Praveen Senwar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11934 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10276/2022

1. Praveen Senwar S/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Ratkudiya, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

2. Lokendra Saran S/o Munni Ram, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Nandwani, Post Raidhanu Nagar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

3. Gajendra Vishnoi S/o Ram Jas, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Vishnoi, Resident Of Village Bichpuri, Post Rajod, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

4. Govind Ram S/o Kunana Ram, Aged About 21 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Khushiya, Panchota, District Nagaur (Raj.)

5. Harman Tarar S/o Lichaman Ram, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Meetha, Manjra, District Nagaur (Raj.)

6. Rakesh Meghwal S/o Bishana Ram Meghwal, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Village Katar Badi, Tehsil Bidasar, District Churu (Raj.)

7. Sitaram Godara S/o Madan Lal Godara, Aged About 20 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Ward No. 08, Khokrana, Tehsil Lunkaransar, District Bikaner (Raj.)

8. Om Prakash Punia S/o Prabhu Ram Punia, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of V.p.o. Kitasar, District Bikaner (Raj.) 331803

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Employee Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary At Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10156/2022

1. Manisha D/o Sata Ram, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Deramani, Sarano Ki Dhani, Panji, Tehsil Baytu, District Barmer.

2. Ram Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/ o Vpo Gugriyal, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

3. Rohitash Singh S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Thok Tiketa, Vpo Sinsini, Deeg, District Bharatpur.

4. Sandeep Kumar S/o Jile Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Bighna, Post Gandala, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar.

(2 of 14)

5. Ganpat Lal S/o Rava Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Sankariya, Post Khejariyali, District Jalore.

6. Rirmal Ram S/o Poora Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Mananiyon Ki Basti, Gangala, Ramsar, District Barmer.

7. Mahendra Rar S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Kutiyasani, Post Manjhi, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.

8. Rakesh Goliya S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Vpo Roon, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur.

9. Kana Ram S/o Chena Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Janiyowala, Bachhrau, District Barmer.

10. Dinesh Maan S/o Ramkishor Maan, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Murlipura, Post Raopura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur.

11. Chutra Ram S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Meghwalo Ka Magara, Cherai, District Jodhpur.

12. Ramesh Kumar S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/ o Nawapura, Bawarala, Tehsil Sedwa, District Barmer.

13. Sunil Mehra S/o Ganpat Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kerli Nadi, Pooniyon Ka Tala, District Barmer.

14. Harish Kumar S/o Kamal Kishor, Aged About 21 Years, R/ o Kerli Nadi, Pooniyon Ka Tala, Kerli Nadi, District Barmer.

15. Manohar Singh S/o Koshal Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Koshiloo, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer.

16. Monika Choudhary D/o Hema Ram Khoja, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Khojo Ka Bas, Ratkuriya, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

17. Vikram S/o Prakash Patel., Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Kitnod, District Barmer.

18. Pramod Kumar Kuri S/o Shrimal Kuri, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Rajpura Nosal, Dataramgarh, District Sikar.

19. Sunil Bhati S/o Sampat Raj Bhati, Aged About 21 Years, Maliyo Ki Dhani, Padun Kallan, District Nagaur.

20. Narendra Kumar S/o Kishori Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/ o Paliwalo Ka Bas, Village Cherai, Tinwari, District Jodhpur.

21. Hemant Kumar S/o Jassa Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Panji, Tehsil Baytu, District Barmer.

22. Sanjay Prajapat S/o Chela Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/ o Bhadruna, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.

23. Megha Ram S/o Khema Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Poonasar, Tehsil Bapini, District Jodhpur.

24. Lokendra S/o Mahipal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Phardod, District Nagaur.

25. Oma Choudhary D/o Manroop Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Near Rajasthan Sr. Sec. School, Nagaur Road, Jayal,

(3 of 14)

District Nagaur.

26. Bablu Vishnoi D/o Virdha Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Shriman Sagar Krishi Farm, Solore, Tehsil Samdari, Barmer.

