Disposed

Pushpa Devi v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Oct 2023CW/12863/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the final answer key for a Teacher Level-II examination, the High Court held that courts cannot adjudicate academic correctness. The court directed respondents to refer specific questions to a new expert body for re-examination within four weeks to revise the result if needed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to refer specific objectionable questions to an expert body appointed by respondents for re-examination within four weeks.

Pushpa Devi Vs the State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:34109]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12863/2023

¶4

Pushpa Devi D/o Shri Ramsawroop, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village 4E Chhoti, Post 2 ML Nathwala, Sri Ganganagar, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its Chairman.

¶9

The Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

Order

¶14

10/10/2023

¶15

Briefly, the facts noted in the present case are that the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board invited applications for direct recruitment for filling up the posts of Teacher Level-II (Punjabi) vide Advertisement dated 16.12.2022. The petitioner, being eligible, submitted his application for appearing in the examination conducted by the respondents on 28.02.2023.

¶16

The preliminary answer key was published by the respondents on 18.03.2023 and on the same date, the objections to the answer key were invited. Number of persons filed their objections to the respondents and after dealing with the

[2023:RJ-JD:34109]

[CW-12863/2023]

(2 of 5)

objections so received by the respondents, the final answer key was published by the respondents on 09.06.2023. Thereafter, a provisional result for the purpose of Document Verification was also published by the respondents on 09.06.2023.

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition on the ground that the answers published by the respondents at the preliminary stage i.e. on 18.03.2023 were stated to be correct, however, after dealing with the objections received by them, the answers to the questions which were correct in the preliminary answer key were changed/deleted in the final answer key published, therefore, the correct answers given by the petitioner were changed without there being any reasonable and possible explanation.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the answers to the questions published in the final answer key are factually incorrect as per the authenticated textbooks available on the subject. He submits that on account of the incorrect answers taken to be correct by the respondents, the candidature of the petitioner is being found less meritorious and thus, she will not be considered for appointment/will be considered less meritorious on the post of Teacher Level-II. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that the disputed questions as mentioned in the writ petition may be referred to the experts for re-examination and the submissions made in the present writ petitions may be taken into account by the experts while re-examining the matter and if the experts find the answers given by the petitioner to be

(3 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:34109]

[CW-12863/2023]

correct, appropriate marks should be awarded to her by revising the final result of the examination.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents, after inviting the objections on the preliminary answer key, referred the matter to the experts and the experts, after dealing with the objections, published the final answer key. He further submits that the answer key published by the respondents is based on the opinion expressed by the experts appointed by them.

¶29

However, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that some of the answers to the questions, on the face it, are incorrect. He submits that they are not the experts to adjudge the correct answer and it is for the experts to adjudicate the correct answers of the questions in the question paper. He, therefore, very fairly submits that the matter can be got reexamined by a separate set of experts and if the answers finalized by the respondents in the final answer key require any change on the expert opinion, they will do the needful and revise the result.

¶30

In view of the submissions made before this Court, this Court is of the view that the Courts are not the expert body to adjudicate upon the fact that which answer to the question in the question paper made by the respondents is correct. The subject matter lies within the domain of the expert body and, therefore, it has to be adjudicated by an expert committee only, comprising of the experts on the subject.

(4 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:34109]

[CW-12863/2023]

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar

¶35

Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 has held as under:-

¶36

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

¶37

In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to refer the questions mentioned in this writ petition to the experts appointed by them (other than those who had already finalized the objections to the preliminary answer key dated 18.03.2023). The expert body, while re-examining the matter, shall take into account the submissions made in the present writ petition and

[2023:RJ-JD:34109]

[CW-12863/2023]

(5 of 5)

thereafter pass appropriate orders with respect to the adjudication made by them on the objectionable questions raised in this writ petition. The said exercise of examination by the expert body shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today and if the respondents find the report of the expert committee giving any change to the answers adjudicated by them in the final answer key, they will take the appropriate measures for revising the result.

¶42

Needless to say, if the petitioner come in the merit after revision of the result, appropriate action will be taken for processing her case for appointment.

¶43

It is also made clear that question Nos.3, 27 & 50 of the Master Question Paper need not be sent to the expert body for reexamination.

¶44

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶45

71-/VivekMishra/-

Pushpa Devi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi 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

Bansal Nursing Charitable Trust Vs State of Rajasthan

Maa Durga Plaster Udhyog Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Laxmi Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Insaf Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jubaida Vs the State of Rajasthan

Norang Lal Vs the Collector Churu