Dismissed

Ashu Kumar S/O Shri Harpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2021CW/10481/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging a recruitment process for Town Planners. The Court held that printing candidate photos on OMR sheets and omitting carbon copies was a valid anti-fraud measure. Allegations of arbitrariness regarding objection timelines and fees were rejected as unsubstantiated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions were dismissed; the recruitment process and selection were upheld as valid and transparent.

Ashu Kumar S/O Shri Harpal Singh Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

(1) S.U. Civil Writ Petition No. 10511/2021

¶3

Rahul Kanodia S/o Shri Mali Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo, Karansar, Renwal, Jaipur-303603 (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

I. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Local Self Government ..,** Deartment, &- Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) ,'$ 3iPt ,+q, :i , %.- j3iII .s 4% 6 -$ _2_ ..* a [ k c- , ..$ 3s + .. Vk 9," "?",,,,$ * i$ ";

¶7

(a. \ ,# 4:s" b

¶8

1. The*, 'm?ector y And Special Secretary, ~ ..Local Self Gopernment Department, Government Of Rajasthan, ~e, G-3,

¶9

an.. .p

¶10

e4+@~mahal Residency, Near Civil Line Phatak, 3aipur.:-

¶11

The And Cnr~i

¶12

s .. 2 j. (2) S.B. Civi gltroirji 6. 10323/2021 gj 9gi 2; gmT 4 .$,& 8 p : zf<&Fw*#3;p;$#@q; %$ *,&&;::%. 5 : &: "' :... .F. ,. . 1 Vijay Bairwa s/ Shr,j~"@@~~~3& @,&, &-& ' (, pay ?' --'g#$*l*'7;9* ,? -8l-..Baelj&% Aged About 30 Years, "' R/o 385, Shanti Nag i&{<$ a?r- . .< &@;@f@f$hdi~;;~ ew Sanganer Road, $I # >:, , ,&;t&;J$i$ ;$ y a&, <$ $.,P 4 i f %$ .***s*3Lds, +,&G#* r . **_&rgb.J*.._ p%"'%"'; ." ir I * w&&$&$;;$;;g&*"'<;.;.. **',Ma*** ----Petitioner nqr*$,n.w%. .se:xr **_><<..'vv_ izr--4 -$J J, *:r<w4 ""gt %. ~w~~~~sc~~': a. i

¶13

I. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.1

¶14

The Director And Special Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residency, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶15

The Secretary, Rajasthan Munic'ipalities (Administrative And Technical) And (Subordinate And Ministerial),

¶16

Services Selection Commission, G-3, Rajmahal Residency, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10481/2021

¶19

Ashu Kumar S/o Shri Harpal Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Moh. Islam Nagar, Noorpur, Bijnor District, Uttar Pradesh-246734

¶20

----Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

w,k.~-T -y 7

¶23

I. State Of ~aj$sthhn,$-~hraugh <., o.,e.a* & a% r_ The Principal r" Secretary, Local ekf'Go,ernment 5ks-3) eartmne Secretariat, s - Jaipur ( Ra j . ) i;3by" +%p. % I*. * ,#>"* _f'_ .@

¶24

';ha* Y rW &$4* X t'

¶25

1. <%$he Director And Special Secretary, Local Self r

¶26

Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3,. Phatak, Jaipur.

¶27

?l?ties (Administrative And Techni .te And Ministerial), , Rajmahal Residency, ----Respondents I-;- -u T t r ,r 'L w 'a - 2 g J"%.>j&."$ Qv -l.. SL%%? ,$%,.;&;.'J: ; Aa.$$$~~;:~ .;i **_b,;,w,_* Fo r Petitioner(s) ". pg h.. S'B:;&An;ur;a.gi :MI ava t i y a For

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶29

Judsment

¶30

Judsment Reserved on .. . . 25/11/2021

¶31

Judsment Pronounced on .. . . d /12/2021

¶32

Since, all these three writ petitions involve common facts as also the common questions of law, there are being decided together vide common order.

