JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to reconduct the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers - 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “REET-2015”) and/or to reevaluate the paper in light of the objections raised by the petitioners in the memo of the writ petition. 2. While hearing the matter for admission on 06th July, 2017, attention of this Court was drawn towards host of discrepancies in question paper, corresponding answers-key and the manner in which the said examinations were conducted, for which, this Court passed the following order:- “By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to reorganise/reconduct the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers Test, 2015 (REET 2015) in wake of various discrepancies in the question paper and answer key published by the Convenor, REET. Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner apprising the Court that the petitioner’s question code is ‘Z’, navigated this Court through the final answer key and pointed out that the respondents have selected such questions which had more than one correct answers. The list of said MCQ’s (Multiple Choice Questions) is given here infra :- Question Nos. Correct Answers 15 (B and C) 40 (A and B) 61 (B and D) 80 (B and C) 92 (A, B and C) 95 (C and D) 118 (A and C) 149 (B and C) 150 (A and D) 3. He simultaneously stated that, Questions No.61 & 80 also suffer from the same lacunae, but are not relevant in the present context, as the same pertained to language paper of Punjabi, in which the petitioner did not appear. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts narrated above show recklessness, rather callousness in discharging of duty by the people, who are entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the examination. 5. A look at the questions and their corresponding answers stated above, shows that the respondents were required to keep in mind that the question paper follows Multiple Choice Questions pattern, whereby each question is supposed to have singular correct answer out of the given multiple options, yet they have, inter alia, placed questions in the paper, having more than one correct answers. Such fact situation is not dependent upon any probe or enquiry, as it is apparent from the showing of Respondent No.3 itself, in the answer key published. It is but obvious that an incumbent appearing in such examination faced with multiple correct answers would get confused. It may be true that the petitioner’s answers qua these questions may not be correct and he may ultimately not be entitled to get marks for his otherwise wrong answers, but nevertheless it is shocking to note that as much as seven questions had more than one correct answers. It is noteworthy that respondent No.3 has awarded bonus marks for seven questions different from the above questions, leave apart various other questions, which were found incorrect by the expert committee, which was constituted for redressal of the grievance of the examinees. It is a matter of concern that Respondent No.3 has awarded bonus marks for 7 other questions, but has not paid any heed to the vice aforesaid and has permitted it to perpetuate, giving no solution. 6. The above facts are shocking and unravel the lack luster attitude and negligent manner, in which the examination has been conducted. The discrepancies and inconsistencies as noticed above are enough to shatter the faith and confidence of the masses. In wake of such inconsistencies, the time has come to invoke serious remedial measures for restoring the sanctity of the examination process. 7. In light of the facts canvassed, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the entire examination process has been conducted in an unscrupulous and negligent manner. With a view to take remedial measures and reinforce the faith in the system, matter requires considers. 8. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application as well. 9. Mr. Rakesh Arora accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3. Mr. Rajesh Panwar accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and pray for sometime to complete their instructions. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances noticed above, it is deemed appropriate and hence ordered that the select list pursuant to the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2015 shall not be finalized and if the same has been finalized, it shall be kept in abeyance, till the next date of hearing in this case, which at the request of the Respondents is being posted on 17th July, 2017. List on 17th July, 2017” 11. List on 17th July, 2017” 11. Pursuant to the concern expressed by this Court, an additional affidavit has been filed by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasathan, Ajmer – the Coordinator, REET-2015. The Coordinator, REET-2015, without disputing the discrepancies aforesaid, stated in her affidavit that the deponent being coordinator of REET comes to know about any error in answers to the questions, after completion of examination and the concern shown by this Court has assured that the following procedure would be adopted in future :- “1. An affidavit will be obtained from the question paper setter with following undertaking :- (a) All the questions have been formulated correctly and all the questions have single answer, (b) No question has been taken directly from any book or guide but is a self prepared question. (c) All the questions are in accordance with the syllabus. (d) The answers of the questions have been taken from the book having recognition and is not disputed one. (e) With every question, the paper setter shall also enclose name of book, its page number and other details about the answers of the questions. (f) If any error/mistake or contradiction is found in the question or its answer then the paper setter will be debarred from preapring question paper in future and will be subjected to heavy monetary penalty, whichever is decided by the Co-ordination Committee. 1. The format of affidavit, undertaking and terms & conditions are submitted herewith as Annexure-A. 2. Besides above, following measures will also be taken with a view to minimize errors in question paper and their answers:- (a) Before preparation of the question papers, a workshop/meeting of the paper setter will be arranged apprising them with the procedure of preparation of question papers and to give them training to prepare correct question paper and their answers. b) Special attention will be given to prepare Multiple Choice Questions having single answers by sensitizing paper setter. (c) A provision will be made to black list/debar/impose heavy penalty upon the printing press if any mistake is committed by the printing press in printing the question paper.” 