JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions pertain to selection to various posts conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the RPSC'). 2. Advertisement for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in College Education Department was issued on 21.9.2010 and for the post of Medical Officer (Dentistry) and Medical Officer (Homoeopathy) on 8.3.2011. All the petitioners along with others appeared in the selection. The controversy raised in these writ petitions pertains to the question papers set by the Commission as majority of questions are taken from book/guide book/reference book and are verbatim the same. 3. In the present matter, if a candidate prepared himself for selection by reading one book only from where majority of the questions set out then he will remain successful, hence selection aforesaid cannot be said to be fair and proper because it remains to the benefit of those who had referred one book only leaving others. It is urged that competitive examination should be conducted in the manner where question papers are set by the RPSC without copying it from any book or guide. Accordingly, a challenge to the selection to various posts of Lecturer, Medical Officer (Dentistry) and (Homoeopathy) has been made. The posts involved in these writ petitions are different thus brief facts of each writ petition/s are given herein for ready reference.CW No. 8786/2011, 9206/2011, 9225/2011, and 9223/2011 - Lecturer (Hindi), College Education Department - 4. Aforesaid writ petitions pertain to the post of Lecturer (Hindi), College Education. The allegation is that out of 100 questions, 52 questions were from one book only namely; "1000 Hindi Sahitya Prashnottari, author - Kumud Sharma, published by Prabhat Prakashan". It is submitted that the Commission had earlier cancelled selection for the post of Teacher Gr II (Urdu) where majority of the questions were taken from one guide book thus similar treatment should have been given to the present selection.CW No. 9582/2011, Medical Officer (Dentistry) - 5. This writ petition pertains to appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Dentistry) where allegation is that out of total questions, 84 questions were taken from "Dental Pulse, publisher - Swapna Medical Publishers". Petitioners have given comparative statement to indicate as to from which pages of the aforesaid book, questions have been taken.CW No. 8829/2011 - Medical Officer (Homoeopathy)- 6. This matter pertains to appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Homoeopathy) for which 43 posts have been advertised. Petitioners have given comparative statement to indicate as to from which pages of the aforesaid book, questions have been taken.CW No. 8829/2011 - Medical Officer (Homoeopathy)- 6. This matter pertains to appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Homoeopathy) for which 43 posts have been advertised. The allegation therein is in regard to 59 questions taken from a particular guide "UPSC & MD Entrance Examination (Homoeopathy) - Second Edition - by Dr VK Chauhan, MD (Hom) - published by B Jain Publishers (P) Ltd" and answers of the questions are in the same sequence as are given in the aforesaid guide book. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the way selection to the post referred to above has been conducted by the Commission cannot depose confidence as taking majority questions and answers from one and same book is nothing but stereo type working of the paper setter whereas the paper setting is assigned by Commission with instructions to the paper setter not to copy the questions or answers from any guide/reference book but to prepare it at his own. This is to get only meritorious candidates and not a candidate who may have prepared himself by one guide books and fortunately for him, majority of the questions were taken from it making his task to be easy to get selected not on the basis of his merit but due to luck. The responsibility of the Commission is not only to make selection by luck but it should be purely on merit. In the similar circumstances, when an issue was raised to the Commission in regard to selection to the post of Teacher Gr II (Urdu) pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2008, finding majority of the questions from one and same guide book, selection was cancelled thus similar view should have been taken by the Commission in the present matters also but in a discriminatory manner, they have failed to give similar treatment to the selection in dispute hence their action becomes illegal being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, while setting aside the selection for the aforesaid posts, respondents may be directed to conduct competitive examination afresh with a further direction that while setting out questions, paper setter should not be guided by any guide/reference books. 8. Learned counsel for the Commission and the State Mr SN Kumawat contested the matter. Thus, while setting aside the selection for the aforesaid posts, respondents may be directed to conduct competitive examination afresh with a further direction that while setting out questions, paper setter should not be guided by any guide/reference books. 8. Learned counsel for the Commission and the State Mr SN Kumawat contested the matter. It is stated that allegations made by the petitioners for setting out majority of the questions from one guide or reference book are not correct. The Commission conducts selection with utmost caution and fairness. 