Bhunda Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 8505 Raj

SHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 370/2021

Bhunda Ram S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Village Khuntaliya, Post Haryada, Tehsil Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.). (Roll No. 842664).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.).

3. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Respondents Connected With

D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 49/2021 Sonam Choudhary D/o Shri Balwant Singh, Aged About 24 Years, B/c Choudhary, Ward No. 17, Near Shiv Mandir, Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Rpsc Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents

D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 65/2021

1. Gopi Chand S/o Mahendra Kumar Pareek, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Pareek, R/o Village Gadana, Post Gajuwas, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

2. Lokesh Chopra S/o Raja Ram Chopra, Aged About 26

(2 of 5) [SAW-370/2021]

Years, Village Paldi, Post Darda Hind, District Tok, Rajasthan.

3. Saroj D/o Sant Lal, Aged About 38 Years, Ward No. 7, Deeplana, Baran, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan

----Appellants Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Rpsc Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner

----Respondents

D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 89/2021

1. Ram Kumar Singh S/o Kanharam, Aged About 33 Years, R/o H.no. 160, H-Block, New Civil Line, Ward No. 01, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Indraj Kukana S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 38 Years, 8 Shpd, Tehsil Suratgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Appellants Versus

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Rpsc Ajmer.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater Mr. Bharat Devasi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with Mr. Rishi Soni Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S. S. SHINDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

(3 of 5) [SAW-370/2021]

Judgment

01/07/2022

The Special Appeal (Writ) No.370/2021 and the Writ Review

Applications Nos. 49/2021, 65/2021 and 89/2021 involve identical

question of facts and law and hence, same are being decided

together by this common order.

The appellant Bhunda Ram and the review applicants Sonam

Choudhary, Gopi Chand, Lokesh Chopra, Saroj, Ram Kumar Singh

and Indraj Kukana are aggrieved of non-selection on the post of

Senior Teacher Grade-II pursuant to the recruitment process

conducted by RPSC in the year 2016. The main grievance which is

raised in this appeal as well as review applications pertains to the

decision taken by the RPSC in relation to the question No.37 in the

General Knowledge subject and the final answer key issued on the

basis of the expert opinion.

It may be stated here that the writ petitions preferred by the

review applicants were rejected by learned Single Bench by order

dated 29.05.2019. The special appeals (writ) preferred by against

the order of learned Single Bench were rejected by Division Bench

of this Court vide order dated 28.01.2021. Being aggrieved of

these orders, Special Leave Petitions No.5931-5935/2021 were

filed by Sonam Choudhary and others wherein, Hon'ble the

Supreme Court expressed an opinion that the judgment dated

28.01.2021 passed by the High Court was not required to

interference in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of

Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs State of Rajasthan reported in 2021

(2) SCC 309 which also pertains to the very same recruitment.

(4 of 5) [SAW-370/2021]

Upon expression of such opinion by Hon'ble the Supreme Court,

the petitioner's counsel withdrew the petitions with liberty to

pursue other remedies available under the law. Treating the said

concession to be a permission to seek review of the Division Bench

orders, the review applications at hand have been submitted.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced by Shri Manoj Bhandari, learned senior

counsel assisted by Shri Aniket Tater, representing the review

applicants, Shri Bharat Devasi, learned counsel representing the

appellant Bhunda Ram, learned AAG Shri Pankaj Sharma, and Shri

Khet Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel representing the RPSC and

have gone through the material available on record.

At the outset, it may be noted that the previous special

appeal (writ) preferred by Shri Bhunda Ram being 922/2018

involving the very same controversy, has been rejected by Division

Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2019.

In the case of Bhunda Ram, while passing the order dated

15.03.2021, the learned Single Bench considered the submissions

advanced by counsel representing the parties, referred to another

order dated 07.12.2020 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No.3649-3650/2020 wherein in the very same

recruitment, the select list and the wait list issued by the RPSC on

the basis of the second answer key was affirmed. Precisely, the

second answer key is the bone of contention between the parties

in these review applications and the Special Appeal (Writ).

(5 of 5) [SAW-370/2021]

As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the select list

and the wait list and since the controversy at hand pertaining to

the decision of the Expert Committee on the academic matters

(questions/answer keys) has been concluded by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in the judgment of Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs

State of Rajasthan reported in 2021 (2) SCC 309, we find no

reason to interfere in the order dated 15.03.2021 which is assailed

in the intra-court appeal of Bhunda Ram and the orders dated

28.01.2021 of which review is sought in the review applications.

Hence, the appeal as well as the review applications fail and are

dismissed as being devoid of merit.

                                   (SANDEEP MEHTA),J                                               (S. S. SHINDE),CJ
                                    47-Sudhir Asopa/Devesh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)