Disposed

Hukma Ram S/O Chutara Ram v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Jun 2023CW/12639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenges to the final answer key of the VDO recruitment examination by candidates. The court rejected most challenges but directed re-evaluation of two questions (132 and 144) by the expert committee, finding the experts had not considered standard textbooks. Result to be revised accordingly for remaining vacancies.

What did the court decide?

Directed re-evaluation of questions 132 and 144 by expert committee; revision of result of remaining candidates against available vacancies; existing appointments not to be disturbed.

Hukma Ram S/O Chutara Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11616/2022

¶3

Kushal Bhardwaj S/o Narender Bhardwaj, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Near Gas Godam, Matunda Road, Bundi, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 247078).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

And other similar matters as per Schedule appended

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Ram Pratap Saini, Giriraj Rajoria,
	Mr. Mr.	Aamir Khan Vigyan Shah
	Mr.	Tribhuvan Narayan Singh,
	Mr.	Lakhan Singh Meena
	Ms.	Komal Kumari Giri,
	Mr.	Bajrang Sepat &
	Mr.	Arvind Arora
	Mr.	G.S. Gouttam
	Mr.	Shrey Gahrana
	Mr.	Kalyan Chand Surela
	Mr.	Raghu Nandan Sharma,
	Mr.	Abhinav Srivastava
	Mr.	Sandeep Kalwaniya
	Mr.	Atma Ram Verma
	Mr.	T.C. Vyas
	Mr.	Pawan Sharma
	Mr.	Rishi Raj Singh Rathore
	Ms.	Neelu Sharma
	Mr.	Rajesh Kumar Sharma
	Mr.	Narendra Prasad Meena,
	Mr.	Ritesh Kumawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	S.S. Raghav, AAG Nalin G. Narain,
	Mr.	Arpit Jain
	Mr.	Pradeep Kalwania, G.C.
	Mr.	Sandeep Taneja
	Mr.	Kartikeya Sharma
	Mr.	Sandeep Maheshwari

¶12

(2 of 33)

¶13

[CW-11616/2022]

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment

¶15

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : May 23^rd 2023 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : June 7^th 2023

¶16

BY THE COURT:

¶17

In present writ petitions, petitioners have questioned the final answer key dated 29.07.2022 of main examination of Village Development Officer Direct Recruitment- 2021 issued by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, in respect of answers of few questions, detailed out hereunder, and consequently have sought to revise the final result dated 29.07.2022 so also the selection list dated 25.11.2022, 26.12.2022 and 03.02.2023 in pursuance thereof. Since the issue involved in all writ petitions is identical in nature, therefore, with consent of counsel for both the parties, all writ petitions were tagged and have been heard together and would stand disposed of by this common order.

¶18

2.1 The relevant facts, as culled out from the record are that the Board notified 5396 vacancies of Village Development Officer vide advertisement No.04/2021 dated 06.09.2021 and amended advertisement dated 24.02.2022 to be filled by way of direct recruitment under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.

¶19

2.2 The process of recruitment comprises in two phases i.e. preliminary examination for shortlisting candidates to appear in the main examination and then after document verification, final merit list is required to be prepared according to marks scored by candidates in the main examination.

¶20

2.3 Petitioners participated in the recruitment process and having cleared the preliminary examination, were shortlisted to appear in the main examination.

¶21

[CW-11616/2022]

¶22

(3 of 33)

¶23

2.4 The main examination held on 09.07.2022. In the main examination the question paper was consisting of total 160 questions of objective type with multiple choice answers, for total weightage of 200 marks. Thus, after segregating the total marks in total questions, each question carry 1.25 marks. It was stipulation that 1/3rd mark is deducible for each question, if answered wrongly.

¶24

2.5 The Board published model answer key of the master question paper of main examination, on 13.7.22 for the purpose of evaluation of the performance of the candidates and invited online objections from candidates, if any, with respect to answers published in the model answer key with supporting material to his objection/suggestion to the questionable answer(s).

¶25

2.6 Thereafter, the Board issued provisional select list on 29.07.2022 wherein candidates in number of two time to the advertised vacancies were provisionally selected for the purpose of verification of documents and credentials, in order to prepare the final merit list.

¶26

2.7 It has been informed that after undertaking the process of document verification of candidates shortlisted in provisional selection list dated 29.07.2022, the Board has issued final selection list in peace-meal, on 25.11.2022 then on 26.12.2022 and thereafter on 03.02.2023. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-State authorities pointed out that out of notified 5396 vacancies, appointment to more than 5100 candidates have been given, however, near about 240 vacancies are still available.

¶27

2.8 It has been submitted that petitioners were shortlisted in the provisional select list dated 29.07.2022, however, have not been

¶28

(4 of 33) [CW-11616/2022]

¶29

finally selected for appointment and most of petitioners are at marginal distance to the last cut off marks of last selected candidates in their respective category.

¶30

2.9 It has transpired from the record that few writ petitions came to be filed by petitioners after declaration of provisional selection list dated 29.07.2022 on the basis of final answer key dated 29.07.2022 and other writ petitions have been filed by petitioners after issuance of the final select lists.

¶31

2.10 It has been pointed out that out of total 160 questions in the main examination dated 09.07.2022, the Board changed answers of 3 questions in the final answer key and has delayed total of 8 questions in the final answer key, from answers suggested in the model answer key.

¶32

2.11 It may be noticed that by way of present writ petitions, as pointed out by counsel for petitioners during course of arguments, objectionable questions as per master question paper are at serial No.3, 15, 30, 34, 78, 79, 106, 122, 129, 131, 132, 144 and 147. Thus, total 13 questions in number are questionable, regarding which the adjudication has been called for by this Court.

