Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2042 (RAJ)

Manju Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-08

P.K.LOHRA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sunil Ambwani, Actg.CJ 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This batch of Special Appeals arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 3rd January, 2014 relating to the advertisement dated 24.2.2012 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I and II), issued at the district level by the respective Zila Parishads in the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. All the petitioners were found successful and were given appointment. 3. Some of the candidates, who had appeared in the written objective type examination, filed writ petitions, in which the directions were issued by learned Single Judge of this Court to decide their representations on variety of grounds including the allegations of erroneous options of answers in the OMR sheets, which according to them, had vitiated the results. In compliance of the orders of the Court, a Committee of Expert was appointed and on a report submitted by the Committee, the answer key was corrected. The preparation of the revised list, in pursuance of the corrected answer key, resulted into the orders passed by the Secretary and Commissioner, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Primary Education), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 30.8.2013, by which the petitioners' names were taken out of the select list with a direction issued in para 11 of the order to terminate their services. 4. All those petitioners, who were appointed and that their services were terminated on account of the revision of the select list, on the substitution of the correct answers in the key in OMR sheets, filed writ petitions challenging the orders of their termination. 5. In Hemendra Kumar Jangid & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15788/2013) decided on 19th December, 2013, learned Single Judge sitting at Jaipur Bench of this Court, passed orders as follows:- 1-This court is not inclined to cause interference in the impugned order dated 30.8.2013 so as the orders of termination. 2-The petitioners were appointed and continued in service for nearly 11 months before passing of the impugned order. The appointment and continuance was not to their default, however, this court cannot ignore revision of merit list and consequence thereof. Thus, detailed judgment has been rendered. 2-The petitioners were appointed and continued in service for nearly 11 months before passing of the impugned order. The appointment and continuance was not to their default, however, this court cannot ignore revision of merit list and consequence thereof. Thus, detailed judgment has been rendered. To balance the equities, a direction is given to the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the next selection without debarring them on the ground of age. If new vacancies have arisen then they would be expected to arrange for the next selection within a period of six months so that petitioners may also compete therein and, if find place in the merit, are given appointment. This direction would, however, not apply to those candidates who have not secured requisite marks in the RTET. 3-The termination of the petitioners may however be effected after considering revised marks in RTET inasmuch as result of RTET has also been revised thus if a candidate has gained marks therein and comes in merit, then not to be terminated. 4-The petitioners, who were earlier serving in the State Government and have resigned to join the post of Teacher Gr III would be continued in the past services if it was with the State Government or its undertaking. For that, The Chief Secretary of the State would pass separate order. 5-The respondents would, however, pay due salary to the petitioners for the period they have worked under their orders or under the interim orders of the court. 6-The petitioners would be at liberty to seek any clarification, if needed, on the judgment of the pending SLPs in the case of “Vikas Sankhla & ors etc versus versus Vikas Kumar Agrawal & ors etc”, SLP (Civil) No.23178-23182/2013 and other connected matters. 7-Before parting with the judgment it would be necessary to direct that respondents not to make appointments in future to any post unless they first call for the objections to the questions and answers and finalise it followed by publication of select list. This is to avoid type of litigation brought herein.” 6. The appellants-petitioners had filed writ petitions in the High Court at Jodhpur. This is to avoid type of litigation brought herein.” 6. The appellants-petitioners had filed writ petitions in the High Court at Jodhpur. By the judgment dated 3rd January, 2014 giving rise to these Special Appeals, learned Single Judge considering the coordinate bench judgment rendered at Jaipur in Hemendra Kumar Jangid's case (supra), decided the matters and following the reasons given in the judgment, disposed of all the 281 writ petitions with the same directions. 7. In these Special Appeals, it is submitted that a Division Bench hearing Special Appeals arising out of the judgment in Hemendra Kumar Jangid & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra), had passed orders directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the services of those petitioners, who had preferred Special Appeals before the Division Bench. Some of the candidates, who were appointed and whose services were sought to be terminated, pursuant to the order dated 30.8.2013, had filed another set of writ petitions seeking directions to allow them inspection of the OMR sheets, question papers and answer key. The Court vide order dated 11.3.2014 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2157/2014 once-again directed the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & ors. V/s Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. ( 2011(8) SCC 497 ). 