Mahesh Kumar Kumawat S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1937 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6864/2021


1.     Mahesh Kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Shanti Lal Kumawat,
       Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Mukam Post Harsh, Via
       Sawali, Tehsil Sikar, District Sikar (Raj.)
2.     Ashok Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Shiv Ram Choudhary,
       Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Muratpura, Post
       Bichi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
3.     Manish Badbadwal S/o Shri Bodi Lal, Aged About 25
       Years, Resident Of Bodi Lal, Dhani Kadwashala, Letkabas,
       Jaipur (Raj.)
4.     Shivraj Jat S/o Shri Bajrang Jat, Aged About 33 Years,
       Resident Of Village And Post Deoli (Aanchi) Tehsil And
       District Tonk (Raj.)
5.     Sunil Suman S/o Shri Jagmohan Suman, Aged About 24
       Years, Resident Of Mali Mohalla, Covered, Baran (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Petitioners

                                   Versus

1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
       Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
       (Raj.)
2.     The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3.     Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection
       Board     (Rajasthan        Staff       Selection        Board),   Jaipur,
       Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
       Durgapura, Jaipur- 302018.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order

04/03/2022

Counsel for the respondent(s) submits that the issue

involved in this writ petition has been considered and decided by

(2 of 7) [CW-6864/2021]

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in

the matter of Dalip Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan &

Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13493/2020) wherein on

20.12.2021 following order was passed;

"These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the final answer key issued by the respondents in relation to the Examination held for the post of Librarian Grade III pursuant to Advertisement dated 21.05.2018.

The advertisement in question was issued on 21.05.2018 by the respondent Board inviting online applicants for the post of Librarian Grade III. Thereafter, amended advertisement was issued on 01.11.2019 providing for reservation to MBC, EWS and increased reservation to the Specially Abled/physically Handicapped candidates. Initially, the written examination was held on 29.12.2019, however, the same came to be cancelled on 01.01.2020 on account of allegation of leakage of the examination paper.

The written examination was again conducted on 19.09.2020 and the Model/ Preliminary answer key was published on 28.09.2020 and a press-note was issued inviting online objections from the aspirants with their respect supporting materials. The respondent Board, based on the decision taken by the Expert Committee over the objections raised by the candidates towards the Model/Preliminary answer key, issued the final answer key on 11.11.2020. In the final answer key, the Board deleted ten questions and changed the option of some questions. The list of provisionally selected candidates was issued for the purpose of document verification on the same day.

The present writ petitions have been filed by the candidates seeking to challenge the determination made by the respondent Board in the final answer key, objections have been raised regarding deletions made, the answers indicated in Model/Preliminary answer key, which have not been modified as desired by the petitioners and to the changes in the answers made in the final answer key, regarding which objections have been raised that it should not have been changed. The petitioners have questioned the validity of the final answer key in relation to the question for which they had filed the objections pursuant to the press-note. In several cases, even where no objection was raised by the respective petitioners, the objections have been raised in the present petitions.

Counsel for the petitioners, fairly made submissions that in relation to the questions where the petitioners have not raised objections to the Model/ Preliminary answer key and the answers have remained unchanged qua the same, the plea raised may not be entertained, however, it was submitted that where the changes have been made and / or deletions have taken pklace, the petitioners are entitled to question their validity.

Combinedly put, the petitioners have challenged the final answer key qua following questions:-

(3 of 7) [CW-6864/2021]

5,10,15,23,27,29,38,55,61,62,66,75,78,81,94,102,109,120,12 1,122,124,126,131,139,142,146 and 149.

However, during the course of submissions, the counsel for the petitioners have made submissions qua questions No. 5,23,27,55,75,78,81,94,102,109,121,122,124,139 and 142 i.e. fifteen in all.

Under the directions of the Court, the counsel for the respondent Board has produced the determination made by the Expert Committee pertaining to all the objections, as questioned.

Learned counsel for the respondent Board, pointed out that once the objections have been called and the same have been dealt with by the Export Committee, the said determination made is not open to challenge and that this Court should not dwell into the correctness of the determination made, as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : (2021) 2 SCC 309.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that judgment in the case of vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra) does not dilute the law laid down in several of judgements dealing with the determination of the objections by the Courts on the parameters laid down in those cases and as such, merely based ohn judgment in the case of vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), it cannot be said that the issue does not require consideration of this Court.

In the case of vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the Courts, inter-alia, observed and laid down as under:-

"14. 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 (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.). Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations.

15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evalution of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. held that coaurt should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a cnadidate as it has not expertise ijn the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows:-

"31. On our part we may add that sympthy of 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 examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire

(4 of 7) [CW-6864/2021]

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 impass-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 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; and 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 in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."

16. 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

(5 of 7) [CW-6864/2021]

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 v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission. 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.

17. A perusal of the above judgements 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 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.";

Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that for lack of the expertise in the academic matters, it is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheet itself and that the Court have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee, who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations. While distinguishing the judgament in the case of Richal vs. RPSC :(2018) 8 SCC 81, the Court further observed that it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to the conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee. It was laid down that assessment of the question by the Court itself to arrive at correct answer is not permissible.

