Dismissed

Mohan Lal Saini v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2014CW/2090/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second round of litigation regarding a competitive examination where the petitioner claimed his correct answers were awarded zero marks, the single-judge High Court rejected prayers for rechecking or expert opinion. Relying on Supreme Court precedent and citing the recruitment's long closure, the court held such directions improper.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for rechecking and seeking expert opinion was rejected and the writ petition dismissed.

Mohan Lal Saini Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2090/2010 (Mohanlal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDUCATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2090/2010

¶5

(Mohanlal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

¶6

Date of Order : 10^th January, 2014

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI

¶8

Mr.Manish Sharma, for the petitioner/s. Mr.Shantanu Kumawat for Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG.

¶9

By the Court:

¶10

The petitioner is in second round of litigation. In the first round, direction was sought and given to allow inspection of answer key of the main examination of RAS and allied services. The petitioner inspected the answer key and found his answers to be correct yet awarded '0' mark. Since it was a question and answer of paper of Mathematics thus even if test paper was having discriptive answer, it is amenable for evaluation by rechecking. The respondents have failed to redress the grievance raised by the petitioner/s to that effect, accordingly the respondents be directed to either sent the copy for rechecking or an opinion of expert be obtained.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent/s, on the other hand, submits that answer/s given by the petitioner/s was not correct as assumed by him. It is further stated that provision for rechecking does not exist, thus direction aforesaid may not be given. This is moreso when selection is pursuant to advertisement of 2007 and has been completed followed by appointment in the year 2009 itself. The respondents have issued advertisement for further selection thereafter. In view of above, the direction now at this stage would not be appropriate.

¶12

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2090/2010 (Mohanlal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

¶13

¶14

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the

¶15

parties and perused the record.

¶16

So far as prayer for direction of rechecking is concerned, it can be given only when an appropriate provisions exists and not otherwise. The issue aforesaid was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors.( AIR 2004 SC 416)”

¶17

Therein, the direction issued by the High Court for rechecking of copies was held to be improper. It was held by the Apex Court that direction for rechecking cannot be given unless a provision exists. It is specially for competitive examination. In view of above, direction for rechecking of copies cannot be given, rather issue is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in the case supra.

¶18

The recruitment in question was initiated in the year 2007 followed by selection and appointment in the year 2009. Subsequently further selections have been conducted by the RPSC. The intervening period is otherwise of six years, thus it would not be appropriate to send the matter to seek expert opinion at this belated stage, hence, for that reason, second prayer of petitioner is not accepted.

¶19

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly so as the stay application.

¶20

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶21

Preety, Jr.P.A.

¶22

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶23

Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.

¶24

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2090/2010 (Mohanlal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

¶25

Mohan Lal Saini v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal Saini v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Kumar Rana Vs R P S C Ajmer and Anr.

Surendra Pal Singh Vs U O I and Ors.

Gopal Ram Vs State Education Departmentors

Jugal Kishore Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sumer Chand Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Govind Purohit Vs Bank of Inida and Ors.