Partly allowed

Umesh Yadav S/O Veni Prasad v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Rajasthan HC22 Feb 2022CW/360/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Candidates unsuccessful in the RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Preliminary Examination-2021 challenged the RPSC's final answer key on a dozen disputed questions, alleging answers were demonstrably wrong. The court, applying the limited scope of judicial review over expert academic opinion, partly allowed the writ petitions, accepting one objection, deleting one question, remitting four questions to t

What did the court decide?

Answer key dated 22.11.2021 and result dated 19.11.2021 quashed in part; RPSC directed to revise the preliminary examination result and prepare a fresh list of candidates eligible to appear in the mai

Umesh Yadav S/O Veni Prasad Vs Rajasthan Public… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13968/2021

¶3

Ankit Sharma S/o Kalyan Prasad, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Opposite To Meena Temple, Chhabra, District Baran, Rajasthan.

¶4

Sanjay Didal S/o Sagar Mal Didal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 8-A, Bal Vihar Colony, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Rambabu Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 13, Behind The Temple, Village Gudhawas, Post Newar, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶6

Sharma Mradul Rakesh D/o Rakesh Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 10/a, Railway Colony, Gandhidham, Kachchh, Gujrat.

¶7

Avinash Kumar S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Gajoowas, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶8

Sone Singh S/o Bijendra Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o P-42, Madhuvan Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Navin Tiwari S/o Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 280, Near Durgapura Railway Station, Shanti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Kailash Chand Verma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o P. No. 51, Jagdamba Nagar-B, Behind Medicine Factory, Benar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

Hansraj Meena S/o Nathu Ram Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No. 200, Ganesh Nagar, Main Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶12

Harphool Phagna S/o Kalyan Sahai Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Talwa, Bihajar,tehsil Viratnagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶13

Siya Ram Gurjar S/o Ramgopal Gurjar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Shankerpura, Post Birasara, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶14

Shankar Lal Meena S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o T-2/76, Sahyog Apartment, Sector-6, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶15

(2 of 52)

¶16

[CW-13968/2021]

¶17

Dinesh Kumar Parsoya S/o Banna Ram Parsoya, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 305-306, Parkwood Building, Sri Gopal Nagar, Near To Somani Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶18

Harish Kumar Kumawat S/o Subhash Chand Kumawat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 150, Patel Colony, Bari Ka Bas, Goner Mod, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶19

Mahendra Kumar Sindhu S/o Suwa Lal Sindhu, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sindhu Farm, Beelwari, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶20

Ashutosh S/o Govind Prasad Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 200/9, Vikas Colony-3, Matches Factory, Dadawara, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶21

Munkesh Kumar Pooniya S/o Tiku Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Kishanpura, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶22

Sher Singh S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Surana, Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶23

Rahul Sharma S/o Girish Chandra Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 14/387, Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶24

Kamlesh Kumar Jat S/o Dhanna Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶25

Laxman Singh S/o Sawai Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Sankara, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶26

Javed Khan S/o Mohamed Shamim, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Near Police Sataion, Sarwar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶27

----Petitioners

¶28

Versus

¶29

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶30

----Respondent

¶31

Connected With

¶32

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13689/2021

¶33

Suneel Kumar Sharma S/o Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Plot No. 23, Jain Enclave, Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

(3 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

----Petitioner

Versus

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶39

----Respondent

¶40

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14018/2021

¶41

1. Bhagwan Sahay Jat S/o Shri Budha Ram Jat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o A-65, Friends Colony, Sirsi Road, Panchyawala, Jaipur-302034 (Raj.) Roll No. 564969

¶42

1. Akash Bhardwaj S/o Shri Purshottam Bhardwaj, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 204 Muktanand Nagar, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur-302018 (Raj.) Roll No. 741166

¶43

1. Ankita Bhatnagar D/o Shri P S Bhatnagar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o D 160 A, Siddharth Nagar,gaitore Road, Jaipur-302017 (Raj.) Roll No. 388696

¶44

1. Ashish Choudhary S/o Shri Laxminarayan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo-Radawas, Via-Amarsar, TehsilShahpura, Jaipur-303601 (Raj.) Roll No. 344932

¶45

1. Ashish Pargi S/o Shri Kamlashanker Pargi, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Near Goshala, Noagama Road, Banswara327601 (Raj.) Roll No. 360261

¶46

1. Dharmendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ratan Lal Meena, Aged About 38 Years, R/o H.no. 3, Block D, Suman Enclave, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302025 (Raj.) Roll No. 251094

¶47

1. Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Jagmal Singh Rathore, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Plot No 387, New Colony B.j.s., Jodhpur-342010(Raj.) Roll No. 712244

¶48

1. Gaurav Rayzada S/o Shri Dinesh Rayzada, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 1505, Alakhnanda Colony , Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer-305001 (Raj.) Roll No. 304118

¶49

1. Gaurav Satsangi S/o Shri Anand Satsangi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Flat No. 1 And 2, 1St Floor, Windsor Court, Suraj Nagar, Near C.h.b., Jodhpur-342008(Raj.) Roll No. 749926

¶50

1. Indu Kumari D/o Shri Rekha Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Rajiv Nagar, Sindhari Road, Barmer-344001 (Raj.) Roll No. 198337

¶51

1. Jogendra Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 29

¶52

(4 of 52)

¶53

[CW-13968/2021]

¶54

Years, R/o Gurukul Dairy, Jharno Ki Sarai, Debari, Udaipur-313024 (Raj.) Roll No. 703157

¶55

Kalpesh Kumar Puniya S/o Shri Jaggu Ram Puniya, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kalpesh Kumar Puniya Ward N0 13 Mohalla Kumawaton, Khatushyamji, Khatoo, Sikar332602 Teh Danta Ramgarh, (Raj.) Roll No. 293189

¶56

Kapila D/o Shri Birbal Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o B-60, Shri Ram Nagar-B, Khirni Phatak Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012 (Raj.) Roll No. 677560

¶57

Karmavati Meena D/o Shri Ram Chandra Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 166 Vivek Vihar Behind Uco Bank, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017 (Raj.) Roll No. 442993

¶58

Karni Singh Nathawat S/o Shri Madan Singh Nathawat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 58, Sajjan Leela Vihar, Ramjan Ka Hattha, Jodhpur (Raj.) Roll No. 727066

¶59

Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Yad Ram Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Puranbas, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar-332713 (Raj.) Roll No. 138976

¶60

Mausam Jat D/o Shri Ganga Ram Jat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Shyampura, Jaipur-303002 (Raj.) Roll No. 385479

¶61

Monika Sharma D/o Shri Kamal Nayan Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Shiv Colony, Near Dr. Rajmal Chittora House, Baran-325205 (Raj.) Roll No. 189459

¶62

Narendra Singh S/o Shri Phool Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kasganj Road Katra, Nadbai, Bharatpur321602(Raj.) Roll No. 277663

¶63

Nitu Vishnoi D/o Shri Ramjas, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 96/4, Adarsh Nager, Phalodi, Jodhpur-342301 (Raj.) Roll No. 538851

¶64

Pankaj Singh Charan S/o Shri Dhan Singh Charan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Care Of Adv Sunil Ji Bohra, Old Post Office Street, Rajnagar, Rajsamand-313326 (Raj.) Roll No. 456719

¶65

Rachna Kumari D/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Peeplal Ka Bas, Malsisar, Jhunjhunun-333011 (Raj.) Roll No. 493272

¶66

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Dayanand Lamoriya, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Near Govt Sr Sec School, Vpo-Harsawa Bara, Via-Fatehpur, Sikar-332301(Raj.) Roll No. 468381

¶67

(5 of 52)

¶68

[CW-13968/2021]

¶69

Ram Singh Bishnoi S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Vishnu Nagar, Teh Luni, Jodhpur-342802 (Raj.) Roll No. 297240

¶70

Sharwan Ratnu S/o Shri Om Prakas H Ratnu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village-Ghoraran, Pos T-Untwaliya, Nagaur-341001 (Raj.) Roll No. 410378

¶71

Sohan Singh Gaur S/o Shri Hari Singh Gaur, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 54 A, Amar Niwas, Near Rac Gate Shivpura, Kota-324009 (Raj.) Roll No. 669409

¶72

Subhash Mann S/o Shri J Prasad, Aged About 29 Years, R/o A-90 Monika Vihar 2Nd, Mangyawas Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020 (Raj.) Roll No. 573996

¶73

Vikas Palaria S/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Palaria, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Meghwalo Ka Vas, Vpo Chawandiya Kallan, Teh Jaitaran, Pali-306305(Raj.) Roll No. 152693

¶74

Vikas Meena S/o Shri Prahalad Kumar Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No 62 Radhika Vihar, Jamdoli, Agra Road, Jaipur-302031 (Raj.) Roll No. 286056

¶75

Krishna Dev Singh Rathore S/o Shri Gayad Singh Rathore, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Mela Ground, Village Kanji Ka Kheda, Village Amet, Distt. Rajsamand, -313332 (Raj)-313332 Roll No. 524991.