27. Kailash S/o Ghinsa Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Bairsar, District Churu.

28. Suresh Karwasra S/o Ramkaran, Aged About 26 Years, R/ o Karwasro Ka Bas, Jayal, District Nagaur.

29. Anil Kumar S/o Sultan Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Teachers Colony, Loonkaransar, Bikaner.

30. Rajesh Legha S/o Girdhari Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/ o Legha Ki Dhani, Village Toshina, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur.

31. Sandeep Singh S/o Ramkrishan Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Poothpura Kalan, Dholpur, (Raj.)

32. Jitesh Kumar Sharma S/o Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Shyampura, Tehsil Bansuri, District Alwar.

33. Rakesh Kataria S/o Sanwar Mal Saini, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Poonkh, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.

34. Ajendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Rajveer Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Jahota, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.

35. Nisha D/o Balwant, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Chak2 Mzw, Mirzawalimer, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.

36. Navin D/o Hari Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Thakur Ji Ke Mandir Ke Pass, 12 Ag, Hanumangarh.

37. Sarita Gurjur, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Phardod, District Nagaur.

38. Sarita Karwasra D/o Jayram Karwasra, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Karwasro Ki Dhani, Dhatiyad, Vpo Rajod, Tehsil Jayal, Nagaur.

39. Kaushal Dasora S/o Shambhu Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o 1-G-10, Near Jhiri Temple, Udyog Puri, Kota.

40. Sharmila Tard D/o Mohan Lal Tard, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 17 Birmeri Bass, Jasrasar, District Bikaner.

41. Madan Lal Kudi S/o Durga Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/ o Kalni Kumaran, Ladpura, Nagaur.

42. Bhanwar Das S/o Jagdish Das, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Simla, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu.

43. Narendra Potaliya S/o Dula Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Birjasar, Sardarsahar, District Churu.

44. Ashok, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Kusiya, Post Dugastau, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

45. Manish Saini S/o Shrawan Kumar Saini, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Jhajhar Pana Wali Dhani, Ward No. 19, Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu.

(4 of 14)

46. Sunil Godara S/o Shivji Ram Godara, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Langod, Tehsil Degana, Nagaur.

47. Ramchandra S/o Nathu Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Dhadhota, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur.

48. Amit Choudhary S/o Hanuman Sahay Choudhary, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Govind House, Udaipuriya, Chandlai, Chaksu, Jaipur.

49. Vikram Jyani S/o Pradeep Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Vpo Phephana, Tehsil Nohar, Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Through The Chairman Of The Board, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary Of The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10241/2022 Jaihind Meghwal S/o Jeevanram, Aged About 33 Years, Ward No.17, Thanwala Thawla, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through The Secretary, Jaipur Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Rajasthan.

3. The Joint Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Rajasthan.

4. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur.

5. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10529/2022 Suman D/o Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Vpo Barwali, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents

(5 of 14)

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13712/2022

1. Sumitra Badiyasar D/o Missa Ram, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Kheduli,tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.

2. Mahendra Singh S/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Master Ki Dhani, Lamiya Road, Village Looniyawas, District Jaipur.

3. Narendra Kumar S/o Dhanna Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Ramderiya Talla, Khadeen, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer.

4. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Kailash, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Posani, Laxmangarh, Sikar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Animal Husbandry Department, Rajasthan Through The Secretary Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Trough The Chairman Of The Board, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Of The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13992/2022

1. Suman D/o Durga Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Bhambhuo Ki Dhani, Mansagar, Danwara, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur.

2. Sarjeet Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Vpo Dayal, Teshil Didwana, District Nagaur.

3. Yajuvendra Singh S/o Keshar Singh Deora, Aged About 32 Years, Vo Dabani, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi.

4. Pramila Kumari D/o Manohar Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Village Dhoti, Post Kaldeh, Tehsil Bhim, District Rajsamand.

