Disposed

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

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2021CW/1363/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this order, the High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging discrepancies in the final answer key for the School Lecturer exam. The court noted that a previous reference (Kamal Yadav) mandated the formation of an expert committee. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, leaving the RPSC to examine the matter and form the committee, while directing the State not to issue appointment o

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the RPSC is directed to examine the matter and form a special expert committee with field-relevant experts.

Kapil Bhargava S/O Shri Atma Ram… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1363/2021

¶3

Kapil Bhargava S/o Shri Atma Ram Bhargava, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 21, H.no. 217, Kutiya Road, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)- 335501

¶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-1363/2021]

¶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-1363/2021]

¶28

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

¶29

aforesaid terms.

¶30

All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶31

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Anu /155

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Bhargava S/O Shri Atma Ram Bhargava v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramratan Sharma Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Shiv Kumar Arora Vs Chairman R S R T C Andanr

Hastu Jyani D/O Chatara Ram Jyani Vs State of Rajasthan

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

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

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