Rajasthan High Court
Lalu Ram S/O Shriram Karan Jat vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 August, 2023
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:19051]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/2021
1. Surjan Lal Dhawan S/o Prabhu Dayal Dhawan, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Village Pandit Pura Panchmukhi,
Badiya Road, Dausa, (Raj)
2. Pooja Sharma W/o Prahlad Kumar Sharma, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Fci Goam Raod, Sainik Nagar, Ganpapur
City, Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 322201
3. Bakeel S/o Mukhtyar Singh Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Vill. Tarsuma, Tehsil Bayana, Bharatpur (Raj.).
321405.
4. Tola Ram Jakhar S/o Tejram Jakhar, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o 30 Dodd, Hanuman Nagar Makeri, Bikaner (Raj.)
334023.
5. Pooja Rani Saxena W/o Rang Bihari, Aged About 43 Years,
R/o Ward No. 08 Near Ram Mandir, Anupgarh, Sri Ganga
Nagar, (Raj.) 335701
6. Sonia Nagpal W/o Fateh Chand Nagpal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o W. No. 12, H.no. 187, Purani Abadi, Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.). 335001.
7. Durga Ram Meghwal S/o Girdhari Ram, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Vpo-Dabra, Naguar (Raj.). 341506
8. Lukman S/o Lal Khan, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward
No. 10, Purani Ginani Near Mffr Road, Mahajan, Bikaner
(Raj.) 334604.
9. Khem Raj Meghwal S/o Sava Ji Meghwal, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Vpo-Vallabh, Tehsil-Girwa, P.s. Kurawar,
Udaipur, (Raj.).
10. Raj Kumar S/o Man Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Viii,
Bhojewala, Post-Somasar, Tehsil Suratgarh, Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)., 335804.
11. Rameshwar Lal S/o Chuna Ram, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Chak 662, Road Siyasar, Panchkosa, Tehsil Pugal,
Distt. Bikaner (Raj.). 334808.
12. Bhavani Shankar Tard S/o Haramana Ram Tard, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Vpo-Surnana, Tehsil-Loonkaransar,
Distt. Bikaner (Raj.). 334603.
13. Ajay Dev Dutt Pater S/o Anna Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:35:42 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (2 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
R/o Vpo-Bhadwan Wala, Tehsil-Raisinghpura, Shri
Gangapur (Raj.). 335051.
14. Chandrabhan S/o Shri Kishori Lal, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village Ekalkhori, Tehsil Osian, Distt. Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
15. Surajmal S/o Shri Amra Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Santosh Taior, Sabji Mandi, Nehru Market, Bhinmal Distt.
Jalore, Rajasthan.
16. Bharat Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Jog Singh, Aged About
39 Years, R/o Village Badawas, Sankarna, Tehsil Ahore,
Distt. Jalore, Rajasthan.
17. Kiran Kumari D/o Shri Nayan Kumar, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village Dhamora, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Distt.
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2323/2021
Ritu Kumari D/o Rajveer Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village
- Lotasara Ki Dhani, Post - Purohita Ki Dhani, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan. Pincode-333001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (3 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2795/2021
Shakti Singh Shekhawat S/o Vijay Singh Shekhawat, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Near Hawai Patti Main Gate,
Jhunjhunu, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, School
Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3944/2021
Suneel Kumar Sharma Son Of Late. Ramniwas Sharma, Aged
About 39 Years, Address S-19, Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar, Siwad
Area, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302015.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
To Government, School Education Department, Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
(Rajasthan) - 305001.
4. Beer Singh Son Of Ajeet Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
Address Nangla House Ward No. 19 Loharu Road, Pilani,
Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4115/2021
1. Hemraj Rodiya S/o Babu Lal Bairwa, Aged About 38
Years, R/o 357/117, Jadon Nagar A, Opposite Durgapura
Railway Station, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Kamal Yadav S/o Shishram Yadav, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o F-74, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (4 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
3. Mankor Devi Gurjar D/o Babu Lal Gurjar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Nekawala Post Bobari, Via Gathwari
Tehsil Jawarmgarh District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Dharmi Chand S/o Bheru Ram Mat, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Village Rohisara, Post Dodiyana Tehsil Riyan Bari,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
5. Ramprasad Meena S/o Jayanaryan Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Trilokinathpura, Post Jhanpada Kalan
Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Mamta D/o Nahar Mal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village
And Post Dhingpur Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
7. Vedprakash Choudhary S/o Laxman Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Khedi, Post And Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
8. Net Ram Bhupesh S/o Syochand Bhupesh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village Madhogarh, Via Bahai Tehsil Khetri,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
9. Manphool Ram S/o Jadish Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village 10 Bb Po Ratewala, Tehsil Padampur , District Shri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
10. Vikram Singh S/o Madan Singh Rajput, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village And Post Dalpatpura Tehsil Nohar ,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Rajasthan,
Bikaner(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4234/2021
Vishnu Kumar Sharma Son Of Ram Avatar Sharma, Aged About
35 Years, Address - Parana, Tonk (Rajasthan) - 304021.
----Petitioner
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (5 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
To Government, School Education Department, Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
(Rajasthan) - 305001.
4. Beer Singh Son Of Ajeet Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
Address - Nangla House Ward No. 19 Loharu Road, Pilani,
Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4299/2021
Ram Phool Meena Son Of Badri Narayan Meena, Aged About 27
Years, Address - Bhagto Ki Dhani, Amer, Khora Meena, Jaipur
(Rajasthan) - 302028.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
To Government, School Education Department, Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
(Rajasthan) - 305001.