5. Dhanna Ram Sangwa S/o Shivlal, Aged About 22 Years, Village Dhorelaw, Post Netdiya, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur.

6. Vijay Adoliya S/o Madan Lal Regar, Aged About 21 Years, Regar Mohalla, Kelwa, District Rajsamand.

7. Sonu Suwalka D/o Ramprasad Suwalka, Aged About 21 Years, In Front Of New Bus Stand, Shahpura, District Bhilwara.

8. Mukesh Kumar S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Bhartava Ka Bera, Village Daman, Post Kaleti, Tehsil Bagoda, Distrit Jalore.

9. Monika Kumari D/o Adesh Kumar, Aged About 22 Years, Village Bhainsali, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

(6 of 14)

10. Purba Ram S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 23 Years, Kukano Ki Dhani, Village Alay, District Nagaur.

11. Shrawan Kumar S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 35 Years, 110 Ramdev Mohalla, Sadalwa, Post Kotbaliyan, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.

12. Hari Ram S/o Peera Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Village Mewra, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.

13. Shivani Bhatt D/o Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt, Aged About 22 Years, Rathore Gali, Vijaipur, District Chittorgarh.

14. Pawan Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, Vpo Janana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

15. Manisha D/o Bala Ram, Aged About 22 Years, Village Anupsahar, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Animal Husbandry Department, Rajatshan, Through The Secretary, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Through The Chairman Of The Board, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Of The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Harish Purohit.

Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya.

Mr. G.R. Bhari.

Ms. Bharti Jangid for Mr. D.S. Sodha.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG.

Mr. Vinit Sanadhya.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

28/09/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

seeking to question the final answer key to the extent, the same

relates to question Nos. 6 and 38. Further direction has been

sought to award bonus marks for question No. 6 and adopt

(7 of 14)

option-(B) as correct answer for question No. 38 and to revise the

result issued pursuant to the final answer key (Annex.-1).

It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that pursuant to the

advertisement dated 11.03.2022 (Annex.-2) for Livestock

Assistant Recruitment-2022, the petitioners applied and were

subjected to written examination, wherein the petitioners

participated.

The written examination was in the form of multiple choice

questions, wherein 120 questions were asked, all carrying equal

marks, 1/3rd part of the mark was deducted for each wrong

answer and if bubble of any question was left blank, the same was

not to be considered as a wrong answer.

After the written examination was held, the respondents

issued preliminary answer key, wherein for question No. 6, the

correct answer was option-(A) and for question No. 38, the same

was option-(B). Opportunity was granted to the candidates to

raise objections, to which, the petitioners raised objections qua

the question Nos. 6, inter alia, indicating 'answer is wrong,

question is not clear/answer is wrong' and qua question No. 38,

no objection was raised by the petitioners as the answer indicated

was correct.

In the final answer key (Annex.-1) published by the

respondents, while objection for question No. 6 raised by the

petitioners, was not accepted, for question No. 38, the answer

was changed from option-(B) to option-(A).

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submission that all

the options for question No. 6 were incorrect and, therefore, the

petitioners are entitled for bonus mark.

(8 of 14)

It is submitted that the Taragarh Fort, Bundi was constructed

by Rao Bar Singh, whereas none of the options indicated his name

and the option-(A), which indicated the name as Rao Raja Bair

Singh, is wrong and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for a

bonus mark qua the said question.

Qua the question No. 38, it was submitted that question

related to the place in Rajasthan having largest thermal power

station, for which, the correct option was '(B) Suratgarh',

however, the respondents changed the same in the final answer

key to option-'(A) Chhabra', which is incorrect and, therefore, the

option needs to be again changed to option-(B). For the said

purpose, a reference has been made to the progress report for

2021-22 issued by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam

Limited ('RRVUNL'), indicating the installed capacity of various

power stations, wherein for Suratgarh, the same is indicated as

2820 MW, whereas for Chhabra, the same is indicated as 2320

MW and, therefore, option is required to be corrected again to

option-(B) and giving effect to the above changes, the merit needs

to be re-determined by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Staff Selection Board

submitted that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, have no

substance and the same deserve to be dismissed. It was

submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeated laid down

that it is not open for the courts to examine the correctness of the

options and come to a conclusion different from that of the expert

committee.

