High Court disposed of connected writ petitions challenging discrepancies in the School Lecturer recruitment answer key found under previous vacation. Court directed RPSC to form a special expert committee for review and held pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 928/2021
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 871/2021
Hemraj Rodiya S/o Babu Lal Bairwa, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 357/117, Jadon Nagar A, Opposite Durgapura Railway Station, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
(2 of 3)
[CW-928/2021]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
03/03/2021
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 petitions have been filed. The issue involved in the present petitions shall also be examined in the light of Kamal Yadav (supra). In Kamal Yadav (supra), this court has passed the following order:-
“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.
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.
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
(3 of 3)
[CW-928/2021]
answers were correct as per model answer key. This aspect requires to be examined at the level of RPSC.
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.
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.
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.
7. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of. “
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.
All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Anu/132-133/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions challenging discrepancies in the answer key for School Lecturer recruitment require further examination.
Whether the Respondents RPSC must form an expert committee to examine answer key objections at its own level.
Whether appointment orders should be withheld pending the outcomes of the answer key review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamal Yadav & Others versus State of Rajasthan & othersReferred¶26
Kamal Yadav & Others versus State of Rajasthan & others, SBCWP No.638/2021
Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶29
Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2020) 13 SCALE 689
Hastu Jyani
Manish Degava
Hemraj Rodiya
State Of Rajasthan
Director, Secondary Education Bikaner
Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