9. For the post of Lecturer (Hindi), College Education, certain complaints were received regarding questions and answers, accordingly, a committee was constituted by the Commission. The committee recommended to ignore 19 questions. Accordingly, marks were awarded ignoring 19 questions therein. The book ""1000 Hindi Sahitya Prashnottari, author - Kumud Sharma, published by Prabhat Prakashan" contains many questions but writer/author thereof has not been authorised by the Commission, rather, the guide book is not for selection of RPSC but is a guide book read by the candidates in general for all competitive examinations. It may be a co-incidence that certain questions may match from the aforesaid guide book but if the comparative statement is looked into, then similar questions exist in other reference/guide books also. A subject cannot have indefinite number of questions thus whatever probable questions can be framed, such exercise is taken by all the writers/authors. The questions alleged to have been taken from above guide book are available in other guide/reference books also. Thereby, allegation made by the petitioners is not correct and, otherwise, it does not affect merit of the selection because the time given to sort out the answers is quite limited and can be done only by a candidate having proper knowledge and merit in him. If the case of petitioners is taken, then out of alleged similar questions, majority were attempted by them also and if they have merit in them, there is no reason not to get merit position. The writ petitions have been filed knowing it well that petitioners have not done well in the selection. Thus to overcome from their default and unsuccessful-ness, these writ petitions have been filed. The writ petitions have been filed knowing it well that petitioners have not done well in the selection. Thus to overcome from their default and unsuccessful-ness, these writ petitions have been filed. This is more so when majority of the questions for which dispute has been raised were correctly answered by few petitioners, details of which have been given in the additional affidavit filed in CW No. 8786/2011 - Rewant Dan v. RPSC & ors. Learned Additional Advocate General has further given reference to other posts namely Medical Officer, Dentistry and Medical Officer, Homoeopathy. 10. Coming to the facts regarding cancellation of selection to the post of Teacher Gr II (Urdu), it is stated that therein out of 150 questions, 140 questions were taken from one book namely "Anshu Urdu Rehnuma" written by Shakeel Jaipuri for selection to the post referred to above by the Commission. Therein, it was found that the book was meant for RPSC selection and the paper was containing 140 questions out of the said book thereby Commission, after examining and enquiring in the matter, taken it to be a case of 'paper leaked out' hence, cancelled the selection. 11. The cases in hand are not similar as the guide books from which majority of the alleged questions have been taken are not published for RPSC but applies to all selections which include even selection for UPSC. It is further stated that even questions set out by the UPSC or the RPSC are taken into consideration then certain questions would be from one or the other reference/guide book. 12. Looking to the facts aforesaid, selections already made by the respondents may not be cancelled. This is more so when petitioners have not been deprived from their fundamental rights and case of discrimination in reference to the post of Teacher Gr II (Urdu) is not made out. To support the arguments, reference has been made to the Full Bench judgment in the case of "Lalit Mohan Sharma & ors v. RPSC & ors", in Writ Petition No. 1042/2005 and connected cases, decided on 18.11.2005 at Jaipur Bench, wherein, similar controversy was examined by the Full Bench of this court. A reference of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & anr", reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 has also been given. A reference of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & anr", reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 has also been given. The Hon'ble Apex Court decided same controversy in the case of "Basavaiah(Dr) v. Dr HL Ramesh & ors" reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 . Lastly, reference of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of "Shyam Lal v. State of Rajasthan & anr", DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1013/2011, decided on 27.9.2011 at Jaipur Bench has been given. 13. Learned counsel for private respondents/intervenor supported arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and prayed that writ petitions may be dismissed for want of merit therein. 14. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 15. The only issue for my consideration is as to whether selection deserves to be cancelled as questions set out therein alleged to be similar or having resemblance to the questions in the guide/reference book. 16. Facts aforesaid have been disputed by learned counsel for the RPSC Mr SN Kumawat though the reply and the affidavit filed indicate that many of the questions are verbatim the same from one guide/reference book thus it cannot be said that question paper set for the posts in question do not contain same or similar questions with the answers given in the guide/reference book so referred by the petitioners. Thus, on facts, petitioners could establish their cases. 