Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Darshna Devi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 November, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:37968]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15503/2023
Darshna Devi D/o Shri Bhagat Ram W/o Late Shri Nourang Lal,
Aged About 32 Years, 1 H, Bada Madera, District Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan - 335001
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Education Department Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
3. The Director, Directorate Of Secondary Education, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogendra Singh Arnay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
06/11/2023
1. Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents fairly submits that the controversy involved in the
present writ petition is no more res-integra and it is covered by
the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court
in Raman Choudhary Vs. The Chairman, RPSC & Anr. : S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.10309/2023 and other connected writ
petitions on 05.10.2023. The relevant portion of the order reads
as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:07 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:37968] (2 of 4) [CW-15503/2023]
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that some
of the answers to the questions published in the final
answer key are factually incorrect as per the authenticated
textbooks available on the subject. They submit that on
account of the incorrect answers taken to be correct by the
respondents, the candidature of the petitioners is being
found less meritorious and thus, they will not be considered
for appointment/will be considered less meritorious on the
post of Teacher Level-II. Learned counsel for the
petitioners, therefore, pray that the disputed questions as
mentioned in the writ petitions may be referred to the
experts for re-examination and the submissions made in
the present writ petitions may be taken into account by the
experts while reexamining the matter and if the experts
find the answers given by the petitioners to be correct,
appropriate marks should be awarded to them by revising
the final result of the examination.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the respondents, after inviting the objections
on the preliminary answer key, referred the matter to the
experts and the experts, after dealing with the objections,
published the final answer key. He further submits that the
answer key published by the respondents is based on the
opinion expressed by the experts appointed by them.
However, learned counsel for the respondents is not
in a position to refute the submission made by the counsel
for the petitioners that some of the answers to the
questions, on the face it, are incorrect. He submits that
they are not the experts to adjudge the correct answer and
it is for the experts to adjudicate the correct answers of the
questions in the question paper. He, therefore, very fairly
submits that the matter can be got reexamined by a
separate set of experts and if the answers finalized by the
respondents in the final answer key require any change on
the expert opinion, they will do the needful and revise the
result.
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:-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:07 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:37968] (3 of 4) [CW-15503/2023]
"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
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,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:07 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:37968] (4 of 4) [CW-15503/2023]
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 reexamination.
A photocopy of this order be placed in each
connected file."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner is also in agreement with the
aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondents.
3. Accordingly, this writ petition is also disposed of in the light
of the decision rendered vide order dated 05.10.2023 in Raman
Choudhary's case (supra). All pending applications also stand
disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
37-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