¶33

3.1 Heard counsel for both parties in respect of all 13 objectionable questions numbered hereinabove.

¶34

3.2 Petitioners, have placed on record extracts from standard books published by the Board of secondary education and other Government publications, in order to support their contentions that the decision taken by the Board in respect of objectionable questions either to keep the answer intact or to change the answer or to delete the question is prima facie, erroneous and do not match with the books/material of standard

¶35

[CW-11616/2022]

¶36

(5 of 33)

¶37

publication/Government publication which is available in the market to candidates for preparing the present examination of Village Development Officer (VDO) or not in conformity to the standard books taught to students in schools and colleges. It has been canvassed that having perused books/material placed on record, prima facie, it can be discern that the decision of expert Committee of the Board is not in consonance with the standard books/material produced before the Court and therefore, such questions be referred to the subject experts for correct evaluation of their answer by an independent expert Committee and on the basis of report of the expert committee, the impugned answer key dated 29.07.2022 as well as final select lists be revised.

¶38

3.3 Per contra, learned counsel for respondents-State authorities and the selection Board, have opposed the prayer of petitioners and contended that the final answer key dated 29.07.2022 was prepared as per the opinion and suggestion of the expert committee, after considering objections received from candidates against answers given in the model answer key dated 13.07.2022 and decision to keep the answer sustained or to change or delete the question, is as per the opinion/view of experts.

¶39

3.4 The selection Board filed detailed reply and additional affidavit in SBCWP No.11616/2022 (Kushal Bhardwaj Vs. The State of Rajasthan), which has been adopted as a common reply in all writ petitions. The Board has detailed out the objectionable questions and excerpts opined by the expert Committee to take the decision.

¶40

3.5 Counsel for respondent-Board, during course of arguments, have been placed on record the photocopy of record of Board,

¶41

[CW-11616/2022]

¶42

(6 of 33)

¶43

dealing with objections by the expert Committee in respect of objectionable questions.

¶44

3.6 It has been submitted by counsel for Board as well as State authorities that the decision taken in the final answer key in respect of each question either to sustain the answer or to change or to delete the question is based on the opinion/decision of the expert committee, therefore, there is no need to re-send the objectionable questions for the re-valuation by expert committee again.

¶45

3.7 It has been submitted that the selection process has substantially been completed, only few vacant post near about 240 remain unfilled, for which the Board shall proceed to fill the posts according to the final answer key dated 29.07.2022. Hence, no interference is required to be made in the final answer key dated 29.07.2022 in respect of objectionable questions on the behest of petitioners and all writ petitions be dismissed.

¶46

Heard. Considered.

¶47

At the outset, it is worthwhile to note that after publication of the final answer key dated 29.07.2022 and declaration of the provisional select list on 29.07.2022 by the selection Board and before issuance of the first final selection list on 25.11.2022, this Court, in SBCWP No.11600/2022 (Amba Lal Khatik Vs. State of Rajasthan) vide order dated 19.09.2022 has passed the interim order, after hearing counsel for both parties, in following terms:

¶48

“Meanwhile, selection made by respondents on the post of Village Development Officer shall remain subject to final outcome of these writ petitions”

¶49

The interim stay order dated 19.09.2022 has remained operative continuously in respect of all writ petitions and

¶50

(7 of 33) [CW-11616/2022]

¶51

therefore, the final selection lists, dated 25.11.202, 26.12.2022 and 03.02.2023 etc. issued by the selection Board and the appointment pursuant thereto by the State Government, are obviously subject to final decision of the present writ petitions. However, it has revealed from the statement of counsel for respondent-State made at bar that against the total notified vacancies of 5396, still near about 240 vacancies are lying vacant and unfilled, on the remaining posts, selected candidates have been given appointment.

¶52

Now coming to objectionable questions which are in number total 13 questions out of 160 questions, following is the difference between answers suggested in model answer key dated 13.07.2022 and in the final answer key dated 29.07.2022,

¶53

published by the selection Board:

¶54

S No.	Ques No.	Answer suggested in model answer key dated 13.7.22	Decision in Final answer key dated 29.7.22	Remark
1.	3	B	B	Same
2.	15	B	B	Same
3.	30	A	Delete	Delete
4.	34	B	C	Changed
5.	78	A	A	Same
6.	79	B	B	Same
7.	106	D	D	Same
8.	122	B	Delete	Delete
9.	129	C	C	Same
10.	131	C	C	Same
11.	132	D	C	Changed
12.	144	C	D	Changed
13.	147	A	A	Same

¶55

From the above tabulation, it is clear that the answer in respect of question No.3, 15, 78, 79, 106, 129, 131 and 147 has

¶56

[CW-11616/2022]

¶57

(8 of 33)

¶58

not changed and for these questions, answers in both answer key i.e. model answer key dated 13.07.2022 and final answer key dated 19.07.2022 are same.

¶59

It has been submitted by counsel for selection Board that despite of inviting objections after publication of model answer key dated 13.07.2022, no objection by any of petitioners were submitted in respect of answer of these questions, therefore, they are estopped to raise objection in respect of answer of such questions.

¶60

Learned counsels appearing for petitioners admit during the course arguments that no objections by and on behalf of petitioners in respect of answer of such questions except question No. 15 were submitted before the Board, pursuant to press note dated 13.07.2022 inviting objections against the model answer key, in between 13.07.2022 to 15.07.2022.

¶61

Therefore, in view of admitted case of petitioners for not submitting any objections against the answer of such questions as suggested in the model answer key and when the answer suggested in the model answer key has not been changed in the final answer key, certainly petitioners are estopped on basis of principle of estoppel to raise objection or to challenge answers of such questions by way of these writ petitions and as such challenge made by petitioners to questions No.3, 78, 79, 106, 129, 131 & 147 is hereby rejected.

