Partly allowed

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through Secretary v. Asheesh Kumar Son of Chandra Shekhar

Rajasthan HC17 Jul 2018SAW/816/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disputed answer keys in Teacher Gr II recruitment required fresh expert scrutiny. The court allowed the candidate’s appeal, directing reconsideration of two deleted questions and revision of results subject to expert opinion. It dismissed the Commission’s appeals against referral of three other questions, limiting the judgment to those five questions.

What did the court decide?

Questions 1 and 48 referred to three subject Heads of Department outside the earlier expert committee; results to be revised subject to expert opinion.

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 809/2018

¶3

Anil Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Mahendra Kumar Jain , Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Jain, Resident of Plot No. 07, CRP Colony, Near J.D.A. Colony, Paldi Meena, Agra Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

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

¶8

Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.) 4. Expert Committee (Paper-I G.K. And Paper II Sanskrit) Through Its Secretary , R.P.S.C. Ajmer (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 814/2018

¶12

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, Ajmer.

¶13

----Appellant/Respondent No.1

¶14

Versus

¶15

1.Ajay Kumar Sharma son of Satyanarain Sharma, aged about 24 Years, resident of Post Antela, Tehsil Viratnagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶16

2.Bharat Kumar Derasari son of Sumer Mal, aged about 33 years, resident of near Meena Well, Ward No. 13, Sardar Shahar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶17

3.Lokeshwar Prasad Yadav son of Dharam Pal Yadav, resident of Village Narwas, Post Bilaheri, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶18

4.Dolat Ram Meena son of Madan Lal Meena, aged about 25 years, resident of Village Bijalaba, Post Suwaniya, Nainwa, Districr Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶19

5.Sharvan Kumar Sharma son of Chotha Mal Sharma, aged about 35 years, resident of Village Vimalpura, Post Kanrpura, vaya Kaldera, Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶20

(2 of 20)

¶21

[SAW-809/2018]

¶22

6.Rajesh Kumar Jangid son of Ram Sahay Jangid, aged about 29 years, resident of Dhakar Colony, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶23

7.Manoj Kumar Sharma son of Laxman Ram Sharma, aged about 36 years, resident of B-6, Subhash Nagar, Pathwari Road, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶24

8.Prakashi daughter of Mulya Ram, aged about 28 years, resident of Village Jagjiwanpur, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶25

9.Champa Lal son of Kashi Ram, aged about 29 years, resident of Village Meharasar Upadhiyan, Vaya Sahwa, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶26

10.Madhu Mangawa daughter of Shankar Lal, aged about 28 years, resident of Simarla (Jageer), vaya Maharoli, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶27

----Respondent No. 1 to 10/Petitioners No. 1 to 10

¶28

The State of Rajasthan through Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶29

----Respondent No.11/Respondent No.2

¶30

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 815/2018

¶31

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Secretary Ajmer

¶32

----Appellant

¶33

Versus

¶34

Manju Siyag Daughter Of Hanuman Ram Wife Of Ramkishore , Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Nimbora, Post Akira, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶35

----Respondent

¶36

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 816/2018

¶37

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, Ajmer

¶38

----Appellant/Respondent No.2

¶39

Versus

¶40

1.Asheesh Kumar son of Chandra Shekhar, aged about 29 years, resident of 1247, Barkat Nagar, near Arjun Nagar Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶41

2.The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary,

¶42

(3 of 20)

¶43

[SAW-809/2018]

¶44

Department of Secondary Education, Government Secretariat, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶45

-----Respondent No.2/Respondent No.1

¶46

3.The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Raj.

¶47

----Respondent No. 3/Respondent No.3

¶48

For Appellant(s) : Mr Tanveer Ahmed and Mr Kailash Chand Katara for petitioner-appellant in SAW 809/2018 Mr Nitin Jain – for respondentappellant-RPSC in SAW 814/18, 815/18 and 816/18

¶49

For Respondent(s) : Mr SK Gupta, AAG with Mr YS Jadaun Mr Vigyan Shah with Mr Rajaram Choudhary – for petitionerrespondents

¶50

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

¶51

Judgment

¶52

17/07/2018

¶53

A bunch of writ petitions was filed to question correctness of the answer-key uploaded by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short ‘the Commission’) after written examination for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr II. The correctness of the answers of many questions were disputed. The learned Single Judge, finding doubt about correctness of few answers, referred it for opinion of the expert committee while denying similar directions for other questions and answers.