¶33

These writ petitions have been filed for quashing the entire recruitment process for selection to the post of Assistant Town Planner in terms of advertisement no. 1/21 dated 10.8.2021 >& ef 4- w= floated by the ~aj,asth$n .& kpw%6 r-j$2a& TS$affi % 'A. ~~g $dectio,n y et .2e +> Board, Jaipur (for d& %jw $,. 3- 6' f .4 brevity-'the osr? on the allegation that ittwas conducted in - XL , .g;k - a %,& & highly illegal: and arbitrary manner by the respondents on their _,.FLP_** .%2&',* B whims 3nd fancies'.

¶34

&?'"% i??PyWt< g+&ll tG$( , The fa ,alept;ai@t .zR -%. vi@e advertisement dated ,@$& 4 x. , ... e.., " l,"' <. t" + :g?-r&.&3i9 $ .;: ;, , 10.08.2021, Ip~~:llati'o.s :for appointment on 49 posts of ,&%%$&.a .kAT @:eg$.&fc~;r; -" +;$yy\vr.c 92r 3..< s,$F f.1 ' % ..". _w-'*,*_ + " short-'ATP') with the $&&@:;;:,F f3f Local Self kl@n- " Jr.-,,i".. , *. ' + '@or short- ' LSG'). The recruitment was to examination which c .B paper containing 120 questions of objecti n was conducted on 11.09.2021 from 10 ated in the petitions that the respondents e~~ed @ .: g; in?ondubin~"thr e cruitment process $*S$ $343 g<;q$ q xz=q *:.; 7s ",&\ a, y for ATP, a gazetted post, through Rajasthan Municipalities (Administrative and Technical) and (Subordinate and Ministerial) Service Selection Commission whereas, normally a recruitment on such gazetted post is held through Rajasthan Public Service Commission or Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Selection Board. It is averred that the recruitment process comprised of only MCQ format examination without interview

¶35

which is uncommon for recruitment on a gazetted post which always includes interview after the written examination. It is alleged in the writ petition that the examination was tainted with gross illegalities never committed previously in any government recruitment such as -

¶36

i) the OMR answer sheet given to each candidate, had his photograph, name as alsq 2,1 % fib ro,llpumb-e~; 2". , , 'x* *l . :Y' 3 :& d" : .S +:, . 11) . carbon coP$%,8f ?he OMR sheet 'was not given to the y*;'.." candidates??%, , C 8 sr" 'w A"* 1 fi, Qlilohing, further illegalities/irregularities the **_2aaxX_*

¶37

examination process t lave G,,wF> pe#ep <%, pointed out in the writ , k b$.'?r 4 g%bc,&!esgg:h 4 $4 ,"% petitions: - * jF"!$,<& g .d ,;:p2& Saw&.$^g: . C

¶38

i) the ti for submitting .< <.T,>-'- " ,6% 9 I,, **= . grievance/o bjection %gJ ek4aw..! &,A?+>* "&;g sk4ag11:, : <=",q $dh'$3 **.q~&&n,** _#V'._ h +&&$" "$ > * , A ' & ." as provided in the advertisement dated 1@&8$2:@:2,@,;(i$a5 r 1 js G .*.. f ~,sr p$q ,, 'Fb" i.~b k ,a 8 1 -hj$ reduced to 48 hours vide notification/advertisemeng dated iil!lri09,:2021 i.e. on the very day b,$, 4 '"4" (t.1; $ f ** 14 the examination was co;$u@@; &:,&& "? ks,% &&$& ,"! <;!<j;$Jp m,. &$;% &y&$T9cq:k;zs& ii) an exorbitant fee3ai~s'~r g - ,btj$ection - was prescribed **_kg:_* 4 y,:;*"t4 ' : .+,:$; .&" '$<. . ' vide notification / adveBE ii;se~m~~fi$,id:a&j **_...I_~.h__ >_* ._.. . I>* ;, 0 9 .2 0 2 1 . UB&ji.& * 9" #$4k*~~~$~~~~~~&& .; ti~~5j;3;;;;:&2$i$:;;.?g&i:* * a. w$&4, &.&,&4&&':" iii) OMR sheets of the ca ndidates were manipulated. : S.""kb @ $ _g-"bf";"&_* "& , ., ;m g &$9@a .( * 2 4 .- "6 ,iLp $ a $ x.,! . In rejoinder, the petitioners have stated that one of the candidates namely; Arun Kumar Yadav had attempted only 77 questions out of 120 questions but, his OMR sheet, as uploaded on its website by the respondents, reveals 98 answers out of which most of the 21 additional answers are wrong.

