Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3039 (RAJ)

Lalit Mohan Sharma v. R. P. S. C.

2005-11-18

P.S.ASOPA, V.K.BALI, Y.R.MEENA

body2005
Judgment V.K. Bali, J.- Some of the unsuccessful candidates seeking appointment as Primary Teachers pursuant to Primary Teacher Examination, 2004 conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the RPSC) unsuccessfully sought re-evaluation of their answer sheets and preparation of fresh merit list, as a bunch of petitions filed by them came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge at the principle seat of this Court who vide orders dated 25.07.2005 recorded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6067/2005 and connected matters held the plea of petitioners to be devoid of any merit and as mentioned above, dismissed the same. 2. Petitioners in the present case, who too could not secure appointment as Primary Teachers in the same very examination, on the same very grounds sought the same relief and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide orders dated 29.07.2005 while respectfully disagreeing with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge who recorded judgement in Shiv Dayal & Ors. (Supra) dated 25.07.2005 referred the following question for adjudication by the Division Bench: - “Where any defect or ambiguity in a key-answer of a question in the examination is shown, would it be just and proper to exclude suspect question from the paper and not to assign any marks to such question? 3. Honble the then Acting Chief Justice considering the nature of the case, however, constituted a Full Bench to determine the question reproduced above and it is in this manner that the matter is before us. 4. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Counsel representing the respondent Commission, at the very outset, contends that no occasion had arisen at all for the learned Single Judge to refer the matter to larger bench inasmuch as while disagreeing with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in order passed at the principal seat, learned Single Judge at Jaipur took into consideration only part of the findings and that too, without reference and context in which the same came to be recorded. With a view to appreciate the contention raised by the learned Counsel, as noted above, it would be necessary to give relevant facts culminating into reference of the question reproduced above for our answer. 5. With a view to appreciate the contention raised by the learned Counsel, as noted above, it would be necessary to give relevant facts culminating into reference of the question reproduced above for our answer. 5. Petitioners sought issuance of an appropriate writ or order directing respondents to rectify mistakes in the result dated 05.01.2005 by correcting the answer-key right answers of the questions referred in Schedule A of the writ petition and after doing so, to give appointment to them and other persons on the basis of correct answers and prepare correct merit for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III. This relief was sought exclusively on the ground that the correct answers to each question called key-answer which was computerised was partly wrong in as much as key answers on the basis of which result was compiled was wrong being against the recongnised text books. Learned Single Judge at Jodhpur, during the course of hearing, directed the respondent Commission to get the suspect answers checked by a competent committee. The committee submitted its report in favour of the Commission. Learned Single Judge at Jodhpur, however, noted that the committee so constituted had observed only an empty formality and the findings given by it were not supported by reasons. The Court ordered reconstitution of the committee which submitted a lengthy report running into 393 pages. The committee was of the view that the key-answers were correct. Learned Single Judge at Jaipur has himself recorded after reading the Judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered at Jodhpur that the committee was of the view that the key-answers were correct. Immediately after so observing, learned Single Judge at Jaipur opined that it was observed by the learned Single Judge at Jodhpur and that too on the basis of the report, that it could not be held that the key-answers were correct or not. Pertinent observation of the learned Single Judge at Jodhpur which was taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge at Jaipur for referring the matter to the larger bench reads as follows: - “It cannot be said that the answers suggested by the petitioner are the only correct answers and the answers accepted by the Commission as correct answers are undoubtedly wrong answers.” .6. Report of the committee is categorical that the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission to evaluate the answer sheets are correct and this is exactly what has also been found by the learned Single Judge at Jaipur Bench while making a mention of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge at Jodhpur. It is conceded at all ends, even before us, that the committee constituted by the Court at Jodhpur has in its report running into 393 pages, returned a finding that the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission are correct. The observations made by the learned Single Judge at Jodhpur, quoted above, on the basis of which reference appears to have been made to a larger bench, we accept the contention of Mr. Joshi, have not been taken with reference and context in which the same were made. Learned Single Judge at Jodhpur while referring to the report of the committee observed as follows: - .