In the present case, after the preliminary answer key was

published and objections were received, the same were thoroughly

(9 of 14)

examined by the expert committee and based on the opinion of

the expert committee, the final answer key has been issued and

marks have been awarded to the candidates based on the final

answer key, which, do not call for any interference.

With respect to the questions for which objections have been

raised, it is submitted that insofar as question No. 6 is concerned,

the option-(A) has rightly been held to be correct, inasmuch as,

when the name of the King, who constructed the Fort is 'Bar

Singh' as per the petitioners themselves, the mere fact that while

indicating his name, there is a purported spelling mistake, the

same cannot be a reason enough to hold that the answer was

ambiguous and, therefore, the candidates are not entitled to any

bonus mark for the said question.

For question No. 38, submissions have been made that the

expert committee on examining the objections raised, came to the

conclusion that as the textbooks indicated 'Chhabra' as having the

largest thermal power station, based on which, objections were

raised by candidates and, therefore, the expert committee,

changed the option from (B) Suratgarh to (A) Chhabra.

It is submitted that the objection raised based on the

progress report of the RRVUNL, cannot be countenanced as the

indications made therein, cannot be made the basis for

determining the correctness of the view taken by the expert

committee, when the textbooks indicate otherwise.

Further submissions have been made that even based on the

said progress report in fact even today insofar as the production is

concerned, it is the Chhabra Power Station, which is producing

more power compared to Suratgarh Power Station, despite the

(10 of 14)

installed capacity of Suratgarh being higher and, therefore, the

petitions deserve dismissal.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Question No. 6 reads as under:-

"6. Taragarh Fort of Bundi was constructed by______.

(A) Rao Raja Bair Singh (B) Rao Raja Ajay Singh (C) Rao Raja Vishnu Singh (D) None of these

Ckwanh ds rkjkx<+ fdys dk fuekZ.k _______}kjk fd;k x;k FkkA (A) jko jktk cSj flag (B) jko jktk vt; flag (C) jko jktk fo".kq flag (D) buesa ls dksbZ ugha"

A perusal of the above would reveal that in the question

paper, in option-(A) the name of the person, who constructed the

Taragarh Fort, 'Bair Singh' has been indicated, the claim of the

petitioners is that the option is incorrect as the correct spelling

would be 'Bar Singh' and, therefore, the option as reflected in the

question paper, cannot be accepted.

The expert committee while referring to literature issued by

the Ministry of Tourism, wherein the name of the personality who

constructed the Taragarh Fort has been indicated as 'Rao Raja

Bair Singh', has come to the conclusion that 'question is not

factually wrong and the English version is correct'.

It would be seen that even if it is accepted that there is a

typographical error in indicating the name at option-(A) i.e.

instead of 'Bar Singh', 'Bair Singh' has been indicated, in the

opinion of this Court, the error is not to the extent that it will

(11 of 14)

change the meaning of the answer or has led to ambiguity or

contradiction in its meaning, so as to claim otherwise.

Further, mere misspelling in the options unless such

misspelling is shown to have created confusion, say for example a

Raja/Rao with such misspelt name as given in the option was in

existence, apparently cannot be a reason enough for holding an

answer/option to be incorrect merely because it has been

misspelt.

Further, the other two options, which have been indicated in

the answer, are nowhere near the correct answer and, therefore,

the attempt made by the petitioners seeking to take advantage of

the purported mistake, cannot be countenanced.

In view thereof, the submissions made qua the question No.

6, cannot be accepted.

Question No. 38 reads as under:-

"38. Which of the following places has Rajasthan's largest thermal power station?