¶62

Coming to the rest six objectionable questions of serial No.15, 30, 34, 122, 132, 144, before dealing with nature of objections made by petitioners, this Court thinks it proper to refer the well settled legal proposition and about the scope of judicial

¶63

[CW-11616/2022]

¶64

(9 of 33)

¶65

review against the expert opinion/decision in respect of answer to a question put forth in the examination conducted for the purpose of public recruitment that is extremely limited. The Court cannot act like an expert nor court can sit over the decision of experts like appellate authority, and the issue must be mostly left to be decided by the experts of relevant subject. The interference by the Courts in exercise of their power of judicial review relating to issues of question and answer put forth in the matter of public employment has been kept minimum with an object to render finality to the process of public employment and an element of tolerance to the minor error or calibration is acceptable. However, it may also be noticed that the judicial review in such matters is not completely shut out. It can be made, only in exceptional situations and Grey area is very thin, unless the situation presents a clear cut, black and white, open and shut choice of the decision of the expert body, being palpably wrong, the Court is not supposed to interfere and if any interference is required, same should be kept to the minimum.

¶66

In the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ran

¶67

Vijay Singh And Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

¶68

[(2018) 2 SCC 357] , a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred to large number of earlier decisions and culled out the broad principles applicable in such situations. Following observations may be noted:-

¶69

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

¶70

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;

¶71

(10 of 33)

¶72

[CW-11616/2022]

¶73

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;

¶74

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

¶75

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

¶76

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

¶77

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.

¶78

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

¶79

(11 of 33)

¶80

[CW-11616/2022]

¶81

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

¶82

More recently in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.

¶83

Vs. State Of Rajasthan and Ors., [(2021) 2 SCC 309] , the Supreme Court after referring to decision in case of Ran Vijay

¶84

Singh (supra) had observed as under:-

¶85

“16. 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 dated12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission. 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.

¶86

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

¶87

(12 of 33)

¶88

[CW-11616/2022]

¶89

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.”

¶90

The grey area and scope of interference to re-evaluate or scrutiny of an answer sheet of public examination may be culled out from following judgments, as observed in case of Kanpur University Vs. Samit Gupta [(1983) 4 SCC 309] , the Apex Court has held as under:

¶91

“16……..the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong 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. In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore, rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of key answer………………...”

¶92

In case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh and Anr. [(2018) 7 SCC 254], the Apex Court after referring to judgment of Kanpur University (supra) and Ran Vijay Singh (supra), laid emphasis that unless the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, Courts cannot enter into academic field, weighed the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to a conclusion as to which of answers is better or more correct. Thus, the onus too is only on the candidate to show that it is glaring mistake which daughter

¶93

[CW-11616/2022]

¶94

(13 of 33)

¶95

apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong.

¶96

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in bunch of writ petitions lead case being SBCWP No.10622/2014 titled Ramdhan Kumawat Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vide order dated 18.11.2014, while confronting with the situation that the key answer suggested/decided by the expert committee is not in conformity to the standard books published by the Board, NCERT and other Government publications, in that situation, the Court granted indulgence and re-valuation of answer-sheets of all candidates for all subjects was directed to be made by experts, relying upon the standard books and materials. In another case of Hari Singh & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission: SBCWP No.12621/2009, the Coordinate Bench of this Court after extending its consideration over the judgment of Kanpur University (supra) and taking note of the dictum of the Apex Court in case of Manish Ujwal Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University [(2005) 13 SCC 744] observed that if the answer attempted by petitioners appears to be corrected duly supported by text books prescribed by the Education Board and approved by the Government, it would be unfair to penalize them by not awarding them proper marks for not giving an answer which accords with such wrong key answer. It was held that the merit should not be made casualty at the cost of an error being committed by recruiting agency or paper setters or re-evaluating the answer key even by experts of subject, without referring to the text books prescribed by the education board and approved by the Government. Thus, it may safely be observed by this Court

¶97

[CW-11616/2022]

¶98

(14 of 33)

¶99

that even the subject experts are required to render their opinion/decision on the basis of some authentic text/material including the standard books prescribed by the education board, NCERT and other Government publications.

¶100

In case of Richal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [(2018) 8 SCC 81], in respect of School Lecturer Exam-2015 conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission when the report of expert committee was challenged by writ petitioners in respect of deletion of 13 questions and in support, petitioners referred to the text books of the NCERT, as per which those questions were rightly framed and were not required to be deleted, similarly, it was submitted that other 5 questions were wrongly framed but the expert committee declined to delete or correct answers of such questions, in that peculiar situation, where the Supreme Court was informed that after declaration of result, successful candidates have already been given appointment but still many posts are laying vacant and further learned counsel for petitioners undertaken that they have no objection if candidates who have already been appointed, their appointment is not disturbance but at the same time grievances as pointed out by petitioners to look into by the expert committee again, then an expert committee was appointed by the RPSC under directions of the Supreme Court to re-examine the grievances of appellant-writ petitioners. The RPSC was directed to revise the result of all candidates including all appellants, on the basis of report of expert committee, constituted pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court and to publish the revised result.

¶101

[CW-11616/2022]

¶102

(15 of 33)

¶103

Keeping in mind the above referred legal proposition of law, in order to appreciate the challenge made to the questions No.15, 30, 34, 122, 132, 144, before dealing with nature of objections made by petitioners, it would be appropriate to re-produce the objectionable questions, final answer key based on decision of the expert committee and view of experts and simultaneously challenge to the each question would be dealt with according to the material referred by petitioners.

