JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, who is a candidate for selection for appointment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service/ Rajasthan Police Service/ Rajasthan Accounts Service etc., in the combined competitive examination for the year 1989-90, which has been held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R.P.S.C.), has filed this writ petition with the following main prayers : (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the General English paper held by the respondent on 4.8.91 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 1.2.90 (Annexure-l) be declared as illegal and invalid and the respondent be directed to reconduct the paper of General English for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination 1989-90; and (b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the question No. 8 to 17, 18 and 19 of Part B and Question Nos. 22 to 25 of Part C of the paper of General English held on 4.8.91 be declared bad and invalid and the respondent be directed not to take into consideration these questions in the preparation of the result of the paper of General English; and/or (c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent be directed to give the petitioner appropriate relief with regard to question Nos. 8 to 17 and 18, 19 of Part B and Question No. 22 to 26 of Part C of the paper of General English; and/or (d) by an appropriate writ, direction or order, appoint Committee of Experts to give its opinion to the Hon'ble Court with regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition; and (e) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent be directed not to declare the result of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination, 1989-90; and (f) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in case the result of Rajasthan State & Subordinate Combined Competitive Examination 1989-90 are declared, then the same may be quashed and an appropriate relief be granted to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances arising therein as a consequence of the declaration of the result by the respondent. 2. The case set out by the petitioner is that the competitive examination for the State Services has to be held by the RPSC in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962. 2. The case set out by the petitioner is that the competitive examination for the State Services has to be held by the RPSC in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962. In the year 1990, the RPSC issued advertisement for holding combined competitive examination for State Service (1989-90). The petitioner submitted application and indicated the preference to RPS, RAS etc. He appeared in the preliminary examination held on 25.11.90. He was declared successful in the preliminary examination and became entitled for the second stage of the examination which was held from 4.8.91 to 19.8.91. The petitioner appeared in two compulsory papers and four optional papers. The details of the papers with maximum marks allotted for each paper are given below:- Compulsory papers General Hindi M.M. 200 General English M.M. 200 Optional papers Indian History I M.M. 200 Indian History II M.M. 200 Indian Philosophy M.M. 200 Ethics and Metaphysics M.M. 200 According to the petitioner, marks obtained by a candidate in both the compulsory and optional papers in State II are added together with the marks obtained by a candidate at the stage I examination for preparing the merit list of candidates who are to be called for interview. The petitioner prepared himself for second stage examination in accordance with the syllabus published by the RPSC in advertisement Annexure-1. When the petitioner appeared in the compulsory paper of General English, which was held on 4.8.91, he was taken by surprise because the paper, which was divided in three parts, namely, A, B and C, contains questions which was clearly beyond the syllabus prescribed. A large number of questions were beyond his comprehension and, therefore, he could not satisfactorily answer them. Question paper of General English has been placed as Annexure-2. Case of the petitioner is that he had made preparation of the examination in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the Respondent Commission and since as many as 18 questions carrying 160 marks being being the syllabus, the petitioner was put in a disadvantageous position and he could not obtain good marks and there is full likelihood for his loosing the merit. He served a notice for demand of Justice dated 9.10.91 inviting the attention of the Commission. He served a notice for demand of Justice dated 9.10.91 inviting the attention of the Commission. No reply to the notice of demand for Justice has been received and the Commission is directed to declare the merit list. He has thus, filed this writ petition and made prayers which have been quoted herein above. 3. The Commission is empowered to issue instructions including the syllabus for the guidance of the candidates. Once the Commission has issued the syllabus, it is bound to remain within the scope of syllabus and if it is found that questions asked are beyond the scope of the syllabus, the Commission cannot declare the result on the basis of the examination taken with reference to such question paper. The petitioner's contention is that question Nos. 8, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 16 of part B relate to vocabulary and not with Modern English Usage. Similarly question Nos. 10, 18 and 19 of Part B did not relate to spotting of errors. Question No. 17 suffers from error. Question Nos. 23 to 26 of Part C were also clearly beyond the scope of the syllabus. In this manner, the petitioner has been put to serious injury and he will be deprived of his opportunity of selection for the purpose of appointment to State services. 