¶39

In reply, the respondents have stated that direct recruitment to the post of ATP and Senior Draftsmen is made

¶40

under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Administrative and Technical) Service Rules, 1963 and as per its Rule 6A, selection of candidates for the post included in the schedule appended, is to be made through a State level Commission and, therefore, the selections were decided to be made through Rajasthan Municipalities (Administrative and Technical) Service Selection Commission. With regard ,to[ allegation that the process of a h > & L# $* ; @a, -8- ' .& ;. interview was ex8'1?1,dedpto bh"--extend uhdu& fa;o,ur to few selected A .. ypp** *-= 3 rn andidates$$~~t was submitted that vide Rajasthan '~unicipality (dmi@st:$ative and Technical) Service uls (Fifth .+ Amendment)Rules, dment in Rule 20, it has been provided all be made through written examination "interview therein. It uct the examination National Institute of Technology (for shor 2 of the RTPP Rules, 2003 read with GF ion dated 4.9.2013 which provides th processes can be organised through Technology without **_f?_ 3w-p"m%a7-t,t,w11$~4p* <*Y:.A% - 'r inviting bids. It was s~b,m'i86e@:;that, *a t phatos and details of the candidates were printed on each OMR sheet 48 hours prior to the exam so as to avoid change of the OMR sheet, appearance of dummy candidates and to rule out any unfair/mal practices in the examination. It is submitted that it is a standard practice now days in conducting various examination. It is stated that the carbon copi/ of the OMR sheet was not issued purposely as the previous experience revealed that removal of the carbon copy

¶41

from the main OMR sheet, often resulted into tearing of the OMR sheet itself posing difficulty in its scanning. The respondents have stated that immediately: after completion of the exam at 12 of clock, after collecting the OMR sheets from the examination centre, the process of uploading the scanned copy of the OMR sheets started from 1.26 pm for ATP and after completion of its scanning and preparing ofTa-compact disc containing scanned * g* * +j;,yjk " 4 A " &.. " . d i; $ ; copy of OMRs 1 i%x thegguest~on papers and2the?keys were uploaded . ?;P"""P % at about 5P4-6;pm .B, on that very day. It is stated iwthe reply that po*12hye! the en@Veklrecruitment process has been fair and impartial.

¶42

Learned co ontended that the respondents have ethod in conducting the recruitment p in candidates and to oust the meritorio es like petitioners. Shri Kalawatiya submi purpose of printing photograph, name er of a candidate on the OMR sheet was to ewx. identified candidates otherwise, it is usua ctice to keep identity of a candidate underta ki ti,on, undisclosed so as to fl.T*W $wd.g _?d&-"h._* &&.-* 4di.d '%?*.&?''. . . T- W9 1 Y c;ii--..lr( #+ ;W: -A maintain fairness and ' impal?tiality' in the process. Learned counsel submitted that deviating from the normal practice, for no good reason, carbon copy of the OMR sheet was not provided to the candidates to keep an option to manipulate the result open. He submitted that one of the candidates namely Arun Yadav has raised objection with the respondents stating therein that he has attempted 77 questions only out of total 120 questions but, the scanned copy of his OMR sheet reveals 98

¶43

(7 of 17)

¶44

[CW- 10511/2021]

¶45

questions attempted by him and out of the additional answers, most are incorrect.