Following the judgment in the case of vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. vs. Tarsaim Kumar & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 1046/2019 and other connected appeals, decided on 28.01.2021 reversed the judgment of this Court regarding correct answer and consequential directions for revision of the result qua the writ- petitioners and allowed the appeals preferred by the RPSC.

From the above categoric determination made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), as followed in the case of Tarsaim kumar (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court, though it is true that earlier judgment laying down the parameters for

(6 of 7) [CW-6864/2021]

interference by this Court, though have not been reversed, the same to a great extent, have been circumscribed.

This Court, has gone through the objections raised qua fifteen questions and has heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length regarding objections raised alongwith material relied on and has also examined the expert's opinion alongwith supporting material for reaching a particular conclusion pertaining to each objection, as produced for perusal of the court by the learned counsel of the Board and submissions made by him.

The Experts have thoroughly considered each objection and have come to a categoric finding for their decision whether the question needs to be deleted and /or the model answer needs a change and /or the answer as indicated in the Model/ Preliminary answer key, needs to be maintained.

The objections, now raised are essentially based on text books and material, wherein observations as sought to be canvassed by the petitioners, have been indicated, but the material which has been considered by the Experts and which has found their approval/formed the basis for their decision, supports the decision taken by them on various objections. Once the Expert Committee after going through the objections raised by the petitioners and or other candidates, do not call for any interference by this Court.

The only aspect, which, appears to have escaped the attention of the Expert Committee is pertaining to Question No. 102, wherein the objection raised by the candidates is that the questions in English and Hindi, on account of incomplete translation, are different questions and have different answers and as such, the same should have been deleted.

It may also be noticed that objection regarding Question No. 102 was raised by petitioners, Bhoor Mal Suthar and prithviraj Singh in CWP No. 13249/2020 as is reflected from the receipts of the objections produced as Annex. 8 and petitioner, Ravinder Singh Shekhawat in CWP No. 13176/2020, and by none other petitioners. The Question No. 102, in both versions, reads as under:- "102. The ordinal number which fixes the position of document in a liibrary, relative to the other document belonging to the same class is known as:

       (A) Class number              (B) Call number
       (C)Book number                (D) Collection number

पुस्तककालय मम एक प्रलप्रलेख केख की अ अनय प्रलप्रलेख प्रलेखो कप्रले म के मधय सुध्य सुनमध्य सुनिश सुनिशचय सुनिशचि्त सकापप्रलेक्षिक सस्त सुनिशचिथि क प्रलेखो दशकार्शामध्य सुनिप्रले वकालवाली सी संंखयका क प्रलेखो ो कयका कह्तप्रले हह?

             (A) वरकागांक                                                     (B)ककामक सी संंखयका
             (C)गी संिथिकाी संक                                               (D)सी संगकाहक"
                                                                               (underline is of this Court)

A perusal of above would reveal that while the English version contains the phrase ' belonging to same class ', however, the same is missing in the Hindi version, and it is the contention of the counsel of the petitioners that while the answer for the English version as 'B' may be correct; for Hindi version, wherein the portion ' belonging to same class' is missing, answer 'B' is not correct.

Learned counsel for the respondent Board fairly conceded that though objection of this nature regarding

(7 of 7) [CW-6864/2021]

question being different in both languages was raised. The said aspect has not been decided by the Expert Committee, however, relied on instruction 10 indicated on the question- booklet.It was submitted that the instruction clearly provides that 'if there is any sort of ambiguity/mistake either of printing or factual nature in Hindi and English version of the question, the English version of the question, the English version will be treated as standard', therefore as the model answer as per the English version is correct, irrespective of the fact that the issue has not been examined by the Expert Committee, nothing turns on it.

The submissions made based in instruction 10 cannot be accepted. The said instruction would be applicable in case of ambiguity/ mistake in printing or factual nature. However, as noticed, the incomplete translation, it is claimed has resulted in two independant different question having different answers and as there was no occasion for the candidates to even look into the English version to find out the difference between the two questions and take the English version as correct, the plea based on instruction 10 is unavailable.

In view of above fact situation, while the determination made by the Expert Committee on all the questions, as made, do not call for any interference. Insofar as the Question No. 102 is concerned, the fact that there is difference in the translated version, resulting in different answers for both versions has not been adverted to by the Expert Committee, which aspect is required to be consideredby the Expert Committee and consequence has to be provided for the same.

In view of above discussion, the writ petitions No. 13249/2020 and 13176/2020 to the extent of petitioners, namely, Bhoor Mal Suthar, Prithvi Raj Singh and Ravinder Singh Shekhawat only, are partly allowed qua the Question No. 102 only. The respondent Board is directed to get the expert opinion on the above aspect of the matter regarding translation being different and give effect to the opinion of the Expert Committee qua the above three petitioners. The rest of writ petitions and CWP Nos. 13249/2020 and 13176/2020 qua the other petitioners are dismissed."

Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the submissions

made by the counsel for the respondent(s).

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is

disposed of in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of

Dalip Kumar (supra).

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

CHETNA BEHRANI /40

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)