4. Hukam Chand Meena Son Of Gobari Lal Meena, Aged
About 40 Years, Address - 17/4 Indra Vikas Colony Near
Sharma Communication (North Delhi), Delhi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4585/2021
1. Aarti Devi Sharma D/o Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Village Mohanwadi, Post Jahota,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Manraj Meena S/o Shri Bharat Lal Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Adalwara Kalan, Tehsil Chauth Ka
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (6 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Barwara, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
3. Dharamveer Singh S/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Data Shree Kishore Agro Farm, 15 Mile,
Indroka, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Unkar Singh Bhati S/o Shri Devi Singh Bhati, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Village Rajbera, Post Undu, Tehsil Shiv,
District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4971/2021
1. Devendra Kumar Meena S/o Ladu Ram Meena, Aged
About 36 Years, Presently Residing At A-90, Model Town,
Malviya Nagar, Jagatpura Raod, Jaipur.
2. Sarita Choudhary D/o Ramnivas Choudhary, Aged About
30 Years, Presently Residing At 176, C Block, Mahesh
Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner,
(Rajasthan)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5020/2021
Mahendra Singh Bareth S/o Hanuman Singh Bareth, Aged About
28 Years, R/o 130-A, Dev Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (7 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5132/2021
1. Hastu Jyani D/o Chatara Ram Jyani, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Vpo Ridi, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner
Rajasthan.
2. Manish Degava S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Gali No. 5, Rampura Basti, Lalgarh District
Bikaner Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director Secondary Education, Bikaner Rajasthan
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5779/2021
1. Nitin Kumar Jain S/o Mahesh Chand Jain, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Post Patonda, Tehsil Hindaun City,
District Karauli Rajasthan
2. Durga Shankar S/o Ghanshyam, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Vpo Gadiya Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota
Rajasthan
3. Beena Sharma D/o Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Garh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur
Rajasthan
4. Ravindra Kumar Meena S/o Rampratap, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Heripura Post Batawada, Tehsil And
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (8 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
District Baran Rajasthan
5. Lakhan Singh S/o Chetpal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo
Nekpur, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur Rajasthan
6. Sunita Saraswat D/o Imarata Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Near Raghunathsar Well, Bikaner Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Education
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Director Secondary Education, Bikaner Rajasthan
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Tis
Secretary Jaipur Road, Ajmer Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5820/2021
Jyoti Punia D/o Suraj Bhan Punia, Aged About 31 Years, R/o A-
208, Ram Krishna Apartment, Shpira Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department Govt. Of Rajasthan Government Secretariat
Jaipur
2. Director Secondary Education, Bikaner Rajasthan
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6024/2021
Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Keshav Kumar Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Vpo Sankarwada, Tehsil Todabhim Dist. Karauli,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Education
Department, Govt Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Rajasthan.
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (9 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6312/2021
Rupesh Kumar Sujanani S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sujanani, Aged About
39 Years, R/o Opp. Smmcc Government College, Keshargang,
Abu Road, Sirohi, (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6322/2021
1. Manish Kumar S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Birtoli, Post Sorkha Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District
Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Priyanka Yadav D/o Bhoop Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village Bani Jonaicha, Post Jonaicha Khurd, Tehsil
Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
3. Poonam D/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 25 Years, R/op
Vpo Agawana Khurd, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
4. Khaimraj S/o Angoor Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Khedia Brahmin, Po Jharkai, Tehsil Nadbai, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (10 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajathan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6586/2021
1. Lokesh Kumar Mahawar S/o Harendra Kumar, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Village Wadh Tatwara, Tehsil Gangapurcity,
District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
2. Raees Mohammed S/o Saddik Mohammed, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Vpo Pachewar, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk,
Rajasthan.
3. Jitendra Meena S/o Kesari Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Village Nawalpura, Post Raithal, Tehsil Mangrol, District
Baran, Rajasthan.
4. Kapil Dev Sharma S/o Dinesh Chand Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Murlipura Sukh Vihar Colony, Karauli,
Rajasthan.
5. Gyan Prakash Bunkar S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Village Chimanpura, Post Bahtton Ki Gali,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8369/2021
Deena Ram Meena S/o Shri Birbal Meena, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village Chorwada, Post Toda, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (11 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8375/2021
1. Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Rugha Ram, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Dhani Kumharan Wali, V.p.o. Topriyan,
Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj)
2. Rajaram Sharma S/o Shri Kani Ram, Aged About 41
Years, R/o V.p.o. Thalarka, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9358/2021
Bajarang Lal Jat Son Of Shri Hanuman Sahay Jat, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Village Kishorpura Via Ajitgarh, Tehsil Shri
Madhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Secondary Education Department,
Through Its Principle Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)
3. Dy. Secretary, Exam Rajasthan Public Service
Commissioner, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10634/2021
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (12 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Deen Dayal Swami Son Of Prahlad Swami, Aged About 40 Years,
Address 223, Nagon Ki Chhawani, Muslim School Ke Pass, Moti
Dungri Road, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan) - 334001.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
(Rajasthan) - 305001.
3. Lokesh Nagar Son Of Madhou Lal, Address Vpo- Dholam,
Tehsil- Chhipabarod-Dholam, Baran (Rajasthan) -
325221.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10644/2021
Bhupendra Singh Son Of Jethu Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
Present Address- 103, Kataria Colony, Near Mehta Garden,
Ramnagar, Sodala, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302019.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan) - 334001.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
(Rajasthan) - 305001.
3. Raveendra Sharma Son Of Kalu Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, Address - Village Narwar Via Kuchil-Narwar,
Ajmer (Rajasthan) - 305811.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10671/2021
Vijay Singh Son Of Rajpal, Aged About 32 Years, Address -
Nayasar, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) - 333001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan) - 334001.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (13 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
(Rajasthan) - 305001.