12. b) Special attention will be given to prepare Multiple Choice Questions having single answers by sensitizing paper setter. (c) A provision will be made to black list/debar/impose heavy penalty upon the printing press if any mistake is committed by the printing press in printing the question paper.” 12. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the Board - convener of REET Examination, at the outset expressing remorse towards the inconsistencies and the inconvenience caused to the candidates, asserted that all measures would be taken to ensure that such discrepancies and infirmities do not re-occur. 13. Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however maintained that the entire REET - 2015 examination and consequential selection deserves to be quashed, in light of the discrepancies noticed by this Court during the proceedings of 6th July, 2017. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had made representation with respect to two questions namely questions No.14 and 91 before the Board, however in the present writ petition he has questioned the correctness of the answer to question No.91 only, while challenge qua question No.14 has been dropped. Counsel for the petitioners thereafter took the Court through Question No.91 and other relevant material. 1. Question No.91 :- What is the importance of Mathematics at Primary Level? (a) Cultural (b) Social (c) Religious (d) Mental 15. After reading the said question, he submitted that answer given by the respondents in the final answer key is, option (d)-Mental, whereas in the REET Examination, 2012 for the same question, the answer had been given as option (C) O;kogkfjd and not (B) Mental ekufld. 16. With a view to examine the veracity of the alleged in-consistency, the Court has considered the corresponding questions of REET Examination, 2012 which reads thus. Q. 98- izkFkfed Lrj ij xf.kr dk egRo gS & (A) lkaLd`frd (B) ekufld (C) O;kogkfjd (D) vk/;kfRed (C) 17. A close and conjoint reading of both the questions and corresponding answers leave no room for ambiguity that the answer to the question No.91 in REET Examination, 2015 has been rightly given as option (d)- Mental. 18. In multiple-choice-questions, a candidate is required to pick the most suitable answer, out the multiple options suggested for the question. A close and conjoint reading of both the questions and corresponding answers leave no room for ambiguity that the answer to the question No.91 in REET Examination, 2015 has been rightly given as option (d)- Mental. 18. In multiple-choice-questions, a candidate is required to pick the most suitable answer, out the multiple options suggested for the question. In REET Examination - 2012, the options qua the same question were (a) lkaLd`frd, (b) ekufld, (c) O;kogkfjd, and (d) vk/;kfRed out of which, option (c) O;kogkfjd was the most appropriate answer; which had been accepted by the Board. However, presently the question No.91 does not contain the option, ‘O;kogkfjd’ or its corresponding term ‘practical’ and contains another option, while keeping the earlier three options as unaltered; such as (a) Cultural, (b) Social, (c) Religious and (d) Mental. Therefore, out of the multiple options given for the question No.91, the correct option can be none else than the option (d) Mental alone. 19. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in Question No.91 and its corresponding answer, given by the respondent-Board, which has also been approved by the Committee of experts. 20. Counsel for the petitioner, thereafter raised a grievance against the question No.9 in section first of the paper. 21. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Respondent intervened and objected to such attempt of the petitioner, pointing out that the petitioner had not raised any grievance about question No.9, while submitting his representation, as such, he cannot be permitted to raise such grievance before this Court. Despite the objection, learned counsel for the Respondent, was ready and willing to satisfy the Court about the correctness of the answer to the question No.9. 22. This Court sustained the objection of Mr. Arora and declined to enter into the terrain of testing the correctness of a question, for which no protest had been lodged by the petitioner, at first available option. 23. In view of above, the controversy has converged to question No.91 only; for which this Court has taken a view (as aforesaid) that answer given by the Board and Expert-Committee is correct. This leaves this Court to decide the case on the basis of the discrepancies as noticed in the order dated 06.07.2017, which are in a way admitted. 24. Having argued this, Mr. This leaves this Court to decide the case on the basis of the discrepancies as noticed in the order dated 06.07.2017, which are in a way admitted. 24. Having argued this, Mr. Mrigraj Singh maintained that REET Examination – 2015, as a whole deserves to be quashed, in wake of the discrepancies noticed by this Court on 6th July, 2017, which have not been disputed by the Board. He painstakingly reminded that as many as three Expert-Committees have been constituted by the respondent-Board; seven questions have been found to be incorrect, for which bonus marks have been awarded; more than seven questions have been found to be having more than one correct answers; which facts by themselves are sufficient to hold that the examination have been conducted in most casual and reckless manner. In wake of the irregularities, counsel for the petitioner contended that the best course would be to quash the REET-2015, with a direction to re-conduct it, as had been done by a Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & Ors., reported in 2014 (1) WLN 138 (Raj.). Reading various paragrphs of the said judgment, he apprised that after noticing various discrepancies, this Court had quashed the entire selection process for appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II and directed to conduct the same afresh. Said paragraphs are being reproduced here infra:- “30. From a survey of the judgments cited at bar during the course of arguments, it emerges that inaccuracies in