¶54

(4 of 20)

¶55

[SAW-809/2018]

¶56

Two sets of appeals have been filed. One by the petitioner-appellant whose prayer is to send other disputed answers also to the experts. The other set of appeals filed by the Commission is against the reference of certain answers for expert opinion by the learned Single Judge.

¶57

We are first taking set of appeals where challenge to the correctness of few answers was not accepted by learned Single Judge.

¶58

First set of cases -

¶59

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while referring certain answers for expert opinion, learned Single Judge refused to refer other questions despite apparent mistake about correctness of the answers selected by the Commission. The appeal is pressed in respect of those questions only. Elaborating the issue, it is submitted that a question was in reference to the Central Ground Water Board Report – 2011. The question aforesaid has been deleted by the Commission on the opinion of the expert committee on the ground that all the answers are incorrect though one answer is correct. The expert did not refer the Central Ground Water Board’s Report, rather, considered irrelevant material.

¶60

To examine the question No.1, it is quoted hereunder for ready reference -

¶61

(5 of 20)

¶62

[SAW-809/2018]

¶63

“Question No.1 – According to Central Ground Water Board Report 2011, the number of development blocks in Rajasthan with safe water reserves are :

¶64

Option Answer :

¶65

(1) 25 (2) 30

¶66

(3) 35 (4) 40

¶67

According to the Commission – Question Deleted

¶68

According to appellant – Option 1 is correct”

¶69

The question raised by the Commission is quite clear. It has to be answered in reference to the Central Ground Water Board’s Report 2011. The report of the Board alone is relevant and it has been produced by the petitioner-appellant. As per the report, one of the answers in the options is correct. The experts have given opinion to delete the question in ignorance of the report of the Board for the year 2011. It is after referring to other material i.e. Economy of Rajasthan. The question was in reference to the report of the Board for the year 2011 and the relevant part of the report is quoted hereunder to show as to whether one of the answers is correct or not-

¶70

“(i) change in number of assessment units from 239 to 243

¶71

(ii) categerisation of assessment units have changed.

¶72

-Decrease (19%) in safe blocks from 31 no.(2009) to 25 no.(2011)

¶73

semi critical blocks has increased by 4 No.(25%).

¶74

OE blocks increased by 4% from 166 (2009) to 172(2011).

¶75

(iii) 1 more block became saline in 2011.”

¶76

Learned counsel for the Commission could not clarify as to why experts ignored the report of 2011 and relied on other material though cannot be said to be relevant.

¶77

(6 of 20)

¶78

[SAW-809/2018]

¶79

Other question on which doubt has been raised by the petitioner appellant in first set of appeals is Question No.48 which is reproduced hereunder -

¶80

“Question 48. - Consider the following statements in relation to the Panchayat Extension to the Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996 -

¶81

(a) It is applicable to 10 States including Rajasthan

¶82

(b) One of the objectives of the Act is to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of tribal communities.

¶83

(c) The State Legislatures shall endeavour to follow the pattern of the 6^th Schedule of the Constitution while designing the administrative arrangements in the Panchayats at district level in the scheduled areas.

¶84

(d) Gram Sabha is not empowered to approve the plans, programmes and projects for social and economic development.”

¶85

The aforesaid question has also been deleted by the Commission despite a correct answer therein. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred “The Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, which are quoted hereunder to examine whether none of the answers was correct.

¶86

“4. Notwithstanding anything contained under Part IX of the Constitution, the Legislature of a State shall not make any law under that Part which is inconsistent with any of the following features, namely:-

¶87

(a) a State legislation on the Panchayats that may be made shall be in consonance with the customary law, social and religious practices and traditional management practices of community resources;

¶88

(b) a village shall ordinarily consist of a habitation or a group of habitations or a hamlet or a group of hamlets comprising a community and managing its affairs in accordance with traditions and customs;

¶89

(7 of 20)

¶90

[SAW-809/2018]

¶91

(c) every village shall have a Gram Sabha consisting of persons whose names are included in the electoral rolls for the Panchayat at the village level;

¶92

(d) every Gram Sabha shall be competent to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the people, their cultural identity, community resources and the customary mode of dispute resolution;

