Jamna vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8038 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33382] (1 of 4) [CW-9611/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9611/2023

Jamna D/o Jetha Ram Jat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o VPO Rol, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Rajasthan (Roll No.3101648).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Chairman Premises Of State Agriculture Management Institute Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mt. Tanwar Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya with Mr. Priyanshu Gopa

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

(Subject Social Studies) vide Advertisement dated 16.12.2022.

The petitioner, being eligible, submitted his application for

appearing in the examination conducted by the respondents on

26.02.2023.

[2023:RJ-JD:33382] (2 of 4) [CW-9611/2023]

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 02.06.2023.

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the

present writ petition 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 petitioner 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, therefore, it has to be adjudicated by an

[2023:RJ-JD:33382] (3 of 4) [CW-9611/2023]

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

[2023:RJ-JD:33382] (4 of 4) [CW-9611/2023]

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 petition is also

disposed of with the same direction as has been given in the case

of Raman Choudhary (supra).

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 279-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)