Disposed

Vikas Tiwari Son of Shri Champalal Tiwari v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2021CW/546/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Connected writ petitions by multiple candidates challenging discrepancies in the School Lecturer selection exam answer key were disposed of by relying on a prior order directing the RPSC to form an expert committee.

What did the court decide?

Disposed; RPSC directed to form special expert committee; appointment orders suspended for two weeks.

Vikas Tiwari Son of Shri Champalal Tiwari Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission — Rajasthan HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 546/2021

¶4

Vikas Tiwari Son Of Shri Champalal Tiwari, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Gandhi Chowk, Nokha, Bikaner-334803 (Raj) At Present Resident Of C/o Jugal Kishor Swami 47, Santosh Nagar, Tonk (Raj)-304001.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary Ajmer.

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director Senior Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 596/2021

¶12

Seema Udani D/o Shri Mohan Lal Udani, Aged About 33 Years, R/ o 963-A, Sindhi Mohalla, Ward No. 5, Nasirabad, District- Ajmer.

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education And Language, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶16

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

(2 of 9)

[CW-546/2021]

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1629/2021

¶21

Beena Sharma D/o Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Garh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶22

----Petitioner

¶23

Versus

¶24

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

¶25

Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶26

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1630/2021

¶29

Ravindra Kumar Meena S/o Rampratap, Aged About 29 Years, R/ o Village Haripura, Post Batawada, Tehsil And District Baran, Rajasthan.

¶30

----Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

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

¶33

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

(3 of 9)

[CW-546/2021]

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1631/2021

¶38

Bajarang Lal Jat S/o Hanuman Sahaya Jat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kishorpura, Via Ajitgarh, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶39

----Petitioner

¶40

Versus

¶41

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

¶42

Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶43

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶44

----Respondents

¶45

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1632/2021

¶46

Jyoti Punia, D/o Suraj Bhan Punia, W/o Adarsh Choudhary, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Jat Behror, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.).

¶47

Rupesh Kumar Sujanani, S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Sujanani, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Opp. Smmcc Government College, Keshargang, Abu Road, Sirohi, (Raj.).

¶48

Asheesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Krishan Kumar Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bhoopshera, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶49

Chuki Sharma, D/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Narharipura, Post Chandalai, Tehsil

¶50

(4 of 9)

¶51

[CW-546/2021]

¶52

Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.).

¶53

----Petitioners

¶54

Versus

¶55

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

¶56

Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶57

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶58

----Respondents

¶59

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1805/2021

¶60

Devendra Kumar Meena S/o Ladu Ram Meena, Aged About 36 Years, Presently Residing At A-90, Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jagatpura Road, Jaipur.

¶61

Surendra Kumar Sharma S/o Meedoo Ram Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Manpur, Tehsil Sikari, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶62

Praveen Kanwar D/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 97, Labour Colony, Purana Nala Power House Road, Banipark, Jaipur.

¶63

Sarita Choudhary D/o Ramnivas Choudhary, Aged About 30 Years, Presently Residing At 176, C Block, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶64

----Petitioners

¶65

Versus

¶66

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary

¶67

(5 of 9)

¶68

[CW-546/2021]

¶69

Education Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶70

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

¶71

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer

¶72

----Respondents

¶73

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1960/2021

¶74

Surjan Lal Dhawan S/o Prabhu Dayal Dhawan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Pandit Pura Panchmukhi, Badiya Road, Dausa, (Raj)

¶75

Tola Ram Jakhar S/o Tejram Jakhar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 30 Dodd, Hanuman Nagar Makeri, Bikaner (Raj.) 334023.

¶76

Pooja Rani Saxena W/o Rang Bihari, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 08 Near Ram Mandir, Anupgarh, Sri Ganga Nagar, (Raj.) 335701

¶77

Pooja Sharma W/o Prahlad Kumar Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Fci Goam Raod, Sainik Nagar, Ganpapur City, Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 322201

¶78

Sonia Nagpal W/o Fateh Chand Nagpal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o W. No. 12, H. No. 187, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).335001.

¶79

Durga Ram Meghwal S/o Girdhari Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo-Dabra, Naguar (Raj.). 341506

¶80

Bakeel S/o Mukhtyar Singh Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years,

¶81

(6 of 9)

¶82

[CW-546/2021]

¶83

R/o Vill. Tarsuma, Tehsil Bayana, Bharatpur (Raj.). 321405.

¶84

Lukman S/o Lal Khan, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Purani Ginani Near Mffr Road, Mahajan, Bikaner (Raj.) 334604.

¶85

Khem Raj Meghwal S/o Sava Ji Meghwal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo-Vallabh, Tehsil-Girwa, P.s. Kurawar, Udaipur, (Raj.).

¶86

Raj Kumar S/o Man Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Viii, Bhojewala, Post-Somasar, Tehsil Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)., 335804.

¶87

Rameshwar Lal S/o Chuna Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/ o Chak 662, Road Siyasar, Panchkosa, Tehsil Pugal, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.). 334808.

¶88

Bhavani Shankar Tard S/o Haramana Ram Tard, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo-Surnana, Tehsil-Loonkaransar, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.). 334603.

¶89

----Petitioners

¶90

Versus

¶91

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Department Of Education Govt.of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶92

The Director, Secondary Education Govt. Of Rajasthan , Bikaner (Raj)

¶93

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer

(7 of 9)

[CW-546/2021]

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Kumar Dubey Mr. Veyankatesh Garg Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman Mr. James Bedi Mr. Hemraj Rodiya Mr. Mahendra Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F.Baig Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG

¶98

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶99

Judgment / Order

¶100

04/03/2021

¶101

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

¶102

(8 of 9)

¶103

[CW-546/2021]

¶104

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

¶105

following order:-

¶106

“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.

¶107

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.

¶108

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.

¶109

(9 of 9) [CW-546/2021]

¶110

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.

¶111

5. The present writ petition is disposed of. It is made

¶112

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.

¶113

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

¶114

well advised not to take decision to issue appointment orders for two weeks till the RPSC takes a decision as above.

¶115

7. All pending applications shall also stand disposed

¶116

of. “

¶117

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

¶118

All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶119

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶120

Anu /397

Vikas Tiwari Son of Shri Champalal Tiwari v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Tiwari Son of Shri Champalal Tiwari v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

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

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

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

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