¶104

20. Question No.15

¶105

“समास के स्ቚ्቏ मኴ᭗ असኟᬉगत कथन ॅቡ᭶ኍ :-

¶106

(A) जॅቡा ्ቚथम पद ननषेध का वाचक ॅቡह५ उसे न्ቔ ततॄቮⓢरुष समास कॅቡते ॅቡ᭶ኍ । (B) अधधकरण ततॄቮⓢरुष के सम्ቜ पदᮙᮕ मኴ᭗ अधधकरण कारक ብ᭭च्ቡ मኴ᭗, पे, पर का ्ቚयह५ग ॅቡह५ता ॅቡ᭶ኍ ।

¶107

¶108

(D)कम्मधारय नवशेषण नवशे्ቦ का समास ॅቡह५ता ॅቡ᭶ኍ ।"

¶109

Primary Answer - B Final Answer - B

¶110

Material placed by petitioners - ननवन हॅቡंदी वाकरण एवኟᬉ रचना

¶111

Experts View - That after considering the objection raised by the candidates, the experts referred हॅቡंदी वाकरण एवኟᬉ रचना- ्ቚबह५धक, मा्ቖ भቔमक शशका बह५ोर्म राजजቶान, अजमेर and opined that the correct option need not to be changed.”

¶112

The expert committee after consideration of the material referred by petitioners has decided to keep the same answer of the question as published in the model answer key, and the petitioner who assailed the answer of this question is unable to produce any additional substantive standard material to show infirmity in the answer suggested by experts, thus, it appears that the subject experts, after relying upon the standard books of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, took a decision to keep the answer intact, therefore, this Court does not find any

¶113

(16 of 33)

¶114

[CW-11616/2022]

¶115

scope of interference and the objection raised by petitioners is rejected.

¶116

21. Question No.30

¶117

“Which of the following is not the meaning of ‘bound’? (A) to build a boundary (B) to spring or leap (C) to be restrained by a material such as rope (D) to be controlled by a condition or law”

¶118

Initially in the model answer key, answer “A” was suggested but after considering objections submitted by candidates, the expert committee suggested and decided to delete the question. Accordingly, the question has been deleted. The deletion of such question has only been challenged in one writ petition, not in the other writ petitions and since no substantive material has been placed on record to differ from the decision of the expert committee to delete the question, therefore, this Court does not find any scope of interference and the objection raised by petitioners is rejected.

¶119

22. Question No.34

¶120

“Choose the appropriate alternative from the given options that comes closest to the idea conveyed by the sentence-

¶121

(A) You are likely to be back within two hours.

¶122

(B) You have to be back within two hours.

¶123

¶124

(D) You have the option to be back within two hours

¶125

Objection Raised by Candidate - Respected ब Sir/Madam, must का use (बा्ቖ ता) दशቦኋने के ल ए ॅቡह५ता ॅቡ᭶ኍ जह५ कበॠ नवक्ቜ मኴ᭗ साफ दशቦኋया गया ॅቡ᭶ኍ obligation (obliged to be) अतः बेॅቡतर नवक्ቜ बॅቡ ह५ना चाहॅቡए.

¶126

Primary Answer – B Final Answer - C

¶127

Material Placed by petitioners - 1. English Grammar in use, by Raymond Murphy, 2. High School English Grammer & Composition, by Wren and Martin

¶128

Experts View - That after considering the objection raised by the candidates, the experts referred ‘Oxford

¶129

(17 of 33)

¶130

[CW-11616/2022]

¶131

Guide to English Grammar’ and opined that option “C” “You are obliged to be back within two hours” is the correct answer. Therefore, the correct answer was changed from option B to option C.”

¶132

Counsel for petitioner Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma, sought to persuade the Court that the change of answer in the final answer key to this question from the answer suggested in the model answer key is wrong exercise on the part of experts and has relied upon the material of “Oxford Guide to English Grammar” to support that the correct answer must be “B” only. This Court finds that the experts too have changed the answer after referring to the “Oxford Guide to English Grammar”, therefore, in the opinion of this Court no new material has been placed on record to press for re-evaluation of the question for correct answer by the expert committee again, as such, this Court does not find any scope of interference and the objection raised by petitioners is rejected.

¶133

23. Question No.122

¶134

“Which one of the following (Tribe-Placed/Area) is not correctly matched?

¶135

(A) Damor- Dungarpur

¶136

(B) Kathodi- Simalwara

¶137

¶138

(D) Rebari- Baran

¶139

Preliminary Answer - B Final Answer – Delete

¶140

Experts View – After considering the objections raised by the candidates, the experts opined that option B and D are not correctly matched, therefore, the question was deleted as having more than one correct answer”

¶141

Initially in the model answer key, answer “B” was suggested but after considering objections submitted by candidates, the expert committee suggested and decided to delete the question because the options B and D were not correctly matched.

¶142

(18 of 33) [CW-11616/2022]

¶143

Accordingly, the question has been deleted. Since no substantive material has been placed on record to differ from the decision of the expert committee to delete the question, therefore, this Court does not find any scope of interference and the objection raised by petitioners is rejected.

¶144

24. Question No.132

¶145

“On the basis of population of tribes, the place of Rajasthan in India is:

¶146

(A) 3^rd (B) 2^nd (C) 4^th (D) 6^th ”

¶147

Primary Answer - D Final Answer – C

¶148

Objection by Candidate – Question is not clear

¶149

Experts View - That after considering the objection raised by the candidates against preliminary answer key, the experts referred to ‘Census 2011’ Office of Registrar General of India and opined that place of Rajasthan finds at No. 4^th , which is option “C” as per master booklet is the correct answer and hence the answer was changed in the final answer key.”

¶150

24.1 In respect of this question, counsel for selection Board submits that the experts relied upon the sources of changing the answer key from “D” to “C”, is “Census-2011” issued by Office of Registrar General of India and the photostat copy of such Census2011 has been placed on record for the perusal of Court.