“The Commission in pursuance of the order dated 12.05.2005 reconstituted a Committee consisting of seven persons. The committee met on 31.05.2005, 01.06.2005, 02.06.2005 and 30.06.2005 to consider the questions referred to it in pursuance of the orders dated 02.03.2005 and 12.05.2005. A report of the committee is placed on record by the Commission. From perusal of the report it appears that the committee considered each and every questions referred to it by the Court. The committee considered every question thoroughly and on getting support of various books of the subject concerned including the books approved by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer held that the answers given in the key are correct, the questions are framed properly and are not vague.” .7. The Court then proceeded to deal with rival contontions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties with regard to supplying a copy of the report of the committee to the learned Counsel for the petitioners. While rejecting prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners for supplying them a copy of the report, it was observed as follows: - .“I do not find any merit in the application. The Judgment cited is having no relevance in present set of facts. In the case of S.P. Gupta (Supra) Honble Supreme Court was dealing with a matter where a privilege was claimed by the Union of India with regard to correspondence taken place pertaining to the issue in question. The Judgment cited is having no relevance in present set of facts. In the case of S.P. Gupta (Supra) Honble Supreme Court was dealing with a matter where a privilege was claimed by the Union of India with regard to correspondence taken place pertaining to the issue in question. It is true that in functioning of the State transparency is essential and disclosure of information in normal course is in public interest. However, present one is not a case where some information with regard to working of the Government is sought but it is a report of expert committee which was sought by the Court for its own satisfaction with regard to verify correctness of the answers of the questions asked by the Commission and also the nature of formation of the questions asked by the Commission. The Court sought assistance to adjudicate the controversy from the expert committee and, therefore, the expert committee submitted its report to the Court. The Court thoroughly considered the same and received sufficient assistance in it. It is further relevant to note that this Court on the basis of the report submitted by the expert committee is neither going to hold the answers given by the Commission under the key as correct nor is going to declare those answers wrong. In view of it I do not find any necessity in present circumstances to supply copy of inquiry report to the petitioners. The application, therefore, is rejected.” 8. Observations made by the learned Single Judge at Jodhpur which became the sole reason for referring the matter to the larger bench, it would be apparent, were made in the context of the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties for supplying or not supplying copy of the report of the Expert Committee. In so far as the report of the committee is concerned, observations made earlier, as have been extracted above, would demonstrate that it was held that the key-answers provided by the Commission for evaluating the answer sheets were correct. It was thus not at all a case where answers suggested by the examinees as also the key-answers supplied by the Commission both were correct. The observations made by the learned Single Judge at Jodhpur, extracted above, in our view, cannot be interpreted to mean that the answers to the disputed questions given by the examinees and the key-answers both were correct. The observations made by the learned Single Judge at Jodhpur, extracted above, in our view, cannot be interpreted to mean that the answers to the disputed questions given by the examinees and the key-answers both were correct. There appears thus to be considerable merit in the contention raised by Mr. Joshi that no occasion had arisen to refer this matter to the larger bench. 9. Having held that there was no need to refer this matter to a larger bench, question then arises is as to whether we should remit this case to the learned Single Judge for proceeding and deciding the same on merits or to decide it ourselves. We have pondered over the issue and are of the view that it will be of no use remanding the case to the learned Single Judge as surely, any decision that might be rendered by the learned Single Judge would be open to an appeal before a larger bench even though a Division Bench. Remand of the case would further delay finalisation of this case which pertains to a challenge to the result of examinations held in June, 2004. Learned Counsel for the parties have not opposed decision of this case by a larger bench. 