Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Friyad Khan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 October, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:33215]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12526/2023

Shameena Bano Ansari D/o Mohammad Ramjan, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Gori Mattal, Hariom Market Near Bus Stand Mathaniya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner 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 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12016/2023

1. Friyad Khan S/o Mustaq Khan, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Aguna Mohalla, Ward No. 32, District Churu (Raj.).

2. Pravez Khan S/o Anwar Khan, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Aguna Mohalla, Old Ward No. 31, New Ward No. 42, District Churu (Raj.).

3. Kayum Khan S/o Sattar Khan, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Aguna Mohalla, Old Ward No. 31, New Ward No. 42, District Churu (Raj.).

4. Akram Khan S/o Mustak Khan, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Vpo Modawasi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.).

5. Javed Khan S/o Inayat Khan, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Ward No.17, Near Jeewan Mata Mandir, Churu, District Churu (Raj.).

6. Shabnam D/o Vahid Khan, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Athuna Mohalla, Ward No. 13, District Churu (Raj.).

7. Mohd. Jameel S/o Nabab Ali Khan, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Munyan House, Near Madina Musafir Khana, Ward No. 10, Churu, District Churu (Raj.).

8. Mohd. Faruk S/o Taju Khan, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Athuna Mohalla, Near Madina Musafir Khana, Ward No. 10, Churu, District Churu (Raj.).

9. Javed Khan S/o Babu Khan, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Aguna Mohalla, Old Ward No. 31, New Ward No. 42, District Churu (Raj.).

[2023:RJ-JD:33215] (2 of 6) [CW-12526/2023]

10. Najmin D/o Mohamed Rafique, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Plot No. 296 B, Udyog Nagar, Niwaru Road Jhotwara, District Jaipur (Raj.).

11. Mazid Khan S/o Iqabal Khan, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Aguna Mohalla, Old Ward No. 31, New Ward No. 42, District Churu (Raj.).

12. Abid Ali S/o Bashir Khan, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Aguna Mohalla, Old Ward No. 31, New Ward No. 42, District Churu (Raj.).

13. Javed Khan S/o Mohd. Ikrar, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Ward No. 17 Behind Lohiya College, Churu, District Churu (Raj.).

14. Kalsum D/o Hasan Khan, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Ward No. 28, Near Shubham Hospital, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (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 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12527/2023

1. Nagma Bano D/o Islam Khan, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Vpo Jasrasar, Tehsil And District Churu (Raj.)

2. Shahnaj Bano D/o Najir Khan, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Behind Hotel Shakti Palace, Jaipur Road, District Churu (Raj.)

3. Shabnam Bano D/o Bhanwaru Khan, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Modawasi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

4. Abid Hussain S/o Mohammad Salim, Aged About 39 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Ward No.10 Behind New Idgah Athuna Mohalla, Churu, District Churu (Raj.)

5. Intjar Khan S/o Shokat Khan, Aged About 24 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Vpo Barjangsar Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.)

6. Rabiya D/o Yunas Ali, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Bissau, Jhunjhunu District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

7. Gaffar S/o Saddik Khan, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Aguna Mohalla, Ward No.42 Near Abu Bakar Masjid, District Churu (Raj.)

[2023:RJ-JD:33215] (3 of 6) [CW-12526/2023]

8. Mosim Khan S/o Yunus Khan, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Aguna Mohalla, Ward No.42, Near Abu Bakar Masjid, District Churu (Raj.)

9. Hina Khan D/o Lal Mohammad Khan, Aged About 23 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Ward No.13, Near Maniyaron Ka Kuva Athuna Mohalla, Churu District Churu (Raj.)

10. Samira Bano D/o Ummed Khan, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Aguna Mohalla, Old Ward No.31, Near Masjid, Churu District Churu (Raj.)

11. Abdul Manan S/o Ayub Khan, Aged About 29 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Ward No.18, Near Seersagar Kuva, Churu, District Churu (Raj.)

12. Shaheen D/o Jabir Bhinchar, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Ward No.11 Biga Bas, Shri Dungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secetary, 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. Vinit Sanadhya

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

06/10/2023

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

[2023:RJ-JD:33215] (4 of 6) [CW-12526/2023]

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.

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,

[2023:RJ-JD:33215] (5 of 6) [CW-12526/2023]

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:33215] (6 of 6) [CW-12526/2023]

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).