framing of certain questions with multiple correct options in respect of any or some of the questions, the effort of the court is to save the process of selection so that the time and exercise undertaken by the examining body as well as the participating candidates is not wasted, but at the same time purity of the selection process cannot be allowed to be compromised and further, it shall be necessary to see that the process of selection is not arbitrary, that it withstands the test of rationale and the nexus with the object of selecting the best and the excellent, and at the same time it must be ensured that no undeserving candidate had any advantage at the cost of deserving candidates 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Ujwal & Ors. Versus Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Ujwal & Ors. Versus Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors. - (2005) 13 SCC 744 , while dealing with the issue of a wrong and erroneous answer key, held that the students cannot be made to suffer for the fault and negligence of the University. Further, a wrong answer key can result in the merit being made a casualty and since the courts are slow in interfering with the educational matters, it is expected from the authorities to prepare the answer keys with higher responsibility and deprecated the attitute of casual approach in providing wrong and/or erroneous answer keys, as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge. 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent pronouncement in case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.2525-2516 of 2013) dealing with the question of application of erroneous Model Answer Key for evaluation of answer scripts of candidates appearing in a competitive examination observed that an erroneous Model Answer Key is bound to lead to erroneous result and an equally erroneous inter-se merit list of such candidates. Their Lordships in unequivocal terms observed that if the key, which was used for evaluating the answer sheets was itself defective, the result prepared on the basis of the same could be no different. Their Lordships further held that it also goes without saying that if the result was vitiated by the application of a wrong key, any appointment made on the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable. 40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Ujwal (supra) has held that Universities and examining bodies should not adopt an attitude of casual approach in providing key answers as one could very well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career. The Hon'ble Supreme Court under paragraph 10 held thus:- 10. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that "it cannot be said with certainty that answers to the six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect". As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. The Hon'ble Supreme Court under paragraph 10 held thus:- 10. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that "it cannot be said with certainty that answers to the six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect". As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or intervenors or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. For the present, we say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reason. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student as a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answer; the second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in educational matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answers is adopted by the persons concerned, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers, but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case. 41. As a solution to the problem, a procedure needs to be evolved and adopted by the respondent-RPSC, which will on the one hand give no opportunity to resort to nepotism, favouritism and any unfair practice as well as no candidate gained undeserved advantage at the cost of meritorious and deserving candidates and, on the other hand it is ensured that merit is adopted as the sole criterion for such a selection. It is very unfortunate state of affairs that in spite of of the matter being put through the expert hands again and again, as many as on six occasions, as observed by the learned Single Judge, the RPSC has not been able to weed out the questions with multiple wrong answers. Nowadays it has become a common feature to note that most of the selections conducted by RPSC, more often, are being questioned before the judicial forums on one or the other grounds as projected in the present case. 47. We are informed that no final merit list has been prepared and published in compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. We have been further informed that no appointment orders have been issued to the candidates in the selection process in dispute. Since the purity, propriety and significance of the selection process has been polluted and at the same time undeserving candidates have gained advantage at the cost of deserving candidates including the writ petitioners. Therefore, in the contextual facts and circumstances of the case at hand; the screening/written test conducted by the respondent-RPSC in response to advertisement dated 26 May 2011 for appointment to the post of APP Gr. II, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence, the view taken by the learned single judge in quashing the impugned select list dated 2nd February 2013 (ANNEXURE-5, annexed to the Writ Petition Number 2142 of 2013), cannot be faulted.” 25. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that aforesaid case was not a solitary example, when this Court had to quash the entire exercise of examination, he added that recently, this Court after scanning the other exam conducted by the RPSC itself, has come heavily on the RPSC and imposed exemplary cost of Rs.5,00,000/-, and quashed certain questions. (Devesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Secretary, RPSC, SB Civil Writ Petition No.4867/2017, decided on 25.4.2017 at Jaipur Bench). 26. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which were instilled with an amalgam of anguish and concern for the candidates who in their youth have been confronted with such examiners and institutions, who are seemingly not conscious of the responsibilities they owe; and the faith they enjoy, besides being completely unaware, rather unconcerned about the ramifications of their reckless behaviour. 