10. The brief resume of the facts culminating into filing of the present petition reveal that the RPSC first respondent herein, issued advertisement No. 1/2004 for appointment of candidates on the post of Teacher Grade III on 02.06.2004. Persons who were eligible to appear in the examination filled up their forms and were called for written examination on 12.09.2004. They were allotted roll numbers accordingly. They appeared in the examination held at various places and result of the same was declared on 05.01.2005 alongwith key-answers. Petitioners, it is their case, were shocked to find from the key-answers that the answers shown in respect of Question Nos. 1, 26, 48, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 72, 73, 74, 77, 79 and 80 were wrong and contrary to the correct answers given in text and other books. Answers of the petitioners were evaluated on the basis of wrong answers given in the key thus resulting into wrongful exclusion of the petitioner from the post under contention. 1, 26, 48, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 72, 73, 74, 77, 79 and 80 were wrong and contrary to the correct answers given in text and other books. Answers of the petitioners were evaluated on the basis of wrong answers given in the key thus resulting into wrongful exclusion of the petitioner from the post under contention. Petitioners and other similarly situated persons are then stated to have approached the respondent Commission and pointed out to its officers patent defects in the key-answers but even though satisfied, the officers did not move to correct the patent wrong. After entreaties made by the petitioners brought no tangible results, the present writ petitions with reliefs as mentioned above, were filed. 11. Respondent Commission has hotly contested the cause of the petitioners and in the written statement filed on its behalf , it has inter alia been pleaded that after receipt of requests from the State of Rajasthan for appointment of 25,712 posts of Teacher Grade-III in primary and upper primary schools under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules. 1996, the respondent Commission issued advertisement on 02.06.2004. The last date for submission of the application form was 05.07.2004. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued on 03.07.2004 regarding reservation provided to women candidates, ex-servicemen etc. and the last date for submission of the application form was extended up to 15.07.2004. A total number of 1,93,417 application forms were received and the examination was conducted on 12.09.2004 at all district headquarters and the result was declared as per the directions of this Court on 05.01.2005. Various writ petitions after declaration of the result were filed in this Court wherein the Rules, process of evaluation/answers to the questions etc. were challenged. Most of these petitions it is stated, have already been dismissed up to the Supreme Court. Present writ petition, it is stated, has now been filed wherein challenge to the question papers alleging that some of the questions were having more than one answer and some of the questions were correctly answered whereas the key-answer of the said question was wrong. After receipt of various representations and also knowledge about Civil Writ petition No. 8591/2005 Man Singh & Ors. After receipt of various representations and also knowledge about Civil Writ petition No. 8591/2005 Man Singh & Ors. vs. State & Ors., which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 04.02.2005, the respondent Commission sought opinion of the experts on the subjects regarding various questions pointed out in various representations and the writ petitions, and the experts opined that the key-answers were correct. In support of their opinion, they gave reference of various books and reports written and published by reputed publishers and experts on the subjects which were approved and recognised publications by the Board of Secondary Education, Central Board of Secondary Education and other bodies. Respondent Commission has then made a reference of all the disputed questions. It is averred that out of the questions which have been disputed, no question was having incorrect answer or contrary to the correct answer given in any of the standard books, as is alleged by the petitioners. Answers of the questions were prescribed by the experts of the field with reference to standard books. The key published by the respondent Commission provided correct answers acknowledged from the text books which were currently read by the students. No prejudice had been caused to any candidate who appeared in the examination. Out of hundred questions, Question Nos. 6 and 97 however carried two correct answers and, therefore, as per advice of the experts, bonus marks had been given to the candidates and none of the candidates was put to any disadvantage in awarding marks. 12. Petitioners have filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the respondent Commission. There is, however, no need to give details of the same as, by and large, it is reiteration of facts pleaded in the writ petition and general denial on the crucial facts pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent Commission. Mention of the disputed questions as given in the written statement and rejoinder shall, however, be made wherever it may be necessary to do so. 13. