Suresh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 3610 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2972/2022

1. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Mukhram Nath, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Moter, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Subhash, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Ward No. 5, 63Lnp Ridmalsar, District Sri Ganganagar.

3. Norat Ram S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Loonkaransar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Rojha, District Bikaner (Raj.).

4. Gaurav Yadav S/o Shri Khushi Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Mehtawas, District Alwar (Raj.).

5. Murali Manohar S/o Shri Badri Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Meeno Ka Mohalla, Gangti, Kalpna Jageer, District Baran.

6. Manisha Kumari D/o Shri Keshar Dev, Aged About 28 Years, R/o C/o Amit Kumar Birda, Harsava Ke Raste Par, Vpo Rinau, District Sikar (Raj.).

7. Charanjeet Singh Yadav S/o Shri Ajeet Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Mundawar, Bheekhawa, District Alwar.

8. Yogendra Singh Sain S/o Shri Ramsingh Sain, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Gaytri Colony, Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

9. Pavan Sharma S/o Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vpo Gariyal Ki Dhani, Patan, District Jaipur (Raj.).

10. Vaibhav Kuntal S/o Shri Mahipal Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Pandav Nagar, Ekta Vihar Colony, District Bharatpur.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. The Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer.

4. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For

(2 of 6) [CW-2972/2022]

Teachers (Reet-2021), Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramendra Singh Saluja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

26/04/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:-

A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the decision of the Expert Committee treating all the questions/ answers to be correct being dated 30.10.2021 (Annx.6), whereby final answer-key was issued, may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents appear to have issued yet another answer-key after another round of opinion from the Experts, as given out in Information dated 06.12.2021 (Annx.7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents before treating the Final Answer-Key dated 30.10.2021 (Annx.6) to be the last word in the matter, may kindly be directed to disclose the material, which has been relied upon by the Experts for overruling all the objections in regard to incorrect questions/answers.

D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the exercise undertaken for constitution of Second Expert

(3 of 6) [CW-2972/2022]

Committee, as disclosed by Information Dated 06.12.2021 (Annx.7) without publishing any general notice in regard to same so as to invite objections from candidates, may kindly be directed to be treated illegal. Consequently, if there is a need of Second Expert Committee, then same may be undertaken only after inviting objections from the candidates once again."

Learned counsel for the petitioners, instead of pressing all

the prayers made in the writ petition, is limiting his arguments

only with respect to prayer No.C.

Briefly the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are

that the petitioners being eligible for appointments on the post of

Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) appeared in the Rajasthan Eligibility

Examination for Teachers, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

REET Examination of 2021'). After declaration of the result, the

petitioners failed to clear the same and thus they were not

considered fit for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III

(Level-I). Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the answers

to certain questions in the question paper of REET Examination,

2021 were correctly answered by the petitioners as per the books

read by them and relied upon. He submits that the Expert

Committee has relied upon certain other books and the material

and adjudicated the answers of those questions other than what

the petitioners have marked correct in the examination. Learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Condition No.5 of

the advertisement, the petitioners have read the books upto the

standard of Secondary and, therefore, the answers to the

(4 of 6) [CW-2972/2022]

questions raised in the paper are required to be adjudicated as per

the books of secondary standard only. Learned counsel submits

that since the material used by the Experts for adjudication of the

correct answers has not been disclosed to the petitioners,

therefore, the present writ petition may be allowed and the

petitioners may be provided the material which has made

foundation for adjudication of the correct answers by the Expert

Committee.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

after the REET Examination, 2021, certain objections were

received and the matter was referred to the Expert Committee

appointed by the respondents. The Expert Committee considered

the entire material for adjudication of the correct answers of the

questions raised in the REET Examination, 2021 and dealt with the

objections received from the candidates. After thorough

examination of the same, the Expert Committee issued the revised

answer key. Learned counsel submits that since it is within the

domain of the Expert Committee to come to a conclusion after

discussion and deliberation and considering the relevant material

on the subject for adjudging the correct answer to the questions

raised in the question paper, therefore, no interference is

warranted in the present case. In support of his submission,

learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta

vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in (2021) 2 SCC

309.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the relevant record of the case.

(5 of 6) [CW-2972/2022]

The precise question raised in the present writ petition is

that the material which has been used or considered by the Expert

Committee while adjudicating the correct answers to the questions

of REET Examination, 2021 should be supplied to the petitioners.

The Expert Committee appointed by the respondents is

constituted of the persons who are having knowledge and

expertise of the subject. There is no challenge to the Constitution

of the Expert Committee and there are no two opinions that the

Expert committee constituted by persons are not experts of the

subject. This Court is of the opinion that since the constitution of

the Expert Committee has not been questioned and they being

experts of the subject, it is not open for the petitioners to ask for

the material relied upon by them for coming to the conclusion of

adjudication of a correct answers raised in REET Examination,

2021. The wisdom of the Expert Committee should not be

questioned unless it is shown that the Expert Committee

constituted itself was improper or irregular or the persons were

not having requisite knowledge about the subject in question. It

is within the domain of the respondents to get the objections dealt

with by constituting an expert committee and if the Expert

Committee after due deliberations and discussions has reached a

conclusion, the same is not required to be seen with suspicion. If

the request of the petitioner is exceeded to, it will be an unending

phenomenon and no selection can be concluded within the time

frame prescribed. The relief prayed for by the petitioners in this

writ petition, therefore, is declined.

(6 of 6) [CW-2972/2022]

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

The stay application and other pending applications, if any,

also stand disposed of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 2-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)