¶151

24.2 Counsel for petitioners have vehemently opposed to change the answer of this question from “D” to “C” by the expert committee and submit that the correct answer is only “D” as was suggested in the model answer key. Submissions of petitioners is that the place of Rajasthan in India, on the basis of population of tribes is 6^th as has been indicated in the standard text books which are being used by the teachers to taught students in schools and colleges. Text materials from the various books, including the;

¶152

[CW-11616/2022]

¶153

(19 of 33)

¶154

(i) Bhugol of Class 10^th issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer,

¶155

(ii) Geography of Class 12^th issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer,

¶156

(iii) Rajasthan ka Bhugol by L.R. Bhalla etc. have been placed on record wherein, in the ambiguous and clear words, the place of Rajasthan has been indicated at position No. 6^th .

¶157

(iv) That apart, it has been pointed out that the similar question was asked in the Agricultural Officer Examination-2021 conducted by the RPSC at Serial No.62 in booklet series-B, and in that examination the experts of subject suggested the correct answer of this question to be 6^th position of Rajasthan in India. A copy of question booklet of Agricultural Officer Examination- 2021 with final key answer published by the RPSC has been placed on record in case of SBCWP No.12013/2022 (Shailendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

¶158

It has been submitted that the RPSC prepared the result treating the correct and final answer of this question as “D” i.e. 6^th position, therefore, it has been submitted that, prima facie, it is glaring mistake on the part of experts to suggest for change the correct answer as given out in the model answer key and pointing out wrong answer in the final answer key to the selection Board. 24.3 It has been submitted by counsel for petitioners that the subject experts have changed the answer of this question without having reference to the authentic and standard text books of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, and Government publications and prima facie, experts have suggested two answers of the same question in two different public

¶159

(20 of 33) [CW-11616/2022]

¶160

employment examination, therefore, it has been prayed by counsel for petitioners, that this question be referred to the expert committee for re-evaluation of the correct answer and either the answer requires change from the “C” to “D” because the place of Rajasthan, on basis of population of tribes is 6^th and not 4^th or in the alternative, the question requires deletion.

¶161

24.4 Counsel appearing on the basis of selection Board concedes that as per view of experts and details available with the selection Board to discuss objections of candidates on this question No.132 by experts, it is clear that the standard book of the Board of Secondary Rajasthan, Ajmer have not been considered and in addition, counsel is not in a position to controvert that the correct answer of this question was suggested by experts in the Agricultural Officer Examination, conducted by RPSC as “D” i.e. the place of Rajasthan in India, on the basis of population of tribes, is 6^th and not 4^th . Learned counsel has prayed to pass appropriate orders in respect of this question by the Court. 24.5 In the opinion of this Court, in respect of challenge to the change of answer to this question No.132 by the Board, candidates have succeeded in establishing that the experts have not been referred to the standard text material published by the Board of Secondary Education and other authentic books. This question was rightly answered in the model answer key according to such text material, but the experts placing reliance on the Census-2011 as published by the Office of Registrar General of India in Gazette notification, changed the answer from “C” to “D”. It appears that while placing reliance on the Census-2011, the experts have not adhered to the standard books of Geography of

¶162

(21 of 33) [CW-11616/2022]

¶163

Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer for class 10^th and 12^th . In addition, this question was answered by the experts, in agricultural officer examination-2021 with the correct and final answer as “D” i.e. 6^th position of Rajasthan.

¶164

24.6 Thus, in respect of question No.132, it is a case where without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization, it is apparent on the face of record that the experts have chosen a different decision of the same question in different public employment examination, that too in the VDO Exam, answer has been changed, without considering the standard and authentic books of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, therefore, as far as interference in respect of this question No.132 is concerned, same falls within situation No.30.2, as suggested by the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) as also in the similar situation, the interference was made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramdhan Kumawat (supra) and in Hari Singh (supra) .

¶165

24.7 Therefore, on account of aforestated grounds and reasons, this Court is inclined to invoke its powers of judicial review, to questioning the final answer key dated 29.07.2022 in respect of question No.132 only, however, the final conclusion of the Court regarding manner of interference, shall be made in the later paragraphs after discussion of last question No.144.

¶166

25. Question No.144

¶167

“राजपቮⓢताना म्ቖ भारत सभा कब जቶाभቔपत कበॠ गयी थी ?

¶168

(A) 1916 (B) 1917

(22 of 33)

[CW-11616/2022]

Material placed by the petitioners - 1.राजजቶान का इनतॅቡास, सኟᬉसकነत, पर्ቘ रा एवኟᬉ नवरासत (राजजቶान हॅቡंदी ्ቇ्ቍ अकादमी), 2. राजजቶान का ्ቭ तኟᬉ्ቔता ॄ᭴ ኟᬉदह५लन एवኟᬉ शौय्म परኟᬉपरा (मा्ቖ भቔमक शशका बह५ोर्म राजजቶान, अजमेर ) कका 9 Experts View - That after considering the objections raised by the candidates against preliminary answer key, the experts relied upon “राजजቶान का ्ቭ तኟᬉ्ቔ सኟᬉ्ቇाम का इनतॅቡास (राजजቶान रा्ቋ अ लभल े ागार, बीकानेर)” and opined that “1919” which is option “D” as per master booklet is the correct answer and hence the answer was changed in the final answer key.”

¶173

25.1 The change of answer of this question too has been vehemently opposed by the counsel for petitioners and it has been pointed out that;

¶174

(i) the text material of most popular and widely read book of राजजቶान का इनतॅቡास, सኟᬉसकነनत , परኟᬉपरा एवኟᬉ नवरासत by Dr. Hukam Chand Jain and Dr. Narain lal Mali, published by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy which is publication under the Government of India, and; (ii) the text material of Class 9^th published by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer

¶175

have not been adhered to by the expert committee while changing the answer of this question as published in the model answer key. Petitioners have placed on record the text materials, to suggest that in all publications which are largely available in the market and usually used in the schools and colleges to taught students, the answer of this question is suggested that Rajputana Madhya Bharat Sabha established in the year 1918, which was rightly answered in the model answer key but the change of correct answer in an arbitrary act on the part of subject experts.