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined records of the case. 14. Mention of the disputed questions as given in the written statement and rejoinder shall, however, be made wherever it may be necessary to do so. 13. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined records of the case. 14. Before we may however proceed any further, we would like to mention that even though the learned Single Judge at the principal seat had declined prayer of the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in the said case, to supply them a copy of the report of the expert committee and application moved in that behalf was specifically rejected, we have made copies of the report available to all the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 15. The only question that has been detected before us pertains to key-answers provided by the respondent Commission for evaluating the answer sheets of the petitioners being wrong. Even though report of the expert committee constituted for the purpose has given a categorical opinion contrary to the stand of the petitioners, what still being urged is that the Court is competent to examine the correctness of the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission irrespective of the report of the expert committee and further that the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission with regard to the disputed questions are indeed wrong. 16. Expert Committee was constituted on the dint of orders passed by the learned Single Judge at the principal seat in Writ Petition No. 606/2005 Shiv Dayal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan. The dispute, at that time, it appears was only with regard to 11 questions. Petitioners in the present bunch of petitions have disputed 20 questions. Some of the petitioners have gone to the extent of disputing 27 questions. Expert Committee, it appears, has examined all such questions that might have been disputed in any of the petitions. In all, it appears, correctness of the key-answers of 26 questions has been examined by the Expert Committee. The Committee consisted of seven members namely Prof . (Dr.) Lalita Goyal, Institute of Advance Studies in Education (T.T.College), Ajmer; Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, (Physics and History), Lecturer, College Education; Dr.V.S. Bhargva (History), Retd. Principal, E-148, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer; Mrs. Darshna Sharma, Principal (Chemistry Bio); Mrs. Maitri Chorasia (English), Rtd. Principal, Dr. D.C. Gokharoo (Mathematics), Retd. Principal and Mr. V.C. Sharma (Geography), Lecturer. 9.17. (Dr.) Lalita Goyal, Institute of Advance Studies in Education (T.T.College), Ajmer; Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, (Physics and History), Lecturer, College Education; Dr.V.S. Bhargva (History), Retd. Principal, E-148, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer; Mrs. Darshna Sharma, Principal (Chemistry Bio); Mrs. Maitri Chorasia (English), Rtd. Principal, Dr. D.C. Gokharoo (Mathematics), Retd. Principal and Mr. V.C. Sharma (Geography), Lecturer. 9.17. Members of the Committee, appear to us, to be experts in the subjects pertaining to all the questions set up for the examination. Whereas some of the members of the Committee are holding their respective posts, some of them have retired. There is no allegation that any of the members of the Committee acted under influence of any one or tried to favour someone. Omnibus allegation orally stated during the course of arguments that bias of the members of the Committee should be inferred from the fact that even though ordered by the High Court the Committee was constituted by the respondent Commission itself needs to be summarily rejected. 10.18. Culled from the report which as referred to above runs into more than 350 pages, drawing conclusions with regard to correctness of the key-answers on the basis of which result was compiled is based upon various text books. In the written statement that has been filed on behalf of the respondent Commission, all disputed questions have been separately dealt with. The correctness of the key-answers has been authenticated from various references mentioned in the written statement. With a view so as not to burden the Judgment we may refer to the reply filed with regard to the first four disputed questions: “Q. No. 9 Reference got from Rajasthan Sujas Sanchay Page 10. Reference given by the candidte from the book of Class IV about the suitable climate and facility of irrigation. Q. No. 11. Reference got from the book “Rajasthan 2004” written by Shri Dharmendra Bhatnagar and Shri P.K. Singhal, Page No. 25. Q. No. 12: Reference got from “Bhaktamar Strot” Editor Pt. Heera Lalji Jain. II. Reference got from Gyan Kiran Page 75. .III. Reference got from Jain Dharma by Pt. Kailash Chandra Sidhant Shastri Page 43. Q. No. 36: Reference got from “Rajasthn Mein Swatantrata Sangharsh“ published by Jagdish Singh Geholt Sodh Sansthan, Jodhpur Page 89. II Reference got from “Rajasthan Ke Itihas Ka Sarvekshan” by Kalu Ram Sharma & Dr. Prakash Vyas, Page 374. .III. .III. Reference got from Jain Dharma by Pt. Kailash Chandra Sidhant Shastri Page 43. Q. No. 36: Reference got from “Rajasthn Mein Swatantrata Sangharsh“ published by Jagdish Singh Geholt Sodh Sansthan, Jodhpur Page 89. II Reference got from “Rajasthan Ke Itihas Ka Sarvekshan” by Kalu Ram Sharma & Dr. Prakash Vyas, Page 374. .III. Referencegot from “Rajasthan through the ages (A comprehensive history of Rajasthan) Vol.III” by Dr. M.S. Jain, Pages 487 & 521. IV. Reference got from “Rajasthan Ka Ithihas” by Sukhvir Singh Gehlot, Page 137.” 