¶76

Priyanka Yadav D/o Shri Nityanand Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Plot No 5, In Front Of Old Kamla Nursing Home, Behind Police Line, Alwar-301001 (Raj) Roll No.161477.

¶77

Sangeeta Kumar D/o Shri Dhanesh Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Kharagwas, Post Office Boria Kamalpur, Rewari-123401(Haryana) Roll No. 454418

¶78

Ajay Prakash Biban S/o Shri Kishori Lal Biban, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Anoopshahar, The. Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh-335501(Raj) Roll No. 487656.

¶79

Vikram Singh S/o Shri M S Shekhawat, Aged About 43 Years, R/o House No. 126, Ranjeet Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur-302012(Raj.) Roll No.532412

¶80

Nitin Saraswat S/o Shri Bhagwan Swaroop Saraswat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 2/117, Housing Board Colony, Gupetshwar Road, Dausa-303303(Raj) Roll No. 347720.

----Petitioners

Versus

(6 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶86

----Respondent

¶87

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14175/2021

¶88

Saurabh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramdas Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Liwali Road, Bamanwas Patti Khurd, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

¶89

Satyam Bisu S/o Shri Ram Ratan Bisu, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Mojas, Tehsil- Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶90

Vandana Kumari D/o Ramniwas, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Mundo Ki Dhani, Chhau, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶91

Tarun Kumar Chheepa S/o Sh. Badri Prasad Chhipa, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Z/2, Mahaveer Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶92

Shadev Singh Meena S/o Ramjilal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o A-79, Saraswati Nagar, Near Sector 6, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶93

Manorma Pathak D/o Shri Chandra Shekshar Pathak, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Nyotha Tehsil Nadbai District Bharatpur.

¶94

Ajay Kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Ramdev Kumawat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dhani Gujjran Kachroda, Phulera, District Jaipur.

¶95

Chintamani Yadav S/o Omprakash Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Gunta, Tehsil Bansur, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶96

Bhauri Lal Meena S/o Kalyan Sahay Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Alooda, Dhani Golmanya, Tehsil Nangal Rajwatan, Distt. Dausa.

¶97

----Petitioners

¶98

Versus

¶99

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶100

Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. 3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Respondents

(7 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14184/2021

¶105

Bharatpal Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Das, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 755, Mahaveer Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 302018 Roll No. 186066.

¶106

----Petitioner

¶107

Versus

¶108

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶109

----Respondent

¶110

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14185/2021

¶111

Mani Madhukar Sharma S/o Shri Kishan Lal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 109, Ganesh Nagar V, Nadi Ka Fatak, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.)- 302039 Roll No. 183748.

¶112

----Petitioner

¶113

Versus

¶114

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶115

----Respondent

¶116

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14223/2021

¶117

Dharmpal Singh Rathore S/o Ram Singh Rathore, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Badu, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶118

Dheeeraj Joshi S/o Vipin Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Hanuman Dhora Bas, Joshiyo Ka Mohalla, Momasar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶119

Surjeet Singh Dhakar S/o Prem Singh Dhakar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 90, Poonam Vihar Colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶120

Drishti Gandhi D/o Prem Chand Gandhi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 220, Rama Heritage, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶121

----Petitioners

¶122

Versus

¶123

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶124

----Respondent

¶125

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14266/2021

¶126

Chander Prakash S/o Shri Jagdish Narain Meena, Aged About 37

¶127

(8 of 52)

¶128

[CW-13968/2021]

¶129

Years, R/o C-336, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Feet Road, Jaipur.

¶130

----Petitioner

¶131

Versus

¶132

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶133

1. Principal Secretary, Department Of Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶134

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.) Through Its Secretary. ----Respondents

¶135

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14270/2021

¶136

1. Ajay Kumar Saini S/o Ram Dayal Saini, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Asthal, Post Tholai, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶137

1. Stalin Siddharth Sachdeva S/o S.k. Sachdeva, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 5 C 27, Shakti Nagar, Near Udham Singh Chowk, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶138

1. Deepak Kumar S/o Ranjeet Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 79-A, Saraswati Nagar, Near Uti Office, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶139

1. Vikas Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Kaliyan, Ward No. 10, Bsnl Tower Ke Pass, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶140

1. Surendra Kumar Dhaked S/o Bachchu Singh Dhaked, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Near By Chopda Kua, Nakkar Ki Devi, Hindauncity, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶141

1. Ravi Kumar Meena S/o Shiv Lal Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o A-70, Siddarth Nagar, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶142

1. Rashmi Choudhary D/o Subhash Singh Sepat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Surmalikpur, Harsoil, Renwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶143

1. Pankaj D/o Ram Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Antroli, Post Karawali, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶144

1. Shubham Tiwari S/o Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Kachroli, Tehsil Hindauncity, District

(9 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

Karauli, Rajasthan.

Manorma Pathak D/o Chandrashekshar Pathak, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Nyotha, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶149

Nitin Sharma S/o Shrinidhi Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Ajitgarh, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶150

Neetu Jangir D/o Subhash Chandra Jangir, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 26, Kalyan Colony, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶151

Mohd. Shahdab Agwan S/o Mohd. Yakub Agwan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No. J-154, Near Shamshan Choraha, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶152

Kantilal Ninama S/o Jokha Ninama, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vpo Sagwa, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

¶153

Subhash Chandra Verma S/o Arjun Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Udaipura, Post Govindpura, Via Palsana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶154

Babu Lal Khati S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 04, Village Dungarana, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶155

Rahul Sharma S/o Kailash Chandra Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 34/394, Sector-3, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶156

Preeti Yadav D/o Ramniwas Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Aryan B.ed. College, Dabla Road, Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶157

Tribhuvan Singh S/o Jagdish Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vpo Raisar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶158

Rahul Gehlot S/o Dharma Ram Gehlot, Aged About 23 Years, R/o At Post Vasa, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

¶159

Hansa Kumari Jakhar D/o Shrawan Lal Jakhar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Deesa, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶160

Somil Dhakar S/o Birdhi Lal Nagar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Dayanand Colony, Behind Govt. College, Baran, Rajasthan.

¶161

(10 of 52)

¶162

[CW-13968/2021]

¶163

Sunita Mehra D/o Ram Lal Mehra, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Post Gogasar, Athuna Bas, Meghwalo Ka Mohalla, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶164

Mukesh Kumar Poswal S/o Sharwan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Syari, Via Achrol, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶165

Ajay Kumar Kumawat S/o Ramdev Kumawat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dhani Gujjran Kachroda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶166

Sohan Singh Gaur S/o Hari Singh Gaur, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 54A, Amar Niwas, Near Rac Gate, Shivpura, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶167

Shilpa Karwa D/o Jeevan Ram Karwa, Aged About 28 Years, R/o B-55, Shri Ram Nagar, Street No. 4, Near P.f. Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶168

Umraw Mal Meena S/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Malyawas, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶169

Bajarang Lal Meena S/o Laxman Ram Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Malyawas, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶170

Sanjeev Didel S/o Rameshwar Didel, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No.14, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶171

Jajpal Singh Rathod S/o Dalapat Singh Rathod, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Rampur, Post Tokar, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶172

Naveen Suman S/o Mangi Lal Suman, Aged About 26 Years, R/o C-18, In Front Of Kunhari Police Station, Kunhari, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶173

Kamlesh Kumar Jangid S/o Banshi Lal Jangid, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Quarter No. 4, Near Govt. Hospital, Ajmer Road, Kekri, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶174

Radheshyam Kumawat S/o Bhairu Lal Kumawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Udalpura, Post Ganglas, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶175

Somil Dhakar S/o Birdhi Lal Nagar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Dayanand Colony, Behind Govt. College, Baran, Rajasthan.

¶176

Girish Kumar Tyagi S/o Ramji Lal, Aged About 30 Years,

¶177

(11 of 52)

¶178

[CW-13968/2021]

¶179

R/o Kurendha, Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶180

Manoj Kumar Meena S/o Girraj Prasad Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village And Post Hurla, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶181

Girdhari Lal Yadav S/o Laxman Ram Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Singod Khurd, Via Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶182

Hari Om Meena S/o Girraj Prasad Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 6-H-184, Sector-6, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶183

Ashutosh Saidawat S/o Rameshwar Saidawat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Reni, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶184

Sangita D/o Shyam Lal Riyar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Sogawas, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶185

Gireesh Chand Meena S/o Pukhraj Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Piloda, Tehsil Wazeerpur, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

¶186

Piyush Kumar Sharma S/o Chheetar Mal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Badagaon, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶187

Mahesh Kumar S/o Jhumar Ram Jat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Badu, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶188

Hanuman Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sdm Office Ke Pass, Manasar, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶189

Pooja Kanwar D/o Moti Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Kalru, Tehsil Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶190

Divya D/o Dhir Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 597, Subhri (232), Ambala, Harayana.

