Disposed

Bhanwar Lal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Rajasthan HC15 Dec 2018CW/17219/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses multiple writ petitions challenging the answer key for the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination 2018. The court held that candidates who did not raise objections before the final answer key was published cannot independently seek relief. However, candidates in connected cases found wrong answers must be allowed similar relief. The court direc

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed for those without prior objections; reassessment of specific questions directed; petitioners allowed to write main exam if revised results clear the cutoff.

Bhanwar Lal Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ No. 17219/2018

¶4

Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ishavashyam 124 Shyam Nagar-Ii, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

Rajendra Singh Deora S/o Shri Lal Singh Deora,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 59-60 Nai Abadi, Garhmagri, Shobhagpura, Udaipur.

¶6

Tara Chand Dular S/o Shri Sugna Ram Dular,, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 10/99 New Housing Board, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶7

Vipul Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma,, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 20, Aatrey Farm, Gurjar Ghati, Amer Road, Jaipur, C/o Mangla Ram, 124 Shyam Nagar-I, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Manish Kumar Saini S/o Shri Sunder Lal Saini,, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Saini Bhawan, Post Office Road, Gandhinagar, Abu Road, Sirohi.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

¶12

The Secretary, Rpsc, Ajmer.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connected With

¶15

S.B. Civil Writ No. 17507/2018

¶16

Om Prakash Bishnoi S/o Shri Bhagawana Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Vpo Jaleli Foujdara, Via Banar, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Deparmtent Of Personnel And Training, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶20

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

S.B. Civil Writ No. 17706/2018

¶23

Swaroop Singh S/o Tar Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Village/post Navatala Jet-Mal Tehsl Chotan District

(2 of 13)

[CW-17219/2018]

Barmer.

Shakti Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Village Sinsarwada District Pali.

¶28

Kalu Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 22 Years, Amrit Nagar, Balesar Sattan, Balesar, Jodhpur.

¶29

Hitendra Singh S/o Shri Vag Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Shiv Mandir Gali Gandhi Nagar, District Barmer.

¶30

Pratab Singh S/o Shri Rai Singh, Aged About 22 Years, Village Harsani Teh. Gadra Road, District Barmer.

¶31

Ishwar Singh S/o Shaitan Singh, Aged About 22 Years, Village Jhotra, District Jalore.

¶32

Akash Pal Singh S/o Vijai Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Village Khusip Tehsil Balotra, District Barmer.

¶33

Nitu Singh D/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Co Sc/st Cell Hanumangarh.

¶34

Hemant Pratab Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, 224, Pancham Nagar, Ramdev Nagar, Pali.

¶35

----Petitioners

¶36

Versus

¶37

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶38

The Secretary, Rpsc, Ajmer.

¶39

----Respondents

¶40

S.B. Civil Writ No. 17933/2018

¶41

Jograj Singh S/o Sh. Arjun Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Bagora Road, Sayla, Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore (Raj.).

¶42

----Petitioner

¶43

Versus

¶44

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.).

¶45

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶46

----Respondents

¶47

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur Mr. D.S. Sodha Mr. Kailash Jangid

¶48

(3 of 13)

¶49

[CW-17219/2018]

¶50

Mr. Krishnpal Singh Bhati Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi Mr. Khet Singh

¶51

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶52

Order

¶53

15/12/2018

¶54

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to question the validity of the model answer key/final answer key/the determination made by the expert committee qua various questions pertaining to the question paper relating to Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination (Preliminary), 2018.

¶55

While petitioner Bhanwar Lal in S.B.C.W.P. No. 17219/2018 had filed objections, pertaining to which, issues have been raised in the present writ petition, petitioner Tara Chand Dular though raised objections pertaining to certain questions, which are not subject matter of the present writ petition, none of the other petitioners in S.B.C.W.P No. 17219/2018 and others petitioners i.e. Om Prakash Bishnoi, Swaroop Singh and Jograj Singh filed any objections against the model answer key.

¶56

The petitioners in S.B.C.W.P. No. 17219/2018 have raised objections in relation to question Nos.2, 3, 9, 11, 22, 54, 98 and 143. During the course of submissions it is submitted that the petitioners confine the petition to question Nos. 9, 98 and 143, inasmuch as, question Nos.11 and 22 have already been dealt with by Jaipur Bench in Jitendra Kumar Bagaria & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 25338/2018, decided

¶57

(4 of 13)

¶58

[CW-17219/2018]

¶59

on 10.12.2018. The objections, pertaining to other questions have not been pressed.

¶60

Learned counsel appearing for respondent – RPSC at the outset raised objections that those candidates, who have not raised objections after the model answer key was published, they are not entitled to grant of any relief and, even if, the Jaipur Bench in the case of Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra) has apparently upheld the objections qua two questions, they are not entitled to the said relief as well.