17. The fact now remains is as to whether few or majority of the questions from one and the same guide/reference book can affect selection wherein all the candidates have appeared. To answer the aforesaid question, it would be gainful to refer to the reply and affidavit filed by the Commission indicating that questions showing resemblance or similarity or verbatim the same can be found not only in one guide book but in various similar guide/reference books. 18. For the aforesaid purpose, comparative statements of the questions were submitted by the Commission during the course of arguments. The facts aforesaid indicate that the questions set out by the Commission through paper setter may find place in one or the other guide book or even reference book. 19. 18. For the aforesaid purpose, comparative statements of the questions were submitted by the Commission during the course of arguments. The facts aforesaid indicate that the questions set out by the Commission through paper setter may find place in one or the other guide book or even reference book. 19. The facts aforesaid show that the questions set for competitive examination can find place in one or the other guide book hence, if a selection is set aside on the aforesaid ground alone, then it would, if not impossible, then difficult to hold selection. But then it does not absolve the Commission from their responsibility. This court called upon the RPSC to indicate as to what terms and conditions are imposed on a paper setter. The terms and conditions are not found with required conditions. The aforesaid issue needs concern looking to the multiple litigation coming before this court of the nature aforesaid. Thus proper directions needs to be given by this court to avoid the same. 20. Again, coming to the facts of the present cases, I find that many of the questions set in the competitive examinations are verbatim the same from the guide book referred by the petitioners and few others are similar but fact remains that similarity of the questions exist in many guide book referred and detailed out by the respondent Commission. However, they cannot be compared with that of the selection to the post of Teacher Gr II (Urdu). In the selection to the posts of Teacher Gr II (Urdu), out of 150 questions, 140 questions were from one and the same guide book and shown to be for competitive examination by the RPSC. The RPSC cancelled the selection taking it to be a case of 'leakage of paper'. The question is as to whether cases in hand can be said to be similar so as to treat action of the Commission to be discriminatory. 21. I find that the guide book or reference book were not published for selection by the RPSC but is applicable for all selections thus the cases in hand cannot be said to be similar to that of Teacher Gr II (Urdu). This is more so when guide books referred by the petitioners do not contain indication for selection by the RPSC. This is more so when guide books referred by the petitioners do not contain indication for selection by the RPSC. This court find guide book to be quite bulky hence it cannot be said that by reading one book containing thousands of questions, one can be successful without having merit. This is more so when time given to answer the questions is not much as the questions have to be sorted out quickly thereby a case of discrimination is not made out for that reason also. 22. This is apart from the fact that if cases of the petitioners are looked into, they have even attempted those questions which alleged to be from one particular guide book and few petitioners have answered majority of the questions correctly thus questions from one guide book has not affected selection in any manner, particularly in these cases. In totality of the circumstances, even if it is accepted that many of the questions may have similarity to the questions from one or the other guide book, selection conducted by the respondent Commission cannot vitiate only on that ground unless it is shown and proved that candidates were given impression to read a particular guide book to be successful in the selection. In that eventuality, particular book gets importance so as the writer/author. However, no such circumstances are alleged herein other than that few writers were earlier paper setter for the RPSC but merely for that reason it cannot be termed that every candidate was knowing this fact so as to read a particular guide book. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not convinced so far as merit of the cases is concerned to set aside the selection. 23. This court, however, cannot ignore certain facts which are seen while adjudicating these writ petitions as well as other similar writ petitions. The dispute in regard to certain selections conducted by the Commission come before this court, which are summarised as under - 1. Setting out questions out of syllabus, if syllabus is prescribed. 2. Setting out questions containing in-correct answers. 3. Questions are not correctly set out with proper answers. 4. Questions have more than one correct answers. 5. Questions may have correct answers but key published by the RPSC or recruitment agency contain wrong answers. 6. Questions are set from a guide book thereby application of mind of paper setter does not exist. 