¶191

Ayushi Tyagi D/o Mangat Tyagi, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 1184, Street No. 1, Shivpuri, Sector-9, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

¶192

Surendra Paliwal S/o Jagdish Paliwal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Lathi, Tehsil Pokaran, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶193

Priya Saini D/o Ram Bhajan Saini, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Saini Public School, Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur,

(12 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

Rajasthan.

Arvind Kumar Verma S/o Makkhan Lal Bunkar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o C-8, Takshshila Nagar, Seupura, Vpo Amer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶198

Prema Ram Kaswan S/o Begaram Kaswan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 177, Purane Kve Ke Pass, Ramsar, Vaya Napasar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶199

Seema Kumari D/o Radhey Shyam, W/o Sitaram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 483, Bairwo Ki Dhani, Shop, Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶200

Aslam Khan Rajarh S/o Nisar Khan Rajarh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Goriyo Ki Gali, Dhan Mandi, Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶201

Gaurav Agrawal S/o Har Govind Singhal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 904-C, Shrinathpuram, Sector-C, Engineering College, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶202

----Petitioners

¶203

Versus

¶204

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶205

----Respondent

¶206

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14287/2021

¶207

1. Indra Bhambhu D/o Shankar Lal Bhambhu, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Jato Ka Mohalla, Manyana, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶208

Divakar Baresa S/o Subhash Chandra Baresa, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 107, Shiv Shankar Colony, Janta Colony Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶209

Mohit Baresa S/o Subhash Baresa, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 107- Shiv Shankar Colony, Janta Colony Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶210

Raichand Dewasi S/o Sona Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Vpo Sarnau, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶211

Sanwla Ram S/o Roopa Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Paladi Deoran, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶212

Krishan Prasad Yadav S/o Gowardhan Yadav, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Gandhi Nagar, Post And Tehsil

¶213

(13 of 52)

¶214

[CW-13968/2021]

¶215

Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶216

Ashok Kumar S/o Radhey Shyam, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Loyati, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶217

Rahul Jangid S/o Liladhar Jangid, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Shiv Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶218

Ajit Singh Meena S/o Lal Chand Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o B-199 Vigyan Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶219

----Petitioners

¶220

Versus

¶221

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶222

----Respondent

¶223

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14391/2021 Kirti Pareek D/o Dileep Pareek, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 172, Ramnagar Basti, Ward No. 1, Sardarsahar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶224

----Petitioner

¶225

Versus

¶226

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary Ajmer.

¶227

----Respondent

¶228

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14396/2021

¶229

Divya Aswal D/o Ramesh Aswal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 189, Pratap Nagar, Khatipura Road, Vashishtha Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶230

Neha Dhayal D/o Mahesh Kumar Dhayal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Behind Jangir Agro Industry, Pilani Road, Vidhayak Nagar, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶231

Arti Paliwal D/o Suresh Chandra Paliwal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o C-115, Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶232

Sumit Kumar Meena S/o Battu Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Noviswa, Todabhim, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶233

Ganesh Bairwa S/o Shankar Lal Bairwa, Aged About 29 Years, R/o S-127, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Feet Road, Near

¶234

(14 of 52)

¶235

[CW-13968/2021]

¶236

Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶237

Jitendra Kumar Meena S/o Laxmi Narayan Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 17, Shiv Vihar Colony, Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶238

Mahaveer Singh S/o Chain Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Near Schol, Nathwari, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶239

Neha Muhania D/o Prakash Chandra, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Khelna, Paota, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶240

----Petitioners

¶241

Versus

¶242

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶243

----Respondent

¶244

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14398/2021

¶245

Hari Om Prakash Meena S/o Lallu Ram Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 89K, Bad Ki Dhani, Village Biharipura, Post Manser Kheri, Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶246

Manish Kumar Gurjar S/o Mittu Lal Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Shivpuri B, Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

¶247

Shiv Kumar Meena S/o Brij Bihari Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Bahadurpur, Post Bhopur, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶248

Manoj Singh Meena S/o Rambharosi Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Munapura, Post Kot, Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶249

Prem Singh S/o Gaje Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Near Forest Department Office, Sardarpura, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶250

Sourav Charan S/o Sawai Singh Charan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 83, Vikas Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶251

----Petitioners

¶252

Versus

¶253

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶254

----Respondent

¶255

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14431/2021

¶256

(15 of 52)

¶257

[CW-13968/2021]

¶258

Tanushree Srivastava D/o Ashutosh Srivastava, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 104-B, Tagore Nagar, Ajmer Raod, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶259

----Petitioner

¶260

Versus

¶261

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer

¶262

----Respondent

¶263

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14446/2021

¶264

Saket Kumar Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o G-1, Cd-48, Dadu Dayal Nagar, Muhana Mandi Road, Jaipur.

¶265

----Petitioner

¶266

Versus

¶267

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶268

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

¶269

----Respondents

¶270

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14514/2021

¶271

Gargi Gupta D/o Shri Balkishan Gupta, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 11, Shanti Niketan Colony, Kishan Marg, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶272

----Petitioner

¶273

Versus

¶274

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶275

----Respondent

¶276

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14559/2021

¶277

Yogendra Singh Baisala S/o Ravindra Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Jungeenpura, Tehsil And District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶278

Manoj Kumar Meena S/o Madhav Ram Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Natata Dhani, Bagda Ki Via Amer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶279

Surendra Kumar S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Tatarpur, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶280

Arti Paliwal D/o Suresh Chandra Paliwal, Aged About 29

¶281

(16 of 52)

¶282

[CW-13968/2021]

¶283

Years, R/o C-115, Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶284

Bhuvneshwar Singh Khiriya S/o Maniraj Singh Khiriya, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Kharadi, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.

¶285

Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 67, Basant Vihar, Agra Road, Jamdoli, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶286

Abhishek Kumar Sharma S/o Gyan Chand Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o B-39, Shri Ganpati Nagar, Near Sanganer Civil Court, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶287

Shyam Lal Darji S/o Rameshwar Lal Darji, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Mandeli, Post Jodhiyasi, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶288

Praveen Kumar Meena S/o Prithvi Lal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kalakhana, Post Palanpur, Tehsil Hindauncity, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶289

Govind Ram S/o Kabira Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Lanela, Tehsil Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶290

Rajpal Singh S/o Paras Dan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Mehreri, Dangara, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶291

Mohit Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 525, Tankri (48), Tankri, Rewari, Bawal, Harayana.

¶292

Surendra Singh S/o Ishwar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gali No. 4, Laxmi Vihar Colony, Jaipur Road, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶293

Manvender Singh S/o Abhay Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Kankar Dopa, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶294

Hitendra Pal Singh S/o Prithvi Raj Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ajit Sagar Farm House, Dabani, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

¶295

Chakravir Singh S/o Kailash Jat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Jahangeerpur, Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶296

Sweta Kain D/o Rajendra Singh Kain, Aged About 26 Years, R/o A-148, Jda Colony, Ramnagariya, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶297

Pinky Jangid D/o Hanuman Sahay Jangid, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No. 16, Shanti Nagar, Benar Road,

(17 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

Jhotwara,

Dheeraj Solanki S/o Babulal Solanki, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Near Floor Mill, Ward No. 5, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶302

Nalini Singh D/o Devendra Kumar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o P. No. 204,galaxy Enclave Mangalam Complex, Shobhagpura, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶303

Kamal Deep Meena S/o Raja Ram Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o P. No.20, Civil Line, Nayapura, Kota, District Kota, Rajasthan.