                   (A) Chhabra         (B) Suratgarh
                   (C) Kota            (D) Kalisindh

fuEufyf[kr esa ls fdl LFkku ij jktLFkku dk lcls cM+k FkeZy ikoj LVs'ku gS\ (A) NkcM+k (B) lwjrx<+ (C) dksVk (D) dkyhfla/k"

As noticed hereinbefore, the preliminary answer key

indicated the correct option-(B), which came to be changed to

option-(A) by the expert committee in the final answer key.

The petitioners have simply relied on the Progress Report-

2021-22 issued by RRVUNL, wherein in table relating to 'installed

capacity' for Suratgarh, the same has been indicated as 2820 MW

and for Chhabra, the same has been indicated as 2320 MW. It is

(12 of 14)

further indicated that the commercial production of the two units 7

& 8 at Suratgarh having capacity of 1320 MW started on

01.12.2020 & 07.10.2021.

Learned counsel for the Selection Board has produced

another part of the same progress report, wherein the production

and transmission of the power at various power stations have

been indicated, wherein for Suratgarh, the production indicated is

5085.12 million units and at Chhabra, the same is 6862.9 million

units during the period 2021-22 (upto 31.12.2021).

The expert committee while deciding the objections raised in

this regard, referred to a Book - jktLFkku dk Hkwxksy by Dr. Hari

Mohan Saxena, wherein the capacity of Suratgarh Thermal Power

Project was indicated as 1500 MW and that of Chhabra has been

indicated as 2320 MW. The book apparently could not take into

consideration the fact of units 7 & 8 at Suratgarh starting

commercial production.

It would be seen that alongwith the writ petition, none of the

candidates have referred to any textbook in support of their

contention, rather in SBCW No. 10241/2022, extract from the

same book by Dr. Hari Mohan Saxena has been filed, which

indicates 'Chhabra' as the place having the biggest power station.

All the petitioners have raised the objection by merely referring to

the part of the progress report of the RRVUNL, wherein under

different parameters i.e. installed capacity and the production,

different places would be having the largest thermal power

stations.

The material sought to be relied on by the petitioners i.e. the

progress report of the RRVUNL essentially indicates a post facto

(13 of 14)

collection of material seeking to question the validity of the

answer, this is not the case of the petitioners that they had

studied the aspect pertaining to thermal power plants from the

said progress report of the RRVUNL and, therefore, the submission

made by learned counsel for the Board that as the information

contained in the textbooks indicated 'Chhabra' as having the

Largest Thermal Power Plant, which essentially was the basis from

which the candidates had raised objection to option-(B), has

rightly been accepted by the expert committee, deserves

acceptance.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPPSC through its Chairman &

Anr. v. Rahul Singh & Anr.: (2018) 7 SCC 254, has held that the

law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only

demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a

glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential

process or reasoning is required.

Further, it may be observed that in questions pertaining to

'General Knowledge', some leeway has to be given to the expert

committee in coming to a particular conclusion while choosing

between the two available options. As in the present scenario,

wherein there is a blast of information available through various

mediums, which at times is conflicting, may be based on different

parameters adopted by authors of such information, as and when

the said conflict is before the expert committee, the expert

committee on reasonable parameters can always choose between

the two options and the candidates, based on the other opinion,

cannot claim the determination made by the expert committee as

(14 of 14)

wholly incorrect in terms of the parameters laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Singh (supra).

Besides the above, The parameters for exercise of the

jurisdiction by this Court, qua the expert committee opinion, have

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

Division Bench of this Court.

The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

latest being in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : (2021) 2 SCC 309 as followed by the Division

Bench in Rajkamal Basitha v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur &

Ors.: D.B.C.W.P. No.11347/2021, decided on 21.02.2022 (at

Jaipur Bench) is well settled. The Division Bench in the case of

Rajkamal Basitha (supra) observed as under:-

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

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

petitioners qua the final answer key in relation to question Nos. 6

and 38 has no substance.

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

same are, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J PKS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)