¶46

Shri Kalavatiya urged that while advertisement prescribed a window of 72 hours (three days), after completion of the examination, for a candidate to make complaint qua any difficulty in question paper or any other issue; but, vide $ g" notification dated 1 19..2~%> ' 211 the .A 8f&esaid .z. 2$ b period was reduced -" =%.%.& "8 r + y4. "6;$$-a from eenin~~~~~~:~~1!7.2021 <. . to the midnight of 13.9.2021 that too * .,. with an ex~gbitant fee of %' ' Rs.1000 per objection. ,@A "r 7ee7.d . ,

¶47

~ezrned counsel submitted that the aforesaid action of the respondents reek the examination which is required t asi;de. He, in support of his submissions, ents of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases Service Commission & Ors. vs. B.M. Vij 92) 2 SCC 206 and Secretary vs. A.B.

¶48

Shri Anil Meht contra, submitted tha *% qv2'5$?.mey r...... %&.W --respondents to cond~~@c$@&{~&,a'~~"a:@ion through a reputed expert body, i.e., MNIT which has unblemished record of conducting such recruitment examinations in the past also. He submits that a well deliberate decision was taken to personalise OMR sheet of each candidate by printing his photo, roll number and name on it, which was printed just before 48 hours of the examination and printing such personalise OMR sheet for about 1493 candidates, was an arduous task. Shri Mehta submitted

¶49

that such exercise was done only to avoid dummy candidates undertaking the examination or any manipulation in the OMR sheet as also to rule out any inadvertent error sometimes committed by a candidate while filling in his details in the OMR sheet. He submitted that this is a standard practice being adopted by various agencies in various examinations these days. He submitted that in the -NEET? 4% % examination, the OMR sheet i- i .&-. g 3, I. j g r v. contains name <of2th8 candidate, his/her> roll number and also 5%. .. names of hiYs/'her parents. yez"?*y?+ *,

¶50

Mh%b regard to non-supply of carbon copy, learned AAG submitted that the ue carbon copy as its past experience, w I Officers examination for Medical and Heal ed several instances of tearing of the OMR carbon copy from it whit$ d&ed grave difficulty in its scanning. .\a g+ 4 j Jf g* ; He submitted that the ca,rtqprt,$op,y,bf the OMR sheets were not ".;.&@ " ;&$2. @. " ^-i _s_* ':;a 4 y% gy.ij. . * ig,zxp .. issued by the MNIT w#l:~~~~;qi;g,the ?,,,< fx -. e-xamination of JEE and $ji ,,t'.$ 31 &'$ :> t b ,-@k;$%j-;~~#~: .-,""" r :$<-I'. *i ,+* '$<?" 4- I * JSO Population Control:+Bpg,~d%gTc, Shri ehta submitted that in _-(B_ %kg;: a*:?) n. " **<.*aaL&"t . ,"* *, ..w>L..F2;##., x,.,,,* .- * the instant examination, andrdates were permitted to take ,q. . ." ".fplp57R 1- .:,p \ q question papers with them 2nd the scanned copies of the OMR sheets were uploaded online immediately after conclusion of the examination. Shri Mehta submitted that allegation of manipulation in the OMR sheet is ill founded. He submitted that the OMR sheets were collected in the control room of examination centre, packed and sealed by the officers of the MNIT in presence of observers of the LSG and were transported to MNIT Campus by a combined team of the MNIT/LSG officials

¶51

under police escort. The OMR sheets were scanned at MNIT campus by the MNIT Scanning Team in a secured environment in presence of the LSG officers and on completion of scanning, a copy of the scanned data was handed over to the LSG officers in a compact disc duly signed by the officers of MNIT as well as LSG. Thereafter, another team of MNIT handed over the answer key to the which question papers and answer keys were up'loadyed for the benefit of %' p" candidates%ar$ a images of scanned OMR sheets swere made ?$??a' -<.+-- ,, availabl$,,in %:pi their login. With regard to shortening 6f time in '. .* =<c raising objection, le bmitted that the hat the period of 72 i- ,?$ < . .'aa. , . yY& P.i., $%: ;&,34 ",, hours provided u ertsrnent s$%k?pq w- &> ,.has d. .has not been curtailed .- &'iP$5F",c $,, @< .,! .:,;:;;;$?p$,,~;., " , . at all and the notif wtk :$p+g$;POZ7$A ,/ %Jr 3 provides for time to Be **_r t W_* submit objection to t $j$$$ypnly. , q With regard to fee of > -> ". %$4.' z Rs. 1,000, learned ihaf there is no arbitrariness in it ' 2 fixing the fee and aa6e failed d to demonstrate that it is exorbitant. H .att the writ 'petition be dis.missed. t