¶304

Bharat Maniraj Sharma S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o P. No. 76, Ram Vihar, Opp. Tilak Hospital, Meena Paldi, Agra Road , Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶305

Vineeta Rani D/o Shriphal Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 2 B, 34, Housing Board, Akrabhatta, Abu Road, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

¶306

----Petitioners

¶307

Versus

¶308

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶309

----Respondent

¶310

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14585/2021

¶311

Aishwarya Bainada S/o Shri Laxman Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 122, Prajapati Vihar, Goliyawas, Mansarovar, The. Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.) - 302020 Roll No. 410155

¶312

----Petitioner

¶313

Versus

¶314

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶315

----Respondent

¶316

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14655/2021

¶317

Khinvraj Singh S/o Sujan Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Bhinyad, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶318

Jagat Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶319

Sandeep S/o Shankar Dan, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gavad Ke Daxin Ke Taraf, Dhadhariya Khurd, Poost

¶320

(18 of 52)

¶321

[CW-13968/2021]

¶322

Nimbari Chandawata, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶323

Satish Bainsla S/o Jagram Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o III/89, Behind J.k.k. Nyay Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶324

Ramakant Parashar S/o Raj Kumar Parashar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Pokhara Mohalla, Baseri, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶325

Anand Kumar Meena S/o Shiv Charan Meena, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 5 Mb 32, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Khatipura Railway Station, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶326

Rashmi D/o Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶327

Deepak Jain S/o Rajababu Jain, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶328

Sunita Meena D/o Kalyan Sahai Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Shiv Sagar Ka Mohalla, Kanariyawala, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶329

Garima Meena D/o Satyanarayan Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Radha Bagh Colony, Behind Gayatri Mandir, Chomu, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶330

Manju D/o Bachan Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Via Haripura, Post Alipur, Via Bagar, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunhu, Rajasthan.

¶331

Kirti Meena D/o K C Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o C- 509, Sidhharth Nagar, Near Malviya Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶332

Suman Moond D/o Sharwan Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Pipla Ki Dhani, Tehsil And District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶333

Arvind Vaishnav S/o Kan Das, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Plot No. 164, K No.49, Bhagwan Mahaveer Nagar, Near Kheteshwar School, Nandri, Saran Nagar, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶334

Arun Kumar Meena S/o Prem Chand Meena, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 277- Brij Vihar, Jagatpura Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶335

----Petitioners

¶336

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,

Versus

(19 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

Ajmer.

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14888/2021

¶343

Ash Pal Janwa S/o Mangi Lal Janwa, Aged About 37 Years, R/o II-88, Ag Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶344

Mamta Sharma D/o Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Niwaru, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶345

Mahipal Singh S/o Prithvi Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 186, Laxmi Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶346

Kailash Prasad Mali S/o Lal Chand Mali, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Todaganga, Post Digo, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶347

Paylat Mahawar S/o Omprakash Mahawar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Lakhanpur, Post Choundiyawas, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶348

Sourabh Dubey S/o Surendra Kumar Dubey, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Villa No. 403, Omaxe City-I, Mayakheri, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

¶349

Tarun Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o A-57, Kirti Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶350

----Petitioners

¶351

Versus

¶352

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶353

----Respondent

¶354

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14993/2021

¶355

Sumit Kumar Bansal S/o Shri Banwari Lal Bansal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 114 K, Bai Pas Road Ke Niche, Haud, Bari Dholpur (328021) Rajasthan Roll No. 381966

¶356

----Petitioner

¶357

Versus

¶358

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶359

----Respondent

¶360

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15010/2021

¶361

Sunita Jeph D/o Shri Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 34

¶362

(20 of 52)

¶363

[CW-13968/2021]

¶364

Years, R/o C 12 B, Ojha Ji Ka Bagh, Near Nehru Garden, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur-302015 (Raj.) Roll No. 210993.

¶365

Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal Yadav, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sgt Rk Yadav Iaf Police, Security Section Air Force Station Adampur, Jalandhar144103 (Punjab) Roll No. 343866

¶366

----Petitioners

¶367

Versus

¶368

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶369

----Respondent

¶370

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15017/2021

¶371

Chen Kanwar D/o Sh. Manohar Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 119, Mitra Niwas Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Ward No. 30, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Ajmer- Rajasthan- 305801.

¶372

----Petitioner

¶373

Versus

¶374

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Chairman, Jaipur Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305001.

¶375

----Respondent

¶376

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15353/2021

¶377

Khushboo Bansal D/o Hari Kishan Bansal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o A-7, Bansal Bhawan, Khetri House, Vivekanand Colony, Outside Chandpole Gate, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶378

Jay Narayan S/o Hira Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Rohini, Tehsil And District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶379

Ashutosh Parashar S/o Shyam Sunder Parashar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Parashar Niwas, Pandey Mohalla, Deeg, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶380

Narendra Jakhar S/o Purkha Ram Jakhar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Kalau Dechu, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶381

Teekama Ram S/o Bala Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶382

Pooja Bishnoi D/o Ramniwas Bishnoi, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Alai, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶383

Dharmendra Jajra S/o Baldev Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Senani, Tehsil Mundwa, District

(21 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

Nagaur, Rajasthan.

Sajjan Kumar Jangu S/o Ramlal Jangu, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Jaisa, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶388

Daula Ram Jakhar S/o Hardev Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Sutharon Ki Dhani, Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶389

Sandeep Kumar S/o Umrav Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vandh Dudi, Bajna, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶390

Ravi Datt S/o Vijay Pal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Po Mainana, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶391

Prakash Shou S/o Kanwara Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vishaniyo Ki Dhani, Hinganiya Kood, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶392

Lekha Choudhary D/o Ganpat Lal Choudhary, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Kanwarpura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶393

----Petitioners

¶394

Versus

¶395

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶396

----Respondent

¶397

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 172/2022

¶398

Mitali Sen d/o Dr. Vishnu Kumar Sen, aged about 25 years, R/o 7-D, Gayatri Nagar, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶399

Ashutosh Ameta S/o Madal Lal Ameta, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Jhadol, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶400

Jai Kishan Meena S/o Ramawtar Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o B-84, Gandhi Colony, Pawanpuri, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶401

Gargi Bunas D/o Bajrang Lal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 53/3, V.t. Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶402

Raju Ram S/o Mala Ram Sirvi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Dhakri, Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners

Versus

(22 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶408

----Respondent

¶409

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 179/2022

¶410

Gyanendra Sharma S/o Chandra Prakash Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 152, Officers Enclave, Rawan Gate, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶411

Surendra Meena S/o Sitarm Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 115, Tirupati Balaji Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶412

Amit Kumar Shrimali S/o Dileep Kumar Shrimali, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 1 K 20 , Brahmakumari Ashram Ke Piche, Brahmasthali Colony, Ashok Nagar, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

¶413

----Petitioners

¶414

Versus

¶415

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶416

----Respondent

¶417

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 295/2022

¶418

Gauri Shankar Yadav S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V/p Jhag, Mozmabad, Dudu, Jaipur303009 (Raj.) Roll No. 240133

¶419

Aashita Gulabwani D/o Shri Rajkumar Gulabwani, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 1/91 Housing Board Colony, Sirohi, Rajasthan -307001 Roll No. 688212

¶420

Surbhi D/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 75-76, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Tausar Road, Nagaur, Rajasthan-341001 Roll No. 532930

¶421

Abhay Singh S/o Shri Vijayveer Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 32, Behind Br Oil Mill, Rundhiya Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001 Roll No. 545049

¶422

Madhu Singh Balot S/o Shri Ladu Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vpo-Ravli Seri, Madadi, Jalore, Rajasthan307030 Roll No. 733121

¶423

Gajendra Singh Yadav S/o Shri Subeh Singh Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V/p - Kankar Dopa, Alwar, Rajasthan-301701 Roll No. 736306

¶424

Abhijeet Balhara S/o Shri Ramavtar, Aged About 29

¶425

(23 of 52)

¶426

[CW-13968/2021]

¶427

Years, R/o V/p - Bahu, Akberpur(94), Rohtak, Haryana124001 Roll No. 487583

¶428

Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Hazari Lal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Tara Takiz Ke Saamne, Kherli Ganj, Alwar-321606 Roll No. 474623

¶429

Ramjeevan Sepat S/o Shri Ramdev Sepat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 321, Sepato Ki Dhani, Joshiwas, Phulera, Kalakh, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303328 (Raj.) Roll No. 687956

¶430

Gaurav Pareek S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Pareek, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Saraswati School, Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303109 Roll No. 528919

¶431

Divanshu Goyal S/o Shri Dinesh Chand Goyal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 66/161, Heera Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020, Roll No. 718141

¶432

Ankit Hawa S/o Shri Bhagirath, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 881, Mahavir Nagar, Near Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018 Roll No. 600376

¶433

----Petitioners

¶434

Versus

¶435

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶436

----Respondent

¶437

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 360/2022

¶438

Umesh Yadav S/o Veni Prasad, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ahiro Ki Dhani, Post Dada Fatehpura, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶439

----Petitioner

¶440

Versus

¶441

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶442

----Respondent

¶443

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 734/2022

¶444

Rohit Khandelwal S/o Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 105/50, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶445

Pradeep Kumar S/o Kamal Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Chand Gothi, Churu, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners

(24 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

Versus

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶451

----Respondent

¶452

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1303/2022

¶453

Cheitanya Prakash S/o Shri Vasu Dev Sharma, Resident Of 8C59, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur Roll No. 405356

¶454

----Petitioner

¶455

Versus

¶456

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶457

----Respondent

¶458

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mrs. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate throught VC with Shri Shovit Jhajharia Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan & Mr. Giriraj Rajoria) Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma Mr. R.D. Meena with Mr. Siddhant Jain Mr. Akash Gaur with Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal with Mr. Pradhuman Singh Rathore Mr. Ajatshatru Mina with Mr. Anish Sharma Mr. Manish Kumar Meena for Mr. Mahendra Shandilya) Mr. Vishesh Sharma with Mr. Rajesh Kumar
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Amit Lubhaya through VC with Mr. Rupesh Jain

¶459

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶460

Order

¶461

22/02/2022

¶462

Being dissatisfied with the answer key published by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short-`the RPSC’)), this batch of writ petitions has been filed by the

¶463

(25 of 52)

¶464

[CW-13968/2021]

¶465

candidates who have failed to secure position in the list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination of RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination-2021.

