JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order denying the selection and appointment of the petitioner for her respective post in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 (Annex-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to provide her actual answer-sheet of Paper-II Mains Examination in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013. (c) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to call the petitioner in the process of interview as per her actual marks in all the Papers of Mains Examination and petitioner may kindly be permitted in the further selection process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 (Annex-1). (d) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the appointment to the petitioner against the category of OBC Woman if she stand in merit in her respective cadre in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 (Annex-1) with all consequential benefits. (e) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (f) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement dated 24.06.2013 under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of RAS as well as various Subordinate Services, as mentioned in the advertisement. 3. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and passed the RAS Pre Examination, 2013, and thereafter, the RAS Mains Examination, 2013, which was scheduled from 09.04.2016 to 12.04.2016. However, when the result of the RAS Mains Examination was declared, the petitioner was not declared successful, whereupon the petitioner submitted an application under RTI for seeking her answer-sheets. 4. 3. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and passed the RAS Pre Examination, 2013, and thereafter, the RAS Mains Examination, 2013, which was scheduled from 09.04.2016 to 12.04.2016. However, when the result of the RAS Mains Examination was declared, the petitioner was not declared successful, whereupon the petitioner submitted an application under RTI for seeking her answer-sheets. 4. After completion of the process of interview, the respondent-RPSC provided the answer-sheets to the petitioner for all her four papers, and while the same were being checked by the petitioner, she was shocked to see that the answer sheet of Paper-II, as provided to the petitioner under RTI, was not written by her. For Paper-II, out of 200 marks, only 51 marks have been awarded to the petitioner, and the complete answers in the descriptive answer-sheet were not written by her; even the handwriting, as contained in the said answer-sheet, was not of the petitioner, which is discernible from the handwriting in the answer-scripts of other papers written by the petitioner in the present recruitment. 5. The marks as provided to the petitioner in her Mains Examination are as follows:- Paper-I 92.5/200 Paper-II 51/200 Paper-III 77/200 Paper-IV 81.5/200 Total Marks 302/800 6. The petitioner in all secured 302 marks and except for Paper-II, she was awarded appropriate marks, as she did well in the examination; but for Paper-II, on account of the fact that the wrong answer-sheet, that is to say, the answer-sheet of other candidate, instead of the answer-sheet written by the petitioner, was taken up for checking, the petitioner has been awarded only 51 marks out of 200 marks in Paper-II, although the petitioner was quite hopeful for securing good marks in the said paper, as she has secured in other papers. 7. As per the result dated 15.06.2016, to appear for the interview, the cut off marks for the category of OBC Female were 350 marks, and therefore, on account of the fact that the petitioner has secured only 302 marks in all, because of the answer-sheet of other candidate, instead of petitioners for Paper-II being taken up for checking, the petitioner was deprived from her right to appear in the interview. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the improper assessment of the answers scripts, as aforementioned, had deprived the petitioner from her right to be selected. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the improper assessment of the answers scripts, as aforementioned, had deprived the petitioner from her right to be selected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the RPSC is a Constitutional Body, however, it has made mockery of the entire selection process by acting in such a casual and unlawful manner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the cut-throat competition amongst the candidates made a thin line between the success and failure, and thus, the carelessness and callousness on the part of the respondents in the recruitment process was the travesty of justice. The examination in question is as important as Civil Service, where the selected candidates, who shall form a crucial chain of governance of the State of Rajasthan, have been subjected to such careless and reckless assessment. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-RPSC, however, submits that the respondent-RPSC has admitted that due to inadvertence, the mistake, as pleaded by the petitioner, has happened and the same was being rectified. 12. This Court is dissatisfied and shocked that the RPSC, which had conducted the recruitment process, has committed such a blunder, while not ensuring that the candidate, who has written the answer scripts is being awarded inappropriate marks. The same is a disastrous issue, which could render the very purpose of the RPSC as questionable. Further, the mistake committed and accepted by the RPSC is an extremely disturbing fact reflecting upon the credibility of the RPSC and the selection so made. 13. This Court is further concerned by the fact that there exists anomalies in the present recruitment, and the respondent-RPSC seems to be shirking away from rectifying the gross error committed by it, by submitting that the same was being cured, but such an approach of the RPSC is unacceptable to this Court, and has caused great trust deficit in the RPSC, which would be very difficult to fill. 14. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, finds that it cannot close its eyes upon the disastrous assessment being made by the respondent-RPSC in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 under the Rules of 1999 for direct recruitment to the post of RAS as well as various Subordinate Services. 15. 15. This Court is appalled by the inaction on the part of the respondent-RPSC that while the answer-script of other candidate pertaining to Paper-II has been checked, but the marks therefor have been awarded to the petitioner. 16. The Himalayan error committed by the respondent-RPSC by not making proper assessment of the marks of the petitioner, cannot be ignored by this Court, and in fact, the inaction of the RPSC is not only agonizing to the petitioner, but is also very disturbing for the aspiring candidates, whose faith in the RPSC would be shaken on the disastrous mistake so committed by the respondent-RPSC coming to their knowledge, that the RPSC has got the answer script pertaining to Paper-II of other candidate checked, while the marks therefor have been awarded to the petitioner. 17. This Court cannot shut its eyes to such an illegality committed by the respondent-RPSC, which is casting severe aspersion upon the selection process of the State Civil Services, and therefore, the present writ petition is allowed, while issuing the following directions to the respondent-RPSC: (i) The petitioner shall be provided her actual answer sheet of Paper-II of Mains Examination in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ii) The RPSC shall manually cross check all the copies of the candidates, who had appeared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 for the post of RAS and other Allied Services for verifying that respective copies of the candidates were assessed for awarding marks to them, and also, the merit shall be re-determined and while making necessary correction in the mark-sheets of the Mains Examination, the respondents shall publish the revised results within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (iii) The petitioner shall be called for the interview, if her marks fall within the cut off marks, so prescribed for her respective category, pertaining to the Mains Examination in question. (iv) After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, if the petitioner is falling in merit, then she shall be considered for appropriate appointment in her respective category, strictly in accordance with law. (iv) After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, if the petitioner is falling in merit, then she shall be considered for appropriate appointment in her respective category, strictly in accordance with law. (v) The examiners, who were assigned the work of checking the answer scripts in the present recruitment and have awarded marks to the petitioner, which ought to have been awarded to the other candidate as the answer script of Paper-II in question belongs to that candidate, as identified, would be debarred from the examiner duties/expert duties, or any kind of duties with the RPSC, for the next three years. (vi) A cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- is imposed upon the RPSC, which shall be deposited with the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, who shall appropriately disburse the said amount for the welfare of the poor students in the Government Primary Schools of the State. (vii) The compliance report shall be filed before this Court within a period of two months. Though the file is closed, but the compliance report shall be kept before this Court on 07.11.2018.