Division Bench dismissed Writ Petitions challenging answer keys of Rajasthan Public Service Commission examination. Court held expert committee's opinion was substantiated by books and refused interference. Petitioners remained ineligible as they did not meet the 15x vacancy threshold even after correction for one question.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CW 6188/09
//1//
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
1-Civil Writ Petition No.6188/2009 Shyam Lal Versus State & Ors 2-Civil Writ Petition No.6186/2009 Govind Narain Versus State & Ors
Date of Order ::: 04/05/2011
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. Govind Narain, petitioner in person. Mr. Shyam Lal, petitioner in person. Mr. SN Kumawat, AAG, for respondents State & PSC
Heard the parties. Both the petitioners submitted their application pursuant to advertisement dt.28/06/2008 issued by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (" PSC ") holding State & Subordinate Service Combined Competitive Examination, 2008 (RAS/RTS) under Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations, Rules, 1999 (" Rules, 1999 ").
In terms of R.15 of Rules, 1999, competitive Examination is held by RPSC in two stages i.e. Preliminary Examination & Main Examination; and on the basis of marks secured in Preliminary Examination on being qualified and declared by the PSC the candidates having fallen within 15 times the total number of vacancies (category wise) are admitted to the Main Examination and the candidates having obtained such minimum qualifying marks in the Main examination as fixed by the PSC in its
CW 6188/09
//2//
discretion are called for interview; and finally marks awarded to each of candidates in interview are added to the marks secured in the Main examination for the purposes of preparation of order of merit and the candidates having fallen in order of merit are being finally selected. This is what the procedure provided for holding Examination, personality and viva-voce test under the Rules, 1999.
For holding preliminary examination, under the Scheme in terms of R.6, it has been provided in the Schedule III appended to Rules, 1999 – where preliminary examination consists of two papers, i.e. one compulsory paper and one Optional paper of objective/ multiple type questions carrying a maximum of 400 marks divided in two sections "A" & "B" Section A prescribed Compulsory paper of General Knowledge & General Science carrying maximum marks 200; while Section B prescribes of one optional paper to be opted out of list annexed to Section B of 200 marks.
Object behind holding preliminary examination is to short list candidates who are ultimately declared qualified for admission to the main examination and the marks secured in Preliminary examination are not included for determination of their final
CW 6188/09 //3//
order of merit but certainly such number of candidates are admitted to main examination who fall within 15 time of total number of vacancies in their respective category in terms of advertisement.
Both the petitioners appeared in RAS/RTS Preliminary Examination, 2008 in their respective category and they opted optional subject - Indian History. After the result was declared particularly of Indian History, petitioners raised grievance that key answer of certain multiple type questions, in particular, Nos.16, 23, 48, 71, 73 & 95 of Series "C", are incorrect and despite they having given right answer, but since it could not tally with key answer published by RPSC and there being a method of negative marking, prejudice has been caused to each of them.
Earlier these writ petitions came up for consideration before co-ordinate Bench and after examining the record, both the petitions were dismissed vide judgment dt.22/07/2009 but the petitioners preferred Special Appeal (Writ)-667/2009; and the Division Bench while accepting their appeal vide judgment dt. 12/07/2010, remitted back the matter to this Court.
After the matter being remitted back to this Court, and since petitioners were
CW 6188/09
//4//
appearing in person and looking to the complicity of the matter, this Court provides assistance of a lawyer but they have finally chosen to argue the mater in person.
It is relevant to observe that out of the questions pointed out by petitioners - key answer to Q.71 was admitted by respondent-PSC to be incorrect, for which appropriate marks were granted by the PSC; the controversy confines only to Question Nos.16, 23, 48, 73 & 95 of "C" series, so also corresponding series of optional subject "Indian History".
After the matter was remitted back to this Court, respondent-PSC sought opinion from a committee constituted of two subject experts namely Prof. KC Gupta & BK Sharma to examine the key answer published by PSC as contended by the petitioners in regard to questions (supra) and sought their opinion.