¶466

Although, the matters came up on an application filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13968/2021, on the joint request of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the same were heard finally at this stage on their merit and are being decided vide this common order.

¶467

To appreciate the factual matrix, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14655/2021, Khinvraj Singh & Ors. vs. RPSC is taken as the lead case. The petitioners applied for appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 20.7.2021 in the State Services as well as Subordinate Services. The scheme of examination provides for preliminary (screening) examination, mains examination and interview. The screening test consists of one paper of General Knowledge and General Science comprised of 150 multiple choice questions of total 200 marks with a provision for deduction of one third mark for each wrong answer. The preliminary examination was conducted on 27.10.2021 and the RPSC uploaded model answer key on 3.11.2021 inviting objections thereto. The petitioners filed objections to some of the answers whereafter, the respondent has issued final answer key on 22.11.2021 which is subject matter of challenge qua some of the answers. A prayer has been made to direct the respondent to revise the result and permit the petitioners to participate in the mains examination on the strength of their merit position.

¶468

The respondent in its reply submitted that since the final answer key is based on expert opinion, the same does not warrant any interference.

¶469

(26 of 52)

¶470

[CW-13968/2021]

¶471

Learned counsels for the petitioners assailing the validity of the final answer key qua the answers to questions no.1, 7, 31, 41, 42, 43, 45, 62, 84, 98, 105 and 122, contended that since answers to these questions are demonstrably and palpably wrong, this Court should intervene in the matter and direct the RPSC to issue revised answer key with correct answers to these questions.

¶472

Per contra, Mr. Amit Lubhaya, learned counsel for the RPSC reiterating the averments of the reply, contended that since the final answer key is based on expert opinion, no interference is warranted by this Court under its very limited jurisdiction.

¶473

Before entering into the factual vortex, this Court examines the contour of the judicial review of the expert opinion in the academic matters.

¶474

Their Lordships have held in the case of UPPSC & Ors. vs. Rahul Singh & Ors.-(2018) 7 SCC 254, as under:

¶475

“8. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us.

¶476

In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others-(1983) 4 SCC 309, this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:-

¶477

“16. ………..We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong

¶478

(27 of 52)

¶479

[CW-13968/2021]

¶480

and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct………”

¶481

The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Government should devise a system for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters.

¶482

In Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others-(2018) 2 SCC 357, this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms:-

¶483

“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

¶484

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

¶485

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

¶486

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

¶487

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

¶488

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”

¶489

(28 of 52)

¶490

[CW-13968/2021]

¶491

We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in such matters:-

¶492

“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse — exclude the suspect or offending question.

¶493

It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination — whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results

¶494

(29 of 52)

¶495

[CW-13968/2021]

¶496

in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”

¶497

In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.”

¶498

In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Anr. vs. the State of Rajasthan and Ors., Civil Appeal No.3649-3650/2020, vide judgement dated 7.12.2020, their Lordships held as under:

¶499

“11. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re- evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.-(2010) 6 SCC 759 Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [See- Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.)-(2010) 8 SCC 372. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re- evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.-(2018) 2 SCC 357 held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to

¶500

(30 of 52)

¶501

[CW-13968/2021]

¶502

academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows:

¶503

“31. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶504

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶505

(Already quoted in Rahul Singh & Ors. (supra)

¶506

In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors.-(2018) 8 SCC 81. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.

¶507

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.”

¶508

A coordinate bench of this Court in Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Ors. vs. RPSC & Ors.-MANU/RH/0332/2020 vide its judgement dated 9.3.2020, held as under:

¶509

(31 of 52)

¶510

[CW-13968/2021]

¶511

“11. True it is that a candidate cannot use the writ jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise over the experts' opinion. But taking cue from the established principles of judicial review, this Court feels that of late it has become imperative for the Courts to be satisfied at least about the decision making process of the experts, if not the outcome. The Court may or may not pronounce upon the ultimate decision of the experts, but it can certainly examine as to whether the experts have relied upon the relevant material or not; Court can also see as to whether on the basis of the material so relied by the experts, no other view was possible. The Court needs to be satisfied that the experts have given brief reasons for taking a particular view. In case, the Court finds that the material relied and reasoning given by the experts is not acceptable to a man of reasonable prudence, it will not keep its hands tied.

¶512

For the purpose of enabling the Court to have a proper judicial review, it is expected from the expert committee to bear in mind the following:-

¶513

(i) In case the answer to a question is direct and is not dependent upon reasoning or analysis, the experts may avoid giving reasons. In such cases, a reference to relevant material is imperative.

¶514

(ii) In case where the answer to a particular question is not direct - it is to be deduced or the same is subservient to reasoning, the experts should give brief reasons for holding such opinion, while enclosing the authentic book/relevant material, which they have relied upon.

¶515

(iii) The experts are supposed to rely upon authentic material and direct evidence so far as practicable instead of referring to the text books prescribed for the schools/colleges.

¶516

(iv) If a question relates to work/report of some Scientist, Economist, survey etc. they should invariably refer to the original work, rather than referring to the text books or some other author's interpretation or reproduction of such work.”

¶517

(32 of 52)

¶518

[CW-13968/2021]

¶519

From the conspectus of the aforesaid judgements, the scope of judicial review in such matters can very broadly be summarised as under:

¶520

(1) The answer key should be assumed to be correct unless it is shown to be demonstrably and palpably wrong without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation.

¶521

(2) The expert opinion must reflect reasons behind it, if the answer is based on reasoning.

¶522

(3) The experts are supposed to rely upon authentic/standard and impeccable material.

¶523

Now, the Court ventures into the arena of the respective claim of the parties with regard to correctness of the answer key published by the RPSC qua the disputed answers.

¶524

Question no.1:

¶525

Which of the following statement regarding Ruma Devi is not

¶526

true?

¶527

(1) She is known in the field of Handicrafts.

¶528

(2) She was brought-up in the village Jasrapur (Khetari).

¶529

(3) She was felicitated with `Nari Shakti Award’ by the President of India in 2018.

¶530

(4) She played a major role in providing employment to Thousands of Woman.

¶531

RPSC has chosen the option no.2 as the correct answer whereas, as per the petitioners, option no.2 as also option no.3 represents the correct answer.

¶532

Drawing attention of this Court towards the excerpt downloaded from the official YouTube channel website of the President of India, learned counsels submitted that Ruma Devi was presented Nari Shakti Puraskar-2018 on the International

¶533

(33 of 52)

¶534

[CW-13968/2021]

¶535

Women’s Day, i.e., on 8.3.2019. They submit that though the award was for the year 2018; but, it was awarded in the year 2019. They, therefore, prayed that the question needs to be deleted.

¶536

Mr. Amit Lubhaya submits that the expert opinion is based on press release dated 7.9.2018 issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development on its official website as also an information contained in the book in the name of “Rajasthan Ka Itihas, Sanskriti, Parampara and Virasat” edited by Dr. Hukam Chand Jain and Dr. Narayan Lal Mali published by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy. With regard to information available on the official YouTube channel website of the President of India, he submits that it reflects presentation of award on 8.3.2019 and not in 2019, a vital difference which, as per the counsel, goes to the root of the matter.

¶537

The official YouTube channel of the President of India reflects that Nari Shakti Puraskar was presented to Ruma Devi on 8.3.2019, i.e., on International Women’s Day. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Commission that the official website of the President of India shows presentation of the award on 8.3.2019 and not in 2019, deserves to be rejected being absurd. No reason has been assigned by the expert committee to disagree with the objections raised by the candidates based on official YouTube website of the President of India. However, since the experts have also relied upon a press release issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development on its official website as also an information available in the book published by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, this Court, instead of directing

¶538

(34 of 52)

¶539

[CW-13968/2021]

¶540

deletion of the question, deems it just and proper to remit the matter back to the expert committee to consider it afresh vide reasoned opinion.