¶61

Further submissions have been made that even those candidates, who have raised objections qua particular question/s, can only confine their case to those questions and as the petitioner like Tara Chand Dular, who though raised objections, has not made the determination made by RPSC qua the said questions subject matter of the present writ petition, he also is not entitled to seek relief qua other questions as raised in the writ petitions.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that once it is found that the determination made by the respondents pursuant to the objections raised by any of the candidates is incorrect, the candidates like petitioners are entitled to grant of relief being similarly placed to the said candidates.

¶63

Further submissions have been made that if the petitioners could not raised objections at the relevant time, they cannot now be prevented from raising objections.

¶64

Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Ujwal & Ors. v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors. : (2005) 13 SCC 744.

¶65

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties pertaining to maintainability of the objections and

¶66

(5 of 13)

¶67

[CW-17219/2018]

¶68

determination, which can be made subject matter in the circumstances of the case.

¶69

It is not in dispute that after the preliminary examination was held, the model answer key was published by the respondents and objections were called, to which, the candidates, whoever felt aggrieved by the model answer key, also raised objections pertaining to specific questions. Expert committee formed by the RPSC determined the objections, pertaining to questions, which were objected to and decided the same. Whereafter, the final answer key alongwith result was published by the RPSC.

¶70

Apparently, once by way of a mechanism adopted by the respondents an opportunity is granted to the candidates to raise objections to the model answer key and the candidates at the relevant stage choose not to raise any objection to the model answer key and thereafter the final answer key is published and post publication of the result, if the candidates finding themselves left behind by few marks, on a second thought, seek to question the validity of the answers/questions as determined by the expert committee and/or the original model answer key and if they are permitted to do the same, the same essentially would result in an endless exercise.

¶71

Once the reasonable opportunity is granted, which is not availed by the candidates, taking chance with the result, they cannot be thereafter heard to raise objections, pertaining to the validity of model answer key.

¶72

In view thereof, in so far as the objections raised by the petitioners – Om Prakash Bishnoi, Swaroop Singh & Jograj Singh, pertaining to the questions, which were not subject matter before the Jaipur Bench in the case of Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra)

¶73

(6 of 13)

¶74

[CW-17219/2018]

¶75

cannot be made subject matter by the said petitioners and to that extent the petitions filed by them have no substance.

¶76

Coming to the issue raised by the said petitioners and petitioners in case of Bhanwar Lal as to whether the candidates, who approached this Court questioning validity of certain questions and the determination therein is made by the Court whether they are entitled to take benefit of the said determination or not? Though directions given in the case of Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra) indicate that the answers to the questions in issue be revisited only qua the petitioners, qua certain questions and qua two questions, the same were held to be demonstrably wrong. It cannot be said that those who have objections, approached the Court questioning the same, even without raising objections at the stage of publication of model answer key would not be entitled for being treated similarly to the petitioners in whose case the determination has already taken place.

¶77

In any case, these petitioners had approached this Court before the judgment was delivered in the case of Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra).

¶78

The another aspect of the matter, which is required to be emphasized is that once the Court in determination finds the answer demonstrably incorrect, the respondent – RPSC cannot insist that even those wrong answers, though the matter has been referred to the expert committee, would be correct for those who have approached the Court but have not raised objections at the relevant stage and for them the same would continue to be a correct answer.

¶79

In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel for the RPSC seeking to restrict the determination made by the Court

¶80

(7 of 13)

¶81

[CW-17219/2018]

¶82

to the particular petitioner, who had raised objection in this regard cannot be accepted.

¶83

Coming to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties pertaining to three questions i.e. question Nos. 9, 98 and 143 of the question paper, question No. 9 reads as under:-

¶84

“9. Match the following :

¶85

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the candidates were required to match the temples with the districts, the nature of temples with the particular names as indicated in the question are situated at multiple districts in the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the indication of the option (2) as the correct answer by the respondent is incorrect.

¶86

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – RPSC emphasized that the parameters for this Court to interfere in such matters have repeatedly been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, it is incumbent on the petitioners to show that the option is incorrect and merely because some other answer is possible and/or doubts are raised pertaining to the said questions cannot be a ground to direct for re-determination of the validity of answer indicated and/or to hold the same against the respondents.

¶87

(8 of 13)

¶88

[CW-17219/2018]

¶89

Reliance has been placed U.P.P.S.C. v. Rahul Singh & Anr. : 2018 SC 2861.

¶90

Submissions have been made that in so far as the answer indicated by the respondents is concerned, the same is correct and merely because the respondents by producing material have sought to question that the temples are situated at several other places, they cannot question the validity of the answer indicated.