¶93

(e) every Gram Sabha shall-

¶94

i. Approve of the plans, programmes and projects for social and economic development before such plans, programmes and projects are taken up for implementation by the Panchayat at the village level;

¶95

ii. be responsible for the identification or selection of persons as beneficiaries under the poverty alleviation and other programmes;”

¶96

According to the Commission, option a, b and d is the correct answer but is not given as one of the options thus to be deleted. The perusal of the Act of 1996 shows that ‘d’ is not the correct answer yet the Commission took it to be correct. Under the Act of 1996, Gram Sabha is empowered to approve the plans, programmes and projects for social and economic development. Option (d) does not give correct statement being contrary to Section 4 (e) (i) of the Act of 1996.

¶97

We find apparent mistake in the decision taken by the Commission. The relevant material has been produced by the petitioner appellant to prove the aforesaid. It is more so when it is coming from the Act of 1996 and the Constitution of India and not from other material. According to the petitioner, (a, b, c) is the

¶98

(8 of 20)

¶99

[SAW-809/2018]

¶100

correct answer and not (a, b, d). There is no doubt in correctness in ‘a’ and ‘b’ by both the parties. The dispute is between ‘c’ and ‘d’.

¶101

Learned counsel for the Commission has contested the appeal in the light of the opinion of the experts.

¶102

We have considered the submissions made by the parties and find substance in the argument of learned counsel for petitioner-appellant. The material produced by them and quoted above shows doubt about correctness of the view taken by the Commission. Learned Single Judge has referred certain questions and answers for opinion of the experts but the two questions referred to above have not been referred for expert opinion. We find that even those questions were required to be sent to the experts for their opinion and it should be from the experts as directed by the learned Single Judge for other questions.

¶103

The material available on record shows substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner appellant thus we find merit in the appeal. Accordingly, we allow the Appeal No.809/2018 for reference of the answers of only two questions referred to above for expert opinion by the Commission and should be from three members other than those who are members of the earlier expert committee. It would be Head of the Department of the subject concerned. The direction aforesaid has been given after relying on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Richal and ors versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission & ors”, 2018(6) SCALE 639. Therein, Apex Court has

¶104

(9 of 20)

¶105

[SAW-809/2018]

¶106

given similar directions. Subject to the opinion of the expert result would be revised.

¶107

Second set of appeals -

¶108

The Commission has filed second set of appeals where learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions, referred three questions for opinion of the experts. It is submitted that no justification exist to refer those questions for further opinion of the experts when earlier opinion was proper.

¶109

We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and find reasons for acceptance of the writ petitions of the petitioners-non-appellants. The questions and answers as well as the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for it are quoted hereunder for ready reference -

¶110

Qus. 61 which one of the following is assigned to; the subordinates in delegation?

¶111

Option Answer:

¶112

(1) Authority and duty

¶113

(2) Duty and responsibility

¶114

(3) Duty, authority and responsibility

¶115

(4) Responsibility and authority

¶116

According to respondent-RPSC- 1 According to participating candidates-option 3.

¶117

Reasons for declining the option answer treated as correct by the respondent-RPSC, relying upon the opinion of the expert committee:-

¶118

According to respondent-RPSC option answer number (1) has been adopted as correct answer. However, the expert committee has failed to furnish any reasoning supported by opinion of authentic and acknowledged books approved by Central or State Government, in support of the conclusions arrived at. Learned counsel for the petitioners were successful in

¶119

(10 of 20)

¶120

[SAW-809/2018]

¶121

indicating demonstrably that more than one option could be correct or option answer number 3, could be more correct than option answer number 1.

¶122

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the materials available on record; question number 61, requires to be referred to an expert committee consisting of three members, who shall be head of the Department of the subject.

¶123

Qus. 66. A set {1/n: nEN} is

¶124

Option Answer:

¶125

(1) Closed and bounded

¶126

(2) Open but bounded

¶127

(3) Neither open nor closed but bounded.

¶128

(4) Unbounded

¶129

According to respondent -RPSC- 2 According to participating candidates-

¶130

Reasons for declining the option answer treated as correct by the respondent-RPSC, relying upon the opinion of the expert committee:-

¶131

According to respondent-RPSC, option answer number 2 has been adopted as correct answer. However, the expert committee has not furnished any reason in support of the conclusion arrived at in treating option answer number 2, as correct answer, supported by any material so as to inspire confidence as to correctness of the decision taken. Hence, the question number 66, is required to be referred to an expert committee consisting of three members, who shall be Head of Department of the subject.

