Partly allowed

Jagdish Kumar Choudhary v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Rajasthan HC21 Oct 2021SAW/447/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two sets of appellant appeals arose from a judgment where a Single Judge interfered with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's decision to delete six examination questions due to perceived ambiguities. The Constitution Bench upheld the High Court's deletion for questionnaire 77 and 120, while reversing the deletion for the other four questions.

What did the court decide?

Original Single Judge's orders deleting questions 77 and 120 upheld; orders deleting other four questions reversed.

Jagdish Kumar Choudhary Vs Rajasthan Public… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 447/2020

¶3

Jagdish Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Karana Ram Choudhary, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ugroniyon Ki Dhani, Shahar, Gida, District Barmer.

¶4

Satya Veer Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Birmi Khalsa, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶5

Paras Lal S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Madpura Sari, Post Kawas, District Barmer.

¶6

Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Tarachand Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 69, Shri Dev Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur.

¶7

Bagata Ram S/o Shri Rugnath Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Baitu Bhopji, District Barmer.

¶8

Veeram Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Bhalla Ram Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Charan Singh Colony, Baitu, District Barmer.

¶9

Moti Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Bori Kalla, District Jodhpur.

¶10

Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ishavashyam, 124, Shyam Nagar, Iind Yojna, Pal Road, Jodhpur.

¶11

----Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary

¶14

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

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

Connected With

¶17

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 365/2020

¶18

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶19

----Appellant

¶20

Versus

¶21

Ajay Bhadu S/o Ram Ratan Bhadu, Aged About 35 Years, Ward No. 23, Dulmani Mandi, Pilibangan, Tehsil

¶22

(2 of 14)

¶23

[SAW-447/2020]

¶24

Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶25

Vinod Kumar Suthar S/o Shankar Lal Suthar, Aged About 41 Years, House No. 1/17, New Rajasthan Housing Board Colony, Manaksar Link Road, Ward No. 1, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶26

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

¶27

The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

¶28

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶29

Versus

¶30

Poonama Ram S/o Shri Lala Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kerli, Adarsh Chawa, Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶31

Choona Ram S/o Shri Sadula Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Chadi, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶32

Kana Ram S/o Shri Narsha Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Tajaniyon Ka Tala, Post Kaprau, District Barmer.

¶33

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

¶34

Director, Secondary Education, District Bikaner.

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 412/2020

¶37

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶38

----Appellant

¶39

Versus

¶40

Dhanraj S/o Purkha Ram, Aged About 31 Years, 173, Pipasar, Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶41

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

¶42

(3 of 14)

¶43

[SAW-447/2020]

¶44

The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

¶45

----Respondents

¶46

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 413/2020

¶47

Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶48

----Appellant

¶49

Versus

¶50

Avinash S/o Khinya Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Mahavir Nagar, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶51

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

¶52

The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

¶53

----Respondents

¶54

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 415/2020

¶55

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶56

----Appellant

¶57

Versus

¶58

Jagdish Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Karana Ram Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ugroniyon Ki Dhani, Shahar, Gida, District Barmer.

¶59

Satya Veer Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Birmi Khalsa, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶60

Paras Lal S/o Shri Ratan Lal,, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Madpura Sari, Post Kawas, District Barmer.

¶61

Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Tarachand Sharma,, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 69, Shri Dev Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur.

¶62

Bagata Ram S/o Shri Rugnath Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Baitu Bhopji, District Barmer.

¶63

Veeram Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Bhalla Ram Choudhary,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Charan Singh Colony, Baitu, District Barmer.

¶64

Moti Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh,, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bori Kalla, District Jodhpur.

¶65

Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ishavashyam, 124, Shyam Nagar, Iind Yojna, Pal

(4 of 14)

[SAW-447/2020]

Road, Jodhpur.