4. In reply to the writ petition, the Respondent Commission has asserted that the paper of General English has been set strictly in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the Respondent Commission. The minimum qualification for competitive examination is graduation and the syllabus prescribed for General English is intended to test the general proficiency of the candidate in English language. The syllabus is meant only to give guidelines to the paper setter as well as candidates appearing in the Combined Competitive Examination. The questions which are intended to test the elementary knowledge of the candidate cannot be termed as the questions beyond the syllabus. The general grammar is a part of the English language and the basic knowledge of the grammar is essential for a person appearing in the General English paper. All the questions relate either to grammer or modern English usage and any person having some knowledge of language is supposed to know the elementary usages. The Respondent Commission has also stated that the petitioner had appeared in the examination held on 4.8.91. The entire II stage examination concluded on 19.8.91. All the questions relate either to grammer or modern English usage and any person having some knowledge of language is supposed to know the elementary usages. The Respondent Commission has also stated that the petitioner had appeared in the examination held on 4.8.91. The entire II stage examination concluded on 19.8.91. Neither the petitioner, nor any other person raised any grievance immediately after appearing in the paper. It was only after about two months that the petitioner has served a notice for demand of Justice. In the notice he himself admitted that Part A and C of the question paper were according to the syllabus. Only question Nos. 8 to 19 were beyond the scope of syllabus. After receipt of the notice, the matter was referred to the Head Examiner and after considering the whole matter, the Head Examiner submitted his comments. According to the Respondent, from these comments it is apparent that no illegality or error has been committed in asking the questions to the candidates as per the question paper of General English. The Respondent Commission has lastly submitted that in all 5157 candidates had appeared in the question paper of General English and nobody except that the petitioner had objected in the paper of General English. The petitioner waited for almost two months before raising any objection. 5. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner in which he has reiterated the same facts as in the writ petition. He enclosed opinion of Shri R.P. Bhatnagar on the question paper in order to establish that a number of questions were beyond the scope of the syllabus prescribed by the R.P.S.C. 6. Shri Amod Kasliwal, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that as per provisions of Rule 7, Syllabus for the examination is to be in conformity with the provision in Schedule III of these rules and once the Commission has issued the Syllabus alongwith the advertisement, it is not permissible to ask the candidate to answer the questions which are not part of the Syllabus. Shri Kasliwal argued that once the Commission has exercised its discretion in Rule 9(2) by issuing instructions for issuing Syllabus for the guidance of the candidates, the Commission has no option but to adhere to the Syllabus issued by it. Shri Kasliwal argued that once the Commission has exercised its discretion in Rule 9(2) by issuing instructions for issuing Syllabus for the guidance of the candidates, the Commission has no option but to adhere to the Syllabus issued by it. By making a detailed reference to the Syllabus prescribed for English language, Shri Kasliwal submitted that the question paper for General English was not in conformity with the Syllabus and the candidates were called upon to answer the questions which are clearly outside the scope of the Syllabus. This has resulted to serious prejudice to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is guilty of violating the statutory provisions contained in 1962 Rules and, therefore, the examination held by it must be declared as illegal, argued Shri Kasliwal. Shri Parihar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate counsel for the Respondent countered these submissions by urging that as-per the provisions of Schedule III, the paper is required to be set in order to test the proficiency of the candidates in the language. The candidate is also required to write essay in English on one of the specified subjects of general interest. Referring to para 3 of the advertisement under the heading 'Personality and Viva voce Examination' Shri Parihar argued that only a brief outline of the scope of the papers for general guidance of the candidate has been given. These guidelines are only illustrative and the Commission can adopt any other mode of testing the proficiency of the candidate in the language. Laying stress on the fact that the candidates are required to appear for the State service posts, Shri Parihar argued that question paper was intended to test the proficiency of the candidates in English language. Therefore, the paper has to be read in the light of the requirement of Schedule III and on such reading no question can be said as beyond the scope of general instructions. Shri Parihar then argued that the petitioner had appeared in the examination fully knowing that the general instructions are not exhaustive. He waited almost for a period of two months after appearing in the examination before giving a notice to the Public Service Commission. No other candidate has made any complaint regarding the question paper of General English during the examination or