¶52

Shri Mehta, t of Hon'ble Supreme "y s-#d- %+$ + 4 - ?IV-9 Court in case of Sanchit'Bansal & Anr. vs. Joint Admission Board & 0rs.-(2012) I SCC 157 and a Division Bench judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in the case of Arvind Dhakad vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Writ Petition No.2839/2017 and other connected matters to buttress his submissions.

¶53

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

¶54

record.

¶55

The first objection raised by the petitioners is regarding not maintaining secrecy while publishing the OMR sheet which contained a candidate's photograph, his name and roll number on it. The material on record reveals that the roll numbers were allotted randomly to the candidates and admit cards were -@ "* provided in their login; +6 dfp, $gk "A P?($rs&$i$r'fa the examination. The "is ,# ?& OMR sheets coha:ini"ng photograph, name and roll number of the ?.. candidates$&e also printed before 48 hours of the ex~~mimination 9 +&-&% ,** at MNIT,campus in a secured environment. This was done with multiple objects; by changing the OMR sheet by the e examination, to avoid appearance of he examination and to rule out any p information being furnished by a candida e sheet. The court notices that this is g adopted in other examinations also. National Eligibility Entrance Test Exa ntains not only the . " , ' .&&!d<s4.$c<2wb-b;,4.. .", . name and roll number of a, canddate but, names of his/her , ,?Z~ <"?a?.~ qTp:iqg; ,J; parents also. The contehtion oT the learned counsel for the petitioners that to maintain anonymity of a candidate, such mechanism should have been avoided, may be true for comprehensive written examination but, where the question paper comprises of multiple choice questions only which are to be answered on an OMR sheet which is subject to scanning by the computer, anonymity of a candidate is not of much importance. Merely because a novel/innovative method of

¶56

examination has been adopted to maintain faith of the candidates as also general public in the fair and transparent recruitment system deviating from the normal procedure, it cannot be presumed to be tai,nted with biaslprejudice. The apprehension expressed by the petitioners appears to be ill founded. The reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgements of Hon'ble Apsexl Cpu;h of India in the case of -& &, p j" fd$& +.. ** ,. @q jL ; ; ; "~$+ sj Karnataka Pub>l:ic '$ervice Commission & Anr. (supra) and h..** p* .' Secretary '@s&pra), does not help them as the same were m *% render@$in different facts and circumstances. herein, the candidates were comprehensive written examination and t cases of MCQ wherein the OMR sheets are su

¶57

This Court finds tention of the learned counsel for the pe tes were not supplied with the carbon c that the same could be subjected to dents have taken a conscious decision t onducted through an expert body like ence in the field. The MNIT decided n view of its past experience while conducting Medical Officer examination for Medical and Health Department wherein, the process of removal of the carbon copy from the main OMR sheet often resulted into tearing of the OMR sheet itself which posed difficulty in its scanning. As per respondents', the similar procedure was adopted by the MNIT while conducting the examination of JEE and JSO Pollution Control Board etc. It has also come on record

¶58

that other recruiting agencies/departments have also stopped issuing carbon copies for example the pre-D.EI.Ed. conducted by the Education Department, Bikaner, Examination for P.T.E.T., etc..

