Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ayush Rao Jagdaley vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 October, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:34766] (1 of 5) [CW-16144/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16144/2023

Ayush Rao Jagdaley S/o Ram Prakash Jagdaley, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Behind Chandra Cinema, Shiv Colony, Chhoti Sadri, Pratapgarh (Roll No. 2260954).

----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)          :    Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG
                                Mr. Vinit Sanadhya



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                     Order

12/10/2023

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 (Science-

Maths) vide Advertisement dated 16.12.2022. The petitioner,

being eligible, submitted their application for appearing in the

examination conducted by the respondents on 25.02.2023.

The preliminary answer key was published by the

respondents on 18.03.2023 and on the same date, the objections

[2023:RJ-JD:34766] (2 of 5) [CW-16144/2023]

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 07.06.2023. Thereafter, a

provisional result for the purpose of Document Verification was

also published by the respondents on 07.06.2023.

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 was changed without there being any reasonable

and possible explanation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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. He submits that on account of the incorrect answers

taken to be correct by the respondents, the candidature of the

petitioner is being found less meritorious and thus, he will not be

considered for appointment/will be considered less meritorious on

the post of Teacher Level-II. Learned counsel for the petitioner,

therefore, prays that the disputed questions as mentioned in the

writ petition may be referred to the experts for re-examination

and the submissions made in the present writ petition may be

[2023:RJ-JD:34766] (3 of 5) [CW-16144/2023]

taken into account by the experts while re-examining the matter

and if the experts find the answers given by the petitioner to be

correct, appropriate marks should be awarded to him 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

petitioner that some of the answers to the questions, on the face

it, are incorrect. He submits that he is 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

[2023:RJ-JD:34766] (4 of 5) [CW-16144/2023]

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

petition is disposed of with a directions to the respondents to refer

the questions mentioned in the writ petition to the experts

appointed by them (other than those who had already finalized

the objections to the preliminary answer key dated 18.03.2023).

[2023:RJ-JD:34766] (5 of 5) [CW-16144/2023]

The expert body, while re-examining the matter, shall take into

account the submissions made in the present writ petition and

thereafter pass appropriate orders with respect to the adjudication

made by them on the objectionable questions raised in the writ

petition. The said exercise of examination by the expert body shall

be completed within a period of four weeks from today and if the