3. Bal Kishan Son Of Likhama Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Address - Ramdev Colony, Keru, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) -
342024.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11533/2021
Bhanwar Lal Bhambi S/o Pancha Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Ramdev Mandir Ke Pass, Vpo Kathoti, Tehsil Jayal, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12158/2021
Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ram Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Baswa, In Front Of Railway Station Baswa,
Kool Ka Bas Baswa, Tehsil Baswa, City Baswa, District Dausa
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Rajasthan)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14513/2021
Mahendra Singh Bareth Son Of Hanuman Singh Bareth, Aged
About 29 Years, Address 130-A, Dev Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (14 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
(Rajasthan) 302039
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan) 334001
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
(Rajasthan) 305001
3. Lokesh Nagar Son Of Madhou Lal, Aged About 33 Years,
Address Vpo Dholam, Tehsil Chhipabarod-Dholam, Baran,
(Rajasthan) 325221
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3995/2022
1. Lalu Ram S/o Shriram Karan Jat, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Vpo Bikamsara, Tehsil Sardarshahar, Churu,
Rajasthan.
2. Radhakishan Sharma S/o Shri Mangilal Sharma, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Behind Govt. Hospital, Main Market,
Near Bob Bank, Gangashahar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Trapti D/o Shri Sheoyrtilal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Pragyapeeth New Govind Nagar, Gali No.2, Ramganj,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. Alka Chaurasiya D/o Shrihemendra Kumar Chaurasiya,
Aged About 38 Years, R/o A-17, Sukhdham Colony, Police
Line, Baran Road, Kota, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13572/2022
1. Arjun Lal Barala S/o Narsa Ram Barala, Aged About 39
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (15 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Kacholiya, Post Jetpura, Tehsil
Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Akta Gajraj D/o Mukhtyar Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Choudhary Colony, Ward No. 18, Chirawa, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
3. Kailash Chand Yadav S/o Budha Ram Yadav, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Baghawas, Via Kishangarh Renwal, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Dhan Raj Meena S/o Mool Chand Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Kanwarpura, Post Geroli, Tehsil Dooni,
District Tonk, Rajasthan.
5. Deva Ram S/o Gulla Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dade
Ki Beri, Vpo Dasaniya, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
6. Subhash Chand Bajiya S/o Birdi Chand Bajiya, Aged
About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Tapiliya, Via Ringus, District
Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition N0 o. 13842/2022
1. Kedar Mal Yadav S/o Mali Ram Yadav, Aged About 36
Years, R/o 109, Ahir Mohalla, Samrathpura, Sikar,
Rajasthan.
2. Virendra Singh Tanwar S/o Kishor Singh Tanwar, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Village Aagwari, Post Sirohi, Tehsil
Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14510/2022
Praveen Sharma W/o Sunil Kumar Sharma, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Sanjay Chowk, Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh, Presently Residing At H.no. 3/20, Chitrakoot
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (16 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Scheme, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.C. Dewanda
Mr. Himanshu Tholia
Mr. Hemraj Rodiya
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with
Mr. Aamir Khan
Ms. Shobha Sharma for
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain
Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh
Ms. Harshita Sharma
Ms. James Bedi
Ms. Komal Kumar Giri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, AG with
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma
Mr. Siddhant Jain &
Mr. Darsh Pareek
Mr. M.F. Baig, for RPSC
Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG with
Mr. Mananjay Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved on 13/04/2023
Pronounced on 25/08/2023
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the
controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and
predominantly defined by the challenge raised to the correctness
and/or validity of the impugned revised answer keys for various
subjects, as issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service
Commission, pursuant to the constitution of the subject-wise
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (17 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
expert committees. Therefore, considering the fact that the writ
petitions warrant adjudication of common questions of law, with
the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the
parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/2021 titled as
Surjan Lal Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan, is being taken up
as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies
in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the
factual narratives contained therein and not viz-a-viz the
questions of law to be determined by this Court.
FACTUAL NARRATIVE:
2. The ineluctable facts, necessary for discerning the
issue at hand, are concisely noted herein-under:
2/1 That on 13.04.2018, the respondent-Rajasthan Public
Service Commission (for brevity, RPSC or Commission) issued an
advertisement for the post of School Lecturer-2018 for different
subjects, whereby 5000 posts were advertised in toto.
2/2 That on 03.01.2020, the examination for G.K. (Paper-
I) (Group-A) and Hindi was conducted by the respondent-RPSC.
For the other subjects, the examination was conducted on
several distinct dates, which are immaterial for adjudicating
upon the legal issue at hand.
2/3 That on 12.03.2020, the model answer key for the
subjects of G.K. (Group-A) and Hindi was issued.
2/4 That vide press note dated 12.03.2020, online
objections were invited for G.K. (Group A) from 17.03.2020 to
19.03.2020. In the said note, it was made clear that all the
objections must be submitted online and not through any other
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (18 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
mode. Additionally, the press note also clarified that the
respondent-RPSC shall entertain the objections on only one
occasion i.e. the candidates, after being duly informed, were
granted only one single opportunity to raise their objections qua
the model answer key. Similarly, model answer keys were also
issued for various other subjects as well, appended with an
identical press note qua the mode and medium of raising
objections, as mentioned herein-above.
2/5 That while raising the objections qua the model
answer key online, the candidates were provided with seven
distinct options, amongst which, they ought to select the one
most suited to their grievance. The options provided were: (i) All
options are wrong (ii) More than one options are correct (iii)
Question is incorrect/vague (iv) Difference in Hindi and English
version (v) Out of syllabus (vi) Question is not clear (vii) Others.