¶176

25.2 Counsel for selection Board has placed on record a copy of page where the material placed before the expert committee to discuss the objections received against this question No.144 are indicated, but the actual material has not been placed on record.

¶177

[CW-11616/2022]

¶178

(23 of 33)

¶179

Even the concerned, pages of the text book, on which experts relied upon to change the answer as referred in the experts view i.e. राजजቶान का ्ቭ तኟᬉ्ቔ सኟᬉ्ቇाम का इनतॅቡास (राजजቶान रा्ቋ अ लभल े ागार, बीकानेर) too has not been placed on record. In absence of material, the counsel for the selection Board is not able to justify the change of answer of this question by the experts, in contrast to the standard text material of the Board of Secondary Education and Government publication placed on record by counsel for petitioners.

¶180

25.3 Further counsel for the selection Board is also unable to justify the non-consideration of the standard books of Government publication by the expert committee, while dealing with the objections in respect of this question, although, it is not in dispute that the material of publication of Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy and Board of Secondary Education apart from the text book of राजजቶान का ्ቭ तኟᬉ्ቔ सኟᬉ्ቇाम का इनतॅቡास (राजजቶान रा्ቋ अ लभल े ागार, बीकानेर) too were well within knowledge of experts, the reference of same finds place in the copy of details placed on record by counsel for selection Board. However, other authentic material was not considered and overlooked by the experts. In such situation, counsel for selection Board, made a request to pass appropriate orders by this Court about such glitches on the part of experts in dealing objection to question No.144.

¶181

25.4 In the opinion of this Court, this is another question, where a glaring error on the part of subject experts is apparently clear. Learned counsel for selection Board does not dispute that experts have not considered the standard and authentic text material, more particularly, the publication under the Government of India and by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy as well as

¶182

[CW-11616/2022]

¶183

(24 of 33)

¶184

the text book published by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, while taking a decision to change the answer of question No.144. This Court is of the opinion that even if, the view of experts to change the answer, placing reliance upon the text material of राजजቶान का ्ቭ तኟᬉ्ቔ सኟᬉ्ቇाम का इनतॅቡास (राजजቶान रा्ቋ अ लभल े ागार, बीकानेर) may not be disbelieved but firstly that text material too has not been placed on record by the selection Board to justify and support the view of experts, and secondly, it is, prima facie, arbitrariness and unfairness on the part of experts not to extend heed over the other available authentic and standard books of the Government publication. A copy of details as produced by the selection Board go to show that the text book of Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy too was placed on record before the experts, but in the view of experts there is nowhere whisper about consideration of that authentic book, or the book by the Board of Secondary Education. Thus, in such peculiar obtaining situation , it is not justified for this Court to left such apparent error on the part of experts, unheeded/unaddressed.

¶185

25.5 It is worthwhile to take note that after hearing the final arguments in these writ petitions and reserving the judgment on 23.05.2023, it has brought to the notice of this Court that the Coordinate Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in SBCWP No.2032/2023 : Babu lal Godara Vs. State of Rajasthan vide order dated 23.5.2023 has dismissed the writ petition impugning the final answer key dated 29.07.2022 in respect of challenge to correctness of question No.144. This Court perused the order dated 23.05.2023. The writ petition has been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench in limine. A perusal of order

¶186

(25 of 33) [CW-11616/2022]

¶187

dated 23.05.2023 shows that before the Coordinate Bench, petitioner did not point out that the change of answer of question No.144 by the experts has been made without consideration to the standard and authentic text books of Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, a publication under the Government of India as well as without adhering to the text book of Board of Secondary Education. In addition, the selection Board was also not heard and material of text book राजजቶान का ्ቭ तኟᬉ्ቔ सኟᬉ्ቇाम का इनतॅቡास (राजजቶान रा्ቋ अ लभल े ागार, बीकानेर) on the basis of which, experts came to the conclusion to change the answer of this question was also not placed on record the coordinate Bench.

¶188

25.6 Thus, it is clear that in absence of such material before the Coordinate Bench, there was no opportunity to discuss the glaring error on the part of experts as has been pointed out before this Court and has been noticed by this Court. Thus, the order of Coordinate Bench dated 23.05.2023 does not preclude this Court to come on a different conclusion, after appreciation of material placed by both the parties on record. There is no violation of the rule of comity, if this Court takes it own view after appreciation of the material produced on record by both parties, which was not made available before the Coordinate Bench. It is made clear that it is not a case of having an another view, different from the view of Coordinate Bench so as to require the issue to be referred to the Division Bench, but it is a case, where the material was not made available before the Coordinate Bench which has been made available before this Court. Thus, in such peculiar circumstances, the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench, does not render any help to the selection Board for non interference by

¶189

[CW-11616/2022]

¶190

(26 of 33)

¶191

this Court to the challenge, made in respect of question No.144, by petitioners.

¶192

25.7 The glaring error on the part of experts is apparent on the face of record, which has been pointed out by the counsel for petitioners/candidates who has suffered from the change of correct answer of this question as also has been conceded by counsel for selection Board, to the extent of non-consideration of the authentic and standard text material, by the experts, while changing the answer of this question, therefor, in such peculiar facts and circumstances, the interference by this Court is warranted to the limited extent.

¶193

In the opinion of this Court, in light of the material placed by both parties on record and for aforestated reasons, no inferential process or reasoning is required to bring to light the apparent error/mistake on the part of selection Board to change the answer of this question, and it has been observed that challenge to change of answer to this question also falls within the situation No.30.2 as suggested in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) as also in the similar situation, the inteference was made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramdhan Kumawat (supra) and Hari

¶194

Singh (supra) .