¶132

Qus. 74 /kzqoeik;siknkue~ bR;= /kqzoe inL;kfHkizk;%&

¶133

Option Answer:

¶134

(1) fLFkj

¶135

(2) fuf’pre~

¶136

(3) fLFkjHkwre~

¶137

(4) vof/kHkwre

¶138

According to respondent-RPSC- 4 According to participating candidatesquestion should be deleted .

¶139

(11 of 20)

¶140

[SAW-809/2018]

¶141

Reasons for declining the option answer treated as correct by the respondent-RPSC, relying upon the opinion of the expert committee:-

¶142

According to respondent-RPSC, the correct option answer is (4) while the counsel for the petitioners argued that the question number 74, should be deleted in view of the fact that more than one option could be correct. Respondent-RPSC in support of its stand relied upon the book authored by Bhimsen Shastri, whereas counsel whereas the petitioners relied upon different books. However, none of the books relied upon by the parties are authentic and acknowledged or approved by the Central or State Government. Hence, the question needs to be reconsidered by the respondent-RPSC; referring it to an expert committee consisting of three members other than earlier committee, who shall be the Head of the Department of the subject concerned.

¶143

The perusal of the finding recorded by learned Single Judge for reference of three questions and answers to the expert committee cannot be said to be improper or illegal. The finding has been recorded after going through the material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge as the learned counsel for RPSC has failed to refer any material to support the opinion of the experts. The judgment of learned Single Judge has been challenged for the sake of it.

¶144

We are aware of limited jurisdiction of this court for interference in the answers selected by the examination body or the experts. It cannot, however, ignore wrong answer on the face of it. In that case also, to refer it to the experts again. Our view is supported by the judgments of the Apex Court which are referred herein with the relevant paras.

¶145

(12 of 20)

¶146

[SAW-809/2018]

¶147

The Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of

¶148

“Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and ors versus Samir Gupta & ors”, (1983) 4 SCC 309, while considering a challenge to key answers in multiple choice of objective test for admission to medical courses, observed as under -

¶149

“15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of great importance to the student community. Normally, one would be inclined to the view, especially if one has been a paper setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished be the paper setter and accepted by the University as correct, should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University had not published the key answer along with the result of the test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these matters which involve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy would have been worse than the disease because, so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The publication of the key answer has unravelled an happy state of affairs to which the University and the State Government must find a solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of examinations which they conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the human system.

¶150

Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong.

¶151

We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large

¶152

(13 of 20)

¶153

[SAW-809/2018]

¶154

number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave, no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.”

¶155

In the case of “Manish Ujjwal & ors versus Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & ors”, (2005) 13 SCC 744, reiterating the view in the case of Samir Gupta (supra), the Apex Court held as under-

¶156

“9. In Kanpur University, through vice-Chancellor and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors., considering similar problem, this Court held that there is an assumption about the key answers being correct and in case of doubt, the court would unquestionably prefer the key answer. It as for this reason that we have not referred to those key answers in respect whereof there is a doubt as a result of difference of opinion between experts. Regarding the key answers in respect whereof the matter, is beyond the realm of doubt, this. Court has held that it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. There is No dispute about the aforesaid six key answers being demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not been questioned by the learned counsel for the University. In this view, students cannot be made to suffer for the fault and negligence of the University.

¶157

The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that "it cannot be said with certainty that answers to six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect". As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or interveners or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be mace to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. For the present, we say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for

¶158

(14 of 20)

¶159

[SAW-809/2018]

¶160

more than one reasons. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student and a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answer; the second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in education matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answer is adopted by concerned persons, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including the disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case.”

