Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Surendra Choudhary vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ... on 11 September, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

   [2024:RJ-JD:37874]                   (1 of 7)                       [CW-13561/2024]


         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                          JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13561/2024

    1.      Surendra Choudhary S/o Shri Kheta Ram Choudhary,
            Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No. 51, Saran Nagar C
            Road, Opposite Veer Teja Bridge, Ajmer Road, Jodhpur.
    2.      Laxman Ram S/o Shri Suja Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
            R/o Dewasiyo Ka Bas, Banjara, District Jodhpur.
    3.      Shubham Devasi S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Dewasi, Aged
            About 34 Years, R/o Dewasiyo Ki Dhani, District Jodhpur.
    4.      Kapil Choudhary S/o Shri Sawal Ram Choudhary, Aged
            About 33 Years, R/o Village Govindpura, Tehsil Baori,
            District Jodhpur.
    5.      Manish Dewasi S/o Shri Suja Ram, Aged About 24 Years,
            R/o Ma Mateswari Hostel, Rikitya Bheru Ji Choraha,
            District Jodhpur.
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
    1.      Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its
            Chairman, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute
            Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.
    2.      The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government
            Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
    3.      The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
    4.      The Director, Directorate Of Treasury And Accounts
            Department, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


    For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Vivek Firoda & Mr. Jayram Saran
    For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Manish Patel, AAG
                                   Mr. Rakesh Arora & Mr. Naresh Singh


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Reportable                            Order
    11/09/2024

         Heard learned counsel for the parties.





 [2024:RJ-JD:37874]                   (2 of 7)                     [CW-13561/2024]

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that

result of the Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant

published by Rajasthan Staff Selection Board on

27.06.2024(Annex.10) may be quashed and set aside. It is further

prayed that the marks of deleted questions should not be taken

into consideration while preparing the merit list.

Briefly noted the facts of the present writ petition are that

the petitioners being eligible in all respects applied for the post of

Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant by way of filing

their applications in pursuance of the advertisement dated

20.06.2023 issued by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

As per the Scheme of Examination, the competitive examination

included two papers namely paper-I and paper-II and each would

carry a maximum 450 marks. It was provided that a candidate

must score a minimum of 35% in each paper-I and paper-II and

40% marks in aggregate and relaxation in minimum marks upto

5% would be applicable to the candidates of Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribes Candidates. As per the scheme of examination

Paper-I, consisted of six subjects, namely, Hindi, English, General

Knowledge of Rajasthan, Everyday Science, Mathematics and

Basics of Computer with a total of 150 questions, each subject

contributing 25 questions, similarly Paper-II comprised of 150

questions with 25 questions from subjects i.e. Book Keeping and

Accountancy, Business Methods, Auditing, Indian Economics,

Rajasthan Service Rules and G.F & A.R. Pt.I. After the examination

was conducted, the respondents found that certain questions were

either improperly asked or there was some confusion with regard

[2024:RJ-JD:37874] (3 of 7) [CW-13561/2024]

to those questions, therefore, the respondents thought it proper to

delete those questions.

The marks of those deleted questions were added to the

questions which are asked from the same subject meaning

thereby if question is deleted from 25 questions of Paper-I for

example - Hindi then the marks of deleted question will be

distributed in rest of questions of that subject only i.e. Hindi. In

these circumstances, the petitioners preferred this writ petition

assailing the validity of adjudicating the question papers and

adjustment of the marks done by the Staff Selection Commission.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

calculation of the marks done by adding the marks of the deleted

questions in the questions of the same subject is faulty. The

deleted questions should be removed either from the total

marking or the bonus marks for those deleted questions should be

awarded to all the candidates.

