to the tune of 1.8 degree Fahrenheit, the option
chosen by it as the correct answer. Learned counsel for the
respondent has relied upon following observations from the article
"Climate Change" by the Columbia University Press:-
"Global warming began in earnest at the beginning of the
twentieth century. Since, 1880, global means surface air
temperature increased by about 1 degree C (1.8 degree F), a rate
of change for higher than natural temperature changes in the
Pleistocene or Holocene before the advent of the industrial age."
This Court is not satisfied that it anywhere says about rise in
global average temperature in the last century by about 1.8
degree Fahrenheit; rather, it speaks of such increase in
temperature since 1880. Further, it does not prescribe the exact
period which was taken into consideration for making this
observation.
As per Mr. Amit, the expert committee has also placed
reliance upon following excerpt from the "Climate Change" in their
support:
"Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface
temperature was 1.76 degree F (0.98 degree Celsius) warmer
than the twentieth-century average of 57.0 degree F (13.9.
degree C) and 2.14 degree F (1.19 degree C) warmer than the
pre-industrial period (1880-1900)."
Again, this observation available on a NGO website in the
name of Climate.gov does not support the expert opinion.
(47 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon an
observation in the same Article, i.e., "Climate Change" available
on page 278 of its reply (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14175/2021,
which reads as under:
"The roughly 2-degree Fahrenheit (1 degree centigrade)
increase in global average surface temperature that has occurred
since the pre-industrial era (1880-1900) might seem small, but it
means a significant increase in accumulated heat."
This Court is at loss to understand as to how it supports/
leads to a conclusion that option no.2, i.e., 1.8 degree Fahrenheit
is the correct answer to the question.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not satisfied
that the expert opinion is based on any authenticated/standard
material. The learned counsel for the respondent even failed to
satisfy this Court that material relied upon by the expert
committee supports its opinion as to option no.2 being correct.
No reason has been assigned by the expert committee to disagree
with the NCERT book of Biology subject of Class-XII. In view
thereof, the matter requires reconsideration.
Question no.105:
Solar observatory in Rajasthan is situated at-
(1) Udaipur (2) Jaipur
(3) Ajmer (4) Jodhpur
The RPSC has deleted the question whereas, petitioners rely
on option no.1 as correct answer.
Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that relying on
some private and unauthenticated website, the respondent has
deleted the question holding the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur to be one of
the correct options, which is not substantiated otherwise. They
(48 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
submitted that in the recruitment examination of RAS/RTS-2018,
the respondent itself has found "Udaipur" as the only place in the
State of Rajasthan where the Solar Observatory is situated and
therefore, it does not lie in their mouth to change their stand and
say that it is established both at Udaipur as also at Jaipur. They
contended that a co-ordinate bench of this Court has, vide
judgement dated 10.12.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.25338/2018; Jitendra Kumar Bakotia & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors. and other connected matters, upheld the
expert opinion and the order dated 10.12.2018 has attained
finality. They submitted that in view thereof, the petitioners were
under legitimate expectation that the respondent-RPSC would
adhere to its earlier stand. They submitted that in a book with title
"Rajasthan Ka Itihas Avem Sanskriti" published by the Rajasthan
Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer for Class-X, the Jantar
Mantar has been shown to be an Astronomical Observatory only
and not as Solar Observatory. They also relied upon the
information available on the website of United Nations Education
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as also the
information available on the official website of Rajasthan Tourism
Department, in support of their submissions.
Learned counsel for RPSC submitted that the expert
committee has opined its deletion in view of the fact that two
options, i.e., (1) Udaipur and (2) Jaipur represent the correct
answer. He submits that the expert committee has relied upon the
authentic material including a publication-"Ancient Observatories-
Timeless Knowledge" by the Stanford Seller Centre. He submitted
that this Court has, vide its judgement dated 10.12.2018, while
considering the same question asked in RAS/RTS Examination-
(49 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
2018, did not agree with option, i.e. Udaipur chosen by the RPSC
and referred the matter back for reconsideration by the expert
committee.
