Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Juned Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40353) on 23 November, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:40353]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17495/2023
1. Juned Khan S/o Israfat Ali, Aged About 26 Years, B/c
Muslim, R/o Behind Lohia College Ward No. 24, District
Churu (Raj.).
2. Mubarik Khan S/o Liyakat Ali Khan, Aged About 31 Years,
B/c Muslim, R/o V.p.o. Jhariya, District Churu (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary),
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur (Raj.) Office
Address Agriculture Management Institution Campus
Durgapura Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Chairman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG assisted by
Mr. Deepak Chandak.
Mr. Vinit Sanadhya a/w Mr. Priyanshu
Gopa.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
23/11/2023
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
controversy raised in the present writ petition is identical to S.B
Civil Writ Petition No.12526/2023 (Shameena Bano Ansari
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 06.10.2023
alongwith other connected matters. The order dated 06.10.2023
reads as follows:-
[2023:RJ-JD:40353] (2 of 4) [CW-17495/2023]
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Briefly, the facts noted in the present case are that
the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board invited applications
for direct recruitment for filling up the posts of Teacher
Grade III, Level-II (Urdu Subject) vide Advertisement
dated 16.12.2022. The petitioner, being eligible,
submitted their application for appearing in the
examination conducted by the respondents on
28.02.2023.
The preliminary answer key was published by the
respondents on 18.03.2023 and on the same date, the
objections to the answer key were invited. Number of
persons filed their objections to the respondents and
after dealing with the objections so received by the
respondents, the final answer key was published by the
respondents on 09.06.2023.
The petitioners have approached this Court by way
of filing the present writ petitions on the ground that the
answers published by the respondents at the preliminary
stage i.e. on 18.03.2023 were stated to be correct,
however, after dealing with the objections received by
them, the answers to the questions which were correct in
the preliminary answer key were changed/deleted in the
final answer key published, therefore, the correct
answers given by the petitioners were changed without
there being any reasonable and possible explanation.
Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement
that the controversy involved in the present case is
squarely covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in
a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10309/2023 (Raman Choudhary Vs. The
Chairman of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board & Anr.
[2023:RJ-JD:40353] (3 of 4) [CW-17495/2023]
and other connected matters, decided on 05.10.2023,
wherein this Court has held as under:-
"In view of the submissions made before this Court,
this Court is of the view that the Courts are not the expert
body to adjudicate upon the fact that which answer to the
question in the question paper made by the respondents is
correct. The subject matter lies within the domain of the
expert body and, therefore, it has to be adjudicated by an
expert committee only, comprising of the experts on the
subject.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar
Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in
(2021) 2 SCC 309 has held as under:-
"12. In view of the above law laid down by
this Court, it was not open to the Division
Bench to have examined the correctness of
the questions and the answer key to come to
a conclusion different from that of the Expert
Committee in its judgment dated
12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the
Appellants on Richal and Ors. v. Rajasthan
Public Service Commissioner and Ors. (2018)
8 SCC 81. In the said judgment, this Court
interfered with the selection process only
after obtaining the opinion of an expert
committee but did not enter into the
correctness of the questions and answers by
itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not
relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this
case.
13. A perusal of the above judgments would
make it clear that courts should be very slow
in interfering with expert opinion in academic
matters. In any event, assessment of the
questions by the courts itself to arrive at
correct answers is not permissible. The delay
in finalization of appointments to public posts
is mainly caused due to pendency of cases
challenging selections pending in courts for a
long period of time. The cascading effect of
delay in appointments is the continuance of
those appointed on temporary basis and their
claims for regularization. The other
consequence resulting from delayed
appointments to public posts is the serious
damage caused to administration due to lack
of sufficient personnel."
In view of the discussions made above, the present
writ petitions are disposed of with a directions to the
respondents to refer the questions mentioned in these writ
[2023:RJ-JD:40353] (4 of 4) [CW-17495/2023]
petitions to the experts appointed by them (other than
those who had already finalized the objections to the
preliminary answer key dated 18.03.2023). The expert
body, while re-examining the matter, shall take into account
the submissions made in the present writ petitions and
thereafter pass appropriate orders with respect to the
adjudication made by them on the objectionable questions
raised in these writ petitions. The said exercise of
examination by the expert body shall be completed within a
period of four weeks from today and if the respondents find
the report of the expert committee giving any change to the
answers adjudicated by them in the final answer key, they
will take the appropriate measures for revising the result.
Needless to say, if the petitioners come in the merit
after revision of the result, appropriate action will be taken
for processing their case for appointment.
It is also made clear that question Nos.3, 27 & 50 of
the Master Question Paper need not be sent to the expert
body for re-examination.
A photocopy of this order be placed in each connected
file."
For the self same reasons, the present writ petitions
are also disposed of with the same direction as has been
given in the case of Raman Choudhary (supra)."
2. In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petition as
well as stay petition are disposed of on the same terms. All
pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
8-supp-Jitender
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