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

¶70

----Respondents

¶71

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 497/2020

¶72

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶73

----Appellant

¶74

Versus

¶75

Bal Veer Singh S/o Shri Raja Ram, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Sc, R/o Khedasari, Khoda, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

¶76

Manohar Lal S/o Shri Hadman Ram, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Obc, R/o Shekhchulia, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

¶77

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

¶78

The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

¶79

----Respondents

¶80

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 498/2020

¶81

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶82

----Appellant

¶83

Versus

¶84

Rajendra Singh Godara S/o Chatru Ram Godara, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Hairpura, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶85

Jaipal Singh S/o Balram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Dungersingh Pura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶86

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

¶87

----Respondents

¶88

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 46/2021

¶89

Poonama Ram S/o Shri Lala Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kerli, Adarsh Chawa, Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶90

(5 of 14)

¶91

[SAW-447/2020]

¶92

Choona Ram S/o Shri Sadula Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Chadi, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶93

Kana Ram S/o Shri Narsha Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Tajaniyon Ka Tala, Post Kaprau, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶94

----Appellants

¶95

Versus

¶96

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

¶97

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶98

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶99

----Respondents

¶100

For Appellant(s)- : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi Petitioners Mr. Vijay Bisnoi Mr. Kailash Jangid Mr. Anil Bishnoi For Appellant-RPSC: Mr. Tarun Joshi Mr. Khet Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria Mr. Mohan Singh Sekhawat Mr. Vikram Singh

¶101

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶102

Judgment

¶103

21/10/2021

¶104

These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15944/2019 and connected petitions. The appeals being S.A.W. Nos. 365/2020, 375/2020, 412/2020, 413/2020, 415/2020, 497/2020 & 498/2020 are filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission challenging the said judgment and the appeals being S.A.W. Nos. 447/2020 & 46/2021 are filed by the

¶105

(6 of 14) [SAW-447/2020]

¶106

original petitioners challenging the very same judgment to the extent their petitions were dismissed.

¶107

The issue raised by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge pertains to a recruitment process initiated by the State Government through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Headmaster in Secondary Schools. The examination consisted of two papers containing 150 multiple choice questions. After completion of the examination and publication of answer keys, objections were invited from the concerned persons. The Public Service Commission thereupon constituted an expert body to deal with all the objections received from the various quarters. As a culmination of this exercise, answer keys to few questions were shifted from the original answers published and in some cases where the expert body opined that the questions were either confusing or there was possibility of more correct answers than one and accordingly the questions were deleted altogether. The original petitioners were aggrieved by these changes and/or publication of correct answers with respect to as many as 29 of these questions. They approached the Court and challenged the decision of the Public Service Commission with respect to these 29 questions. The learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to 17 of these questions. The learned Single Judge referred 6 of these disputed questions to an expert body to be constituted by the Public Service Commission and for other 6 questions, the learned Single Judge carried out detailed analysis of the nature of the questions, the multiple choice answers printed in the question papers and the conclusion of the Public Service Commission with respect to the correct answers thereof and over-ruled the decision of the Public

¶108

(7 of 14)

¶109

[SAW-447/2020]

¶110

Service Commission regarding the correct answers or to delete the question. Challenge to the remaining 17 questions was turned down. The Public Service Commission has therefore filed the appeals mainly with respect to 6 questions where the learned Single Judge has over-ruled the opinion of the Public Service Commission. During the pendency of these appeals, the Public Service Commission has carried out the exercise of reviewing the remaining 6 questions by the expert body and we are informed by the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission that the report of the committee has also been received.

¶111

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

¶112

With respect to 6 questions, the learned Single Judge has made a reference to the expert body. No dispute has been raised by the Public Service Commission and as noted, already obtained a report from the expert body. We are informed by the learned counsel for the Commission that the expert body has recommended no change in the original view of the Public Service Commission. So far as these appeals are concerned, this issue must therefore rest at that stage.

¶113

We may now address the grievances of the Public Service Commission with respect to 6 questions where the learned Single Judge has interfered. We will deal with these questions at seriatim.

¶114

The first question with multiple choice in this context was as follows:-

¶115

“Q.96- Which one of the following statements about Rajasthan is not correct?

¶116

(8 of 14)

¶117

[SAW-447/2020]

¶118

(1) Its East-West extent is more than North-South extent.

¶119

(2) Its East-West extent is less than North-South extent.

¶120

(3) Its total land boundary is less 6000 km.

¶121

(4) Its latitudinal extent is more than 7° latitudes.”

¶122

Initially, the answer key recognized answer no. (2) as the correct answer but later on, upon scrutiny, the Public Service Commission decided to delete the question. The reason cited was that in answer no. (3), the word “than” should have been added between the words ‘less’ and ‘6000 km’ . This typographical error rendered this answer also incorrect and therefore, the whole question became vague. The learned Single Judge over-ruled this decision by observing as under:-

¶123

“This Court is of the opinion that an option has to be contextually understood in the backdrop of the corresponding question. The question No.96 specifically asked that which of the given options was not correct. Option (3) even without the use of expression “than” was able to convey the meaning reasonably. True it is, that a typographical error has crept in, but such innocuous error did not warrant the question to be deleted.”

