Dismissed

Sunita Meena Daughter of Shri Prabhu Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Jan 2021CW/813/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the second answer key of a public service examination. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held it should not interfere with expert academic evaluations or examine question papers itself, finding the petition devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; all pending applications stood disposed of.

Sunita Meena Daughter of Shri Prabhu Lal Meena Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

[CW-813/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶4

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 813/2021

¶6

Sunita Meena Daughter Of Shri Prabhu Lal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 2-J-9, Rangbari Scheme, Kota (Raj.)

¶7

Mithlesh Jogi Son Of Shri Ram Gopal Jogi, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Manchari, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶8

----Petitioners Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Secondary Education Department, Through Its Principle Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶11

Dy. Secretary, Exam Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner Ajmer (Raj.)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶15

Order

¶16

27/01/2021

¶17

This Court has already held in the case of Neha Salodia Versus State Of Rajasthan & Others, SBCWP No.15089/2020 as

under:-

(2 of 4)

[CW-813/2021]

“This court finds that firstly this Court would not be in a position to become a historian and correct answers at its own level. Admittedly, the respondents have invited objections and thereafter on the basis of recommendations have deleted several questions— answers in the answer key. The view of the experts cannot be substituted by this Court.

¶22

The aforesaid issue has already been decided by this court in the case of Nidhi Yadav & Another Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others , SBCWP No.11840/2019 decided on 18.10.2019 wherein this court has held as under:-

¶23

“In view thereof, sanctity has to be given to such examination and such result are not required to be lightly interfered. In the case of HP Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Ors. rendered in AIR 2010 SC 2620 it was held:

¶24

“19. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No. 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics, chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court.”

¶25

The same view was expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others , Civil Appeal Nos.3649-3650 of 2020 decided

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CW-813/2021]

¶28

vide judgment dated 7.12.2020 wherein it was held as under:-

¶29

“13. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel.”

¶30

Even otherwise, prima facie, this Court finds that the petitioner has placed the excerpts relating to the third Edition which is not original edition as written by Hameer Rao known as Hameer Raso. This third Edition as per the Editor is the revised Edition written by Jodhraj and Shivnath thereto word used is Ranthambh. Thus, the answer assessed by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board cannot be said to be in any manner incorrect. Similarly, the other questions which the learned counsel relies to be incorrect also does not require to be interfered with on the aforesaid ground.

¶31

The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.”

¶32

The petitioners seek to challenge the second answer key whereby after obtaining objections, the respondents published the answer key and are proceeding with the selection.

¶33

(4 of 4) [CW-813/2021]

¶34

Keeping in view above, I am not inclined to entertain this petition on the basis of the retrospective view of the Supreme Court(supra).

¶35

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶36

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶37

Anu /204

Sunita Meena Daughter of Shri Prabhu Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Meena Daughter of Shri Prabhu Lal Meena 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (Riico) Ltd. Vs the Addl. District Judge No. 6

Mohammad Hanif Son of Abdul Hamid Vs State of Rajasthan

Nasreen Banoo D/O Fakrudeen Chouhan W/O Khalid Hussain Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandraveer Singh S/O Shri Ramgopal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Pradeep Singh S/O Late Shri Jaipal Singh Vs the Jaipur Development Authority

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Son of Late Shri Bhanwarlal Yadav Vs Director General of Police