Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Laxman Singh Bhati vs Rajathan Subordinate And ... on 3 January, 2023

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6061/2022

Laxman Singh Bhati S/o Sh. Shiv Singh Bhati, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 292, Thakur Ji Ka Mandir Kshetra, Village And Post Gaju, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagar, Rajasthan (341024).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajathan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Through Secretary, Having Its Office At State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Rd, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Department, Having Its Office At Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8034/2022 Shubham Vyas S/o Shri Satyadev Vyas, Aged About 29 Years, R/ o C-146, Azad Nagar, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Bhilwara, Rajasthan (311001).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Through Having Its Office At State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Rd, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302016.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Department, Having Its Office At Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Khichi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG.

Mr. Sarans Vij.

Mr. Rajesh Punia.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 03/01/2023 These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against the final answer key and the marks awarded

(2 of 11)

pursuant to the recruitment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub

Inspector held by Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service

Selection Board ('the Board') in terms of advertisement dated

24.11.2021.

It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petitions that pursuant

to the advertisement, the petitioners applied and were subjected

to written examination, wherein, three papers (i) General

Knowledge & Everyday Science - 100 marks, (ii) Language (Hindi

& English) - 100 marks and (iii) Automobile & Mechanical

Engineering - 200 marks were held.

After publishing the model answer key, objections were

invited, to which, the petitioners objected. Whereafter, the final

answer key have been published by the respondent-Board and

marks awarded.

Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petitions have been filed.

While, petitioner - Laxman Singh Bhati has questioned the

validity of final answer key in relation to questions No. 70, 60, 63,

123 and 136, petitioner - Shubham Vyas has questioned the

validity of final answer key in relation to questions No. 2, 26, 25,

87, 90 and 123.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, with reference to the

material produced in the writ petitions, made submissions that the

conclusion arrived at by the respondents while issuing the final

answer key qua the questions under challenge, are incorrect

and/or requires modification and a consequential effect need to be

given to the marks awarded to the petitioners.

Reply to the writ petitions have been filed by the respondent-

Board, inter alia, observing that several objections in relation to

(3 of 11)

large number of questions were received and the same have been

thoroughly examined by the Experts, who have arrived at a

particular conclusion pertaining to each answer and that

conclusion arrived at by the Experts do not call for any

interference. Alongwith the reply, the respondent-Board, has also

made reference to the material relied on by the Experts for

arriving at a particular conclusion.

Under the directions of the Court, the respondent-Board has

produced the conclusion arrived at by the Experts alongwith the

supporting material for perusal of the Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Board made further

submissions that the law with regard to interference by this Court

in relation to the conclusion arrived at by the Expert Committee, is

very limited and has referred to various judgments including

Ranvijay Singh v. State of U.P.: (2018) 2 SCC 357 and Vikesh

Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors.: (2021) 2 SCC 309.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

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

The issue as to the extent and power of the Courts to

interfere in matters of present nature has been subject matter of a

number of judicial decisions and is no longer res integra as it has

already been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this

Court.

This Court in Phoosgir & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17265/2021 and other connected

matters decided on 23.03.2022, in a recruitment related to

Agriculture Supervisor, came to the following conclusion: -

(4 of 11)

"From the above, it is apparent that the expert committee has thoroughly examined the objections as raised by the petitioners and have reached to a particular conclusion. The petitioners have made submissions based on the material produced by them in support of their claim in relation to each question and the expert committee has referred to / relied on material in support of the conclusion arrived at by them. As out of two materials produced by the petitioners and considered by the expert committee, which material should be relied on, essentially is in the domain of the expert committee and this Court, possibly cannot after the expert committee has arrived at a particular conclusion, opine otherwise, unless the decision made thereon is found to be wholly arbitrary and/or contrary to the material relied on, which in the present case does not appear to be the case.

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."

Prior to that in RPSC v. Pankaj Raj : D.B.S.A.W.

No.697/2019, decided on 29.05.2019 (at Jaipur Bench), the Division Bench while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single, inter-alia, observed as under :-

"The impugned judgment in this Court's opinion is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the court has unwittingly donned the robe of the decision maker: to wit, that of an expert, in art, in concluding that one of the choices was defective (question No.11) and that the RPSC's explanation about a misprint was irrelevant, because the answer was wrongly given. These

(5 of 11)

conclusions the court cannot arrive at, as they amount to primary decision making- a task which cannot be undertaken under Article 226. The impugned judgment also overlooked the salutary rule that in the event of doubt, "the benefit ought to go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate" (Ran Vijay, supra)."