¶161

In the case of “Rajesh Kumar versus State of Bihar”, (2013) 4 SCC 690, while considering the case with reference to erroneous evaluation using the wrong answer key in the recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) by Bihar Staff Selection Board, wherein 41 model answers out of 100 were found erroneous, the Apex Court observed thus-

¶162

“19. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of

¶163

(15 of 20)

¶164

[SAW-809/2018]

¶165

the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶166

In a recent judgment in the case of “Richal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr”, (2018) 6 SCALE 639 the Supreme Court, considering earlier opinions, including in the case of Samir Gupta (supra), held as under-

¶167

The key answers prepared by the paper-setter or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations. To err is human. There are various factors which may lead to framing of the incorrect key answers. The publication of key answers is a step to achieve transparency and to give an opportunity to candidates to assess the correctness of their answers. An opportunity to file objections against the key answers uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairness and perfection in the process. The objections to the key answers are to be examined by the experts and thereafter corrective measures, if any, should be taken by the examining body. In the present case we have noted that after considering the objections final key answers were published by the Commission thereafter several writ petitions were filed challenging the correctness of the key answers adopted by the Commission. The High Court repelled the challenge accepting the views of the experts. The candidates still unsatisfied, have come up in this Court by filing these appeals.

¶168

This Court while hearing the appeals found substance in some of the submissions raised before us and Appellants having satisfied this Court that certain questions need reexamination by experts, this Court issued directions on 16.01.2018. As noted above, pursuant to the directions of this Court the Expert Committee re-examined the questions with regard to which objections were raised in these appeals. After the order of this Court dated 16.01.2018 the Commission adopted Expert Committee Report which re-examined the questions with regard to which objections were raised before us in these appeals. An affidavit dated 17.04.2018 has

¶169

(16 of 20)

¶170

[SAW-809/2018]

¶171

been filed by the Commission. The affidavit contains the following statements:

¶172

(i) on the basis of the Report of Experts, Answers to 22 Questions across 9 subjects were corrected and revised. [p. 2-3 pr. 6 of Affidavit] [Chart has been annexed at p. 5]

¶173

(ii) A perusal of the Revision conducted by Experts w.r.t. Questions in Paper I (General Awareness & General Studies) as per Chart [p. 5 of Affidavit] reveals that:

¶174

(a) Experts accepted Petitioner's Representation and retained 3 questions (Q Nos. 53, 57, 60) of 18 earlier deleted questions.

¶175

(b) Experts accepted Petitioners' Representation and corrected the answer of 1 question (Q. No. 3) in the remaining 57 questions.

¶176

(c) Experts rejected Petitioners' Representation seeking correction of answer of 5 questions (Q. Nos. 25, 28, 33, 49, 58).

¶177

(iii) RPSC has stated that out of the total number of Advertised posts (13,098) 1045 vacancies in the post of School Lecturers still exist. [p. 3 pr. 7 of Affidavit] [Chart has been annexed at p. 47]

¶178

(iv) RPSC has stated that 48 of 311 Special Leave Petitioners before this Hon'ble Court are within merit for selection as School Lecturers after revision of their answer scripts.[p. 3-4 pr. 8 of Affidavit]

¶179

By our order dated 02.04.2018, we have directed to supply the Report of the Expert Committee to all the parties. The copies of the Report have been supplied. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that substantial grievances raised in these appeals have been redressed by the Expert Committee. The

¶180

(17 of 20)

¶181

[SAW-809/2018]

¶182

representations made by the Appellants have been substantially accepted as noted above. However, learned Counsel for the Appellants have contended that certain answers given by the Expert Committee are still not correct. Before us certain questions have been pointed out which according to the Appellants have not been satisfactorily dealt with by the Expert Committee. It shall suffice to refer to the question No. 58 of paper No. 1. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the Expert Committee has accepted option No. 4 as correct option whereas correct option is option No. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has to make his point home has placed before us the following chart:

¶183

Question No. 58	Option Answers RPSC Answer	Expert Report P-15	Petitioner Answer	Evidence in report
Mininum number of working hours per week for the teacher in RTE Act, 2009 is	(1) 35 Teaching Plus Preparation Hours (2) 40 Teaching Plus Preparation hours (3) 45 Teaching Hours (4) 45 Teaching plus preparation hours Option	4 Option 4	Option 3	(1) The RTE Act specifies that “Minimum number of Working Preparation working hours per Hours Hours week for the per week (2) RPSC asked same question in School Teaching Lecturer Exam 2013 and considered “45 Teaching Hours” as correct Answer. Expert Committee has itself at p.15 quoted the RTE Act, 2009 quoted the minimum teaching hours as “45 Teaching including preparation Hours”

¶184

At the time of hearing on 24.04.2018, at the first blush, we also observed that there may be substance in what is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants with regard to question No. 21, however, when we thoroughly examined the question and its answer given by the Expert Committee, we are inclined to agree with the answer given by the Expert Committee. The reason for our accepting the opinion of the Expert Committee is as follows: The question No. 58 which was asked was: "Minimum Number of Working Hours per week for the teacher in RTE Act, 2009 is".