2/6 That after duly taking note of the objections raised by
the candidates, the subject experts on 26.06.2020, issued the
provisional merit list. Thereafter, subsequent to the verification
of the documents, the final list was issued on 22.12.2020.
2/7 That on 07.01.2021, the final answer key was issued
by the respondent-RPSC. It is pertinent to note that
simultaneously, the process as enunciated herein-above, was
also carried out for various other subjects and thereafter, the
final answer key for the other subjects was also issued by the
Commission on respective dates.
2/8 That on 17.02.2021, this Court passed an order in
S.B. CWP No. 638/2021 titled as Kamal Yadav vs. State of
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (19 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Rajasthan, whereby it was observed that the objections raised
by the candidates/petitioners shall be considered by a Special
Expert Committee, consisting of experts from various subjects,
at the level of the respondent-RPSC.
2/9 That in pursuance to the order dated 17.02.2021, the
respondent-RPSC constituted the Special Expert Committee-I to
examine the objections raised by the candidates which were in
existence up until 17.03.2021. By the said committee consisting
of subject experts, 99 questions of different subjects were
examined.
2/10 That on 05.03.2021, in S.B. CWP No.1347/2021
titled as Namrata Jat vs. State of Rajasthan, this Court gave
directions that no further petition shall be entertained as
recruitment cannot be an unending process as a time plan had
been laid down by the RPSC for disposal of the issue by the
expert committee.
2/11 That up until 17.03.2021, the respondent-RPSC
received objections against 99 questions only, which were duly
examined by the experts.
2/12 That subsequently, the present writ petitions were
filed with the contention that certain questions/objections were
not examined by the respondent-RPSC. Thereafter, during the
pendency of the writ petitions, the respondent-RPSC found out
that the orders of certain petitions, which were filed up until
05.03.2021, were not available with the respondent-RPSC and
therefore, some objections could not be examined by the
experts. 2/13 That vide press note dated 10.11.2021, the
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (20 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
respondent-RPSC suo moto intimated that the Commission had
arrived at a decision to constitute the expert committees for the
examination of those remaining questions/objections as well,
qua whom the petitions were filed up until 05.03.2021, and
which were not examined earlier.
2/14 That in pursuance to the press note dated
10.11.2021, the respondent-RPSC constituted the Special Expert
Committee-II for ascertaining the objections regarding the
remaining questions, qua whom the petitions were filed up until
05.03.2021. In toto, objections were received against 74
questions. The expert committee found no change in the
answers.
2/15 That during the pendency of the present writ
petitions, this Court vide order dated 05.04.2022 directed the
respondent-RPSC to re-examine the disputed questions as
mentioned in the writ petitions, list of which had been enclosed
along with the press note dated 10.11.2021.
2/16 That in pursuance to the direction(s) passed by this
Court vide order dated 05.04.2022, the respondent-RPSC again
constituted the Special Expert Committee-III. It is noted that the
said committee examined 99 questions in toto and found no
change in the final answer key issued by the respondent-RPSC.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners,
unanimously and unequivocally, argued that the impugned
actions of the respondents, in not adequately and correctly
examining the objections raised by the petitioners, are patently
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (21 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
arbitrary, unjust, unfair and violate the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the petitioners under the Constitution of India. As
a result, the principle relief sought by the petitioners is twofold.
Primarily, the petitioners pray for the quashing and setting aside
of the final merit lists issued by the respondent-RPSC for various
subjects as well as the subsequent appointments made in
connection therewith. Secondly, the relief pertains to the re-
examination of the objections raised by the petitioners before
the respondent-RPSC by a newly constituted Special Expert
Committee, comprising of subject experts from various fields.
The other relief(s), as sought, are purely incidental to the
rudimentary issues stated-herein-above. In order to establish
their case, learned counsel for the petitioners raised the
following arguments:
3/1 That the directions given by this Court to the
respondent-RPSC in the case of Kamal Yadav (Supra) were
not followed by the Commission in letter and spirit. In the said
case, the Court had observed that the objections raised by the
candidates/petitioners shall be considered by a Special Expert
Committee, consisting of experts from various subjects, at the
level of the respondent-RPSC. However, despite the same, the
process undertaken by the respondent-RPSC was arbitrary as the
objections raised by the petitioners, were not dealt with
adequately insofar as the objections were cursorily negated
without placing sufficient reliance upon the prescribed study
material.
3/2 That despite the constitution of the Special Expert
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (22 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Committee by the respondent-RPSC, the Commission was unable
to furnish an explanation as to how questions, which did not
form part of the prescribed subject-wise syllabi, were
incorporated in the examinations so conducted for various
subjects. Furthermore, no reference was given in the report of
the expert committee regarding the inclusion of such questions
in the examination.
3/3 That under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a
writ court can exercise judicial review in respect of disputed
answer keys and/or question-answers, where it clearly appears
that the disputed answer keys and/or question-answers are
palpably and demonstrably erroneous and that if a prudent man
can prove them to be incorrect by way of his ordinary
understanding, then judicial review is not prohibited under such
circumstances. Thus, considering the fact that the answer keys
issued by the respondent-RPSC are prima facie demonstrably
erroneous and objectively incorrect, judicial review in respect of
such answer keys and/or question-answers is warranted for
protecting the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
3/4 That in order to establish prima facie errors apparent
qua the final answer keys under challenge, learned counsel
submitted that many answers/questions, against whom
objections were raised by the petitioners, which came to be
subsequently negated, were asked by the Commission in the
previous years in relation to the examination conducted for the
same post as well in the subsequent years of the recruitment
under challenge. On such previous as well as subsequent
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (23 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
occasions, the answers as opted by the petitioners were
considered to be correct. However, in the impugned
examinations, the same answers have been deemed incorrect,
even by the special expert committees so constituted to examine
the objections raised by the candidates. To further establish the
errors apparent, it was submitted that even the authentic study
material as well as books prescribed per curriculum, were not
considered by the respondent-RPSC before issuing the final
answer key. Moreover, even upon examination of the objections,
the aforesaid material stipulations escaped the attention of the
experts examining the objections raised by the candidates.