In another Division Bench judgment in Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission : D.B.S.A.W. No.447/2020, decided on 21.10.2021, a case where the learned Single Judge had interfered with the decision of the expert committee, it was observed by the Division Bench as under:-

"In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the final conclusion of the expert body duly constituted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission having expertise in the field. It is not necessary to refer to large number of decisions of this Court as well as of Supreme Court which essentially lay down that the interference by the High Court in matters of education and other technical fields should be kept to the minimum. Short reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Richal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. [2018 (8) SCC 81] would be sufficient."

Very recently, when the learned Single Judge interfered with the decision made by the expert committee, in relation to the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination held by the RPSC, the Division Bench in RPSC v. Ankit Sharma : D.B.S.A.W. No.429/2022, in its order dated 23.02.2022, after referring to the judgments in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. : (2018) 2 SCC 357, UPPSC v. Rahul Singh : (2018) 7 SCC 254, Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Arun Kumar & Ors. : (2020) 6 SCC 362, inter-alia, observed while staying the order of the learned Single Judge, as under:-

"14. We have referred to the consistent trend of the case law coming from the Supreme Court on the subject. Broadly the approach in such situation is that the scope of judicial review against expert's opinion is extremely limited. There is a requirement of finality to the process of public employment. This is not to suggest that judicial review is completely shutout; it cannot be. However unless the situation presents a clear cut, black and white, open and shut choice of the decision of the expert body being palpably wrong, the Court would not interfere.

(6 of 11)

An element of tolerance to the minor error or calibration is discernible since achieving certainty and finality is also important.

The finality and perfection are sworn enemies.

15. With this legal clarity if we revert back to the questions with respect to which the learned Judge objected to the conclusions of RPSC, none of these questions would prima facie pass the muster of extremely high threshold provided by the Supreme Court in series of judgments noted above. In all cases the learned Single Judge has gone on at considerable length to discuss the view point of the petitioners and material produced by them in support of their contentions, what the expert committee had taken into account and why in the opinion of the learned Judge such conclusions were wrong. At this stage we are not inclined to go into these questions threadbare since we do not propose and we cannot decide these appeals finally. Nevertheless we have strong prima facie belief that the learned Judge had exceeded the scope of writ jurisdiction in the present case. No legal or factual malafides are demonstrated nor procedural illegality established.

It may be that in some cases there is a grey area. That by itself would not be sufficient for the writ court to upturn the decision of the expert's body."

The Special Leave Petition filed against the Division Bench order came to be rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.03.2022."

From the above, it is apparent that a strong burden is placed

on the candidates to not only demonstrate that the final answer

key is incorrect but also that there are glaring mistakes, which are

apparent on the face, which require no inferential process or

reasoning to show that key answer is incorrect, in fact, it has been

laid down in so many words that the Constitutional Courts must

exercise great restraint and should be reluctant to entertain a plea

challenging the correctness of the key answers.

The respondents through Experts, have followed an

elaborate process to consider objections raised by the candidates.

(7 of 11)

All the objections have been duly considered by Subject Experts

and it is only after that the final answer key has been published.

This Court possibly cannot sit as an appellate authority over

the wisdom and Expertise of the Experts so as to usurp the

powers of the Experts in such matters.

It may further be indicated that as the subject matter of the

present challenge laid, mainly pertains to the questions related to

Automobile & Mechanical Engineering, despite elaborate attempt

on part of this Court, seeking to decipher the plea sought to be

raised by the petitioners in questioning the final answer key and

the Experts having dealt with by the same, looking to the nature

of Expertise required for dealing with the subject matter, the law

laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, becomes most relevant,

wherein the Court should not attempt to substitute its opinion qua

the opinion of the Experts only by choosing, one of the two

opinions.

All the impugned questions in the present cases, require an

elaborate process of argumentation and reasoning for the purpose

of arriving at an answer, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

In the case of Laxman Singh Bhati (SBCW No.6061/2022):-

Question No.70:-

70. Which of the following are the examples of Polysaccharides?

(A) Glycogen, starch (B) Cellulose, starch, glycogen, heparin (C) Cellulose, starch, glycogen (D) Cellulose, glucose, sucrose Model Answer Key: (B) Final Answer Key : (B) Petitioner's case : All answers are correct. Expert's View : Based on several Literature in this regard, objection rejected.

(8 of 11)

Question No.60:-

60. Chari folk dance is mainly performed in which district of Rajasthan?

      (A)   Kishangarh
      (B)    Alwar
      (C)   Jaipur
      (D)   Jodhpur
      Model Answer Key:               (A)
      Final Answer Key :              Answer is deleted.
      Petitioner's case :             Answer-(A) is correct.
      Expert's View        :          Though the answer is Kishangarh is

correct but as Kishangarh is a sub-

division not a District, therefore, the question to be deleted.

Question No.63:-

63. Which of the following method is used to measure HC emissions of vehicle?

      (A)   FID
      (B)   CLD
      (C)   NDIR
      (D)   All of these
      Model Answer Key:               (A)
      Final Answer Key :              (A)
      Petitioner's case :             Multiple Answers-(A) & (C) both are
                                      correct.
      Expert's View            :       Based on material produced in

support the Conclusion arrived at, objection has been rejected.