Expert committee submitted its report after examining all the questions impugned herein and has given its opinion duly supported by certain books - reference whereof has been made in the report, itself, (Ann.RAA/1), which is quoted ad infra: -
“Report On Paper Code-18 ARS-08 – Indian History Paper II
We have gone through the answer of Question Nos. 16, 23, 48,71, 73 & 95 of Series “C”. The Questions-wise report is as under :
CW 6188/09
//5//
Q.No. 16 : Answer given in Key is correct. Same has been authenticated from “ म�यकालीन भारतीय इितहास 1000-1761” by Dr.VS Bhargava & Neelima Bhargava, राजःथान �ह�द� म�थ अकादमी जयपुर ूथम संःकरण 1996 प .362”
Q.No. 23 : Answer given in the key correct (Ref. Modern India 1885-1947” by Sumit Sarkar, Macmillan 2002, p. 144).
Q.No. 48 : Answer given in the key is correct. (It is a published book. Its represent has been published in 1996.)
Q.No. 71 : Answer given in the key as per key is incorrect & (4) is correct answer. (Ref. “Modern India 18851947” by Sumit Sarkar, Macmillan, 2002, p. 187)
Q.No. 73 : Answer given in the key is correct. (Ref. “Hindi Civilization: by Radhakumud Mookerji, Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay, 1977, p.325).
Q.No. 95 : Answer given in the key is correct. (Ref. A dictionary of Indian History, Vol.I by Sachidananda Bhattacharya, Cosmo Publication, P.325).”
From the report, it clearly transpires that key answer of question Nos.16, 23, 48, 73 & 95 as published by PSC have been found to be correct and they are supported with certain books published by their authors, on which the
CW 6188/09
//6//
committee has placed its reliance.
At the same time, in course of arguments, the petitioners have supplied certain books and their emphasis is that for the respective questions, key answers are incorrect and since they have prepared themselves from these text books (supra) supplied in course of arguments; in these circumstances, decision of Expert Committee cannot be accepted and the key answer to the questions impugned published by PSC should be declared to be incorrect, and they should be awarded bonus marks for incorrect key answer.
This Court has considered submissions made by the respective parties, and with their assistance, examined material on record including expert report (Ann.RAA/1) & text books produced by them in course of arguments.
This Court finds that various authors have collected data and submitted in the form of compilation which varies from author to author and that apart, key answer published by PSC in regard to questions impugned are supported by authors - reference whereof has been made by the expert committee in its report and has found key answers to be correct after placing reliance on those books (supra).
The books submitted by petitioners are also of certain other authors. However, it is
CW 6188/09
//7//
not the case of petitioners that the books which they have submitted are recommended or approved by statutory authority like PSC or Universities/Education Board and as observed (supra), all authors on the basis of their research work & the data have compiled it in different and a varied form regarding the ancient history and how, it was transpired.
It is true that an opinion of an Expert is not beyond the pale of judicial review and it would certainly not be so, if the statutory authority transgresses its jurisdiction but where expert opinion is supported by relevant factors & material having been placed on record, to substantiate, it would always be advisable for the Court to refrain from expressing any opinion over the report of expert committee on merits.
In the instant case, report (Ann.RAA/1) submitted by expert committee while upholding key answer published by the PSC in regard to questions impugned are duly supported by different authors and merely because there is some variance in description and data being made available by different authors but when the expert opinion is before the Court duly substantiated by material on record, this Court in such circumstances would not like to interfere in its limited scope of
CW 6188/09
//8//
judicial review U/Art. 226 of Constitution of India.
As already taken note of (supra), in regard to Question NO.71, complaint has been accepted and bonus marks have been awarded by the PSC. However, since the petitioners even after awarding of bonus mark for Question NO.71, do not fall within the 15 times the total number of advertised vacancies in their respective category, as provided U/r 15 of Rules, 1999, certainly they cannot be held to be eligible to participate in further process of selection (main RAS/RTS Examination, 2008).
Consequently, both the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs.
( Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p8/
6188CW2009(2)RsrMay4Ds.doc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can interfere with the opinion of an expert committee regarding the correctness of answer keys in a competitive examination.
Whether petitioners are eligible for further selection despite bonus marks awarded for one incorrect answer key due to vacancy threshold rules.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shyam Lal
Govind Narain
State & Ors
Ajay Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court