8. In compliance of the orders passed by the Court on 11.3.2014 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2157/2014, the State Government issued a Press Note on 29.7.2014 regarding uploading of the question papers and OMR sheets of all the candidates on its Website making them available from 30.7.2014 till 8.8.2014. The persons, who were already appointed and were sought to be terminated, pursuant to the order dated 30.8.2013, again filed writ petitions after inspecting the uploaded OMR sheets, question papers and answer keys, on the ground that their answer sheets were wrongly evaluated on the basis of erroneous model answer keys. Those candidates, who were not selected and appointed, also filed writ petitions on the ground that the model answer keys did not show the correct answers and the evaluation was based on erroneous answer keys. 9. There were four sets of writ petitions filed at Jaipur Bench of this Court. The first set of petitioners were those who were not selected. 9. There were four sets of writ petitions filed at Jaipur Bench of this Court. The first set of petitioners were those who were not selected. They challenged the incorrect answer keys prior to the declaration of the revised results on 2.9.2013. The second set of petitioners, who were not selected, challenged the incorrect answer keys after the declaration of the revised list dated 2.9.2013. The third set of writ petitions were filed by those candidates, who were already appointed, however, their services were sought to be terminated on the revision of the results by the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by the Secretary and Commissioner, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Primary Education), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The fourth set related to those candidates, who had challenged the incorrect answer keys, after the declaration of the revised results dated 2.9.2013, on the uploading of their answer-sheets vide Press Note dated 29.7.2014. 10. Learned Single Judge heard all the four set of writ petitions and delivered a judgment on 18.11.2014 in leading S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10622/2014 Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. and other connected writ petitions. She considered some of the erroneous questions and found that the errors committed in preparing the answer keys to the questions, have resulted into a chaos. She found on the instances quoted by her in the judgment that the incorrect answers in the OMR sheets is only a tip of the iceberg to show that apparent lapses were committed and that there may be many more instances to demonstrate that the answer keys prepared for each of the subjects were erroneous. She was also satisfied that there were number of errors committed by the respondents in evaluating the answer sheets of the candidates, who had appeared for different subjects at different districts. The answer keys prepared by the Expert Committee were also prepared on the basis of the standard books/materials published by the Government for being taught in the Schools and Colleges. Relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar & ors. V/s State of Bihar & ors. ( (2013) 4 SCC 690 ) and Vikas Pratap Singh & ors. V/s State of Chhattisgarh & ors. Relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar & ors. V/s State of Bihar & ors. ( (2013) 4 SCC 690 ) and Vikas Pratap Singh & ors. V/s State of Chhattisgarh & ors. ((2013) 14 SCC 494), learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties including the Additional Advocate General, disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions:- “Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, a fresh merit list is required to be prepared, re-evaluating the answer sheets of all the candidates for all the subjects on the basis of the correct answer keys that may be prepared by the experts like Readers and Professors in the University, relying upon the standard text books and materials. The Court is very much alive to the fact that on the basis of the earlier merit list prepared by the respondents, many candidates have already been appointed at different Zila Parishads for different subjects as Teacher Gr.III (Leve I & II), however as stated here-in-above, the application of erroneous model answer keys leading to erroneous results and erroneous appointments could not be maintained. The candidates appointed erroneously cannot be allowed to reap the benefits of wrongful appointments jeopardising the interests of meritorious and worthy candidates as held by the Apex Court in case of Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra). However, they having been appointed not for the fault on their part, or not on their misrepresentation, and are working on their respective posts for more than one year, a sympathetic view is required to be taken, if they do not figure in the fresh merit list that may be prepared as per this order. 