24. 3. Questions are not correctly set out with proper answers. 4. Questions have more than one correct answers. 5. Questions may have correct answers but key published by the RPSC or recruitment agency contain wrong answers. 6. Questions are set from a guide book thereby application of mind of paper setter does not exist. 24. Aforesaid few problems are seen by the court in general and litigation on that count is multiplying. It is agreed by the Commission to take care of the aforesaid, however, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that when work is assigned to the paper setter, the questions and answers set therein cannot be opened by the Commission till completion of selection. This is to maintain secrecy thus even Commission can realise mistake indicated above only on completion of examination, when key is published or result is declared. They try to guide the paper setter with a direction to avoid aforesaid problems but, at times, mistakes are committed. Thus, the RPSC has shown its reasons for commission of the mistakes of the nature indicated above but it was expected from them to improve upon the system realising the difficulties. They cannot show their helplessness despite being expert body, rather a constitutional body. 25. It was however agreed by learned counsel for the RPSC that if directions are issued, they will set out new terms and conditions for the paper setter so as to avoid the issues as indicated above. 26. I find that the affidavit and the terms and conditions of paper setter are not sufficient to overcome with the difficulties thus they need to be changed so that such dispute may not be repeated and for the aforesaid purpose, following directions are issued to the RPSC - 1.The Commission should set out a condition that in case of question/s not containing correct answer/s or a question is not having even a correct answer therein or such similar difficulty, the responsibility would be borne by the paper setter with imposition of penalty as due to wrong question or answer, it not only invite litigation but it delays the selection and if selection is set aside, then it entirely comes at the cost of the respondent RPSC. Unless serious conditions are set against the paper setter, repetition of the problems indicated cannot be avoided. 2. Unless serious conditions are set against the paper setter, repetition of the problems indicated cannot be avoided. 2. A condition should also be imposed on the paper setter that if it is found to be a case of copying questions and answers from one guide book so as to be termed to be leakage of paper as happened for the post of Teacher Gr II (Urdu) then they would be liable for all consequences including lodging of criminal case and costs. On account of cancellation of selection to the post of Teacher Gr II (Urdu) the RPSC had to bear cost of the selection on account of misdeeds of the paper setter. 3. It should also be mentioned that as and when default would be found in setting out paper on any ground mentioned above, then the paper setter would not only be black listed but it should be communicated to all the Public Service Commission of the States and Union Territories and the UPSC so as to eliminate name of the said paper setter. Accordingly, while engaging a paper setter, it should be made clear that questions should be framed with his/her acumen and therein he should not take questions and answers from any guide book. This would avoid problem of the type involved herein though may not have affected the selection but a slightest possibility of the nature of dispute raised herein should be avoided by the Commission. 27. In the present matter, for the post of Lecturer (Hindi), 19 questions had to be ignored on the recommendations of the committee. If out of 100, 19 questions are ignored, then merit is judged based on remaining 81 questions only. The RPSC, no doubt, true cannot look into the questions and answers before the selection thus as to whether questions and answers are correctly set or not can be revealed to the Commission on declaration of answer key or the result but then, at least paper setter is required to be imposed with heavy penalty in that eventuality. If such problems may not be eliminated then it may at least be minimised. The imposition of penalty may be in terms of money which should not be of an amount one can easily bear but should be an amount which may keep a person alive and alert about his responsibility and heavy cost. 28. If such problems may not be eliminated then it may at least be minimised. The imposition of penalty may be in terms of money which should not be of an amount one can easily bear but should be an amount which may keep a person alive and alert about his responsibility and heavy cost. 28. The RPSC is given further direction to look into such similar issues and thereby set out new terms and conditions and affidavit may be taken from the paper setter accordingly. This will minimise litigation against RPSC and avoid delay in selection apart from costs, if selection is ultimately cancelled. 29. Compliance of the above directions should be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, with a copy of the compliance report to this court, to be submitted in the month of September, 2012. 30. With the aforesaid, all the writ petitions are disposed of so as the stay applications.Petition disposed of. *******