¶195

In view of aforesaid discussion and reasoning, this Court finds that the scope of writ jurisdiction can be allowed to be invoked by the writ petitioners, to assail the change of answers by the selection Board only in respect of question No.132 and 144, referred hereinabove but challenge in respect of other questions does not fall within the scope of judicial review, hence, remains unsuccessful, as such rejected.

¶196

[CW-11616/2022]

¶197

(27 of 33)

¶198

Needless to reiterate that it is not the function of Court to sit

¶199

over the opinion/decision of experts nor it is within the scope of judicial review to re-evaluate the correct answer and override the opinion of experts, however, simultaneously it is also true that if it comes to the notice of Court that experts have acted arbitrary, and/or contrary to the material available before them or the authentic/standard text material as approved by the education board and the Government publications have been left out from consideration and the error is glaring in nature which appears to be apparent on the record without any inferential process or reasoning, then in such peculiar situation, the hands of Court are not tight and the Court can interfere with the decision of the selection Board based on the opinion of experts to the limited extent and within the permissible Grey area.

¶200

In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case, this Court finds that interference to the limited extent to answers of questions No.132 & 144 only, can be made in exercise of powers of judicial review. The Judgments of Apex Court in case of Richal (supra) , supports to grant indulgence by this Court after having noticed the aforestated glaring error on the part of the subject experts, while suggesting change of answer, in respect of questions No.132 & 144, in the final answer key dated 29.07.2022.

¶201

This Court take a note of submissions of counsel for petitioners that in view of undisputed fact that result pursuant to final answer key dated 29.07.2022 has been published and thereafter, the final select lists have been issued by the selection Board and further out of notified 5396 vacancies, more than 5100

¶202

[CW-11616/2022]

¶203

(28 of 33)

¶204

appointments have already been made, therefore, without disturbance to appointments of candidates already made, the reevaluation of the correct answers in respect of two questions No.132 and 144 by the expert committee has been prayed for, that the expert committee be directed to re-evaluate the answer of these questions but after considering the standard text material of the education Board and the Government publications as placed on record by petitioners and referred in para No.24.2 for question No.132 and in para No.25.1 for question No.144 of this judgment. 31. As a final result, this Court is of considered opinion and issue following directions:-

¶205

(a) That the selection Board is required to re-send both the questions No.132 and 144 as referred hereinabove to the expert committee for re-assessment/ re-evaluation of the answer out of the available four choice of answers and if after analysis through the text material, referred by counsel for petitioners including the standard books of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, and Government publications of Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, as referred in para No.24.2 and 25.1 of this judgment, the experts come to a conclusion that, the previously suggested answer to both questions as indicated in the model answer key dated 13.07.2022 is also correct, then in that eventuality, both questions be deleted by the selection Board;

¶206

(b) That the result of other candidates including petitioners, except the candidates who have already been selected and given appointment, be revised according to the decision of the selection Board in respect of both the questions and fresh merit list be prepared and accordingly, the appointment on the basis of merit

¶207

[CW-11616/2022]

¶208

(29 of 33)

¶209

be accorded to the candidates including the petitioners against the available vacant posts of Village Development Officer pursuant to examination of Village Development Officer Direct Recruitment2021;

¶210

(c) While preparing the merit list of the remaining candidates including petitioners to fill the unfilled posts after deletion of both questions, if any one comes within the last cut off in their respective category, as per the last final selection list of Board, he/she shall be entitled for appointment;

¶211

(d) That it is made clear that after re-evaluation of both questions by the expert committee afresh, in case occasion comes to prepare a fresh merit list after deletion of both the questions No.132 & 144 by the Selection Board, as per directions of this Court, the result of candidates who have already been selected and given appointment, placing reliance on the final answer key dated 29.07.2022 including answers of both the questions, would not be disturbed, and;

¶212

(e) It would be open for the Board to undertake the exercise of document verification afresh, if so required in respect of candidates before issuing appointment to them.

¶213

The selection Board is directed to complete the exercise within a period of two months.

¶214

Accordingly, all writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶215

Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶216

A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

¶217

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

NITIN /

(30 of 33)

[CW-11616/2022]

SCHEDULE

S.No	Writ Petition No.	Party N	ame
1	SBCWP No.11600/2022	Amba Lal Khatik	The State of Raj. & ors.
2	SBCWP No.11716/2022	Narayan Sharma	The State of Raj. & ors.
3	SBCWP No.11734/2022	Krishan Kumar Choudhary	The State of Raj. & ors.
4	SBCWP No.11737/2022	Yudhisthar Singh	The State of Raj. & ors.
5	SBCWP No.11803/2022	Vinod Kumar Kumawat	The State of Raj. & ors.
6	SBCWP No.11866/2022	Nirisha Dhaked	The State of Raj. & ors.
7	SBCWP No.11868/2022	Rakesh Kumar Yadav	The State of Raj. & ors.
8	SBCWP No.11883/2022	Dinesh Yadav	The State of Raj. & ors.
9	SBCWP No.11924/2022	Dinesh Kumar	The State of Raj. & ors.
10	SBCWP No.11925/2022	Nisha Hada	The State of Raj. & ors.
11	SBCWP No.11955/2022	Rahul Yadav	The State of Raj. & ors.
12	SBCWP No.12013/2022	Shailendra Singh	The State of Raj. & ors.
13	SBCWP No.12032/2022	Ranweer Singh Khokhar	The State of Raj. & ors.
14	SBCWP No.12060/2022	Ankita Jatav	The State of Raj. & ors.
15	SBCWP No.12131/2022	Yashwardhan Shekhawat	The State of Raj. & ors.
16	SBCWP No.12136/2022	Hakim Singh	The State of Raj. & Anr
17	SBCWP No.12165/2022	Harbir Singh	R.S.M.S.S.B. & ors.
18	SBCWP No.12197/2022	Ravindra Singh	The State of Raj. & ors.
19	SBCWP No.12208/2022	Malee Ram Rawat	The State of Raj.