3/5 That the answers to the questions were either
changed or arbitrarily deleted while releasing the final answer
key, after the final result was released by the respondent-RPSC.
Thus, no opportunity of being heard was granted to the
petitioners before the final result, as previously released, was
altered, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
3/6 That the reports qua the determination of the
correctness and/or validity of the answers/questions, as
presented by the Special Expert Committees, in response to the
objections raised by the candidates, were prepared without any
application of mind and thereby, could not be relied upon for
issuing the final merit list/revised answer keys. To establish the
non-application of mind on part the Commission as well as the
experts, learned counsel submitted that the RPSC till date has
not apprised the petitioners regarding the basis on which the
answers of some questions in the model answer key were
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (24 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
considered to be correct earlier. Moreover, even subsequent to
the examination of the objections by the experts, the Special
Expert Committee did not furnish detailed reasons in their
reports in support of their decisions for not changing the
answers or otherwise, insofar as no rationale was provided by
the experts for not considering the material submitted by the
petitioners as well, in support of their objections.
3/7 That the respondent-RPSC failed to furnish any
explanation regarding the basis on which some of the answers
which were considered correct in the model answer key were
subsequently changed and/or deleted in the final answer key.
3/8 That the respondent-RPSC failed to furnish any
explanation regarding the basis on which some
questions/answers, which are demonstrably and palpably wrong,
were accepted as correct. In this regard, it was submitted that
even a common man could express his clear opinion on whether
or not such answers are correct, thereby warranting judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3/9 That the respondent-RPSC has been unable to explain
how they have followed the guidelines given in the case of
Kamal Yadav (Supra) i.e. how and in what manner the
objections of the petitioners have been disposed of.
3/10 That the respondent-RPSC has failed to explain how
and why it did not consult the study material and authentic
books in discerning the objections raised by the candidates
against the erroneous questions/answers, such as those books
prescribed for the Board Examinations of Class X and XII, and as
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (25 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
relied upon by the petitioners in respect of their answers.
Additionally, it was also contended that the respondent-RPSC has
been unable to categorically exhibit several material stipulations
qua the assessment done by the purported experts i.e. who the
Special Expert Committee comprised of and the qualification
they possessed to scrutinize the objections raised by the
petitioners in various subjects. In this regard, it was also
submitted that the experts have not appended any clear reasons
to justify their findings in the expert reports i.e. the experts
reports have not been issued clearly and authentically.
4. To conclude, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that by preparing disputed questions/answers in the arena of
public employment, the respondent-RPSC has tainted the entire
examination process, due to which the future of many
candidates has been left hanging in the balance, despite no fault
on their part. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be blamed for the
errors attributable to the Commission and as a result, the
petitioners cannot be denied selection as well. The denial of
selection to the petitioners is a direct violation of their
fundamental rights conferred under Articles 14,15 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. As a result, in light of the submissions
made herein-above, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed
for the relief(s) as encapsulated above. In support of the
arguments, reliance was placed upon D.B. Special Appeal Writ
No. 847/2022 titled as Suman and Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan; Richal and Ors vs. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission and Ors. reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81; D.B.
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (26 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Special Appeal Writ No. 1092/2015 titled as Pankaj Oswal
and Ors vs. RPSC and Ors.; Kanpur University and Ors. vs.
Samir Gupta and Ors. reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309;
Manish Ujwal and Ors. vs. Mahrishi Dayanand Saraswati
University reported in (2005) 13 SCC 744 and State of
Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma and Ors.
reported in 2014 (1) WLC (Raj) 349.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Per contra, learned Advocate General Mr. M.S. Singhvi,
appearing on behalf of the State along with Mr. M. Faisal Baig,
counsel for the respondent-RPSC have raised a preliminary
objection regarding the maintainability of the present batch of
writ petitions. It was contended that qua the subject matter
involved herein viz-a-viz the petitioners before this Court, the
doctrine of res judicata would operate as a bar on the
maintainability of the present batch of petitions, as the same
subject matter between the same parties, has already been
conclusively decided by this Court. In this regard, it was
submitted that vide the judgment dated 17.02.2021 passed in
the case of Kamal Yadav (Supra) and judgment dated
05.03.2021 passed in Namrata Jat (Supra), both of which
pertained to the same examination process which forms the
subject matter of the present batch of petitions, this Court has
categorically held that it is not for the Court but for the
Commission to examine the issue regarding the correctness of
the model answer key. In Kamal Yadav (Supra), it was held:
"3. In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. versus
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (27 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2020) 13 SCALE 689, the
Supreme Court has held that High Courts ought not
interfere with the examination process generally and
as the Courts cannot be said to be expert body
however, this Court finds that candidates were not
given an opportunity to put their objections relating
to the final answer key although as per them, their
answers were correct as per model answer key. This
aspect requires to be examined at the level of RPSC.
4. Leaving it open for the RPSC to examine the
aspect and allow them to form a special expert
committee consisting of experts in the field
relevant."
Furthermore, in the case of Namrata Jat (Supra), this Court
held:
"It is made clear that no further petition shall be
entertained as it cannot be an unending process as
a time plan has been laid down by RPSC for disposal
of the issue by the expert committee".
