Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandraveer Singh vs State And Ors on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6244/2013
1. Chandraveer Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh Panwar, Aged
about 35 years, R/o Chhadidar Pada, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Board of Revenue through the Chairman, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
3. The Board of Revenue through the Secretary (Land Record)
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh for
Dr. Nupur Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Rathore.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
04/01/2022
The present petition has been filed challenging the final
answer key (Annex.-10) issued by the respondent-Department in
pursuance to the examination held qua advertisement dated
17.06.2011 (Annex.-1). The petitioner has raised the dispute
regarding certain questions and has averred that the answers to
the same as pointed out in the answer key were not correct.
It is THE specific submission of the learned counsel for the
respondents that reasonable time was granted to the applicants
for raising the objections after the publication of the answer key.
After the receipt of the objections, an expert Committee was
constituted, which gave a specific report on all the objections as
(2 of 3) [CW-6244/2013]
raised. The Expert Committee report has been placed on record as
Annex.-R/2. The report as submitted by the Expert Committee is
not under challenge in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his
arguments only to question No.17 and averred that because of the
incorrect sequence of the options, his answer was held to be
incorrect.
A perusal of the final answer key shows that the same
provides for the answers independently qua each series of the
question booklet. Therefore, it cannot be termed that just because
of the incorrect sequence of the options the petitioner could have
been aggrieved as he was required to mark the correct option and
not the serial number of the options. The option as held to be
correct in the answer key is not disputed.
Even otherwise as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikesh
Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors; Civil
Appeal No. 3649- 3650/2020 decided on 07.12.2020, this
Court would not sit over the report of the Expert Committee and
cannot assess the questions on its own so as to arrive at the
probable answers. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar's case
held as under:-
"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. 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
(3 of 3) [CW-6244/2013]
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."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Vijay Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2018 (2) SCC 357 held as
under:-
"In the event of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidate."
The Court further held as under:-
"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 justification to upset the
opinion of the experts"
The report of the expert Committee is unambiguous and
clear and the same not being under challenge no view therefore,
qua it, can be expressed in the present petition.
In view of the ratio as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and
in view of observation as made above, this Court is not inclined to
interfere and therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J
49-SPhophaliya/Sachin/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