Question No.123:-

123. Clutch Chattering or grabbing is noticeable_______?

(A) At Low speed (B) During Acceleration (C) At idle (D) While engaging the clutch Model Answer Key: (D) Final Answer Key : (C) Petitioner's case : Wrongly changed. Expert's View : Based on elaborate material produced in support of the conclusion arrived at, objection has been accepted.

Question No.136:-

136. According to Motor Vehicle Act, what is the minimum age to get a license for MCWOG?

(A) 16 (B) 17 (C) 18 (D) No such rule

(9 of 11)

Model Answer Key: (A) Final Answer Key : (A) Petitioner's case : Answer-(C) is correct. Expert's View : With reference to proviso to Section 4(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the answer-(A) is correct, whereas the petitioners have relied on Section 4(1), which is general in nature, objection rejected.

In the case of Shubham Vyas (SBCW No.8034/2022):-

Question No.2:-

2. e`R;qat; esa dkSu lk lekl gS?

      (A)    cgqozhfg lekl
      (B)    deZ/kkj; lekl
      (C)    }an lekl
      (D)    rRiq:'k lekl
      Model Answer Key:                 (A)
      Final Answer Key :                Answer is deleted.
      Petitioner's case :               Answer-(A) is correct.
      Expert's View          :          cgqfodYi A vkSj D iz"u foyksfir fd;k tk;sA

¼iz'u esa e`R;qat; "kCn esa lekl iwNk x;k gSA e`R;qe~+t; esa foHkfDr fpg~u dk iwjh rjg yksi ugha gqvk gS vr% ;gk¡ vyqd rRiq:'k lekg gSA rFkk e`R;qat; dk vU; f"ko fudyrk gS ftlds vuqlkj cgqozhgh lekl gksrk gSA

L=ksr%& O;kogkfjd lkekU; fgUnh&MkW- jk?ko izdk"k] fiad flVh ifCy"klZ] t;iqj] la-2015]i`-la-145½ Question No.26:-

26. fuEu esa ls fdl "kCn esa milxZ dk iz;ksx ugha gqvk gS?

(A) fpjLFkk;h (B) mupkl (C) ledks.k (D) ifjfpr Model Answer Key: (D) Final Answer Key : Answer is deleted. Petitioner's case : Answer-(D) is correct.

Expert's View : pkjksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh fodY; lgh ugha gSA iz"u foyksfir fd;k tk;sA ¼L=ksr%& ¼1½ ljLorh ekud fgUnh O;kdj.k ,oa jpuk] MkW- dey lR;kFkhZ] i`-la-75 ¼2½ O;kogkfjd lkekU; fgUnh&MkW- jk?ko izdk"k] fiad flVh ifCy"klZ] i`-la-172½

(10 of 11)

Question No.25:-

25. One power stroke is equal to how many revolutions of crankshaft in four stroke engine?

      (A)   One
      (B)   Two
      (C)   One Half
      (D)   Varies as per speed
      Model Answer Key:              (B)
      Final Answer Key :             (C)
      Petitioner's case :            Answer-(B) is correct.
      Expert's View       :          The Experts with reference to

elaborate material produced, have accepted objection and have found Answer-(C) as correct.

Question No.87:-

87. Which of the following is not a type of frame?

      (A)    Integral Frame
      (B)    Section - Integral Frame
      (C)    Half - Integral Frame
      (D)    Conventional Frame
      Model Answer Key:                (C)
      Final Answer Key :               (B)
      Petitioner's case       :        Answer-(C) is correct.
      Expert's View           :        The Experts with reference to

elaborate material produced, have accepted objection and have found Answer-(B) as correct.

Question No.90:-

90. Which of the following is not an integral part of Telescopic type shock absorber?

      (A)   Piston with orifice
      (B)   Internal Coil Spring
      (C)   Cylinder
      (D)   Lower arm
      Model Answer Key:              (D)
      Final Answer Key :             (B)
      Petitioner's case :            Answer-(D) is correct.
      Expert's View       :          With reference to elaborate material

produced, have accepted objection and have found Answer-(B) as correct.

Question No.123 - This question No.123 is similar to that raised by the petitioner -

Laxman Singh Bhati, which has already been dealt hereinbefore.

(11 of 11)

From what has been extracted hereinbefore, the objections

pertaining to various questions raised by the petitioners, already

stand elaborately dealt with by the Expert Committee and as

noticed hereinbefore, in view of the principles repeatedly laid

down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to interference by this

Court as well as the nature of questions mainly pertaining to

Engineering, qua which, this Court lacks expertise and the

petitioners have failed to indicate any arbitrary decision on part of