¶59

Further, the procedure adopted by the respondents in conducting the examination completely rules out any manipulation in the ,y,Psh@e. ,$f$e$;e examination was over **..A* %:$&r- % '*A* 8%" w" T ,'?' 7v "3 , : L.b.,.,a 2 .", r. % by 12 o' clock, the OMR sheets are collected in the control room +& tr E, of the exg$ination centre, packed and sealed by the MNIT official's-i:n presence of the LSG observers and transported to the MNIT by a combin under police escor of MNIT, one was responsible for settin' and had the answer key whereas, the othe for scanning of the answer sheets which w NIT campus by the team responsible for it r-, idb LC= . &.q* aksdcut!ed;;environment *~i PI.p* *p;, lg"$ in presence of , & ' _,,@3_ - % ..&&e&,-. 6 +. . 6 the LSG officials. On F;. c~l;l7p:let1lon~~;G3hescanning, .@ a copy of the ;?$$. ;+-336^$*:^ux,5q %',,^*8-*96 scanned data was hat$ded%&.&!@b: $ ?! (?lr , .A,?;- h: 3 * I, _3.rtz v$gg$w*#--_ ^$&.~<&%AW** 4"- - **_9 tss_** ,LSG ***a,.** officials in a Compact , && $ $ * **9->%%*,% av&3:&k%:z&{5iw, >:w>~.k$<&&gki&b&>g** . . Disc duly signed by the ofQcers of the MNIT and the LSG. zffqq * q &, Thereafter, another te F the M~IT Handed over the answer keys to the scanning team after which, the question papers and the answer keys of all four series were uploaded on the website and images of scanned OMR sheets were also made available to the candidates in their login. The entire scanning process has been video-graphed. The complete schedule of scanning and uploading of the OMR sheets, questions papers and answer keys has been provided by the respondents in their reply.

¶60

¶61

In so far objection by one Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav with regard to manipulation in his OMR sheet is concerned, neither he is one of the petitioners nor, he has filed any affidavit in support of his objection. In view thereof, contention raised by the petitioners does not merit acceptance. It may be pertinent to observe here that it has been case of none of the petitioners that their OMR sheets were subjected toyany" manipulation. %& ;. ..if 9 '"

¶62

In the +,,a"fmesaid % V.i;i9 circumstances, this ' Court is of the a* wr 5. %. considered.,$iew that the petitioners have failed to establish that + 2' ,** g? the pr&cess of not providing carbon copy of the OMR sheets was adopted to manipulate the O;P$l~@s@tts. sp&Lv:* ,rs<*8w\e p $;2& e43 ** : **ctsv<,"T$* 2 g3=ty '",f ,&.< ; *Ai x+ q **_3::** , $;> .&J ? e" ,jp ,*g %s,,rrt +&* :i$&q ai.;r~.ss<e<:a:+h+ -+ rss ?+ ,+- : Contention 0fI?@~~~,.d':;d@fl:"@IVf@.'&h8 petitoners that the 433 +%, _ih J.,::;R_ ;: '~8 .. _e_ ,,<*%&++ %; **;y~$$&<$x2$~v~~:&~~_* :. : p+:2$,* +>A.,S -,c-.9 >a;:: .2. Pi 9? +*.;. window of 72 hours fokrsb.m:l$&:;dd@bj:e,tt:jon @. p,,., _$,$!$$<k_ . ... ,., ;+$ ,. 8\A , . ,,,:,,,J3.. ii:.%.i ;!>%$ Fz4:3%k. . fir "'ydy vide advertisement $$,<@>$, @?+ >; .Q -k dated *. 202 as,'"cp:::$;"~. er?b..-r .+B>:;:. ..FJ '-* %P .F$s e,eni.4~cuj&adl,ed #e .Tap (L n. vide notification dated "$x T'@&*" bJilili ; T- 11.9.2021, is misconcei merit, a period of 72 hours was provide e& to raise objection with regard to any diffi paper or any other complaint whereas, 11.9.2021, a period from the evening of ~~&9s;?-&~tth $4 T;q 4.- t. . . ,e :. mid -.. 3 night of 13.9.2021 C P ", il .st.* &$ p * was provided with regard to objection to the answer keys. Thug, different time period was prescribed for different and distinct objections.