¶185

Thus answer had to indicate the number of working hours. Notification has been issued under the RTE Act where minimum teaching hours for a week is mentioned as: "45 Teaching including Preparation

¶186

(18 of 20)

¶187

[SAW-809/2018]

¶188

Hours". Thus minimum number of working hours per week has been provided as 45 which figure includes both teaching and preparation hours. The statutory provision uses the word teaching including preparation hours whereas answer uses the words teaching plus preparation hours. There is no dispute that figure 45 is a correct figure only issue is with regard to whether option No. 3 is correct or option No. 4. Option No. 3 mentions "45 Teaching Hours". The answer No. 3 is obviously not according to the statutory prescription which provides "45 Teaching including Preparation Hours". Correct answer, thus, is option No. 4 which mentions "45 Teaching plus preparation hours". Instead of using the word including as used in statutory provision the answer uses word plus. When the figure 45 includes teaching as well as preparation hours the use of word teaching plus preparation hours connotes the same meaning. We, thus do not find any substance in the above submission.

¶189

Learned Counsel for the Appellants have also pointed out several other questions in paper No. 1 which according to the learned Counsel for the Appellants have not been correctly answered by the Expert Committee. We have considered few more questions as pointed out and perused the answers given by the Expert Committee and we are of the view that no error can be found with the answers of the Expert Committee with regard to three more questions which have been pointed out before us. The Expert Committee, constituted to validation of answer key, has gone through every objection raised by the Appellants and has satisfactorily answered the same. The Commission has also accepted the Report of the Expert Committee and has proceeded to revised the result of 311 Appellants before us. We, thus, are of the view that Report of the Expert Committee which has been accepted by the Commission need to be implemented.

¶190

One of the submissions raised by the Appellants is that marks of deleted questions ought not to have been redistributed in other questions. It is submitted that either all the candidates should have been given equal marks for all the deleted questions or marks ought to have been given only to those candidates who attempted those questions.

¶191

The questions having been deleted from the answers, the question paper has to be treated as containing the question less the deleted questions.

¶192

(19 of 20)

¶193

[SAW-809/2018]

¶194

Redistribution of marks with regard to deleted questions cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission has adopted a uniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to the number of the candidates. We are of the view that all the candidates have been benefited by the redistributed of marks in accordance with the number of correct answers which have been given by them. We, thus, do not find any fault with redistribution of marks of the deleted marks. The High Court has rightly approved the said methodology.

¶195

In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentioned that the result has been revised of only 311 Appellants who are before this Court. We are of the view that key answers having been corrected, merit of all the candidates except those who have already been selected needs to be redetermined. In our order dated 16.01.2018 it is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those who have already been selected. We, thus, are of the view that the Commission should revise the entire result of all the candidates except those who have been selected on the basis of the report of Expert Committee and publish revise result of all the candidates. When the key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which was given the task of revising the key answers.”

¶196

It is, however, added that apart from five questions involved in the present litigation, another litigation is pending before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. It is in respect of other questions other than the questions referred herein. Accordingly, this judgment is limited to five questions and answers without affecting the controversy in respect of other questions pending before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur.

¶197

(20 of 20)

¶198

[SAW-809/2018]

¶199

In view of the aforesaid, appeals preferred by the Commission are dismissed while accepting the appeal preferred by the petitioner-appellant-Anil Kumar Jain.

¶200

A copy of this judgment be placed in each connected file.

¶201

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J (MN BHANDARI),J

¶202

bnsharma

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through Secretary v. Asheesh Kumar Son of Chandra Shekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through Secretary v. Asheesh Kumar Son of Chandra Shekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R F C Vs Rajendra Singh Gehlot

R P S C Ajmer Vs Pawan Vyas

Shashi Kala Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principle Secretary, Department of Medical and Health Services

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Suresh Chandra Jat and Anr.

Rakesh Sharma Vs Suman Kumari and Anr.

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Umesh Datta Sharma