Dismissed

Namrata Jat D/O Prahlad Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2021CW/1347/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging discrepancies in an answer key for School Lecturer posts. The court disposed of the petition, directing the RPSC to form an expert committee as per a prior order, while preserving other pending applications. No further petitions were to be entertained.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; RPSC to form expert committee; appointments suspended for two weeks; pending applications disposed of.

Namrata Jat D/O Prahlad Jat Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1347/2021

¶3

Namrata Jat D/o Prahlad Jat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. 17 Shiv Colony, Near Petrol Pump, Dudu Road, Malpura, District Tonk, Rajasthan

¶4

Neelam Kumari D/o Subhash Chand Verma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 17, Alkapuri, Alwar, Rajasthan 301001

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Director, (Secondary Education) Rajasthan Bikaner (Rajasthan)

¶9

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary Ajmer

¶10

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jamesh Bedi Mr. Hemraj Rodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F.Baig

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

05/03/2021

¶14

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

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-1347/2021]

¶17

(supra). In Kamal Yadav (supra), this court has passed the

¶18

following order:-

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-1347/2021]

¶28

Keeping in view the statement of counsel for the respondent-RPSC and the order passed by this court in Kamal Yadav (supra), the present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

It is made clear that no further petition shall be entertained as it cannot be an unending process as a time plan has been laid down by the RPSC for disposal of the issue by the expert committee.

¶30

All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶31

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶32

Anu /91

Namrata Jat D/O Prahlad Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namrata Jat D/O Prahlad Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Udani D/O Shri Mohan Lal Udani Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Tiwari Son of Shri Champalal Tiwari Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Kapil Bhargava S/O Shri Atma Ram Bhargava Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Mankaur Daughter of Shri Hanuman Singh Vs the Secretary

Santosh Sharma W/O Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Suraj Sansi S/O Shri Rajkumar Vs State of Rajasthan