afterwards. He waited almost for a period of two months after appearing in the examination before giving a notice to the Public Service Commission. No other candidate has made any complaint regarding the question paper of General English during the examination or afterwards. Even then the Public Service Commission referred the matter to the Head Examiner who has also reiterated that no question was beyond the scope of the Syllabus. Shri Parihar submitted that in these matters the Court must not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the experts. The Court cannot act as an appellate authority in such matters. Shri Parihar argued that there is no allegation of mala fide against the Chairman or the Members of the Commission or the Examiner and in the absence of any such allegation, the Court must restrict its power, of judicial review to the scope of interpretation of the Rules of 1962. Even if two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which has been accepted by the Commission must be regarded as correct. 7. Rules 7, 9 and Para 2 of Schedule III under the heading 'Scope of Papers' can appropriately be reproduced for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition "7. Syllabus for Examination - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the rules relating to a particular services, the syllabus for these examination shall be as specified in Schedule III. 9. Contents of Notice and instructions connected therewith -(1) subject to the provisions of these Rules, each such notice shall among other thing state- (i) number of posts to be filled in the various services on the result of each examination, indicating separately the number of posts reserved for candidates of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes : (ii) date of submission of applications for admission; (iii) qualifications required for admission at the examination and the steps to be taken by the candidates to establish their eligibility; and (iv) date and place of examination. (2) In addition to the notice, the Commission may issue, in such other manner as the Commission may deem fit, such instructions including the syllabus for the guidance of the candidates. 'Scope of Papers' Compulsory Subjects 2. General English : The paper will be set to test the candidate's proficiency in the language. An essay to be written in English on one of the several specified subjects of general interest." 8. 'Scope of Papers' Compulsory Subjects 2. General English : The paper will be set to test the candidate's proficiency in the language. An essay to be written in English on one of the several specified subjects of general interest." 8. In the advertisement No. 18/90 which has been published in Rozgar Sandesh, a fortnightly paper of the Government of Rajasthan, the Public Service Commission has specified the syllabus and the scope of papers for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service Combined Competitive Examination 1989-90. In this document under the heading Personality and Viva voce Examination' para 3 relates to standard of the papers. This para reads as under : "3. The standard of the paper will be that of a degree examination of the University of Rajasthan. A brief outline of the scope of each paper is given below for general guidance of candidates, but is not intended to be exhaustive." A perusal of the rules 7 and 9 together with relevant paras of Schedule III and para 3 of the part of Annexure-1 it is clear that the paper of General English is required to be set in order to test candidate's proficiency in the language and he is called upon to write an essay on one subject of general interest. The Commission has the discretion to issue instructions including the Syllabus for the guidance of the candidates. While issuing the Syllabus the Commission has prescribed the standard of papers as that of degree examination of the University of Rajasthan. Brief outlines of the papers has been given for general guidance of the candidates but at the same time the Commission has been cautious to state that the brief outlines are not intended to be exhaustive. Thus, the brief outline, which has been given in Annexure regarding the paper of General English was intended to be only illustrative and that the Commission or the Examiner was clearly entitled to ask other questions intending to test the proficiency of the candidate in the language, namely, General English. 9. In the face of these clear provisions it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commission and/or the Examiner was bound to confine the questions to the various matters specified in the heading 'Scope of Papers'. 9. In the face of these clear provisions it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commission and/or the Examiner was bound to confine the questions to the various matters specified in the heading 'Scope of Papers'. What was specified under the heading 'Scope of Papers' was only a brief outline and it was only illustrative. The Commission/Examiner were fully justified in asking questions as per the standard of degree examination of the University of Rajasthan for the purpose of testing the general proficiency of the candidates. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the questions which were asked in the paper of General English travelled beyond the scope of the degree examination of the University of Rajasthan. Every candidate was, therefore, expected to go through the standard of examination laid down for the degree examination in the Syllabus prescribed by the University of Rajasthan. Moreover the Commission was not bound to ask questions on all topics specified in the Syllabus specified by the University of Rajasthan or from the brief outlines of the scope of paper given by it. The guidelines is basically meant for the general guidance of the candidates and the Commission was not bound to call upon the candidates to answer questions on each and every topics set out. If the paper covers the scope of the degree examination of the University of Rajasthan, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Commission. 