Dismissed

Bhanu Pratap Singh S/O Shri Ratan Singh v. Department Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board

Rajasthan HC2 Jun 2020CW/13827/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bunch of writ petitions by candidates challenging the final answer key of a recruitment examination in respect of six questions. The court held that it cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Expert Committee where the experts had applied their mind, and declined to interfere with the declared result.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhanu Pratap Singh S/O Shri Ratan Singh Vs… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

(1)S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14068/2019

¶3

Pappu Ram Jat S/o Shri Mala Ram Choudhary, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Nh-15, Ganganagar Road, Vpo-Beechwal, DistBikaner, Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its President, State Agriculture Management Sansthan Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13179/2019

¶11

Abhishek Choudhary S/o Shri Rampal Jat, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Plot No. 118, Nai Kothi, Village Isarwala, Post Bilochi, Via Morija, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Roll No.295994).

¶12

Ramkishor Jat S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Jat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Ratanpura Jatan, Post Gathwari, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Roll No.288378).

¶13

Rohit Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Shyam Bihari Gupta, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village And Post Khandar, 267, Ramleela Maidan, Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) (Roll No. 283119).

¶14

Deepanshu Kaushik S/o Shri Ganpat Lal Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Ratanpura Haripura, Post Gathwari, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Roll No.295557).

¶15

Kamlesh Kumar Rundlla S/o Shri Suwa Lal Rundlla, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bobas, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur(Raj.) (Roll No.292839).

¶16

Devid Kumar Fogat S/o Shri Udai Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Kasimpura, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Roll No. 246656).

¶17

(2 of 19)

¶18

[CW-14068/2019]

¶19

Munna Ram Mali S/o Shri Sohan Ram Mali, Aged About 23 Years, R/o V.p.o. Kaletra (Suriywas), Tehsil Riyabari, District Nagaur (Raj.) (Roll No. 260825).

¶20

Sandeep Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Ramnath Jat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Ratanpura Jatan, Vpo Gathwari, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.)(Roll No.292048).

¶21

Bali Mohammad Khan S/o Shakoor Khan, R/o Village And Post Bachhamadi, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 251954).

¶22

Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Shobharam, R/o Village And Post Sahama, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 250705).

¶23

Sunita Rundlla S/o Shri Kalu Ram Rundlla, R/o Village Bobas, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Roll No.208011).

¶24

Muarari Sharma S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, R/o Ward No. 29, Kalu Bas, Shri Dungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.) (Roll No. 244390).

¶25

Dayolaram Jaat S/o Shri Indraj Jaat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Rojhan, Tehsil Lunkaransar, District Bikaner (Raj.) (Roll No. 243811).

¶26

Mukesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Sita Ram Jat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o New Kothi, Village Bhedkhawala, Post Chharsha, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)(Roll No. 285860).

¶27

Hetram Baliwal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Baliwal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Rampura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Roll No.-290705)

¶28

Rinku Ram Meena S/o Shri Ramkesh Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Ganwadi, Post Pal, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli (Raj.) (Roll No. 255127).

¶29

Peera Ram Dewasi S/o Shri Punna Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Rebariya Ka Bas, At Angore, Post Khambal, Sirohi, District Sirohi (Raj.) (Roll No. 264604).

¶30

Girdhari Lal Jakhar S/o Shri Lakha Ram Jakhar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Via Post Anandpura, Tehsil Kuchamancity, District Nagaur (Raj.) (Roll No. 260350).

¶31

Rajendra Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Madan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Dundiya, Tehsil Peepalu,

¶32

(3 of 19)

¶33

[CW-14068/2019]

¶34

District Tonk (Raj.) (Roll No.298461)

¶35

Yetinder Kumar S/o Shri Babu Lal Nagar, R/o Village Dholam, Tehsil Chhipabarod, District Baran (Raj.) (Roll No.303074).

¶36

Banti Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Jodhraj Gurjar, R/o Village Barwas, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj.) (Roll No.300262).

¶37

Devakinandan Malav S/o Shri Durgashankar Malav, R/o Village Baldevpur, Post Bohat, District Baran (Raj.).

¶38

Sohan Lal Yadav S/o Ram Narayan Yadav, R/o Khedi Alupha Pachar, Kalwar, District Jaipur (Roll No.284743).

¶39

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav S/o Radheshyam Yadav, R/o Idan Ka Bas, Pachar, Lalwar, Disrict Jaipur(Roll No.286153).