¶91

I have considered the submissions made in this regard.

¶92

It would be appropriate to notice the determination made by Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the nature of objections, which can persuade this Court for issuing directions. In the case of U.P.P.S.C. (supra), it was laid down as under:-

¶93

“12. The law is well-settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case (AIR 1983 SC 1230) (supra), the Court recommended a system of – (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.”

¶94

Having perused the material produced by the petitioners in support of the objections raised, pertaining to the question as indicated hereinbefore, it cannot be said that the answer indicated by the respondent is demonstrably incorrect, inasmuch as, even if, the nature of temples/temples, which have been indicated in the question are situated at several places, as they pertain to various places, it cannot be said that at the places indicated in the correct answer by the respondent, the temples are not situated and, therefore, the objections raised in this regard have no substance.

¶95

Question No. 98 reads as under:-

¶96

(9 of 13)

¶97

[CW-17219/2018]

¶98

“98. The basis of DNA finger printing is

¶99

(1) The double helix

¶100

(2) Errors in base sequence (3) DNA replication

¶101

(4) DNA Polymorphism”

¶102

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the basis of DNA finger printing is “errors in base sequence”, which is the answer (2) in the options given, however, the respondents have indicated DNA Polymorphism option (4) as the correct answer.

¶103

In the determination made by the expert committee, which has been produced for perusal of the Court by the respondents, the expert committee has simply given out the definition of Polymorphism and essentially has not dealt with the indications made in the objections seeking to question the validity of the answer and/or the relevant answer being correct i.e. the errors in base sequence, the material produced for perusal of the Court as well as the material produced alongwith the objections raised by the petitioners at the time of raising objections apparently have not been dealt with by the respondents and, therefore, the determination made is contrary to the guidance given in para 9(ii) of the judgment in Ramdhan Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan : S.B.C.W.P. No. 10622/2014, decided on 18.11.2014, wherein, it has been observed as under:-

¶104

“9(ii) The said Expert Committee shall prepare the model answer keys, taking recourse to the standard text books prescribed for being taught in the schools and standard reference book used for colleges, published by the Education Boards or the State Government, or shall take recourse to other government publications or materials, which are officially put on the government website or used for the information of public at large, or to the publications of the books written by the authors recognized by the Government as the authority on a particular subject. The Expert Committee shall disclose the source of information relief upon by them for each of the answer keys, while submitting their reports to the respondent No.1.”

¶105

(10 of 13)

¶106

[CW-17219/2018]

¶107

Question No. 143 reads as under:-

¶108

“143. Which of the following statements about Temple Architecture are true?

¶109

(1) The freestanding (mortar & stone) temples are supposed to have originated in the Gupta period.

¶110

(2) Ladkhan, which is one of the earliest temple belongs to Chalukya of Badami.

¶111

(3) In Khajuraho temples, all the compartments of the temple are connected internally and externally.

¶112

(4) Kailashnath temple at Kanchi is the earliest freestanding temple of Dravid style.”

¶113

Choose the correct answer : (1) (i), (iii) & (iv) (2) (i) & (ii) (3) (i), (ii) & (iv) (4) (i),(ii) & (iii)”

¶114

While counsel for the petitioners made submissions seeking to question the validity of the option (4) given by the respondents on the ground that statement No. 2 only is incorrect and, therefore, option No. 1 was the correct answer. It was emphasized that the name indicated as Ladkhan (ykM+ [kak), which is different from Ladhkhan (yk<+ [kak), which is a different temple and as the question paper has indicated Ladkhan (ykM+ [kak) in the statement, the same was also an incorrect option.

¶115

Submission has been made that if the statement No. 4 is also incorrect, then in that case the question as a whole has to go, as none of the answers would be correct.

¶116

Learned counsel for the respondent – RPSC made submissions that the petitioners have failed to make out any case qua the said question, inasmuch as, the statement No.4 pertaining to Kailashnath temple at Kanchi is incorrect, which determination has been made by the expert committee of the respondents.

¶117

(11 of 13)

¶118

[CW-17219/2018]

¶119

It was submitted that the petitioners were seeking to take advantage of phonetic similarity between the names Ladkhan (ykM+ [kak) and Ladhkhan (yk<+ [kak), which cannot be permitted.

¶120

Having considered the material which has been placed on record, apparently the two temples, which are sought to be distinguished by the petitioners being temple of Ladkhan (ykM+ [kak) and temple of Ladhkhan (yk<+ [kak) are two different temples and in so far as the (ykM+ [kak) Ladkhan as indicated in statement No. 2 is concerned, the same apparently is not temple, which belong to Chalukya and even if statement No. 4 as found by the expert committee to be incorrect, in that case there appears to be some substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said question as a whole then would go have to go for none of the options given were correct answer. The determination made by the expert committee again suffers from same defect i.e. non compliance of requirement as indicated in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat (supra).