10. In the Syllabus of the University of Rajasthan the scope of examination of compulsory subjects including General English has been specified and after having gone through this syllabus, I am convinced that the question paper Annexure-2 was within the scope of the Syllabus of the degree standard examination of the University of Rajasthan. The Head Examiner when called upon to consider the complaint of the petitioner expressed his opinion in the following words : "In this connection, it may be pointed out that the main purpose of the Commission is to test the proficiency of a candidate in English language. For this a certain syllabus is prescribed. But this is meant to serve only as a guideline to the paper setter. It does not surely prohibit him from setting question of a general and elementary nature that do not require any special or technical knowledge. For this a certain syllabus is prescribed. But this is meant to serve only as a guideline to the paper setter. It does not surely prohibit him from setting question of a general and elementary nature that do not require any special or technical knowledge. For example, questions 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 have been set only to test a candidates vocabulary. No special preparation is required and anybody having a reasonable command over english can answer them. Similarly, anybody having a smattering knowledge of English can answer question 9 which involves the use of articles. Actually, one who pleads ignorance of articles can hardly lay any claim to the knowledge of English. With regard to question 10 and question 17 (a), it is not understand how it has been imagined that they are beyond the scope of the syllabus, Question 10 lists sentences for correction that requires knowledge of direct and Indirect speech, Tense usage and Comparison which are very much part of the syllabus. Similarly, question 17 (a) is covered by serial No. 4 of the syllabus; questions 18 and 19 are likewise in accordance with the syllabus because coordination and subordination as well as Direct and Indirect speech clearly figure in it. The other point raised is about the mode prescribed in the syllabus under serial No. 3. Whereas the paper-setter has followed it in question No. 10. He has not followed it in questions 18 and 19. Finding fault with the mode is not at all justified because here again no special preparation is needed to answer these questions the way it is required. Anybody familiar with the rules of Coordination and Subordination and Direct and Indirect speech can answer these questions and anybody not familiar with these rules will find it impossible to answer them even if they were to be set according to the mode mentioned in serial No. 3 of the syllabus. "Therefore, raising such objections is nothing more than attempting to disort facts and indulge in hair splitting with the intention of subverting the very process of testing a candidate proficiency in English language." As against this, the opinion expressed by Shri R.P. Bhatnagar which has been enclosed as Annexure-4 with the Rejoinder goes to show that he has tried to find faults with the language used in the paper. Shri Bhatnagar has not at all considered the scope of the rules, the relevant part of the Schedule and para 3 of Annexure-1 under the heading Personality and Viva-voce Examination'. Therefore, the opinion expressed by Shri R.P.Bhatnagar can be of no assistance to the petitioner, and even if there were some mistakes in the setting of the paper, as thought by Shri R.P. Bhatnagar, it cannot for a moment be argued with any element of justification that the question paper was not set with the object of assessing the proficiency of the candidate in the language. 11. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have time and again emphasised the need of giving due regard to the opinions and recommendations of the expert body in their academic matters. In University of Mysore & anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao & anr., 1964 (4) SCR 575 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed : "We are unable to see the point of criticism of the High Court in such academic matters. Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them, are challenged before courts, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. The criticism made by the High Court against the report made by the Board seems to suggest that the High Court thought that the Board was in the position of an executive authority, issuing an executive fiat, or was acting like a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for its decisions. In dealing with complaints made by citizens in regard to appointments made by academic bodies, like the Universities, such an approach would not be reasonable or appropriate." Although that was a case of University selection but the ratio of the observations made by the Appex Court equally applies to the experts chosen by the Public Service Commission. 12. In dealing with complaints made by citizens in regard to appointments made by academic bodies, like the Universities, such an approach would not be reasonable or appropriate." Although that was a case of University selection but the ratio of the observations made by the Appex Court equally applies to the experts chosen by the Public Service Commission. 12. In the light of the above guiding principles and in view of the interpretation of the rules made above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition dismissed. *******