¶40

----Petitioners

¶41

Versus

¶42

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶43

The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶44

The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Jaipur O/o State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶45

----Respondents

¶46

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13827/2019

¶47

Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Hatiyapura, Sarkana, Distt. Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶48

----Petitioner

¶49

Versus

¶50

Department Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its

¶51

Secretary, Department Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶52

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13943/2019

¶53

Dharampal Yadav S/o Shri Ramawatar Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village And Post Roondal, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶54

Ramkishor Yadav S/o Shri Rudmal Yadav, Aged About 23

¶55

(4 of 19)

¶56

[CW-14068/2019]

¶57

Years, R/o Village And Post Ghinoi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶58

Priti Kumari Yadav D/o Shri Sita Ram Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Arania, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶59

Seema Choudhary D/o Shri Gograj Choudhary, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Haripura, Post Shardulpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶60

Ram Ratan Saini S/o Shri Buddh Narayan Saini, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Malipura, Post Pansrotiya, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶61

Raju Kumavat S/o Shri Jairam Kumavat, Aged About 28 Years, At Present R/o Village And Post Roondal, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶62

Mamraj Panchad S/o Shri Rameshwar Panchad, Aged About 26 Years, At Present Residing At P.g. Hostel, Skn College Of Agriculture, Jobner, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶63

Bhagvan Singh S/o Shri Verisal Singh, Aged About 21 Years, At Present R/o 139 Pura Baba Patel Ki Dhani, Village And Post Murlipura, Via Jobner, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶64

Laxmi Narayan Jitarwal S/o Shri Bheru Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Murlipura, Via Jobner, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶65

Dulichand Kumawat S/o Shri Lalchand Kumawat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Indira Colony, Jobner, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶66

Dhanraj Singh Rathore S/o Shri Shivraj Singh Rathore, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Shiv Bhawan, Near Reliance Tower, Ward No. 3, Skn College Road Jobner, District Jaipur.

¶67

Nayaran Lal Jat S/o Shri Kishan Lal Jat, Aged About 22 Years, R/o At Present Bc Cold Store, Todi Naka, Sikar Road Harmada, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶68

Mahaveer Prasad Prajapat S/o Shri Jagannath Prajapat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Peepliya Via Khatkar, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶69

Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post Badhal, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.)

(5 of 19)

[CW-14068/2019]

----Petitioners

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶75

The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶76

The Secretary, Rajasthan Sub Ordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Jaipur O/o State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶77

----Respondents

¶78

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14001/2019

¶79

Jai Singh Son Of Deshraj Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Kumbha Tehsil Bharatpur District Bharatpur Rajasthan.

¶80

Vishnu Shankar Nagar Son Of Shri Moolchand Nagar, Village Haripura Tehsil Piplda District Kota Rajasthan

¶81

Shiv Prakash Suman Son Of Ram Prasad Suman, Village And Post Talaw Tehsil Piplada District Kota Rajasthan.

¶82

Ramkaran Nath Sidh Son Of Shri Hetram Sidh, Resident Of Village Ridi Tehsil Sri Dungargarh District Bikaner Rajasthan.

¶83

Krishan Pratap S/o Shri Jai Singh Raghav, R/o 1/40 Kala Kuwa Housing Board, Arawali Vihar Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶84

----Petitioners

¶85

Versus

¶86

State Government Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat Jaipur.

¶87

Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministrial Service Selection Board, Jaipur Through Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipura,

¶88

----Respondents

¶89

(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14127/2019

¶90

Vinod Kumar Gusaiwal Son Of Shri Gyan Chand Gusaiwal, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Jeerota, Post Vidhani, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶91

Narendra Kumar Regar Son Of Shri Ramdhan Regar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Gulgaon, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.)

(6 of 19)

[CW-14068/2019]

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Agriculture Department, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶97

Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶98

President, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶99

----Respondents

¶100

(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14209/2019

¶101

Bannalal Gurjar S/o Shri Madho Gurjar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Hathgi, Post Rajpura, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk - 304502.

¶102

----Petitioner

¶103

Versus

¶104

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶105

Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Campus, Dugapura, Jaipur.

¶106

----Respondents

¶107

(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14210/2019

¶108

Ramesh Chand Bunkar S/o Shri Banshi Lal Bunkar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Badhal, Tehsil Rainwal, Dist. Jaipur Raj.

¶109

Jagdish Kumar S/o Bega Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Gugarwar, Post Nawara, Dist. Nagaur Raj. At Pre Sent Resident Of B-8, Tara Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶110

Ajjad Khan S/o Shri Jafru Khan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ratanaki, Tehsil Govindgarh, Dist. Alwar (Raj.).