27. 27. As far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma (supra) is concerned, this Court finds that the Division Bench, deciding Kamlesh Kumar’s case, having found many incorrect questions was constrained to record that RPSC has not been able to explain as to how initial result of 502 candidates was not affected, in view of the revision of the result twice over in the face of instructions specially stipulating negative marking of 1/3 marks. 28. Compared with the case at hand, this Court finds a stark difference between the extant facts and the facts available before the Division Bench, which quashed the entire examination. To point out a few:- (1) There was a negative marking in the said examination (Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II), which pattern of marking is a double edged sword; as one incorrect answer results into deduction of 1/3 mark. In a situation when a candidate is faced with two or more correct answers, he would get confused and end up leaving such question, wary of penalty of negative mark. However in the present examination, there is no negative marking, as such when a candidate is visited with more than one correct answer, he is free to opt anyone of them, which according to him is the correct answer, without being wary of deduction or negative marking. Hence, questions having more than one correct answer, though cannot be countenanced, yet they do not appear to be fatal to the entire process. (2) In contrast from the said case, in the case at hand, the final answer-key, which has been placed before this Court, does not contain any additional incorrect answer(s) and the challenge to the answer to question No.91, has already been negated by this Court, as indicated in preceding part of this order. (3) The facts before the Division Bench were so glaring that even after the answer-key had been prepared by the Examination-Committee, the Court found many discrepancies for which the Division Bench of this Court was left with no other option, but to quash the entire examination. Before quashing the examination, the Division Bench in para 47 of the judgment has recorded reasons, indicating that “the final merit list has not been prepared and no appointment orders has been issued”. Before quashing the examination, the Division Bench in para 47 of the judgment has recorded reasons, indicating that “the final merit list has not been prepared and no appointment orders has been issued”. Whereas, the selection process in the present case is already over and orders of appointment have been issued by the respondents, after the finalization of the result and after redressal of the candidates’ grievance, by Expert-Committee(s), this Court is of the considered opinion that despite the discrepancies, inconsistencies and fallacies noticed above, the facts of the case do not call for any interference, much less quashing of the REET – 2015. The order of restraint passed by this Court on 6th July, 2017, is thus withdrawn. 29. Though there are innumerable inconsistencies and discrepancies, to an extent of appearing deliberate, but occurred and existed only upto the stage of setting the paper and preparation of answer key. The Board seems to have guarded against such vice and has resolved the same to some extent. Though such measures of awarding bonus marks and permitting more than one correct answer cannot remedy or undo the loss already caused. 30. It is difficult nay impossible to visualize the plight and predicament of an unemployed youth, who having celebrated his selection in a highly competitive era, is scooped out of the select list, due to reshuffle of the select list, on account of revision of result, which is solely attributable to the persons at the helm of affairs. 31. The Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education and Coordinator REET – 2015 Ms. Meghna Choudhary having taken pains to appear in person, has assured the Court about the earnestness, commitment and resolve of the Board, to take all possible steps to make the process foolproof, flawless and sacrosanct. 32. Secrecy and punctually on the one hand and transparency and accuracy on the other, are quintessentials of a reliable system of examination. With a view to enhance the sanctity of the examination process and foster faith in the system, this Court feels that following steps are imperative to give impetus to the Board’s efforts, in achieving the desired goals in all the ensuing exams :- (i) The Board shall constitute a committee of three experts as ‘Re-appraisal Committee’. With a view to enhance the sanctity of the examination process and foster faith in the system, this Court feels that following steps are imperative to give impetus to the Board’s efforts, in achieving the desired goals in all the ensuing exams :- (i) The Board shall constitute a committee of three experts as ‘Re-appraisal Committee’. As soon as the examinations are over, the answer key prepared by the paper setter shall be forwarded to such Committee, which would review the answers suggested by the paper setter; (ii) The answer key duly reviewed by the ‘Re-appraisal Committee’ shall alone be published as ‘final answer key’; (iii) Cut off marks or list of select candidates shall not be announced at the time of the publication of the ‘final answer key’; (iv) With the publication of the final answer key, the Board shall give at least 15 days’ notice to the candidates to lodge their objections regarding the questions and answers ; (v) Such objections shall be decided by an expert committee, which would be comprised of minimum one and maximum two members out of the members of the ‘Re-appraisal Committee’ ; (vi) After the resolution of the grievance by the aforesaid expert committee, the revised result, ‘revised answer key’ or ‘final result’ shall be published and the ‘cut off’ shall be declared; (vii) The list of selected candidates will thereafter be published or notified in tune with the revised result. This Court has suggested the aforesaid steps with a view to make the process/examination more transparent and insulated to ward off, against possible errors and to ensure that the sentiments of the selected candidates may not be hurt, on account of uncalled for and repeated revision of results. 33. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above directions. Needless to clarify that Respondents are free to proceed in furtherance of the result declared.