Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2725 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Gurjar v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-11-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the revised answer key for recruitment to the post of Constable-2019. 2. It is, inter-alia, submitted in the petition that the answers pertaining to questions No. 4, 5, 22, 49,107 and 118 require changes/the revised answer key requires amendment. The Bench at Jaipur in Kamal Yadav & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 638/2021 decided on 17.02.2021 and Krishan Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6589/2021 decided on 12.11.2021, had required the respondents to go through the objections raised by the candidates therein regarding several questions/revised answer key and give effect to the same. 3. In reply to the petition, the respondents in paragraph 9 of the reply have clearly indicated that after the decision by the Court at Jaipur Bench on 12.11.2021, the respondents formed a Committee of the Experts and the objections raised by the petitioner(s) including the objection to questions No. 4, 5, 22, 46, 107 and 118 were forwarded to the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee after evaluation of the objections changed the answer of Question No. 49 from Option "C" to "A" and rest of the answers were not changed. Where after, the revised merit list has been issued wherein, the cut-off in petitioner's category is 69.75 marks, whereas the petitioner has obtained 67.875 marks and as such, as the petitioner has fallen short of the cut-off, he has not been selected. 4. Counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the objections raised by the petitioner pertaining to questions No. 4, 55, 22, 107 and 118 also require consideration by this Court, the same is required to be given effect and in case the petitioner falls in the cut-off, he would be directed to be accorded appointment. 5. Counsel for the respondents made submissions that under the directions of the Court, all the questions where the petitioner has raised objections, already stand examined by the Expert Committee and once the Expert Committee has come to the conclusion that only Question No. 49, wherein the petitioner has also raised objections requires change, the same does not require any interference by this Court and the petition, therefore, deserves dismissal. 6. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. Like the petitioner, when several of the candidates approached the Bench at Jaipur, wherein as many as 10 petitions were filed, the Bench at Jaipur required the respondents to form a Committee to go through the objections and decide the same in accordance with law. As indicated by the respondents, the Committee has been formed, which has clearly found substance in Question No. 49, as raised by the petitioner, besides which in two more questions, objections were upheld, and have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has obtained 67.875 marks, whereas the cut-off of petitioner's category is 69.75 marks. 8. In that view of the matter, once the Expert Committee on reevaluation of the matter under the directions of the Court has come to a particular conclusion, no further interference is required by this Court. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 309 has inter-alia laid down as under: "It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination -- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert 4 (2018) 8 SCC 81 committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel. The submission made by the Respondents that the Appellants are not entitled to any relief as there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court is not necessary to be adjudicated upon in view of the findings in the preceding paragraphs. The submission made by the Respondents that the Appellants are not entitled to any relief as there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court is not necessary to be adjudicated upon in view of the findings in the preceding paragraphs. It is clear from the statement filed by the RPSC that there are vacancies existing which can be utilized for appointing the Appellants. We are not inclined to give any direction except leaving it open to the RPSC and the State Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the Wait List in accordance with the merits of the candidates. The selection process which was stalled in view of the interim order passed by this Court should be completed within a period of 8 weeks from today. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 12.03.2019 committed an error in recording findings on the correctness of 05 questions by holding the opinion of the experts to be wrong. We are not setting aside the judgment as we are informed that 05 out of 21 appellants-therein have already been appointed and we are not inclined to upset their appointments." 10. In view of above, no case for interference is made out in the petition, the same is therefore, dismissed.