¶111

Munesh Chand Meena S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Jag Jeevanpur, Tehsil Weir Dist. Bharatpur (Raj).

¶112

----Petitioners

¶113

Versus

¶114

State Of Rajasthan, Throught Director Agriculture

¶115

(7 of 19)

¶116

[CW-14068/2019]

¶117

Department, Agriculture Directorate, Raj. Jaipur

¶118

Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerail Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Managing Instutuion Campus, Durgapura Jaipur Raj.

¶119

President, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministrail Service Selection Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura Jaipur (Raj.)

¶120

----Respondents

¶121

(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14217/2019

¶122

Rajesh Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 26 Years, By Catgory Sc R/o Vpo Moroli Kalan, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.) (Roll. No. 250777)

¶123

----Petitioner

¶124

Versus

¶125

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶126

The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶127

The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board Jaipur, O/o State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur

¶128

----Respondents

¶129

(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14386/2019

¶130

Ajeet Singh Meena S/o Shri Sukhram Meena, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Meena, R/o Vpo Jagjiwanpur, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 252562)

¶131

Khushi Ram Meena S/o Shri Badri Lal Meena, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste Meena, R/o Village Ugen, Post Bachhola, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.) (Roll No. 301833)

¶132

----Petitioners

¶133

Versus

¶134

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶135

The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶136

The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Jaipur O/o State Institute Of

¶137

(8 of 19)

¶138

[CW-14068/2019]

¶139

Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶140

----Respondents

¶141

(11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14455/2019

¶142

Hajarilal Jat S/o Shri Badrilal Jat, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Rindlya Bujurg, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk.

¶143

Hariram Yadav S/o Shri Giriraj Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Takholi, Tehsil Tonk, Distt. Tonk.

¶144

----Petitioners

¶145

Versus

¶146

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶147

Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Campus, Dugapura, Jaipur.

¶148

----Respondents

¶149

(12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14789/2019

¶150

Mahendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Kurda Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Tiwari Ka Bas, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar

¶151

----Petitioner

¶152

Versus

¶153

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶154

Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Krishi Pant Bhawan, C-Scheme, Jaipur

¶155

Rajasthan Employee Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institutional Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Through Its Chairman

¶156

----Respondents

¶157

(13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14974/2019

¶158

Saraswati Yadav D/o Ram Kishor Yadav W/o Bhajan Lal Yadav, R/o Dehar Ki Dhani, Village Itawa Bhopji, Tehsil Chomu, Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

(9 of 19)

[CW-14068/2019]

Rajasthan Sub-Ordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its President.

¶164

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary

¶165

----Respondents

¶166

(14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15057/2019

¶167

Balkrishan Yadav S/o Govind Ram Yadav, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Kuchyawali Dhani Post - Malikpura, Teh - Kishangarh, Renwal, Jaipur.

¶168

Ashok Singh Yadav S/o Sagar Mal Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Kuchyawali Dhani Post - Malikpura, Teh - Kishangarh, Renwal, Jaipur.

¶169

----Petitioners

¶170

Versus

¶171

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶172

Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board (Rsmssb), Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018 (Raj.)

¶173

----Respondents

¶174

(15) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15952/2019

¶175

Giriraj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o A-15, Choudhary Colony, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ajmer Road Jaipur.

¶176

----Petitioner

¶177

Versus

¶178

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Rssb), Durgapura, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

¶179

----Respondent

¶180

(16) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15961/2019

¶181

Shobhag Mal Gurajr S/o Shri Jagdish Gurjar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Sapunda, Vpo Lallai, Tehsil Sarwar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶182

----Petitioner

¶183

Versus

¶184

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary And Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi

¶185

(10 of 19)

¶186

[CW-14068/2019]

¶187

Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶188

Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur - 302018, Rajasthan, India.

¶189

----Respondents

¶190

(17) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16029/2019

¶191

Rajkumar Sharma S/o Sh. Kunj Vihari Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Teacher Colony Kiri Bari, District Dholpur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 253462)

¶192

----Petitioner

¶193

Versus

¶194

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶195

The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶196

The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Jaipur O/o State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶197

----Respondents

¶198

(18) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19970/2019

¶199

Mukesh Verma S/o Sh. Gajanand Verma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Chandsen, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, Rajasthan (Roll No. 298531)

¶200

Hemraj Verma S/o Shri Harlal Regar, R/o Village Hamirpura, Post Kachrawata, Tehsil Uniyara, District Onk (Roll No. 299018)