Thus, in view of the findings recorded by this Court in Kamal
Yadav (Supra) and Namrata Jat (Supra), which have become
final as no appeal has been preferred against them, the
petitioners cannot be permitted to question the correctness of
the report of the expert committee constituted pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court. Accordingly, it was contended
that as this Court has held in the first round of litigation that
RPSC alone will examine the matter, the said finding operates as
res judicata and as a result, the issue regarding the judicial
review of the decision of the expert committee operates as res
judicata in view of the judgment and orders dated 17.02.2021
and 05.03.2021.
6. In addition to the preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the present batch of writ petitions, learned
Advocate General Mr. M.S. Singhvi and Mr. M. Faisal Baig,
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (28 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
counsel for the respondent-RPSC, prayed for the dismissal of the
present batch of writ petitions, on the following grounds:
6/1 That the scope of judicial review is limited in the
matter of administrative decisions. It was contended that the
court can only consider the correctness of the decision-making
process and not the decision itself. While exercising its powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court cannot take it
upon itself to actually ascertain the correctness of the answer
key, for the simple reason, that the Courts are not experts of the
subject-matter and therefore, do not possess the expertise to
ascertain the correctness of the answer key. Hence, for
undertaking the said task, the Court must leave it upon the
experts in various subjects/fields to ascertain the correctness
and validity of questions, as they would be more susceptible to
the nuances of the subjects and thereby, adjudge upon the
correctness in an informed manner. In this regard, it was
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present
matter, the respondent-RPSC on several occasions, constituted
an expert committee to duly take into consideration the
objections put forth by the candidates and only after examining
the said objections thoroughly, arrived at the impugned findings,
which are challenged by way of the present writ petitions.
6/2 That while exercising judicial review, courts must only
see that whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an
apparent error of law. In this regard, it was submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC that apart from the
fact that the scope of judicial review in the matter of expert
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (29 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
committees is very limited, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the
record as well. The expert committee, after duly taking into
consideration the objections raised by the candidates, has
applied its own mind and thereafter, arrived at the impugned
answers. Moreover, to further substantiate upon their findings,
the experts have also appended the material relied upon by
them to arrive at the impugned answers.
6/3 That qua the contention of the petitioners that the
expert committee has not given its reasoning for arriving at the
impugned answers, learned counsel submitted that the expert
committee has categorically referred the material in support of
its conclusions and appended the relevant portions of the same
with the report. Thus, instead of repeating what has been
contained in the appended material, the expert committee has
appended the material itself. Therefore, the material which has
been appended constitutes the rationale adopted by the expert
committee and as a result, it cannot be said that the
findings/recommendations of the expert committee are vitiated.
6/4 That some of the petitioners have themselves
answered various questions correctly as per the final answer key
of the Commission and yet, they have questioned the final
answer key with regards to such questions also. Therefore, it is
impermissible for the petitioners to raise objections to such
questions, which are in themselves contradictory to the interests
of the respective petitioners.
6/5 That without conceding to the submissions made by
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (30 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General
argued that even if the contentions of the petitioners are
momentarily accepted, even then, it may not materially change
the final result in as much as it would not be necessary that the
petitioners may fall in the merit list/final list. In this regard, by
way of an illustration, it was submitted that so far as the paper
in the subject of G.K. Group B is concerned, in all 2088
candidates have been selected. Out of these 2088 candidates,
992 candidates have given the correct option for Question No.
72. Therefore, it may be possible that even if the answer was to
be changed, the remaining candidates might improve their merit
and in that event also, any of the petitioner may not get in the
merit list. Therefore, in such a situation, the principle laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of non-interference in the opinion
of the expert is clearly applicable.
6/6 That for the selection on different posts of Lecturer-
School Education, large number of candidates appeared for the
examination. For example, in General Knowledge (Group B),
overall 100086 candidates appeared in the examination, out of
which the number of petitioners who have challenged the
correctness of the answer key of different questions is only 20.
Similarly, in the paper of General Knowledge of Group C, total
number of candidates who appeared in the examination were
105038 whereas only five persons have approached this Court
seeking challenge to the answer key. Thus, the number of
persons approaching this Court by way of the present writ
petitions challenging the validity of the answer key issued by the
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (31 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Commission is miniscule, when juxtaposed with the total number
of candidates who appeared in the examination. Thus, any
interference would unnecessarily hamper the entire selection
process and affect/disturb the large number of appointments
made in connection therewith.
7. Therefore, in light of the arguments raised herein-
above, learned Advocate General appearing for the State as well
learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC prayed for the
dismissal of the present batch of writ petitions. In support of
their contentions, reliance was placed upon Ran Vijay Singh
vs. State of U.P. and Ors reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357;
Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan
reported in (2012) 2 SCC 309; West Bengal Central School
Service Commission and Ors. vs. Abdul Halim reported in
(2019) 18 SCC 39; D.B. Special Appeal No. 697/2019 titled
as RPSC vs. Pankaj Raj; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
4088/2022 titled as Gaurav Sharma vs. Rajasthan Public
Service Commission and Ors. and State of Rajasthan vs.
Jagdish Chopra reported in (2007) 8 SCC 161.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
8. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, perused the voluminous records produced by both
the sides and considered the judgments cited at Bar.
9. As is immediately apparent from the overarching
factual narrative of the present batch of writ petitions, the
previous litigation preferred by the candidates/petitioners and
the judgments of this Court therein, coupled with the challenge
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (32 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
raised to the correctness and/or validity of the impugned revised
answer keys for various subjects, the scope of the controversy
involved in the present batch of writ petitions has been
adequately defined. Preceding to the discussion on merits, this
Court deems it appropriate to outline the scope of judicial review
under Article 226 in the matters concerning the evaluation of
candidates, particularly of those appearing in examinations for
recruitment in public services.