When asked pointedly, none of the parties could answer as to
what a solar observatory is exactly. They all admitted that the
word "solar observatory" has not been defined in any of the
English Dictionary of repute. Learned counsel for the Commission
was also at loss to convey the meaning of `solar observatory', i.e.,
whether it is related to study of Sun or study of time based on
Sun. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon its definition
available on the Wikipedia, submitted that a solar observatory is
an observatory that specializes in monitoring the Sun. However,
the Wikipedia not being an authorised source, this Court is not
inclined to go by this definition. In the "Rajasthan Ka Itihas and
Sanskriti", a Class X book published by the Rajasthan Board of
Secondary Education, Ajmer, the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur has been
classified as one of the five Astronomical Observatories
established by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh-II. Similarly, the official
website of the UNESCO as also the official website of the
Rajasthan Tourism Department have reckoned the Jantar Mantar,
Jaipur as an astronomical observatory whereas, as per the official
government website, i.e., museumrajasthan.gov.in, the Jantar
Mantar, Jaipur is one of the five solar observatories founded by
Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. Thus, there is conflicting opinion
available in the standard book/official websites of different
government bodies/organisations.
There is another important aspect of the matter. In the last
RAS/RTS Examination-2018, the same question was asked
wherein, the RPSC has chosen 'Udaipur' as the only place where
(50 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
the solar observatory in Rajasthan is situated. The answer key was
assailed by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25338/2018 wherein,
a coordinate bench of this Court vide its judgement dated
10.12.2018 remanded the question back to the expert committee
for its reconsideration but, none of the parties could specify as to
what happened thereafter. Although, the petitioners have
contended that the experts maintained their earlier opinion, i.e.,
Udaipur but, there is no material on record to substantiate the
same.
In view thereof, this Court deems it just and proper to direct
the expert committee to take a call again on this question.
Question no.122:
Study the following then answer the question-
Statement: The petrol prices have gone up during the past few
weeks.
Courses of action:
I. The government should set up an expert committee to study the
trend of prices.
II The government should immediately reduce taxes on petrol.
III The government should advise the general public to refrain
from purchasing petrol for few weeks.
Decide which of the suggested course of action follows:
(1) Only I (2) Only II
(3) Only III (4) None of these
According to RPSC, option no.2 is correct, whereas as per
petitioners', option no.1 is the correct answer.
Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that question
itself being based on opinion, should not have been part of
multiple choice questions as it may vary individually. They
submitted that the expert opinion is not based on any concrete
(51 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
material and even otherwise also, the option no.1 appears to be
most logical and plausible answer to the question.
Shri Amit, learned counsel for RPSC submitted that the
expert committee has opined the option no.2 to be correct option
as it would give relief to the people. He further submitted that the
question was part of syllabus under the Logical Reasoning
(Statement and Course of Action).
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
question being opinion based, should not have been part of
multiple choice questions, does not merit acceptance as, the MCQs
pertaining to logical reasoning (statement and course of action),
has been part of syllabus of preliminary examination. Being an
opinion based question, this Court does not find any strong reason
to disagree with the expert opinion. The petitioners having failed
to demonstrate that the expert opinion is palpably wrong or is so
highly unreasonable that no prudent man could agree with it, the
expert opinion is sustained.
The conclusion of the Court question-wise is summarised as
under:
1. Question no.1-The matter is remanded back to the expert
committee to re-look into the matter vide reasoned opinion.
2. Question no.7- The objections are rejected.
3. Question no.31 - The matter is remitted back to the
expert committee to consider it afresh vide reasoned
opinion.
4. Question no.41- Since, the question has two options as
correct answer, it is deleted.
5. Question no.42- The objections are rejected.
6. Question no.43 - The expert opinion is upheld.
(52 of 52) [CW-13968/2021]
7. Question no.45 - The objections are rejected.
8. Question no.62- The objections are sustained. Option no.1
is held to be correct answer.
9. Question no.84 - The objections are rejected.
10. Question no.98 - The matter is remanded back to the
expert committee to re-look into the matter vide reasoned
opinion.
11. Question no.105 - The matter is remanded back to the
expert committee to re-look into the matter vide reasoned
opinion.
12. Question no.122- The expert opinion is upheld.
The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ
petitions are partly allowed in the above mentioned terms. The
final answer key dated 22.11.2021 is quashed to the extent as
stated hereinabove. Resultantly, the result dated 19.11.2021
stands quashed. The RPSC is directed to revise the result of the
preliminary examination and to prepare a fresh list of candidates
eligible to appear in the mains examination accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Ravi Sharma/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