¶124

In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the final conclusion of the expert body duly constituted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission having expertise in the field. It is not necessary to refer to large number of decisions of this Court as well as of Supreme Court which essentially lay down that the interference by the High Court in matters of education and other technical fields should be kept to the minimum. Short reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Richal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public

¶125

(9 of 14)

¶126

[SAW-447/2020]

¶127

Service Commission & Ors. [2018 (8) SCC 81] would be sufficient.

¶128

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission that the typographical error by which the word “than” was missing rendered the question itself confusing and therefore it was decided to be deleted. Without strong reasons, such decision should not have been over-ruled. May be, one view was that such typographical error could have been ignored and correction could have been automatically applied. However, this is not a ground on which the decision of the Public Service Commission can be overruled. This view of the learned Single Judge is therefore reversed.

¶129

The next question along with its multiple choice answers, in which the learned Single Judge interfered, was as under:-

¶130

“Q.77- What is given in ‘Gargi Puraskar’ to the students passing tenth (10^th ) Board examination? (1) A total sum of ₹ 6000 and a certificate

¶131

(2) A total sum of ₹ 10000 and a certificate (3) A total sum of ₹ 25000 and a certificate

¶132

(4) A total sum of ₹ 5000 and a certificate”

¶133

Originally, the answer no. (1) was recognized as a correct answer. This question was altogether deleted upon review on the ground that the prize money (under ‘ Gargi Puraskar ’) is given to a girl student when she continues to study in classes XI and XII. The learned Single Judge over-ruled this decision of the Public Service Commission by making following observations:-

¶134

“This Court is of the firm view that the opinion of the experts that question be deleted because the expression “girl” and further stipulation “she continues to study in class XI and XII” were absent, is untenable. Even in absence of these expressions, the question which focuses on the quantum of award, is complete. Thus, the answer originally given i.e. option (1) is the correct answer.”

¶135

(10 of 14)

¶136

[SAW-447/2020]

¶137

In our view, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in arriving at this conclusion. The question was, what is given under the “Gargi Puraskar” . Even Public Service Commission agrees that answer no. (1) i.e. a total sum of ₹ 6000 and a certificate is given under the said “Puraskar”, is the correct answer. This was only correct choice out of the four choices given in the question paper. Despite this clear position, this question was deleted on the ground that said sum of money and the certificate are given only if the qualified girl students continue to pursue their education in XI and XII standard. This was never the part of the question, nor part of additional answers. The plain question was as to what was the reward under the “Gargi Puraskar” to the qualified student. The fact that such reward would be available only if the student continues to study beyond a certain standard was not a part of the question or answer. Therefore, to declare the question redundant was wholly incorrect. In view of such clear position, the learned Single Judge correctly came to the conclusion to set aside the decision of the Public Service Commission.

¶138

Next question with multiple choice answers, which the learned Single Judge objected to, was as under:-

¶139

“Q.87- Child Care Leave for mothers has been announced for those mothers who have children upto the maximum age of-

¶140

(1) 12 years

¶141

(2) 14 years

¶142

(3) 16 years

¶143

(4) 18 years”

¶144

Originally, answer no. (4) was declared as correct answer. Subsequently, upon review, the question was deleted altogether.

¶145

(11 of 14)

¶146

[SAW-447/2020]

¶147

This was on the basis that in case of a child with disability of prescribed percentage, the child care leave to the mother is given upto the age of 22 years of the child. The learned Single Judge, however, was of the opinion that this was only an exception and normal rule was that the child care leave is available for a child upto the age of 18 years. When even in exceptional cases, it was possible to avail the child care leave for the mother upto the age of 22 years of the child, the multiple choices contained in the question paper were not complete and no clear answer was emerging and therefore the decision to delete the question cannot be faulted.