10. It is a settled position of the law, as is consistently
underlined by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that in the absence of any
categoric provision for re-evaluation, judicial review must be
rarely and sparingly exercised, preferably under exceptional
circumstances. The cardinal principles of judicial review in
evaluation of candidates, including circumstances wherein
judicial review is sparingly permitted, as well as the caution to
be observed by the courts in matters of recruitment in public
services, are defined in the judgment of the Apex Court in Ran
Vijay Singh (Supra). The observations made therein are
reiterated herein-under:
30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear
and we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or
Regulation governing an examination permits the
re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an
answer sheet as a matter of right, then the
authority conducting the examination may permit
it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or
scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from
prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-
evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (33 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
very clearly, without any "inferential process of
reasoning or by a process of rationalization" and
only in rare or exceptional cases that a material
error has been committed; (iii) The Court should
not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer
sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the
matter and academic matters are best left to the
academics; (iv) The Court should presume the
correctness of the key answers and proceed on that
assumption (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit
should go to the examination authority rather than
to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or
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 the examination
authority, the complete body of candidates suffers.
The entire 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 the impasse-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
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (34 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
who have successfully participated in the
examination and the examination authorities. The
present appeals are a classic example of the
consequence of such interference 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;
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.
11. In obedience of the aforesaid, it is apparent that
though re-evaluation of answers/questions may be permitted by
Courts subject to the rules framed in connection therewith, the
practice of re-evaluation has been time and again abhorred by
several judicial pronouncements, especially on account of the
mitigating factum of the courts not possessing the requisite
expertise in academic matters to understand the nuances of the
impugned questions-answers and the framework within which
they are incorporated into the examination and/or drafted
therewith. Therefore, it is not permissible for Courts to examine
the question papers and answers sheets by itself, particularly
when the body conducting the examination has assessed the
inter-se merit of the candidates. Furthermore, the interference is
sparingly permissible, only after obtaining the opinion of an
expert committee, which has sufficiently accumulated prowess in
their stream of academia. In any event, the assessment of the
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (35 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
questions by the Courts itself to arrive at the correctness of
answers is not permissible. Similar views, as those enunciated in
Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), have been endorsed in Vikesh
Kumar Gupta (Supra) and Pankaj Raj (Supra) as well.
12. At this juncture, it is necessary to address the
argument raised by the petitioners regarding the power of a writ
court to exercise judicial review in respect of disputed answer
keys and/or question-answers, where it clearly appears that the
disputed answer keys and/or question-answers are palpably and
demonstrably erroneous. In this regard, it is necessary to duly
take note of the exception carved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Kanpur University (Supra) whereby interference with the
answer keys may be permissible, provided that the same is
proved to be wrong on the face of it and that it should not be
held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalization. The answer key must be clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such that
no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject
would regard as correct.
13. Therefore, the primary impediment that the
petitioners need to vault across, in order to warrant judicial
review, is that of satisfying the Court that the disputed answers
are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In West Bengal
Central School Service Commission (Supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court laid down the test to determine whether an answer-
key is palpably and demonstrably erroneous, albeit in addition to
the criteria laid down in Kanpur University (Supra) for
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (36 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
adjudging the correctness of the answer key.
14. In West Bengal Central School Service Commission
(Supra), it was held that:
"In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court
is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated
by an apparent error of law. The test to determine
whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on
the face of record is whether the error is self-
evident on the face of the record or whether the
error requires examination or argument to establish
it. If an error has to be established a process of
reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be
two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the
face of the record, as held by this Court in
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Millikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 SC 137. If the
provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of
two or more constructions and one construction has
been adopted, the decision would not be open to
interference by the writ court. It is only an obvious
misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision,
or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision
founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law,
which can be corrected by the writ court by issuance
of a writ of certiorari."
15. As a result, upon an application of the tests so laid in
Kanpur University (Supra) and West Bengal Central School
Service Commission (Supra), in the facts and circumstances
of the present batch of writ petitions, this Court after giving
reasonable thought and consideration to the impugned question-
answers as appended with the petitions, deems it appropriate to
hold that upon a mere perusal of the contested question-
answers across subjects for the post of School Lecturer, in the
absence of any material to substantiate upon the incorrectness
of the answer-key, no prudent man, would be able to
categorically catch a glimpse of the mistake so purported to
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (37 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
have crept in the impugned question-answers i.e. in order to lift
the veil of falsity/inaccuracy in the contested questions-answers,
reasonable debate would be necessary before an informed
decision can be made in adjudging the validity of their answers.
Therefore, in the impugned question-answers, as appended in
the present batch of writ petitions, an error has to be
established by way of arguments or a study of the contested
answer key. As a result, there is no error apparent on the face of
the record. In such an event, the impugned problem recuses
itself from the domain of being demonstrably erroneous, thereby
excluding itself from the ambit of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. For illustration:
Subject: G.K. & G.S. (1st Paper) (Group A)
Question No.10: When was the Swaraj Party formed?
(a) December, 1992
(b) January, 1923
(c) March, 1923
(d) December, 1923
Option deemed correct by the Commission: Option (b)
January, 1923
No change found by Special Expert Committee I as well as
Special Expert Committee-II.
Prayer of the petitioners: Option (c)- March, 1923 should
have been correct.
Rationale for Change: Reliance placed by the experts on the
text books namely, India's Struggle for Independence 1857-
1947-Penguin Books as well as Indian History and Culture of
Secondary Education Board Edition 2005 was erroneous. Rather,
reliance ought to have been placed on Indian History Book of
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (38 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
Rajasthan Secondary Education Board Edition 2019.