To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners

has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of

this Court at Jaipur in Jitendra Kumar Jhalani vs. State of

Rajasthan ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16800/2012) and

other connected matters, decided on 14.12.2012 as well as the

judgment rendered by Division Bench at Jaipur in case of Ravi

Kumar Khandelwal & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.,

(D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.210/2013), decided on

22.04.2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

respondents have changed the rules of game after the exercise for

selection was started. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition

[2024:RJ-JD:37874] (4 of 7) [CW-13561/2024]

filed by the petitioners may be allowed and the respondents may

be directed to recalculate the marks either after deleting the

marks of those deleted questions or by awarding bonus marks to

all the candidates.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

in order to keep parity in the matter of distribution of marks in

each subject, the methodology, which has been adopted by the

Competent Authorities of the respondent Department, is that after

deleting a particular question from a particular subject, the marks

of that deleted question shall be distributed proportionately to the

questions of that particular subject only. He further submits that

since each subject has been assigned specific number of

questions, therefore, in order to adjudge the knowledge of a

particular candidate in a particular subject, the above stated

system has been adopted. Learned counsel for the respondents

further submits that by adopting this system, no prejudice has

been caused to the petitioners as even the respondents were not

aware of the consequences of deletion of questions in a particular

subject and, therefore, the system adopted by the respondents

cannot be alleged to be faulty.

Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a judgment

rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ

petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12077/2019

(Vinod Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on

03.01.2020 and judgment rendered by Division Bench of this

Court in a batch of Special Appeals led by D.B. Spl.Appeal Writ

No.186/2017(Narendra Singh Rathore vs. Rajasthan Public

Service Commission & Ors), decided on 08.03.2017, wherein,

[2024:RJ-JD:37874] (5 of 7) [CW-13561/2024]

the system of grant of marks adopted by the respondents in the

present case was the subject matter and the same was approved

in these two judgments. Learned counsel for the respondents,

therefore, submits that the respondents have adopted a total

transparent and fair procedure for distribution of marks on

account of deletion of certain questions. He, therefore, prays that

the writ petition may be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case.

The selection procedure for appointment on the post of

Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant was undertaken

by the respondents by issuing an advertisement on 20.06.2023.

After the examination was conducted, the respondents came to

the conclusion that certain questions are required to be deleted

and, therefore, the marks of those deleted questions were

distributed in the questions of same subject of which the question

was deleted. It is also noted that in the scheme of things, paper-I

& paper-II comprised of six subjects each and from each subject,

25 questions were asked for in the question paper, therefore, the

questions which were deleted from a particular subject, the

respondents have adjusted the marks of that deleted questions in

that particular subject from which the question has been deleted.

In the opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by the

respondents is just and proper. The Coordinate Bench of this Court

in case of Vinod Kumar (supra) was faced with the same situation

and it was held as under :-

[2024:RJ-JD:37874] (6 of 7) [CW-13561/2024]

"Taking of the issue of distribution of marks pertaining to deleted questions subject-wise, it would be noticed that the question paper was bifurcated in a manner that subject-wise questions were asked as under :-

                     Question No.                        Subject
                       1 to 20                        Horticulture
                       21 to 35                            Hindi
                       36 to 55                        Agronomy
                       56 to 75                           Animal
                      76 to 100                             G.K.


             Once      the       respondents           had      distributed       the

questions subject-wise, their action in distributing the marks of deleted questions subject-wise cannot be faulted, inasmuch as, advantage of deletion of questions by way of enhancement of maximum marks for each question must be given subject-wise, so that a candidate who has attempted particular questions in a particular subject would not suffer on account of the deleted questions. If the marks pertaining to deleted questions were to be distributed equally in all the remaining questions, the over all maximum marks of other subjects would increase changing the weightage provided by the respondents, which would not be justified and therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners in this regard cannot be accepted".

Deletion of questions from a particular subject and

distribution of their marks proportionately in the remaining

questions of the same subject does not make any discrimination

between the candidates. It cannot be preempted that a particular

question set out in the paper will be deleted as it is not possible to

anticipate in advance that a particular question will entail deletion.

The disputed questions stand deleted qua all the aspirants without

any prejudice to the petitioners.

[2024:RJ-JD:37874] (7 of 7) [CW-13561/2024]

The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the

present case as in that judgment itself it was held that it will not

be treated as a precedent.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the

respondents have changed the rules of game after the exercise for

selection has been started, is noted to be rejected on the ground

that the procedure adopted by the respondents for award of

marks of the deleted questions is just, fair and impartial in the

present case.

If the procedure adopted by the respondents is fair and

impartial and because of that even if some candidates are

adversely affected, the Court may refrain from intervening for

larger benefit of the candidates, who have participated in the

selection process.