Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Satnam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 October, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (1 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10309/2023

Raman Choudhary S/o Sadul Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 08, 11 DLP, VPO Dholipal, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Chairman Of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Agricultural Management Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

2. The Coordinator Of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Agricultural Management Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10057/2023 Pardeep Saini S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gali No. 1 Ward No. 31, Near Government N.M Pg College, Indira Colony, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh (Raj)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj)

2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj) Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10062/2023

1. Satnam Singh S/o Shri Ajaib Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, 12 MJD, Near School, Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.

2. Lakhvinder Singh S/o Shri Jeet Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Shahpini, 18 AMP, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

3. Narender Singh S/o Shri Harbans Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Kamisar, 37 SSW, Hanumangarh

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (2 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

(Raj.).

4. Gurvinder Singh S/o Shri Sukhpal Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Ward No. 16, Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

5. Gurvinder Singh S/o Shri Santokh Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Ward No. 8, 49 Gg A, 49, Gg-A 50 Gg, Ganganagar District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

6. Akta Saharan D/o Shri Vinod Saharan, Aged About 25 Years, Ward No. 11, 4 Rtp, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

7. Harvinder Singh S/o Shri Shingara Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Village 3Dd, P.o. 4 Dd, Delwan, Padampur Ganganagar District Sri Ganganagar.

8. Sakshi W/o Shri Yogesh Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, Vpo Amarpura Jalu Khat, Tehsil Sangaria, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

9. Imanti Godara W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, Ward No. 9, 2Y, 2Y Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

10. Seema Rani W/o Shri Sukhpreet Singh, Aged About 32 Years, V.p.o. 43 Gg, Karanpur, District Sriganganagar.

11. Anju Bala W/o Shri Anjani Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, Ward No. 10, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10265/2023 Gurdeep Singh S/o Bhura Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Ward No. 07, Sangariya, Tehsil Sangariya, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (3 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Chairman Of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

2. The Coordinator Of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10384/2023 Monika D/o Patram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, 11 Lksa, Lakhasar, Tehsil Pilibanga District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Chairman Of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Agricultural Management Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

2. The Coordinator Of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Agricultural Management Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10583/2023

1. Ajay Pal Singh S/o Shri Jaswant Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 8 Tk, Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

2. Saroj Kumari W/o Shri Gurtej Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Lilanwali, 3 Llw, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

3. Sunita Devi W/o Shri Chander Shekhar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo 1 D Chhoti, Sadhuwali, Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

4. Samandeep Kour D/o Shri Jasveer Singh W/o Shri Gurpreet Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village 7 Ps Raisinghnagar, Sixteen Ps Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

5. Harpreet Kour D/o Shri Avtar Singh W/o Shri Satinder Pal Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Near

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (4 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

Warehouse, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

6. Gurudev S/o Shri Jagan Nath, Aged About 39 Years, R/o House No. 242, Ward No. 5, Karanpur, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11013/2023 Aman Gumber S/o Jai Gopal Gumber, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of - Ward No. 19, Goluwala, Niwadan, Tehsil - Pilibanga, District - Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11081/2023

1. Sukhveer Singh S/o Narjeet Singh, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 3, Village 75Gb Po 72 Gb Ramsinghpur, Anupgarh, District Srigangangar.

2. Amit Kumar S/o Dayal Chand, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Post 11 Ps, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (5 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

2. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12271/2023

Chandar Mohan S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai, Aged About 43 Years, R/o W. No. 14, H. No. 343, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Elementary Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary, Address - State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Road, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14730/2023

1. Subhash Chander S/o Shri Sadhu Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o V.p.o. Dullapur Keri, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

2. Baljinder Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village 48 F, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (6 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12832/2023

Gorav Singh S/o Shri Parmjeet Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Lakad Mandi, Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10424/2023

1. Ravi Kumar Middha S/o Om Prakash Middha, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Padampur, Village Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar

2. Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Rajender Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Near Khalsa Public School, Village Padampur District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Director, Department Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11645/2023

Samiksha Kamra D/o Sh. Om Prakash, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Near Naresh Puri Advocate House, Sir Vijaynagar, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (7 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Elementary Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary, Address State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Road, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Choudhary Mr. J.S. Bhaleria Mr. Praveen Karwa Mr. Surendra Kumar Mr. Vikash Choudhary Ms. Sangeeta Mittal (through VC) Mr. S.K. Shreemali Mr. D.S. Gaur

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya with Mr. Priyanshu Gopa

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

05/10/2023

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 for direct

recruitment for filling up the posts of Teacher Level-II (Punjabi)

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (8 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

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

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (9 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

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 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (10 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

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."

[2023:RJ-JD:33058] (11 of 11) [CW-10309/2023]

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, 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.