Dismissed

Ramesh Chand Jat S/O Shri Leelaram v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2021CW/1343/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a candidate challenging the selection process for School Lecturer posts. Relying on a prior order directing the RPSC to examine answer key discrepancies via a special expert committee, the court directed the RPSC to consider the issue and disposed of the pending petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and all pending applications were disposed of, directing the RPSC to examine the answer key discrepancies.

Ramesh Chand Jat S/O Shri Leelaram Vs the State… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1343/2021

¶3

Ramesh Chand Jat S/o Shri Leelaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Dhani Harnathwali, Village And Post Mandha, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) - 303110.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Sunil Kumar Swami
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. M.F.Baig

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

04/03/2021

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-RPSC submits that as per the directions issued in the case of Kamal Yadav &

¶14

Others versus State of Rajasthan & others , SBCWP No.638/2021 decided on 17.02.2021, the expert committee has also been formed to examine the answer key relating to the selection conducted for the post of School Lecturer for which the present petition has been filed. The issue involved in the present petition shall also be examined in the light of Kamal Yadav (supra). In Kamal Yadav (supra), this court has passed the following order:-

¶15

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out discrepancies in the final answer key. It is stated

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-1343/2021]

¶18

that in the model answer key, correct answer was mentioned and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioners to object to the model answer key. However, in the final answer key published by the RPSC, the answers which were mentioned in the model answer key have been changed resulting in wrong answer being included. An example has been given of Question No.72.

¶19

2. Learned counsel appearing for the RPSC has produced the copy of the expert opinion, however, this Court finds that the expert opinion does not contain experts of law.

¶20

3. In the case Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2020) 13 SCALE 689 the Supreme Court has held that High Courts ought not interfere with the examination process generally and as the Courts cannot be said to be expert body however, this Court finds that candidates were not given an opportunity to put their objections relating to the final answer key although as per them, their answers were correct as per model answer key. This aspect requires to be examined at the level of RPSC.

¶21

4. Leaving it open for the RPSC to examine the aspect and allow them to form a special expert committee consisting of experts in the field relevant.

¶22

5. The present writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that if there are other writ petitions wherein other questions have been put to challenge, the RPSC at its own level may examine the said aspect and take decisions appropriately.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/s submits that complication relating to appointment may arise, if the result is revised. In the interest of justice in order to avoid any complications, the State would be well advised not to take decision to issue appointment orders for two weeks till the RPSC takes a decision as above.

¶24

7. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of. “

¶25

Keeping in view the statement of counsel for the respondent-RPSC and the order passed by this court in Kamal

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-1343/2021]

¶28

Yadav (supra), the present petition stands disposed of in the

¶29

aforesaid terms.