19. It has specifically been averred in the written statement that out of disputed questions no question had an incorrect answer or contrary to the correct answer given in the standard books as mentioned by the petitioners/other candidates. 20. In the context of impressive array of facts, as fully detailed above, we are not inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission for evaluating the answer-sheets of the petitioners were wrong or that despite there being a report by the Expert Committee the Court must take in hand the exercise of finding out as to whether the key-answers are correct or wrong. There is no need to go into the plea raised by the petitioners for examining the disputed questions and the authenticity of the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission in view of the report of the Expert Committee constituted for the purpose. Surely, the Court is not an expert in the field of education and the various subjects from which the question paper was settled. Expert Committee constituted for the purpose has given its report based upon reconginsed text books authored by persons of repute in the field. There is no allegation, whatsoever that the members constituting the Committee did not know or had no specialisation in the concerned subjects nor is there any allegation of bias against them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no occasion at all arises for the Court to further probe the matter. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners needs thus no further comments. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no occasion at all arises for the Court to further probe the matter. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners needs thus no further comments. Suffice is it, however, to motion that while urging that the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission are wrong, all that is being urged is that in some of the recognised text book or books of repute, different answers of the concerned questions have been provided. Assuming what has been urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners to be correct, it would neither be permissible nor just and proper to interfere and order re-evaluation of the answer sheets. 21. In all fairness, we must mention that the learned Counsel representing petitioners in support of their contention that where it is proved that the answers given by the student is correct and the key-answers is incorrect, the students are entitled to relief asked for, have relied upon the Judgment s of the Honble Supreme Court in Kanpur Universitv vs. State of U.P., AIR 1983 SC 1230 ; Madhumohan vs. State of Kerala, 2000 (5) SLR 633, a Division Bench Judgment of A.P. High Court in Govt. of A.P. vs. E. Sudha Rani 1999 (8) SLR 100 and some other judicial precedents. It is no doubt true that examinees are entitled to have their answer-sheets properly and correctly evaluated and arbitrary and capricious acts of the examiners are not immune from interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but the law laid down by the Supreme Court, on facts of this case, is not at all applicable. 22. We may also mention that per contra, Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Counsel representing the Commission has relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra Verma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 325 and the same very Judgment relied upon by the petitioners, in AIR 1983 SC 1230 . 23. In Subhash Chandra Verma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (Supra) it was held that where examination was of objective type and the key-answers had been settled by the paper setter, evaluation of answer sheets by the staff of the Public Service Commission, even though they had no knowledge of the subject, would be valid. 23. In Subhash Chandra Verma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (Supra) it was held that where examination was of objective type and the key-answers had been settled by the paper setter, evaluation of answer sheets by the staff of the Public Service Commission, even though they had no knowledge of the subject, would be valid. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel on Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta, AIR 1983 SC 1230 is on the basis of following observations of the Honble Supreme Court: - “It is true that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.” 24. In view of the discussion made above, finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same. We however leave the parties to bear their own costs. 