Parul Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9236 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:38496]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9724/2023

Renu Kumari D/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of V.p.o Fojuwala, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, Districat Sri Ganaganagar (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Pachayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Chairaman.

3. The Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8686/2023 Parul Sharma D/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Near Ram Dev Mandir, Raisinghnagar, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Employees Board, Jaipur, Through Its Chairman.

3. The Rajasthan Employees Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15467/2023 Mukesh Kumawat S/o Shri Uday Lal, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Kumawat, R/o Village Emdi, Post-Jk Tyre Factory, Kankroli, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

[2023:RJ-JD:38496] (2 of 6) [CW-9724/2023]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariate Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur.

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

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. SR Godara
                                Mr. Inderjeet Yadav
                                Mr. Dinesh Chandra Mali
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG
                                Mr. Priyanshu Gopa for Mr. Vinit
                                Sanadhya

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

07/11/2023

1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the

controversy involved in the present writ petitions are squarely

covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Raman

Choudhary Vs. The Chariman of Rajasthan Staff Selection

Board & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10309/2023)

decided on 05.10.2023 along with other connected matters. The

order is reproduced hereunder :-

"The present bunch of writ petitions are based on identical facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

For brevity, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10309/2023 "Raman Choudhary Vs. The Chairman of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board & Anr." are being taken into consideration.

Briefly, the facts noted in the present case are that the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board invited applications

[2023:RJ-JD:38496] (3 of 6) [CW-9724/2023]

for direct recruitment for filling up the posts of Teacher Level-II (Punjabi) vide Advertisement dated 16.12.2022. The petitioner, being eligible, submitted his 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. Thereafter, a provisional result for the purpose of Document Verification was also 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.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:38496] (4 of 6) [CW-9724/2023]

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 re-examining 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 re-examined 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:38496] (5 of 6) [CW-9724/2023]

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:38496] (6 of 6) [CW-9724/2023]

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."

2. In that view of the matter, the present writ petitions are also

disposed of in light of and with similar direction as given in the

case of Raman Choudhary (supra).

3. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

316 to 318-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)