¶63

With regard to submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners as to the fee of Rs.1,000 per objection being exorbitant, suffice is to say that neither the petitioners have been able to demonstrate that it is exorbitantlarbitrary nor, it

¶64

has been case of the petitioners that on account of such exorbitant fee, they have been prevented from raising objection to the answer keys. As a matter of fact, it has not been case of the petitioners that the answer keys suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioners does not merit acceptance.

¶65

" 8 - p8* The material avajlable, , in A f&drd 1 reveals that the entire h % ** v examination pr&ss i-7'h,* +e has been conducted in very fair/transparent d- $,>'''+?- .7::. and secue4~anner. % 2 MNIT faculty members were deputed as % ~entre'*1';7-charge and Deputy Centre In-charge. 10 MNIT's technical staff were deput?&@,a~ the exam centre under flP?+&3 $S$F$; ,,,<- _;,.a%?:_ **:.p:%&t@&?*x** supervision of a **~~.iI~4+f&~@I~p$~@@~$ig'ilance.** i: 3+2w&3k~&3 ~*.JT: _,);Y,~~_ **,h** The teachers and i.. **t'** _r,_ **_by%\ a P+.~?-$~_** >,, a&* ; .,?%, . <'L:+ ... ,..?..C i y+l,,xg, i" i$ ce,fttFe .+ .; (il , .** School) were also deputed as staff of the examinatirt &+, ..xgz.l \ 9 $!@F"g :$ ? , $ $:ig+;i:" % %? _334<2f_ **%.*; invigilators in exam @a~s~~&~d~&~~~~fh~$~ ;i.p,ia.cd+. +& .: 4e:z$i&.*,.g:% supervision of the school "di$$$%f $yi~,~f+,$?>~d ,< :: .'>yg p&<@$&$:;"*. y.;+i8 +. - :"+ * Principal. Assignment of:thei httk dxa!minaeion j hall to the invigilators were done by the system in presence of the LSG observers. r Administrative Officer from the LSG and also present at the examination centre. mportant aspect of the .w--ww,vw $ $ & . &:.a T.4 2- ;- $5 *? matter. In all, 1493 candiaates appeared in the examination and only 3 candidates have raised their objection to the recruitment process. Though, objection by such marginal number of candidates does not otherwise validate an invalid or irregular selection process but, it is noteworthy in view of the fact that apprehension raised by the petitioners could not be substantiated from the material on record.

¶66

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have, in case of Sanchit Bansal (supra), held as under:

¶67

"23. There are several statistical methods of preparing the ranking for purpose of selecting the best candidates for admission to a course, some simple and some complex. Each method or system has its merits and demerits and can be adopted only under certain conditions or by making certain assumptions. Any such stafi.&icdl 4 :techniques should be under !jp, , Hr: p"%&-k "% continuous revi%w6+$n%J evaluation t: ?hieve#improvement, in the 6 ":, %. light of experi9:qce gained over the years and new developments, '.. 3 if it is a re~~iqbe tool in the selection process. 24. 16:;kharashtra State Board of Secondary and Hiaher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhueshkumar Sheth [I984 (4) SCC 271 it was observed thu;k;.:,; ," "% I + * 2, $* A-#b.d:* * f;% .:.<&$ J ' ,? wr" k$$ ,,:^ ., "29 .... the Court.?',hul&;~~~~~~" <=&+ . . -. ,,^"$'. ' , . xtl-.e-mely reluctant .;-': to q,; $-% .as, &<;%4 & $4~ .AA ^. ,gs$::2,%hb;g+⁸ rl.+^':I , '?*..2b^.- ,⁾ i:,+$^I,:-. : i,&* t , ? substitute its ownbfi~~;s&&ito;i@b;atis +$;.. y66 . 2 3 . %23 .P'i 3, .el wise, prudent and g:, .' -&, 8. 'i.;"& f , , $,pgr::. , " >>J 2 2: * "Y' proper in relation ktya;Qademic qjs2e,. b %, .%.>j9:<. qw d536'c;v$ matters **9,, in preference to "4j#%.$:"","efi. .&a <,~ ,.,:qq *i5:;:** @,:$ 'C f? -4 6% $.??;,* those formulated :.p([email protected] + a,,*** ja : men possessing $1 1%- 4, * , -. technical expertise a'gd lgb experknce of actual day-tof 4 J day working of ed@ablonaI;+ iif .%g d e%i% institutions and the .' t; ,(..**..$. I, +"p& I*flg\ departments contr&lii.ri'g~~~BmZ& '$~,%~~* &v$&>s?~ - < * ,fd $Bf' \ 4 +vL Lqer #f ' J. ' 25. In All India ~oun&$:~f$klinicai 'Education v. Surinder Kumar t3&k a F.2; J :;%-% "69,. ( .l.&" g t . .(be+- Dhawan [2009 (11) cc!~j~~$~f,~~s~~~rt held : ..*% a%