¶201

Ashok Kumar Tailor S/o Shivji Ram Tailor, R/o Vpo Tasawariya Bansa, Tehsil Phuliya Kalan, District Bhilwara (Raj.) (Roll No. 270886)

¶202

Chhagan Lal Choudhary S/o Laxmi Narayan Choudhary, R/o Jat Devanda Mohalla, Village Araniya, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, (Raj.) (Roll No. 268577)

¶203

----Petitioners

¶204

Versus

¶205

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶206

The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi

¶207

(11 of 19)

¶208

[CW-14068/2019]

¶209

Bhawan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶210

The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Jaipur O/o State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶211

----Respondents

¶212

For Petitioner(s) :	Mr. Naveen Dhuwan Mr. Balkishan Saini Mr. Sanjay Mehla Mr. Abhi Goyal Dr. Saugath Roy
For Respondent(s) :	Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG
	Mr. Nalin G. Narain, Addl. GC.,
	Mr. Sandeep Taneja

¶213

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶214

Judgment / Order

¶215

Reserved On 30/05/2020 Pronounced on 02/06/2020

¶216

The matter has come up on an application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order. However, learned counsel for the respective parties jointly are in agreement that these writ petitions itself may be disposed of finally at this stage.

¶217

In the present bunch of writ petitions, the answers as finally approved of questions no.13, 24, 25, 40, 41 and 49 are under challenge.

¶218

For question no.13, initially in the answer key, the correct answer reflected was "B" which was challenged by the petitioners. However, the examining body, after considering the objections and opinion of the expert, has retained the answer as option "B".

¶219

(12 of 19)

¶220

[CW-14068/2019]

¶221

For question no.24, originally the answer key reflected the same to be deleted against which objections were filed whereafter on the basis of opinion of the expert, the option "A" has been treated as the correct answer in the final answer key.

¶222

The question no.25 was originally deleted in the first answer key. However, after receiving objections and report of the expert committee, option "C" has been treated as the correct answer.

¶223

For question No.40, originally the answer option "A" was treated as correct answer. After objection having been received, the same has now been deleted in the final answer key on the basis of the expert opinion.

¶224

For question no.41, the option "D" was originally held to be the correct answer but after receiving objections and considering the opinion of the experts, the same has been deleted.

¶225

For question no.49, originally the option "A" was considered as the correct answer but after receiving objections and opinion of the expert committee, the option "A" has been retained as the correct answer.

¶226

Learned counsel for the respective writ petitioners jointly submitted that the relevant answer options, which were challenged by them in their respective writ petitions, are erroneous and in support of their contention, they have relied upon certain material which they have extracted from various books.

¶227

It may be noted that in various writ petitions, one or two of the above questions' answers are under challenge.

¶228

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the authentic pronouncements in different books extracts, which

¶229

(13 of 19)

¶230

[CW-14068/2019]

¶231

have been referred to, the answer as reflected in the final answer key is erroneous and has materially affected their result.

¶232

For question no.13, the question asked was "which method of vegetables gardening is called as intensive gardening" and learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the option "B" (Kitchen Gardening) treated as correct is wrong and the correct answer was option "D" (None of these). It is submitted that the correct answer is Market Gardening.

¶233

12.1 For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioners have taken this Court to the books about gardening and it is mentioned that Market Gardening is done by intensive farming and the process of Crop Rotation is followed and therefore, for the question where the method of Vegetable Gardening is Intensive Gardening, the correct option can be other than Market Gardening and therefore, the answer option was "D" (None of these).

¶234

12.2 In reply, the concerned Expert Committee has given reasons for retaining option "B" (Kitchen Gardening) on the ground that in Kitchen Gardening the vegetables are taken one after other. It is also mentioned that there is no specific objection in relation to the answer "B".

¶235

For question no.24, where the question asked was "In which word 'izR;;' is used ?", the Expert Committee has given reasons for treating option "A" (ekSlsjk) as the correct one as the word "ekSlsjk" is formed by adding suffix ",jk" of "ekSlh". Originally, the question was deleted.

¶236

13.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have no objection with regard to the said aspect.

¶237

(14 of 19)

¶238

[CW-14068/2019]

¶239

For question No.25, which was originally deleted, the Expert

¶240

Committee has given option "C" (yktokc) as the correct answer as the word "yktokc" is the negative form of "tokc" by adding "yk" to word "tokc" and is therefore, one of the form of "vO;;hHkko lekl". 14.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to point out any illegality in the said decision of the Expert Committee.