¶541

Question no.7:

¶542

The Rajamundri Social Reform Association to encourage widow remarriage was founded in 1871 by-

¶543

(1) Veeresalingam

¶544

(2) K. Ramakrishan Pillai

¶545

(3) K.T. Telang

¶546

(4) Gopalachariar

¶547

As per RPSC, option no.1 is the correct answer whereas, as per the petitioners, the question itself is wrong.

¶548

Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that since the Rajamundry Social Reform Association to encourage the widow remarriage was founded in the year 1878 and not in the year 1871, the question itself was wrongly formulated which created confusion in the mind of the candidates. Hence, the question requires to be deleted.

¶549

Shri Amit submitted that mere error in the year of foundation of the Association does not go to the root of the matter and does not change tenor of the question whereby, name of its founder was asked. He submitted that even otherwise also, only 9 objections were raised against it reflecting that it did not create any confusion in the mind of the candidates.

¶550

True that Rajamundry Social Reform Association to encourage widow re-marriage was founded in the year 1878; but, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Commission that mere error in the year of foundation of Association would not change colour of the question or its fundamental characteristic whereby, name of its founder was

¶551

(35 of 52)

¶552

[CW-13968/2021]

¶553

asked which, indisputably was option no.1. Therefore, the Court does not find any error in the expert opinion.

¶554

Question no.31:

¶555

Which one of the following is not basic element of the citizen

¶556

charter?

¶557

(1) Description of services being provided by department or the agency. (2) Promotion of various methods to get benefit from the service available.

¶558

(3) To expect any public record.

¶559

(4) Provision for the inspection of the agency’s work.

¶560

As per RPSC, the correct answer is option no.4 whereas, as per petitioners’, the option no.3 represents the correct answer.

¶561

Learned counsels relying upon a book published by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy approved by the Education Ministry, Central Government in the name of Rajasthan: Prashasnik Avem Rajnitik Vyavastha (Administrative and Political System) by Dr. Janak Singh Meena wherein, option no.3, i.e., "To expect any public record", has not been shown to be part of basic element of the citizen charter, submitted that expert opinion is erroneous.

¶562

Per contra, Shri Amit submitted that the expert opinion is based on "citizen charter", a handbook by the Government of India wherein, “Details of Business Transacted by the Organisation”, is stated to be a component of citizen charter which is co-related to option no.3. He submitted that in support of their opinion, the experts have also relied upon an excerpt from the "Vividh Adhikar and Nagarik Adhikar Patra" wherein, it has been stated that "fdlh yksd vfHkys[k dh vis{+kk djuk” (To expect any public record) is not part of the basic element which is co-related to option no.4, i.e., provision for the inspection of agency’s work. He,

¶563

(36 of 52)

¶564

[CW-13968/2021]

¶565

therefore, submitted that option chosen by the RPSC is the correct answer.

¶566

As per the book in the name of Rajasthan: Prashasnik Avem Rajnitik Vyavastha (Administrative and Political System) published by the Rajasthan Granth Academy, all other options except option no.3 are part of the basic element of the citizen charter. The expert opinion neither sounds to be logical nor, based on authentic material. By no yardstick, the right of “Details of Business Transacted by the Organisation” as enumerated as one of the basic component of citizen charter in the hand book can be related with option no.3, i.e., To expect any public record. Rather, as per excerpt relied upon by experts, a part of "Vividh Adhikar and Nagarik Adhikar Patra", the option “fdlh yksd vfHkys[k dh vis{+kk djuk” (To expect any public record) has been treated to be part of Right to Information Act and not as the basic element as Mr. Amit has admitted during the course of arguments that the note endorsed against clause 4 of the excerpt is in the handwriting of the expert. The note reads as under:

¶567

^^¼4½fdlh yksd vfHkys[k dh vis{+kk djuk; ¼lquokbZ vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds rgr] ewy rRo esa 'kkfey ugha½**

¶568

Thus, the expert opinion suffers from an error apparent on its face.

¶569

In view thereof, this Court thinks it just and proper to remit the matter back to the expert committee to consider it afresh in the light of aforesaid observations and the material available on record/fresh material.

Question no.41:

(37 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

Which feature of Chief Minister Chiranjeevi Health Insurance Scheme is correct?

¶574

Under the scheme for different ailments 1576 types of packages and procedures will be available.

¶575

The disease for which a patient is admitted to a hospital, 5 days prior to that and 10 days after the discharge from the hospital all expenditure on investigation, medicines and consultation fee in the hospital will be included in the package.

¶576

It was started on May 1, 2021.

¶577

Under this scheme an insurance cover of Rs.4.50 lakhs is payable per year per family for serious ailments.

¶578

As per RPSC, option no.2 is the correct answer whereas, as per petitioners, it has two options, i.e. (1) and (2) as the correct answer.

¶579

Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that by the time the screening examination was conducted, the number of packages and procedures under the Scheme was increased to 1579 from 1576 and hence, their option is correct. They rely upon the information available on the official website of the State of Rajasthan, i.e., https://chiranjeevi.rajasthan.gov.in as also “Rajasthan Sujas”, a monthly publication by the Government of Rajasthan, in support of their submissions.

¶580

Shri Amit submits that the experts have opined that since the number of packages/procedures keep on updating and on Jan Kalyan and various Government Portals, number of such packages/procedures was still reflected as 1576, their answer is correct. He also referred to information available on the Government of India website in this regard.

¶581

The information available on the official website of the State of Rajasthan as also in the “Rajasthan Sujas”, a monthly publication by the Government of Rajasthan, establishes that

¶582

(38 of 52)

¶583

[CW-13968/2021]

¶584

number of packages and procedures under the C.M.C.H.I. Scheme was increased to 1579 from 1576 by the time the screening examination was conducted. The respondent has not disputed the genuineness of the number of packages/procedures available on the Government of Rajasthan website as also in its publication “Rajasthan Sujas”. Even the experts have observed that number of packages/procedures keeps on updating. While supporting their answer to the question no.30 wherein, the maximum number of persons that could be nominated by the State Government in a Municipal Council as per provisions of Rajasthan Municipal Act, 2009, was asked, the expert committee has relied upon the Rajasthan Municipality (Amendment) Act, 2021 which was published in the gazette dated 8.4.2021 to support their answer. Although, the petitioners did not press their objections to the answer to the question no.30 in view of the amendment; but, it reflects the double standards adopted by the experts to support their opinion. In any case, once it is established that number of packages/procedures was increased to 1579 prior to conducting the preliminary examination, the objections raised by the petitioners merit acceptance. Since, the question has two options, i.e., (1) and (2) as correct answer, it needs to be deleted.

¶585

Question no.42:

¶586

Consider the following statements regarding State Election Commission, Rajasthan-

¶587

(i) The State Election Commission, Rajasthan was constituted in December, 1994.

¶588

(ii) It has a Secretary who is also the Chief Electoral Officer for the State.

¶589

Code:

¶590

(1) Only (i) is correct

¶591

(2) Only (ii) is correct

¶592

(39 of 52)

¶593

[CW-13968/2021]

¶594

(3) Both (i) and (ii) are correct (4) Neither (i) nor (ii) is correct

¶595

As per RPSC, option no.2 is the correct answer whereas, as per petitioners, option no.4 is the correct answer.

¶596

Relying upon an information obtained from the official website of the State Government viz.

¶597

https://sec.rajasthan.gov.in/officecontacts.aspx, learned counsels submitted that office of the State Election Commission, Rajasthan and office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan are different and distinct offices and in the office of State Election Commission, Rajasthan, no post with designation of Chief Electoral Officer exists.

¶598

Shri Amit, relying upon the official website of the State Election Commission, Rajasthan, wherein it has been stated that it has a Secretary who is also the Chief Electoral Officer for the State as also the order dated 8.12.2020 issued by the Commissioner, State Election Commission, Rajasthan whereby, the Secretary of the Commission has been designated as Chief Electoral Officer, submitted that the expert committee has rightly found the option no.2 to be the correct answer.

¶599

This court does not find any force in the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioners as it is not substantiated from the information relied upon by them. The information relied upon by the RPSC establishes beyond an iota of doubt that Secretary of the State Election Commission, Rajasthan, also happens to be its Chief Electoral Officer. Therefore, the objections are rejected.

¶600

Question no.43:

¶601

Identify the incorrect feature of the recently declared ‘UDAN’ scheme of the Government of Rajasthan-

¶602

(40 of 52)

¶603

[CW-13968/2021]

¶604

(1) Under this scheme all women in the State will get free sanitary napkins from 19^th November, 2021.