25. We have decided by the present common order a bunch of writ petitions (mentioned in the annexed Schedule) which were also listed for hearing. The said writ petitions would be disposed of in terms of the order passed by us in this case. Schedule List of Connected Cases which have been decided on 111.2005 with Writ Petition No. 1042/2005 Lalit Mohan & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. & Ors. S.No. Case No. Name of Parties Name of Counsel S/Shri 1.CW 8393/2005 0515 with Arjun Lal Yadav vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer Sudesh Bansal [P] S.N. Kumawat [R] 2.CW 1434/2005 CMS 1300/2005 with Ram Babu Vijay Vergia & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Anr. Chandra Prakash Sharma[P] S.N. Kumawat [R] 3.CW 1435/2005 CMS 1301/2005 with Om Prakash Sharma vs. State of Raj & Anr. Chandra Prakash [P] S.N. Kumawat [R] 4.CW 1436/2005 CMS 1302/2005 with Brija Mohan Sharma vs. State of Raj & Anr. Chandra Prakash [P] S.N. Kumawat [R] 5.CW 1454/2005 CMS 1313/2005 with Rajesh Singh Naharwal & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Anr. R.P. Garg [P] S.N. Kumawat [R] 6.CW 1243/2005 CMS 1132/2005 with Satya Narain Sharma & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer Ram Pratap Saini [P] [R] 7.CW 1773/2005 CMS 1595/2005 with Shyam Sunder Drivedi vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Anr. Chandra Prakash [P] S.N. Kumawat [R] 5.CW 1454/2005 CMS 1313/2005 with Rajesh Singh Naharwal & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Anr. R.P. Garg [P] S.N. Kumawat [R] 6.CW 1243/2005 CMS 1132/2005 with Satya Narain Sharma & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer Ram Pratap Saini [P] [R] 7.CW 1773/2005 CMS 1595/2005 with Shyam Sunder Drivedi vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Anr. Rajendra Soni [P] [R] 8.CW 1772/2005 CMS 1594/2005 with Love Kush Sharma vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Anr. Rajendra Soni [P] [R] 9.CW 1937/2005 CMS 1735/2005 with Man Mohan Sharma & Ors. State of Raj & Anr. Ashok Yadav [P] S.N. Kumawat [R] 10. CW 2053/2005 CMS 1844/2005 with Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Anr. Vijay Pathak [P] [R] 11. CW 1474/2005 CMS 1327/2005 with Satwant Singh Yadav vs. State of Raj & Anr. R.P. Garg [P] S.N. Kumawat [R] 12. CW 1852/2005 CMS 1658/2005 with Shabir Ahmed & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Anr. Ram Pratap Saini [P] [R] 13.CW 1851/2005 CMS 1657/2005 with Sandhya Jindal & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Anr. Mahendra Kumar Jain [P] [R] 14. CW 1887/2005 CMS 1690/2005 with Anjana Kumari vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Anr. D.S. Poonia [P] [R] 10.15. CW 1853 /2005 CMS 1659 /2005 with Arvind Kumar & Anr. vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer D S Bagadia [P] [R} 116. CW 1879/2005 CMS 1682/2005 with Hari Shankar & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Anr. Vinod Singhal [P] [R[ 117.CW 1866/2005 with Narendra Kumar Sharma vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer G.L. Sharma [P] [R] 118. CW 1897/2005 CMS 1701/2005 with Moninder Singh Choudhary & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Anr. Mahendra Sharma [P] [R] 119.CW 1854/2005 CMS 1660/2005 with Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Anr. Satish Khandal [P] [R] 120.CW 1885/2005 CMS 1688/2005 with Bhawani Shankar Vyas & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Anr. V.D. Gathala [P] [R] 21. CW 1718/2005 CMS 1542/2005 with Lalit Kishore Sharma vs. State of Raj & Anr. C. P. Sharma [P] [R] 22. CW 2173/2005 CMS 1941/2005 with Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Raj & Anr. Ashok Yadav [P] [R] 23.CW 2175/2005 CMS 1943/2005 with Sanjay Kumar Jain & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Anr. Kartar Singh Foujdar [P] [R] 4.24. CW 2190/2005 CMS 1957/2005 with Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer Uma Shankar Pandey [P] [R] 25. CW 2173/2005 CMS 1941/2005 with Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Raj & Anr. Ashok Yadav [P] [R] 23.CW 2175/2005 CMS 1943/2005 with Sanjay Kumar Jain & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Anr. Kartar Singh Foujdar [P] [R] 4.24. CW 2190/2005 CMS 1957/2005 with Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer Uma Shankar Pandey [P] [R] 25. CW 2192/2005 CMS 1958/2005 with Mamta Devi vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer Uma Shankar Pandey [P] [R] 26.CW 2153/2005 CMS 1927/2005 with Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Ors. Kamlesh Pareek [P] [R] 27.CW 2126/2005 CMS 1903/2005 with Shiv Raj Singh vs. State of Raj & Anr. C P Sharma [P] [R] 28.CW 2132/2005 CMS 1909/2005 with Meena Kumari Pareek vs. State of Raj & Anr. Kailash Chandra Sharma[P] [R] 29.CW 2536/2005 CMS 2277/2005 with Girri Raj Prasad Joshi vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Anr. Rajendra Soni [P] [R] 30.CW 2518/2005 CMS 2261/2005 with Mukesh Trivedi & Anr. vs. State of Raj & Anr. C.P. Sharma [P] [R] 31. CW 2531/2005 CMS 2272/2005 with Gopal Lal Gupta & Ors vs. State of Raj & Anr. Chandra Prakash Sharma[P] [R] 32. CW 2534/2005 CMS 2275/2005 with Vijay Kumar vs. State of Raj & Anr. C. P. Sharma [P] [R] 33. CW 2535/2005 CMS 2276/2005 with Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Raj & Anr. C P. Sharma [P] [R] 34. CW 1661/2005 CMS 1492/2005 with Mukesh Sharma vs. State of Raj & Anr. R.P. Garg [P] [R] 35. CW 3188/2005 CMS 2855/2005 with Mahesh Chand & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Anr. Kartar Singh Fozdar [P] [R] 36. CW 3621/2005 CMS 3187/2005 with Shamsher Singh Yadav & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Ors. Vijay Yadav [P] [R] 37. CW 3622/2005 CMS 3188/2005 with Sanjesh Kumar Gautam vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer & Anr. Rajendra Soni [P] [R]