Rajasthan High Court
Mohammad Aatif Siddqui vs State Education Departmentanr ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:20711] (1 of 6) [CW-8402/2015]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8402/2015
Munshi Khan S/o Shri Majeed Khan R/o Village Nimbi
Kala, Post Nimbi Khurd, Tehsil Deedwana, District
Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Department of Education
through its Secretary, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11518/2015
Mohammad Aatif Siddqui S/o Mohammad Khalid
Siddiqui, R/o Faiz Manzil, Street Maula Baksh, Rajban,
Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State State of Rajasthan through its Principal
Secretary, Department of Secondary Education,
Secretary, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its
Chairman, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Chirania with
Mr. Gourav Kumawat
Mr. Ayush Singh for
Mr. Punit Singhvi
For : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig
Respondent(s) Mr. S Zakawat Ali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
(Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:20711] (2 of 6) [CW-8402/2015]
Order
02/05/2024
1. The instant petition is filed with the following
prayers:-
(I) The respondents, be directed to award
marks for question No.2, 54 and 61 and
bonus marks for question No.39 of paper-I
i.e. G.K due to wrong deletion.
(ii) The respondents be further directed to
treat the answers of paper-II Urdu of
question No.14, 25, 31 as correct and
award the marks and further question No.
90 be declared as wrong question and be
deleted as all the options are incorrect and
further award bonus marks for this question
of paper-II Urdu.
(iii). The methodology as adopted regarding
deletion of questions and division of marks
in other questions on noticing the wrong
questions by the respondent-commission be
declared as illegal and quashed and set
aside with the directions to award bonus
marks for each wrong question.
(iv) The respondents, be further directed to
appoint Committee of expert persons of the
subject and award the marks accordingly.
(v) The respondent be directed to prepare
the merit list after awarding the marks
against the questions of paper I & II and
then prepare the merit list for subject Urdu
and direct the respondent to appoint the
petitioner on the post of School Lecturer-
Urdu against the OBC category strictly in
accordance with merit from the date
similarly situated candidate will be
appointed with all consequential benefits.
(vi) The respondents, be further directed to
make compliance of the order passed in the
case of Narendra Singh Panwar (supra) and
take necessary actions against the
examination paper setters.
(vii) Any other order which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fir, just and proper in the
(Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:20711] (3 of 6) [CW-8402/2015]
facts and circumstances of the case may
also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that respondent-RPSC issued an
advertisement dated 02.08.2013 qua the post of School
Lecturer for various subjects, out of which 212 vacancies
were categorically mentioned qua the post of School
Lecturer-Urdu. Vide correction letter dated 24.09.2013,
the said posts were raised from 212 to 221. The
concerned examination was conducted on 12.07.2014
and 15.07.2014 and the result was declared on
19.03.2015, in which the petitioner scored 299.3 marks.
The petitioner was duly eligible under his own category
i.e. 'OBC category' as well as under the 'General
Category', as per the cut-off marks issued by the
respondent-RPSC.
3. However, the cause and controversy arose when
due to the deletion of certain questions, the petitioner
and more alike persons were made to suffer. It is
submitted that the respondent-RPSC followed an
aberrant approach by dividing the marks of the deleted
questions equally in all other questions and therefore,
the said act cannot be said to be fair and justified and
had caused grave prejudice to the rights of the
petitioner.
3. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner
has also placed reliance upon letter dated 06.03.2024 as
[2024:RJ-JP:20711] (4 of 6) [CW-8402/2015]
issued by RPSC and it was submitted that vide order
dated 23.07.2023, candidates after a lapse of
considerable period of time were granted appointment,
as per the directions of the Court. Furthermore, it was
averred that the respondents should consider the matter
of the petitioner considering the expert opinion and the
eligible candidates should be granted benefits.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-RPSC
raised a preliminary objection and submitted that no
interim protection/order has been granted in favor of the
petitioner. The petition was filed in the year 2015, after
which subsequent advertisement was issued in year
2018, for the said post. Hence, with efflux of time, the
selection process qua the said advertisement is already
over. In support of the same, reliance has been placed
upon the dictum enunciated in SBCWP No.4777/2021
titled as Surjan Lal Dhawan vs. State of Raj.,relevant
extract of which is reproduced herein-under:-
"Emphasis must be laid on the fact
that the recruitment in question pertains
to the advertisement issued in the year
2018, and selections therewith have been
conducted by the Commission, pursuant
to which appointments have been made
in 2021. Moreover, fresh selections have
been notified by the Commission in the
year 2022 for which the written
examination has already been held in the
month of October 2022, in relation to
which, the model answer key has also
already been issued by the Commission.
Therefore, as on date no relief can be
granted to the petitioners, even if their
[2024:RJ-JP:20711] (5 of 6) [CW-8402/2015]
submissions were momentarily taken to
be tenable."
5. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent-
RPSC submitted that no appointment can be made, at
this belated stage due to the following reasons:
5.1 That subsequent advertisement has been issued in
the year 2018 and the selection process qua the said
advertisement of 2015 is already complete.
5.2 That in absence of any interim order, even after
consideration of merit, no appointment can be made.
5. Heard and considered.
6. Upon perusal of the record and after having
considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel
of both the parties, this Court deems it noteworthy that
subsequent to the advertisement issued in the Year
2015, a fresh advertisement was issued in the Year
2018 wherein, the selection process is already over and
at this belated stage no additional posts can be created.
Moreover, no interim protection was operative in favour
of the petitioner.
7. In light of the judgment rendered by this Court in
Surjan Lal Dhawan (Supra), it is noted that deletion
of questions from any paper, gives equal effect to all the
candidates, therefore, no prejudice of exceptional nature
is caused to the petitioner. It is also observed that, apart
from expert opinion many other considerations are to be
taken note of, while considering the matter of
correction/rectification/deletion of questions.
[2024:RJ-JP:20711] (6 of 6) [CW-8402/2015]
8. Therefore, cumulatively taking note of the
aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the
instant petition.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Neeru/Deepak-454-455
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