¶605

(2) The scheme will come into operation from 19^th November, 2021.

¶606

(3) For effective implementation of the scheme 2 Brand Ambassadors at state level and 1 at district level will be engaged. (4) The scheme aims to make women aware about better health and individual physical hygiene.

¶607

RPSC has deleted this question. As per petitioners, option no.1 is the correct answer.

¶608

Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that the RPSC erred in deleting the question finding none of the options to be incorrect feature of the UDAN scheme whereas, option no.1 represented the correct answer. Relying upon the Government of Rajasthan publication of the scheme through Women Empowerment Directorate, Women and Child Development Department, Jaipur which provides that the UDAN scheme is for the age group of 10-45 years, they contended that it does not apply to all the women in the State.

¶609

Per contra, learned counsel for RPSC submitted that earlier they have found option no.1 to be correct answer, i.e., the incorrect feature of the UDAN scheme; however, from the announcement from the Chief Minister office, it transpired that scheme was implemented for all the women in the State and hence, it also being a correct feature of the UDAN scheme, they decided to delete the question.

¶610

From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Government of Rajasthan has issued conflicting information as to applicability of the Udan scheme. As per publication of the scheme by the Women Empowerment Directorate, Women and Child Development Department, Jaipur, it applies to the girls and women in the age

¶611

(41 of 52)

¶612

[CW-13968/2021]

¶613

group of 10-45 years whereas, as per the announcement from the Chief Minister office, it is applicable for all the women in the State. Therefore, this Court upholds the expert opinion albeit for different reason.

¶614

Question no.45

¶615

Gurumukh Nihal Singh was appointed as the first Governor of Rajasthan on -

¶616

(1) 2^nd November, 1956

¶617

(2) 25^th October, 1956

¶618

(3) 1^st November, 1956

¶619

(4) 26^th October, 1956.

¶620

As per RPSC, option no.2 is the correct answer whereas, petitioners’ stress is on the option no.3.

¶621

Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that as per Article 1 of the Constitution of India, `The India’, i.e. Bharat, shall be a Union of States. They submitted that Article 3 provides that Parliament may by law form a new State in the manner enumerated therein. Learned counsels submitted that the State of Rajasthan came into picture w.e.f. 1.11.1956, the “appointed day” as per Section 2 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. It was contended that since the State of Rajasthan itself was formed w.e.f. 1.11.1956, there could not have been its Governor prior to it. They submit that even otherwise also, as Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh was holding the position of the Chief Minister of the State of Delhi till 31.10.1956, he could not have been appointed as first Governor of Rajasthan on 25.10.1956.

¶622

Shri Amit submitted that the objections pertain to the date of oath by Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh as Governor of Rajasthan whereas, in the question, his date of appointment was asked

¶623

(42 of 52)

¶624

[CW-13968/2021]

¶625

which, as per the official website of the Raj Bhawan, Rajasthan, is 25.10.1956.

¶626

This Court is in agreement with the expert opinion. The official website of the Raj Bhawan, Rajasthan reflects date of appointment of Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh as the first Governor of Rajasthan as 25.10.1956. True that he took oath of the office on 1.11.1956; but, in the question the date of his appointment was asked and not the date on which he assumed office. Undoubtedly, the same could have on different date. It has not been case of the petitioners that Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh was also appointed on the day he assumed office. Therefore, the objections are rejected.

¶627

Question no.62:

¶628

The second highest percentage of Scheduled tribe population in Rajasthan is found in (2011)-

¶629

(1) Banswara District

¶630

(2) Pratapgarh District

¶631

(3) Dungarpur District

¶632

(4) Dausa District

¶633

As per RPSC, option no.3 is the correct answer whereas, petitioners’ rely on option no.1.

¶634

Learned counsels for petitioners, drawing attention of this Court towards chart 1.14 of the Statistical Year Book, Rajasthan2020 published by the Directorate of Economic and Statistics, Statistics Department, submitted that the highest percentage of total State Scheduled Tribe population by residence in Udaipur is 16.5%, in Banswara 14.9% and at third place, in Dungarpur 10.6%. Referring to Table 17.16 of the Geography of Rajasthan by Shri H.M. Saxena, learned counsels submitted that therein the

¶635

(43 of 52)

¶636

[CW-13968/2021]

¶637

`Banswara’, has been shown to have highest Scheduled Tribe population percentage in its total population, i.e., District wise, Dungarpur appears at no.2 with Pratapgarh at no.3 and Udaipur at no.4. They submitted that since the question related to the second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population in Rajasthan, the option chosen by the RPSC, i.e., Dungarpur is incorrect as it has second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population District wise and not State wise.

¶638

Shri Amit submitted that relying on the Scheduled Tribe population and decadal change as also percentage of Scheduled Tribes to total population : 2011-2012 by residence as per Census-2011, the expert committee has found that Dungarpur has second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population in Rajasthan.

¶639

The Court finds merit in the objections raised by the petitioners as the expert committee has relied upon the data which reflects percentage of the Scheduled Tribes in a district out of its total population, i.e., District wise whereas, in the question, the second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population in Rajasthan was asked which, as per the Census-2011, is option no.1, i.e. Banswara District. The learned counsel for the Commission failed to meet the reasoning assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments. The objections raised by the petitioners are duly supported by the data of Census-2011 which requires no inferential process of reasoning. In view thereof, while rejecting expert opinion, the Court accepts the objections. Option no.1 is held to be the correct answer.

Question no.84:

(44 of 52)

[CW-13968/2021]

Which of the following district is not a part of `Desert Triangle’ in Rajasthan?

¶644

(1) Jodhpur

¶645

(3) Barmer

¶646

(2) Bikaner

¶647

(4) Jaisalmer

¶648

As per RPSC, option no.3 is correct, whereas, as per petitioners, all options are incorrect.

¶649

Learned counsels for petitioners, relying upon a publication in the name of “20 Year Perceptive Plan for Sustainable Tourism in India” by the Department of Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture, Government of India, canvassed that the desert circuit in the State of Rajasthan comprises of four Districts, i.e., Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Bikaner and Barmer and hence, the answer by the RPSC ousting the District Barmer is incorrect.

¶650

Per contra, learned counsel for RPSC submitted that as per information available on the official website of Department of Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture, Government of India, the Desert circuit of Rajasthan comprises of three Districts only, i.e., Jodhpur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer.

¶651

As per the information available on the official website of the Department of Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture, Government of India, the desert circuit of Rajasthan comprises of three Districts only, i.e., Jodhpur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer. In the tourist map of the Rajasthan appended, the Desert Triangle has been shown to be consisting of these three Districts only. The publication relied upon by the petitioners reveals Barmer to be a prospective part of Desert circuit in the State of Rajasthan. Even otherwise also, since, in the question, a District not part of “Desert Triangle” was asked, there could not have been fourth component

¶652

(45 of 52)

¶653

[CW-13968/2021]

¶654

in the triangle. Therefore, the Court does not find merit in the objections.

¶655

Question no.98:

¶656

How much has the global average temperature risen in the last century?

¶657

(1) 3.0 degree F

¶658

(3) 3.4 degree F

¶659

As per RPSC, option no.2 is correct one whereas, as per petitioners, the question itself is required to be deleted as none of the options is correct.

¶660

Learned counsels for petitioners, in support of their submission, relied upon `Biology’ book for Class-XII published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training which states that in last century, there has been an increase in global average temperature to 0.6 degree centigrade. They contended that the expert committee has relied upon unauthenticated material including NOAA Climate.gov, a private NGO website.

¶661

Shri Amit submitted that as per Columbia University Press, Newyork Publication in the name of `Climate Change’, in the last century, the global average temperature has risen by about 1 degree centigrade (1.8 degree Fahrenheit). He also relied upon an article in the name of “Climate Change: Global Temperature” available on the NOAA Climate.gov website which, as per the learned counsel, is a website of international repute. He submitted that since the question pertains to global average rise in the temperature, the expert committee has rightly relied upon an international publication.

¶662

As per the NCERT Biology book for Class-XII, the increase in global average temperature in the last century has been 0.6

¶663

(46 of 52)

¶664

[CW-13968/2021]

¶665

degree centigrade which, in Fahrenheit comes to 1.08 degree. The material relied upon by the expert committee does not categorically state about average increase in global temperature in the last century to the tune of 1.8 degree Fahrenheit, the option chosen by it as the correct answer. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon following observations from the article “Climate Change” by the Columbia University Press:-

¶666

“Global warming began in earnest at the beginning of the twentieth century. Since, 1880, global means surface air temperature increased by about 1 degree C (1.8 degree F), a rate of change for higher than natural temperature changes in the Pleistocene or Holocene before the advent of the industrial age.”