¶68

11 16.The courts $&!+@fie$ * ?I, !equi,pped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical

¶69

education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.

¶70

17 ...... The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts,wi~ll ei '". step in." j 1 : ; r 3% .#&a b 8L ,, 8% *h * C, a (em phiasis ,supplied) Wk, **'. _S"_* %% "

¶71

This Gou'rt also repeatedly held that courts are not" concerned with tk,,practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain [2007 (4) SCC 7371 this cou

¶72

"16. ...Courts ,t as appellate authorities ex s, suitability and appropriatene courts advisors to the executive o hich the executive is entitled to form. pe of judicial review when examining a vernment is to check whethe,r it viola rights of the citizens or is opposed t the Constitution, or opposed to a ion or manifestly arbitrary. Courts apnotdferfere with policy either on , * **_&*c, 3;_** <

¶73

the ground that it is \erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review ..."

¶74

(emphasis supplied)

¶75

Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized

¶76

courses, are all technical matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following : (i) violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious.

¶77

An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a pe.rsonln authiority does any action based i on individual discrgt$$ bqignoring prescribed rules, procedure %,.. . or law and &tj:.e-action or decision is founded on prejudice or r %,$ "l preference. ?;i<her than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and clp~icious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. When an action _dps*$_ **.pj.?eQ,** or procedure seeks to a~t$e&$ s&cific objective in furtherance r '. *.+ f ; % - .> of education in a bona - , t;ldIevwa @ ?,hM:.$, :,i5 : nnei: .f4 by ;$ . adopting a process which ?i"' '" %.9f a,,.,, r.ib 3 1 .,<+; <i **g2,*... %:b'* ,*b , is uniform and nony%d ,t pik-~k+ ,,+~aQ~~~~rygi.t $-- A ..**&< p ,cannot be described as fY ' @%$;-6(,'6..? J- i arbitrary or capricious .~ra@@l:a+&l.d$$$&ir at 6 :T,+ ,@%, ; ' +iwy" . - $$ @ : $5 *-%":aL -$$as 2-8 **sr** pq" .% i I:':; a 3, .:

¶78

As already held, this :dlil,ie did not find the recruitment 3 &?! 'i) $2 process adopted by the despbndents:-5s;ffering i * from any illegality 4 +'>-&; ,$%fig , , i.'ih*"; * [email protected]" .;, 2. *y.PW ?+> &$ $$ $2. $, iv-x:** or arbitrariness warraili;@inf~~$irfrene 1% , in its writ jurisdiction. ' ? = *-. ..

¶79

merit.

¶80

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶81

RAVI SHARMA 137-39

Ashu Kumar S/O Shri Harpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashu Kumar S/O Shri Harpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Mukesh Kumar S/O Mewaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sakila Bano Wife of Ex.Lnk Manzoor Ahmed Vs the Union of India

Mukul S/O Shri Pawan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Sharma S/O Shri Deen Dayal Sharma, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Son of Shri Kishori Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deen Dayal Khinchi S/O Shri Onkar Mal Vs State of Rajasthan