¶223

(31 of 33)

¶224

[CW-11616/2022]

¶225

			& ors.
20	SBCWP No.12246/2022	Rohit Kumar Goyal	The State of Raj. & ors.
21	SBCWP No.12309/2022	Vishal Singh Gurjar	The State of Raj. & ors.
22	SBCWP No.12639/2022	Hukma Ram	The State of Raj. & ors.
23	SBCWP No.12669/2022	Banti Lal Meena	The State of Raj. & ors.
24	SBCWP No.12680/2022	Mayank Kumar Gupta	The State of Raj. & ors.
25	SBCWP No.12706/2022	Sushila Saini	The State of Raj. & ors.
26	SBCWP No.12733/2022	Vikash Joshi	The State of Raj. & ors.
27	SBCWP No.12743/2022	Rahul Kumar Byadwal	The State of Raj. & ors.
28	SBCWP No.12976/2022	Lokesh Meena	The State of Raj. & ors.
29	SBCWP No.13023/2022	Rohitash Sangwa	The State of Raj. & ors.
30	SBCWP No.13145/2022	Ravi Kumar Verma	The State of Raj. & ors.
31	SBCWP No.13148/2022	Aditya Soni	The State of Raj. & ors.
32	SBCWP No.13608/2022	Hema Ram	The State of Raj. & ors.
33	SBCWP No.13671/2022	Dinesh Kumawat	The State of Raj. & ors.
34	SBCWP No.13709/2022	Urmila Karwasra	The State of Raj. & ors.
35	SBCWP No.13880/2022	Lokesh Singh Rajput	The State of Raj. & ors.
36	SBCWP No.13893/2022	Anil Verma	The State of Raj. & ors.
37	SBCWP No.14163/2022	Abhishek Verma	The State of Raj. & ors.
38	SBCWP No.14385/2022	Dhanpal	The State of Raj. & ors.
39	SBCWP No.14418/2022	KuldeepYadav	The State of Raj.

¶226

(32 of 33)

¶227

[CW-11616/2022]

¶228

			& ors.
40	SBCWP No.14428/2022	Ram Lakhan Gurjar	The State of Raj. & ors.
41	SBCWP No.14444/2022	Upendra Singh Rathore	R.S.M.S.S.B. & ors.
42	SBCWP No.14471/2022	Devendra Singh	The State of Raj. & ors.
43	SBCWP No.14739/2022	Lokesh Kumar Meena	The State of Raj. & ors.
44	SBCWP No.14803/2022	Sulochana Kumari	The State of Raj. & ors.
45	SBCWP No.15001/2022	Yashwant Singh Hansawat	The State of Raj. & ors.
46	SBCWP No.15115/2022	Manisha	The State of Raj. & ors.
47	SBCWP No.15345/2022	Vinit Kumar Soni	The State of Raj. & ors.
48	SBCWP No.15439/2022	Deepa Gupta	The State of Raj. & ors.
49	SBCWP No.15904/2022	Rinku Panchal	The State of Raj. & ors.
50	SBCWP No.15987/2022	Ravi Sankhla	The State of Raj. & ors.
51	SBCWP No.16851/2022	Arun Govind Singh Rathore	The State of Raj. & ors.
52	SBCWP No.18201/2022	Ravi Sharma	The State of Raj. & ors.
53	SBCWP No.18365/2022	Suresh Kumar	The State of Raj. & ors.
54	SBCWP No.18746/2022	Jignesh Suthar	The State of Raj. & ors.
55	SBCWP No.19279/2022	Sahadev Gurjar	The State of Raj. & ors.
56	SBCWP No.275/2023	Babu Lal Gurjar	The State of Raj. & ors.
57	SBCWP No.480/2023	Rakesh Kumar Yadav	The State of Raj. & ors.
58	SBCWP No.796/2023	Brij Mohan Singh	The State of Raj. & ors.
59	SBCWP No.1134/2023	Pradhan Ram	The State of Raj.

¶229

(33 of 33)

¶230

[CW-11616/2022]

¶231

		Choudhary	& ors.
60	SBCWP No.1955/2023	Himanshi Bhati	The State of Raj. & ors.
61	SBCWP No.3431/2023	Atma Ram	The State of Raj. & ors.
62	SBCWP No.3442/2023	Yashoda Kumari	The State of Raj. & ors.
63	SBCWP No.5633/2023	Mukesh Kumar	The State of Raj. & ors.
64	SBCWP No.6382/2023	Ramdev	The State of Raj. & ors.
65	SBCWP No.6390/2023	Kishore Singh	The State of Raj. & ors.
66	SBCWP No.6526/2023	Nikhil Mahla	The State of Raj. & ors.
67	SBCWP No.6821/2023	Lokesh Meena	The State of Raj. & ors.
68	SBCWP No.8183/2023	Tulseram Gurjar	The State of Raj. & Ors.
69	SBCWP No.8028/2023	Arun Kumar Carpenter	State of Raj. & Ors.

Hukma Ram S/O Chutara Ram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukma Ram S/O Chutara Ram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Arora S/O Shri Rajeev Arora Vs Ministry of External Affairs

Mahant Shri Kulbhushan Das Chela Late Shri Mahant Ramkumar Dasji Vs Ramesh Nayak S/O Shri Balu Ram Nayak

Smt Savitri W/O Shri Rajesh Vs Gangalahri S/O Shri Rameshwar Dayal

Rohit Kumar Goyal Son of Shri Hari Charan Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan

Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited Vs Mohammad Aslam S/O Late Sadik Mohammad

V.N. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sunita Aggarwal W/O Shri Narendra Gupta