¶148

The next disputed question where the learned Single Judge interfered was as under:-

¶149

“ Q.120 Consumer Protection Act was enforced in-

(1) 1984

(2) 1982

(3) 1986

(4) 1989”

Originally, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission recognized answer no. (3) as correct answer. Later on, this was deleted. Upon review, this answer was retained. The original petitioners’ submission was that the question should be deleted because it does not present correct and clear answer. In this context, the learned Single Judge ordered deletion of question on the ground that the correct answer should have been the year 1987, which did not form part of the choices. The learned counsel for the Public Service Commission is not in a position to seriously controvert this conclusion of the learned Single Judge and it is therefore affirmed.

¶155

(12 of 14)

¶156

[SAW-447/2020]

¶157

The next question which the learned Single Judge interfered

¶158

was as under:-

¶159

“Q.122- ‘Agricultural shot’ is associated with-

¶160

(1) Hockey

¶161

(2) Cricket

¶162

(3) Basketball

¶163

(4) Chess”

¶164

The correct answer published was answer no. (2) i.e. game of Cricket. However, the learned Single Judge ordered deletion of this question making following observations:-

¶165

“Objection raised by the petitioners qua this question is sustained. It is surprising to note that when it comes to Penicillin, RPSC opines it to be out of syllabus, but with respect to agricultural shot it says that it is included in current events – without even mentioning that when such shot was played recently. RPSC’s stand that it is within syllabus is rejected. Consequently, question No.122 is ordered to be deleted.”

¶166

Here again, going by the narrow scope of review against the decision of the expert body in the field of education and examination, we think that the learned Single Judge should have refrained from interfering with the decision of the Public Service Commission. It may be that the term “Agricultural Shot” is not a recognized terminology in the English dictionary, nevertheless, if it is considered to be a term which has come to be recognized through the innovation of cricket commentators, it should not have been seen as a question not within the syllabus.

¶167

The last surviving question in which the learned Single Judge

¶168

has caused interference was as under:-

¶169

“Q. 125- Recently Hima Das won a gold medal. The sports event in which she won was-

¶170

(1) Asian Games-2018

¶171

(2) World Atheletics Championship-2018

¶172

(3) World Junior Atheletics Championship-2018

¶173

(4) Commonwealth Games-2018”

¶174

(13 of 14)

¶175

[SAW-447/2020]

¶176

Originally, answer no. (3) was declared as the correct answer. On review, the question was deleted because in the opinion of the expert body, the multiple choice question presented two possible answers, namely, Asian Games-2018 as well as World Junior Atheletics Championship-2018. The learned Single Judge objected to this view on the ground that in the Asian Games-2018, the Athelete Hema Das has won Gold Medal in a team event.

¶177

In this context, the Public Service Commission was of the opinion that since Hima Das won gold medal in Asian Games-2018 and World Junior Athletics Championship-2018, two answers i.e. answer no. (1) and (3) were correct and thus, the question was deleted. Further, the question did not specify as to which individual Gold Medal, the athelete had won. Therefore, the decision of the Public Service Commission to delete the question should not be disturbed.

¶178

So far as appeals of the original petitioners are concerned, hardly any arguments are advanced to reverse the decision of the learned Single Judge upholding the view of the Public Service Commission. It is therefore not necessary to address these questions individually and to refer to the reasons cited by the learned Single Judge for upholding the questions and answers.

¶179

Under the circumstances, the final picture that emerges is that out of 6 questions, where the learned Single Judge has caused interference, we are in a position to uphold only 2 of them namely, with respect to the question no. 77 and question no. 120. The rest of the declarations of the learned Single Judge with respect to the remaining 4 questions are hereby reversed.

¶180

(14 of 14)

¶181

[SAW-447/2020]

¶182

The Public Service Commission would thus have to re-assess the total tally of the marks of the petitioners by applying the conclusions of the learned Single Judge with respect to the question no. 77 and 120. If the petitioners or any of them, by virtue of this exercise, get revised marks so as to be included in the select list, they would be offered appointment prospectively and they would draw salary from the date of joining the service and their seniority will be counted from such date. It is clarified that this exercise would be confined only to the petitioners and will not apply to any other candidates.

¶183

The direction of the learned Single Judge with respect to payment of cost is deleted.

¶184

With these observations, all the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

¶185

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶186

41to49-jayesh/-

Jagdish Kumar Choudhary v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Kumar Choudhary v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

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

Shanti Lal Meghwal Vs Raj. High Court, Jodhpur

Neelam Kanwar Vs Rajasthan High Court

Ashok Kumar Vs Rajasthan High Court,Jodhpur

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan

Anita Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Kishore