16. In furtherance of the observations made herein-
above, this Court deems it appropriate to opine that judicial
review is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the
present batch of petitions, especially on account of the fact that
in order to address and examine the objections raised by the
candidates/petitioners, Special Expert Committees were
constituted thrice by the respondent-RPSC, on three distinct
occasions. On the first occasion, the Special Expert
Committee-I was constituted pursuant to the decision of this
Court in the case of Kamal Yadav (Supra) whereby it was
observed that the objections raised by the candidates/petitioners
shall be considered by a Special Expert Committee, consisting of
experts from various subjects, at the level of the respondent-
RPSC. The said Special Expert Committee-I examined the
objections raised by the candidates which were in existence up
until 17.03.2021. In total, 99 questioned were examined by the
Committee. Thereafter, vide press note dated 10.11.2021, the
respondent-RPSC suo moto intimated the candidates that the
Commission had arrived at a decision to constitute the expert
committees for the examination of those remaining
questions/objections as well, qua whom the petitions were filed
up until 05.03.2021, and which were not examined earlier by the
Special Expert Committee-I. As a result, the respondent-RPSC
constituted the Special Expert Committee-II for considering
the objections qua the remaining questions, qua whom the
petitions were filed up until 05.03.2021. In toto, objections were
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (39 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
received against 74 questions. The expert committee found no
change in the answers. Lastly, during the pendency of the
present writ petitions, this Court vide order dated 05.04.2022
directed the respondent-RPSC to re-examine the disputed
questions as mentioned in the writ petitions, list of which had
been enclosed along with the press note dated 10.11.2021. As a
consequence, the respondent-RPSC again constituted the
Special Expert Committee-III. It is noted that the said
committee examined 99 questions in toto and found no change
in the final answer key issued by the respondent-RPSC. Thus,
the process of examination of correctness of questions has
passed three times and therefore, the finality to the result does
not warrant interference of this Court.
17. A court carrying on the exercise of judicial review
merely scrutinizes the process in question-administrative or
statutory, but necessarily public in its outcome, to see if it was
arrived at in a procedurally fair and regular manner, free from
illegality, not motivated by malice or mala fides or not so
manifestly unreasonable in its conclusion that no reasonable
individual placed in that situation would arrive at such a
conclusion. In the present case, the objections raised by the
candidates/petitioners were duly taken note of by the
respondent-RPSC and thereafter, in examining those objections,
matters were duly referred to the Special Expert Committees on
three distinct occasions, in response to which, the Committees
examined the contested question/answers and thereafter,
presented their findings duly appended with the material relied
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (40 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
upon by them, to arrive at their findings. Therefore, no
procedural lapse occurred in carrying out the said exercise, as
discussed-above. In such an event, any challenge raised to the
correctness and/or validity of the opinion of the experts is not to
be interfered with by this Court, especially in light of the dictum
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), as well
as the consequent observations made herein-above qua the
nature of impugned question-answers not being palpably and
demonstrably erroneous, in light of the test laid down in West
Bengal Central School Service Commission (Supra).
18. Emphasis must be laid on the fact that the
recruitment in question pertains to the advertisement issued in
the Year 2018, and selections therewith have been conducted by
the Commission, pursuant to which appointments have been
made in 2021. Moreover, fresh selections have also been notified
by the Commission in the Year 2022 for which the written
examination has already been held in the month of October
2022, in relation to which, the model answer key has also
already been issued by the Commission. Therefore, as on date,
no relief can be granted to the petitioners, even if their
submissions were momentarily taken to be tenable.
19. Hence, encapsulating the observations made above, it
can be conclusively said that as long as the procedure adopted in
the evaluation of the answer scripts/impugned questions and/or
answers is not arbitrary, unreasonable or inconsistent, then the
system in place to conduct the said exercise, cannot be found
faulty. As long as all the students who took the examination, are
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (41 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
treated equally viz-a-viz the system of evaluation in place, sans
discrimination, then no grievance subsists. It is well settled law
that in academic matters, the experts word is the last word. The
court neither has the requisite expertise nor infrastructure to go
into the correctness of such decisions. As a result, the court
cannot sit in judgment over those findings of experts and
examine the material on record and arrive at its own conclusions
as a court of appeal. It is also not possible in such circumstances
to go on appointing committees after committees to delve into
the correctness of the decision of the committee. If the same is
permitted, there shall not be any end to this exercise. An
unending litigation for employment in public posts, in connection
with which, the career trajectory of so many young individuals is
coherently tied up with, cannot be permitted to be in abeyance
for so long, that the end result subsumes and overshadows the
duress and hardship faced by the litigants. Moreover, even as per
the salutary rule as endorsed in Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), in
the event of doubt, the benefit ought to go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidates perceiving injustice.
Therefore, the answer key should be assumed to be correct
unless it is proved to be wrong, albeit the same should not be
held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be
wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of
men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as
correct. However, such was not the case in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as demonstrated above. If it
[2023:RJ-JP:19051] (42 of 42) [CW-4777/2021]
is a case of doubt, unquestionably the answer-key must be
preferred and only if it is beyond the realm of doubt, the
possibility of judicial review must be entertained.
20. Therefore, considering the observations made herein-
above and relying upon the dictum of the Apex Court in Ran
Vijay Singh (Supra) , West Bengal Central School Service
Commission (Supra), Pankaj Raj (Supra) and Vikesh
Kumar Gupta (Supra), this Court deems it appropriate to
dismiss the present batch of writ petitions.
21. As a result, the writ petitions are dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /199-225, 230-232
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