¶121

The Bench at Jaipur in the case of Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra), inter alia, directed as under:-

¶122

“In view of the above, the answer key for model questions No.11 and 22 determined by the RPSC for the RAS/RTS Examination 2018 cannot prima facie be treated to be correct and the two questions/answers have to be revised. Consequently the Chairman RPSC is directed to constitute a team of experts comprised of the as illustrious as professors in the concerned subjects available at short notice in Rajasthan or elsewhere to review the answer key qua questions 11 and 22 of the model question paper. The experts so appointed should follow the guidelines mandated by this court in para 9(ii) of the judgment in Ramdhan Kumawat (supra) decided on 18-11-14.”

¶123

“Applying the aforesaid tests to the challenge to model questions No.45, 61, 63, 68, 73, 87 and 101 counsel jointly submitted, these petitions also be similarly disposed of. Accordingly the connected petitions disposed of as under:-

¶124

(12 of 13)

¶125

[CW-17219/2018]

¶126

(i) The answer key to questions No.61, 63, 68 of the model question paper at the RAS/RTS preliminary examination is not demonstrably wrong, and hence no interference therewith is warranted.

¶127

(ii) The answer key to questions No.11 and 22 of the model question paper is demonstrably wrong and needs to be re-assessed by a committee of subject experts to be formed by the Chairman RPSC to revisite the questions No.11 and 22 within one week from today.

¶128

(iii) Similarly the answers to questions No.45, 73, 87 and 101 of the model question paper at the RAS/RTS preliminary examination 2018 are not in consonance with the mandatory directions in this court’s judgment in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat (supra) – para 9(ii). Hence the answers to aforesaid questions also be reconsidered with reference to directions in para 9(ii) of the judgment in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat (supra).

¶129

The requisite exercise as directed above be completed within one week from today. The petitioners’ result at the preliminary RAS/RTS examination 2018 be accordingly revised. Thereon if the petitioners make the cut off in their respective categories for being entitled to write the RAS/RTS main examination 2018 commencing 22/23 December, 2018 they be so allowed.

¶130

However taking into consideration that the time for constitution of the Committee of experts as directed above and it revisiting the answers to the question in issue only qua the petitioners is short it is further directed that in the eventuality the exercise of re-visiting the aforesaid questions in issue cannot be completed within one week from today, it be done within four weeks and the petitioners alone be allowed to write RAS/RTS main examination, 2018 subject to outcome of their revised result at the RAS/RTS preliminary examination, 2018 as directed hereinabove.

¶131

The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶132

In view of the fact that the Jaipur Bench in the case of Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra) has directed re-assessment by Committee of subject expert to be formed by Chairman, RPSC to review the questions No. 11 and 22 and questions No.45, 73, 87 and 101 have been directed to be reconsidered with reference to directions in para 9(ii) of the judgment in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat (supra), no further direction is required qua question Nos. 11 and 22, which have also been assailed in the representation/petition by Bhanwar Lal.

¶133

(13 of 13)

¶134

[CW-17219/2018]

¶135

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of. The answers to questions No.98 and 143, as indicated in the model answer key needs to be reassessed as per direction 9(ii) in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat (supra) within the time frame as granted in the case of Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra).

¶136

The petitioners in the present writ petitions would also be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra) qua questions No. 11 and 22 and the determination to be made qua other questions.

¶137

The result of the petitioners of preliminary RAS/RTS Examination, 2018 be accordingly revised based on the result of the expert committee and if the petitioners make it to the cut off in the respective category, they may be permitted to appear in the main examination scheduled to be held on 23.12.2018 and 24.12.2018.

¶138

However taking into consideration that the time for constitution of the Committee of experts as directed above and it revisiting the answers to the question in issue only qua the petitioners is short it is further directed that in the eventuality the exercise of re-visiting the aforesaid questions in issue cannot be completed within the time granted, it be done within four weeks and the petitioners alone be allowed to write RAS/RTS main examination, 2018 subject to outcome of their revised result at the RAS/RTS preliminary examination, 2018 as directed hereinabove.

¶139

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶140

100-AK Chouhan/-

Bhanwar Lal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

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

Anil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Narsa Ram Vs Rsrtc and Anr.

Shiv Singh Vs District and Sessions Judge, Banswara Andanr

Om Prakash Janu and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Lokesh Trivedi Vs the Nathdwara Temple Board and Anr.

Surendra Singh Rathore and Ors. Vs State and Anr.