¶667

This Court is not satisfied that it anywhere says about rise in global average temperature in the last century by about 1.8 degree Fahrenheit; rather, it speaks of such increase in temperature since 1880. Further, it does not prescribe the exact period which was taken into consideration for making this observation.

¶668

As per Mr. Amit, the expert committee has also placed reliance upon following excerpt from the “Climate Change” in their support:

¶669

“Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface temperature was 1.76 degree F (0.98 degree Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0 degree F (13.9. degree C) and 2.14 degree F (1.19 degree C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).”

¶670

Again, this observation available on a NGO website in the name of Climate.gov does not support the expert opinion.

¶671

(47 of 52)

¶672

[CW-13968/2021]

¶673

The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon an observation in the same Article, i.e., “Climate Change” available on page 278 of its reply (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14175/2021, which reads as under:

¶674

“The roughly 2-degree Fahrenheit (1 degree centigrade) increase in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the pre-industrial era (1880-1900) might seem small, but it means a significant increase in accumulated heat.”

¶675

This Court is at loss to understand as to how it supports/ leads to a conclusion that option no.2, i.e., 1.8 degree Fahrenheit is the correct answer to the question.

¶676

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not satisfied that the expert opinion is based on any authenticated/standard material. The learned counsel for the respondent even failed to satisfy this Court that material relied upon by the expert committee supports its opinion as to option no.2 being correct. No reason has been assigned by the expert committee to disagree with the NCERT book of Biology subject of Class-XII. In view thereof, the matter requires reconsideration.

¶677

Question no.105:

¶678

Solar observatory in Rajasthan is situated at(1) Udaipur (2) Jaipur

¶679

(3) Ajmer

¶680

(4) Jodhpur

¶681

The RPSC has deleted the question whereas, petitioners rely on option no.1 as correct answer.

¶682

Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that relying on some private and unauthenticated website, the respondent has deleted the question holding the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur to be one of the correct options, which is not substantiated otherwise. They

¶683

(48 of 52)

¶684

[CW-13968/2021]

¶685

submitted that in the recruitment examination of RAS/RTS-2018, the respondent itself has found “Udaipur” as the only place in the State of Rajasthan where the Solar Observatory is situated and therefore, it does not lie in their mouth to change their stand and say that it is established both at Udaipur as also at Jaipur. They contended that a co-ordinate bench of this Court has, vide judgement dated 10.12.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25338/2018; Jitendra Kumar Bakotia & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other connected matters, upheld the expert opinion and the order dated 10.12.2018 has attained finality. They submitted that in view thereof, the petitioners were under legitimate expectation that the respondent-RPSC would adhere to its earlier stand. They submitted that in a book with title “Rajasthan Ka Itihas Avem Sanskriti” published by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer for Class-X, the Jantar Mantar has been shown to be an Astronomical Observatory only and not as Solar Observatory. They also relied upon the information available on the website of United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as also the information available on the official website of Rajasthan Tourism Department, in support of their submissions.

¶686

Learned counsel for RPSC submitted that the expert committee has opined its deletion in view of the fact that two options, i.e., (1) Udaipur and (2) Jaipur represent the correct answer. He submits that the expert committee has relied upon the authentic material including a publication-”Ancient ObservatoriesTimeless Knowledge” by the Stanford Seller Centre. He submitted that this Court has, vide its judgement dated 10.12.2018, while considering the same question asked in RAS/RTS Examination-

¶687

(49 of 52)

¶688

[CW-13968/2021]

¶689

2018, did not agree with option, i.e. Udaipur chosen by the RPSC and referred the matter back for reconsideration by the expert committee.

¶690

When asked pointedly, none of the parties could answer as to what a solar observatory is exactly. They all admitted that the word “solar observatory” has not been defined in any of the English Dictionary of repute. Learned counsel for the Commission was also at loss to convey the meaning of `solar observatory’, i.e., whether it is related to study of Sun or study of time based on Sun. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon its definition available on the Wikipedia, submitted that a solar observatory is an observatory that specializes in monitoring the Sun. However, the Wikipedia not being an authorised source, this Court is not inclined to go by this definition. In the “Rajasthan Ka Itihas and Sanskriti”, a Class X book published by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur has been classified as one of the five Astronomical Observatories established by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh-II. Similarly, the official website of the UNESCO as also the official website of the Rajasthan Tourism Department have reckoned the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur as an astronomical observatory whereas, as per the official government website, i.e., museumrajasthan.gov.in, the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur is one of the five solar observatories founded by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. Thus, there is conflicting opinion available in the standard book/official websites of different government bodies/organisations.

¶691

There is another important aspect of the matter. In the last RAS/RTS Examination-2018, the same question was asked wherein, the RPSC has chosen ‘Udaipur’ as the only place where

¶692

(50 of 52)

¶693

[CW-13968/2021]

¶694

the solar observatory in Rajasthan is situated. The answer key was assailed by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25338/2018 wherein, a coordinate bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 10.12.2018 remanded the question back to the expert committee for its reconsideration but, none of the parties could specify as to what happened thereafter. Although, the petitioners have contended that the experts maintained their earlier opinion, i.e., Udaipur but, there is no material on record to substantiate the same.

¶695

In view thereof, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the expert committee to take a call again on this question.

¶696

Question no.122:

¶697

Study the following then answer the questionStatement: The petrol prices have gone up during the past few weeks.

¶698

Courses of action:

¶699

I. The government should set up an expert committee to study the trend of prices.

¶700

II The government should immediately reduce taxes on petrol. III The government should advise the general public to refrain from purchasing petrol for few weeks.

¶701

Decide which of the suggested course of action follows: (1) Only I (2) Only II

¶702

(3) Only III

¶703

(4) None of these

¶704

According to RPSC, option no.2 is correct, whereas as per petitioners’, option no.1 is the correct answer.

¶705

Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that question itself being based on opinion, should not have been part of multiple choice questions as it may vary individually. They submitted that the expert opinion is not based on any concrete

¶706

(51 of 52)

¶707

[CW-13968/2021]

¶708

material and even otherwise also, the option no.1 appears to be most logical and plausible answer to the question.

¶709

Shri Amit, learned counsel for RPSC submitted that the expert committee has opined the option no.2 to be correct option as it would give relief to the people. He further submitted that the question was part of syllabus under the Logical Reasoning (Statement and Course of Action).

¶710

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question being opinion based, should not have been part of multiple choice questions, does not merit acceptance as, the MCQs pertaining to logical reasoning (statement and course of action), has been part of syllabus of preliminary examination. Being an opinion based question, this Court does not find any strong reason to disagree with the expert opinion. The petitioners having failed to demonstrate that the expert opinion is palpably wrong or is so highly unreasonable that no prudent man could agree with it, the expert opinion is sustained.

¶711

The conclusion of the Court question-wise is summarised as under:

¶712

Question no.1-The matter is remanded back to the expert committee to re-look into the matter vide reasoned opinion.

¶713

Question no.7- The objections are rejected.

¶714

Question no.31 – The matter is remitted back to the expert committee to consider it afresh vide reasoned opinion.

¶715

Question no.41- Since, the question has two options as correct answer, it is deleted.

¶716

Question no.42- The objections are rejected.

¶717

Question no.43 – The expert opinion is upheld.

¶718

(52 of 52)

¶719

[CW-13968/2021]

¶720

Question no.45 – The objections are rejected.

¶721

Question no.62- The objections are sustained. Option no.1 is held to be correct answer.

¶722

Question no.84 – The objections are rejected.

¶723

Question no.98 – The matter is remanded back to the expert committee to re-look into the matter vide reasoned opinion.

¶724

Question no.105 - The matter is remanded back to the expert committee to re-look into the matter vide reasoned opinion.

¶725

Question no.122- The expert opinion is upheld.

¶726

The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are partly allowed in the above mentioned terms. The final answer key dated 22.11.2021 is quashed to the extent as stated hereinabove. Resultantly, the result dated 19.11.2021 stands quashed. The RPSC is directed to revise the result of the preliminary examination and to prepare a fresh list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination accordingly.

¶727

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶728

Ravi Sharma/

Umesh Yadav S/O Veni Prasad v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Yadav S/O Veni Prasad 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

Yogendra Kumar Vyas S/O Hazari Lal Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Samiksha Sharma D/O. Shri Ramakant Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhim Singh Son of Virju Singh Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Shashank Awasthi S/O Santosh Kumar Awasthi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Gauri Shankar Yadav S/O Shri Gyarsi Lal Yadav Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Gajraj S/O Shri Ramchandra Vs the State of Rajasthan