Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Piyush Bohra vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 May, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:24041]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5366/2024
Piyush Bohra S/o Sh. Jaidayal Bohra, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Umaidpura, Phalodi, Jodhpur 342301.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Personnel And Training.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ghooghara
Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer 305001, Through Its Chairman.
3. The Chief Examination Controller, Rajasthan Public
Service Commission, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road,
Ajmer 305001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi through VC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
27/05/2024
1. The present petition has been preferred with a submission
that the petitioner has not been awarded the correct marks qua
some of the questions whereas for similar answers given by other
candidates, marks have been awarded to them.
2. As an instance, counsel for the petitioner pointed out
question Nos.12 and 14 of paper IV (Annex.5) wherein the
petitioner had been awarded zero marks whereas other two
candidates whose answer sheets have been placed on record,
have been granted one mark each for the said questions.
3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the RPSC submitted that a
bare perusal of the answer sheets of the other two candidates
would make it clear that they have also not been awarded any
mark wherein only a part of the question has been answered
correctly. Counsel submitted that mark was to be awarded only
when the complete answer was found to be correct. So far as the
[2024:RJ-JD:24041] (2 of 3) [CW-5366/2024]
other subjective questions are concerned, counsel submitted that
the same is not permissible to be re-examined/reevaluted in terms
of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment
by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules of 1999').
In support of his submission, counsel for the RPSC relied
upon the Judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.14302/2017; Mamta Sharma Vs.
Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer &
Anr. (decided on 29.01.2020) as affirmed by the Division Bench
in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.140/2020 (decided on
05.02.2021).
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. This Court thoroughly examined the answer sheet of the
petitioner and the other two candidates as placed on record qua
question Nos.12 and 14. From a perusal thereof, it is clear that to
the other candidates as alleged by the petitioner, only one mark
has been awarded and that too, only where both the parts of
answer were correct. Neither of the candidate has been granted
any mark qua one part of the correct answer. Evidently, the
petitioner has not answered correctly to both the parts of the
question. Therefore, it is clear that no discrimination has been
made.
6. So far as awarding of the less marks in the subjective
papers/part is concerned, this Court is in unison with the view in
Mamta Sharma's case (supra) to the effect that when Rule 18 of
the Rules of 1999 which provides that no re-evaluation is
[2024:RJ-JD:24041] (3 of 3) [CW-5366/2024]
permissible, is not under challenge, this Court in writ jurisdiction,
cannot enter into the role of an examiner and re-evaluate the
marks awarded to any candidate.
7. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
U.P.P.S.C., through its Chairman & Ors. Vs. Rahul Singh &
Ors.; (2018) 7 SCC 254, the Court should not reevaluate or
scrutinize the answer sheet of the candidate as it has no expertise
in the matter and academic matters are best left to academicians.
Relying upon the earlier Hon'ble Apex Court judgments, in
Mamta Sharma's case (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court held as under:
"15.In the light of the judgments placed by
learned counsel appearing for the RPSC, this Court is of
the considered view that Courts cannot examine the
question paper and answer sheets as it does not
have expertise to do so and the Rules also
prohibit re-examination of the answer sheets.
Legality of Rule 18 of the RPSC Rules is not challenged
before the Court. Petitioner herein has scored bare
minimum of 298 marks as compared to the cut-off
marks of 350, hence this Court is not inclined to
entertain the Writ Petition, the same is dismissed. Stay
application stands disposed of".
8. Keeping in with the ratio laid down in the above mentioned
judgments, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present
writ petition and the same is hence, dismissed.
9. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
250-AbhishekK/Devanshi-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