¶241

As regards questions no.40 and 41, the Expert Committee has treated for question No.40, which was in two options which can be said to be correct namely; "A" and "D" as the question 40 was as under:-

¶242

"Which of the following phosphatic fertilizer is suitable for acidic soils ?:-

¶243

(a). Rock phosphate

¶244

(b) Ammonium phosphate

¶245

(c) Diammonium phosphate

¶246

(d). Dicalcium phosphate "

¶247

15.1 Since option "A" (Rock phosphate) and option "D" (Dicalcium phosphate) both are acidic in nature, they are suitable for acidic soils. Hence, the Expert Committee has deleted them.

¶248

15.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners could not deny this aspect for both "Rock phosphate" and "Dicalcium phosphate" and would be, therefore, suitable for "Acidic Soils".

¶249

16.1.Question No.41 reads as under:-

¶250

"Among the following is a example of biennial weed ?

¶251

(a) Cynodon dactylon

¶252

(b) Cyperus rotundus

¶253

(c) Avena (patva)

¶254

(d) Eichorium intybus "

¶255

(15 of 19)

¶256

[CW-14068/2019]

¶257

16.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that option "D" should be treated as the correct answer and the same should not have been deleted. The word "Eichorium intybus" has only been wrongly typed and actually it is "Tichorium".

¶258

16.3 The Expert Committee deleted the question as all the options as mentioned in English version as well as Hindi version were not correct. Even option "D" was mentioned wrong.

¶259

So far as the question 49 is concerned, the correct option of the same has been treated as option "A" by the Expert Committee.

¶260

17.1 Question No.49 reads as under:-

¶261

"The growth of auxiliary buds into shoot is know as-

¶262

(a) Branching

¶263

(b) Tillering

¶264

(c) Jointing (d) Flowering"

¶265

17.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this question is out of syllabus while the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a basic knowledge of Botany which relates to plant growth and development and an Agriculture Supervisor ought to know the minimum basics about plant growth. The growth of auxiliary buds into shoot is always known as branching and it is a common knowledge. Therefore, the answer should not be doubted upon.

¶266

This Court is of the firm view that the scope of interference in final answer key, which has been prepared on the basis of opinion of the experts, does not call for any interference as this Court cannot substitute its own personal knowledge or information to that of the experts.

¶267

(16 of 19)

¶268

[CW-14068/2019]

¶269

19. The Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of UP :

¶270

2018(2) SCC 357 held as under:-

¶271

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

¶272

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

¶273

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

¶274

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

¶275

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

¶276

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

¶277

31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question.

¶278

32. 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

¶279

(17 of 19)

¶280

[CW-14068/2019]

¶281

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. 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."

¶282

The Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service

¶283

Commission Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr.: 2018(7) SCC 254 has

¶284

held as under:-

¶285

"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 (supra), the Court recommended a system of-

¶286

(1) moderation;

¶287

(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;

¶288

(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.

¶289

13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by

¶290

(18 of 19)

¶291

[CW-14068/2019]

¶292

two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct."

¶293

Learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the Expert Committee was in any manner wrongful or suffered from any defect. There is also no allegation of malafides against the expert report. Keeping in view the nature of competitive examinations and having considered the aforesaid questions, which were dealt with by the experts, this Court finds that the experts have applied their mind thoroughly to the objections and reached to the conclusions. This Court will not substitute its own conclusions to that of the experts.

¶294

In view thereof, the result declared finally after the expert opinion, does not warrant any interference. The respondents have also placed material which was relied upon by the experts for reaching to their conclusions. This Court does not burden its judgment with the said aspects. Suffice it to state that this Court is satisfied that the experts' opinion is based on application of mind and relevant academic material available with them.

¶295

Consequently, these writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court also

¶296

(19 of 19) [CW-14068/2019]

¶297

stands vacated. The respondents are now directed to proceed with the appointment process on the basis of the final result as declared on the basis of the report of the experts. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶298

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶299

Raghu/

Bhanu Pratap Singh S/O Shri Ratan Singh v. Department Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bhanu Pratap Singh S/O Shri Ratan Singh v. Department Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbhajan S/O Munshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh S/O Nathu Lal B/C Kanjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra@Jeetu S/O Kishanlal B/C Harijan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Kumar S/O Shri Anand Kumar B/C Sain Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Dubey and Anr. Vs Rajnesh Kishore Dubey Alias Rajnish

Rohitash @ Dinesh S/O Mahaveer Prasad @ Chothu Vs State of Rajasthan