9. In that view of the matter, the Court deems it proper to give the following directions :- (i) The respondent No.1-State Government in Panchayati Raj Department shall appoint an Expert Committee for preparing the model answer keys to the question papers of all subjects in respect of the examination held on 2/6/2012 for the posts of Teacher Gr.II (Level I & II) at different Districts. The said Expert Committee shall comprise of the experts who are either Readers or Senior Professors in Rajasthan University or a very learned and reputed persons in the concerned subject. They shall be appointed by the respondent No.1 at the earliest and latest by 28/11/2014. The said Expert Committee shall comprise of the experts who are either Readers or Senior Professors in Rajasthan University or a very learned and reputed persons in the concerned subject. They shall be appointed by the respondent No.1 at the earliest and latest by 28/11/2014. (ii) The said Expert Committee shall prepare the model answer keys, taking recourse to the standard text books prescribed for being taught in the schools and standard reference books used for colleges, published by the Education Boards or the State Government, or shall take recourse to other government publications or materials, which are officially put on the government website or used for the information of public at large, or to the publications of the books written by the authors recognized by the Government as the authority on a particular subject. The Expert Committee shall disclose the source of information relied upon by them for each of the answer keys, while submitting their reports to the respondent No.1. (iii) The Expert Committee shall prepare the model answer keys on or before 15/12/2014 and shall cause them to be put on the website of the Government in Panchayati Raj Department on the same date, inviting objections from the candidates who had appeared in the examination in question. (iv) The candidates shall submit their objections before the concerned Expert Committee on or before 18/12/2014. The Expert Committee, after taking into consideration the objections, if any submitted by the candidates, shall prepare final model answer keys for each of the question papers of the concerned subjects and submit the same to the respondent No.1 in the sealed cover not later than 22/12/2014. (v) The respondent No.1 shall prepare the merit list afresh of the selected candidates for being appointed in the respective Zila Parishads on the basis of the said model answer keys prepared by the experts committee as early as possible, and put on the Government website latest by 31/12/2014. (v) The respondent No.1 shall prepare the merit list afresh of the selected candidates for being appointed in the respective Zila Parishads on the basis of the said model answer keys prepared by the experts committee as early as possible, and put on the Government website latest by 31/12/2014. (vi) Since the fresh merit list would disturb the merit list prepared earlier by the respondents, entailing possible termination of the candidates already appointed and working on their respective posts at different Zila Parishads, it is directed that such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to the issuance of appointment letters on the basis of their merits as per the revised merit lists, shall pick up their appointments according to their interse position in the respective merit list, however they would not be entitled to any backwages or any other benefits whatsoever. (vii) Such of the candidates, who are already appointed and who also figure in the revised merit merit list, shall continue on their respective posts, and their appointments shall relate back to the date of their respective appointments with continuity of service for the purposes of seniority. (viii) Such of the candidates who are already appointed but who do not figure in the revised merit list, may not be ousted from the service, if there is nothing adverse against them on record and if there are sufficient vacant posts in the respective Zila Parishads for the concerned subject, and as far as possible they shall be accommodated against such vacancies by placing them at the bottom of the revised merit list of the selected candidates. (ix) It is further directed that the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department shall see to it that the time limit set by the Court is strictly adhered to the all concerned, failing which strict view shall be taken in the matter.” 11. A batch of Special Appeals was also pending at Jaipur Bench led by D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.1484/2013 Vijendra Singh and ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors., arising out of the first round of litigation, in which the answer-sheets were corrected and the select list was revised and consequent thereto, the services of the petitioners therein were terminated vide order dated 30.8.2013. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors., arising out of the first round of litigation, in which the answer-sheets were corrected and the select list was revised and consequent thereto, the services of the petitioners therein were terminated vide order dated 30.8.2013. A Division Bench at Jaipur vide its order dated 2.12.2014 found that the counsel for the appellants jointly submitted that in the light of protection, which has been granted to them by learned Single Judge in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (supra), they would be satisfied, if all the Special Appeals are disposed of with the same directions. The respondents, on the other hand, also pointed out that in view of the later judgment in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (supra), the cause of action for the appellants apprehending termination of their services did not survive any more and the Special Appeals had in-fact become infructuous. The Division Bench taking note of the submissions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as regards the later judgment dated 18.11.2014, was of the view that in the light of the subsequent events, the batch of Special Appeals had become infructuous. All the Special Appeals were thus disposed of with the clarification that if any order is passed at a later stage, which may adversely affect the rights of any of the appellants, he/she will be always at liberty to avail the remedy, which the law permits. 12. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that these Special Appeals arising of the judgment of learned Single Judge had also become infructuous, after the judgment in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (supra). They, however, state that since their services have been protected by the orders passed in the writ petitions and the special appeals, directing the respondents to maintain status quo, the orders, by which their services were directed to be terminated, should be set aside by this Court. It is submitted that in order to give effective relief, in view of the direction no.(viii) in the operative portion of the judgment in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajsthan & anr. (supra), this Court may consider to set aside the orders of termination of their services. 13. It is submitted that in order to give effective relief, in view of the direction no.(viii) in the operative portion of the judgment in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajsthan & anr. (supra), this Court may consider to set aside the orders of termination of their services. 13. It is submitted that direction no.(viii) in the operative portion of the judgment in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (supra) protects their rights, however, by way of abundant caution, in order to avoid any further complications, this Court may pass orders setting aside the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by the Secretary and Commissioner, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Primary Education), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to the extent that it had directed termination of services of petitioners, which has been implemented in some of the cases by issuing termination order and that in some of the cases, the order was not implemented before this Court directed the respondents to maintain status quo. 14. By direction no.(viii) in the operative portion of the judgment in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (supra), it is provided that such of the candidates, who were already appointed but who do not figure in the revised merit list, may not be ousted from the service, if there is nothing adverse against them on record and if there are sufficient vacant posts in the respective Zila Parishads for the concerned subject, and as far as possible they shall be accommodated against such vacancies by placing them at the bottom of the revised merit list of the selected candidates. 15. We find substance in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellants-petitioners that in order to give effect to the directions issued in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (supra), after the preparation of the model answer keys by the Committee of Expert, the entire select list will be revised, which may affect the appointment of the appellants-petitioners and thus, it would be appropriate that they may not be ousted from service, if there is nothing adverse against them on record and if there are sufficient vacant posts in the respective Zila Parishads for the concerned subject. 16. 16. We do not find any error of law and agree with the reasoning given by learned Single Judge in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (supra), pursuant to which the results have to be revised after fresh evaluation of answers. The revision of select list is thus not complete and the process is still open. In the circumstances, in order to allay any apprehension and to protect the interest of the appellants-petitioners, who were appointed, and are under constant threat on the revision of lists under directions of the Court, without any fault attributed to them, we find it appropriate to quash the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by the Secretary and Commissioner, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Primary Education), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to the extent that it directs termination of services of those persons, who were ousted from selections on the declaration of the first revised results. We direct that at this stage, they will not be ousted from service. The termination orders passed, if any, consequent to the orders dated 30.8.2013, are set aside. The directions given by learned Single Judge in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (supra), namely, that the Expert Committee will issue model answer keys afresh and that the results will be revised in accordance with such keys, will be given effect to, leaving the question of its correctness open. The State Government will be at liberty to pass fresh orders, after revising the results and adjusting equities protecting the interest of the appellants-petitioners, to the extent that they will not be ousted from the select list and will be placed as far as possible at the bottom of the revised select list. 17. With the aforesaid directions, all the Special Appeals are partly allowed, with liberty to the appellants-petitioners to file a fresh writ petition, if any fresh cause of action arises to them. 18. A copy of this judgment will be placed in all the connected files.